posed that transubstantiation really took place in the Lord's Supper.
What does the Article assert with regard to this opinion?
1. It "cannot be proved by Holy Writ;"
2. It "is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture;"
3. It "overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament;"
4. It "hath given occasion to many superstitions."
How can the opinion of transubstantiation be said to be repugnant to the plain words of Scripture?
Matt. xxvi. 29 ; 1 Cor. xi. 26-29. Our Lord calls the wine "the fruit of the vine" in speaking of the Apostles' drinking it; and St. Paul, in speaking of the Holy Sacrament, repeatedly calls it "eating bread and drinking of the cup."
How can it be said to overthrow the nature of a Sacrament?
Because in a Sacrament a sign is requisite; but if the bread and wine be actually changed into the substance of the Body and Blood of the Lord, the sign no longer exists to be partaken of.
But are the bread and wine in the Lord's Supper nothing but common bread and wine?
They are much more than this; for in and by them the Body and Blood of Christ are "given" by the priest to each communicant, and "taken and eaten" by him.
How can they be so given, taken and eaten?
