Thomas Cartwright on transubstantiation and consubstantiation

Status
Not open for further replies.

Reformed Covenanter

Cancelled Commissioner
Q. Doth this consecration change the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ?

A. No: but they still continue in nature and substance bread and wine still, and are but only types and seals of Christ's body and blood.

Q. But doth not our Saviour say of the bread, This is my body; and of the wine, This is my blood?

A. Though he do; yet it thence no more followeth, that the bread is his very real body, and the wine his blood, then that he is a material door, or vine, because he saith, I am the door, I am the vine.

Q. How is our Saviour then to be understood?

A. To speak by an usual figure, where the name of the thing signified, is given to the sign. After the same manner that in the old Testament, Circumcision is called the Covenant, and the Lamb, the Passover, because they were signs of those things.

Q. What special reasons have you against the change of these elements into the very body and blood of Christ, commonly called Transubstantiation?

A. First, then at the first institution, there must needs be two Christs, one that giveth, another that is given.

Secondly, If the bread be the very body of Christ, &c. then there is no true and proportionable sign to represent the thing signified, and consequently no Sacrament. ...

For more, see Thomas Cartwright on transubstantiation and consubstantiation.
 

chuckd

Puritan Board Sophomore
I've always thought consubstantiation was held by the Lutherans, but recently read this is incorrect.

What is the difference between the Lutheran doctrine of the real presence, consubstantiation, and the Reformed?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top