?68 TitANSUB8TA?TLtTION. [Been II. belief of it an article of faith, and necessary to salvation. It is one of those twelve articles wh/ch the pope, by order of the Council of Trent, has added to the apostles' creed. And wherever that council is re- ceived, every clergyman is bound not only to subscribe, but to swear his bel/ef of this and all those other additions. We say nothing but what is true, as any man will be convinced who will take pains to read over the bull of Pins IV., at the end of the Council of Trent, concern- ing the form of the oath of the profession of faith. (2.) It is said, if it be an error, it is only a speculative one, and hath no inttueace upon practice. This is utterly false. For no less follows upon the belief of it than the grossest idolatry. For what greater idol- atry can there be than to worship and perform divine adoration to a piece of bread, as if it were God Almighty ? Yet the doctrine of tran- substantiation does necessarily imply divine worship; and if it be not true,. they certainly are idolaters. (3.) So far is it from being a matter of speculation, that if it is ad- mitted it will entirely overthrow the evidences of Christianity, so that it would be impossible to assure ourselves, or convince others, of the truth of the Christian system. This has been fully made out already. IV. We shall next adduce the testimony of the ancient fathers respecting the doctrine of transubstantiation. Aud respecting this we assert, tlat this was not t? doctrine of t? .primitive elmrob. 1. Concerning this head or topic we have some things to premise. (1.) It is not necessary for us to furnish the testimoneis of all the ancient fathers on this head. The unanimous consent of all is neces- sary to support transubstantiation; but this consent is not necessary to provii the doctrine to be non-catholic or non-universal, as a proposition is not universal if there be one, or two, or ten exceptions. (2.) None of the fathers speak to the exclusion of the sentiments of Protestants; but their sentiments often exclude the doctrine of the Church of Rome on this point. ' (3.) Those expressions of the fathers which are general and unex- pounded, as the words of institution, make no decision on the subject in question. Thererefore, when the fathers say, "The body and blood of Christ," "There is the body of the Lord," or the like, there is no other change intended than the change of condition, sanctification, or u?a?. On this account most of the quotations commonly alleged by the Roman doctors prove nothing to their purpose. (4.) When the fathers, on this question, speak of the change of the .svmbol? in the holy sacrament, they sometimes use the words �onver- ?n?, mutation, trmui?ion, migration, transy6guration, &c.; but they un- derstand by these sacramental, and not proper, natural, and substantial changes. There is a vast difference between conversion and transub- sumtiation. The first is not denied, meaning by it a. change of use, condition, or sanctification, as a table is changed into an altar, a house into a church, Maixhew into an apostle; but this is nothing in fayour of transubst:mtiation. For in this new doctrine there are three strange things: 1. That the natural being of bread and wine ceases. 2. That the accidents of bread and wine remain without a subject. 3. That the body and blood of Christ are brought into the place of bread or wine, which is not changed into it, but is succeeded by it. (5.) The fathers, contrary to the doctrine of transubstantiation, make 1
�
