תמונות בעמוד
PDF
ePub

look not on the things proposed, but attend to the words of Christ, and though we see it to be bread, we also believe it to be his body, in that sense which he intended.

SECTION XI.

The Doctrine of Transubstantiation is wholly without, and

against Reason. 1. When we discourse of mysteries of faith and articles of religion, it is certain that the greatest reason in the world, to which all other reasons must yield, is this, — God hath said it, therefore it is true.' Now if God had expressly said, • This which seems to be bread, is my body in the natural sense,' or to that purpose, there had been no more to be said in the affair; all reasons against it had been but sophisms; when Christ hath said, ' This is my body,' no man that pretends to Christianity, doubts of the truth of these words, all men submitting their understanding to the obedience of faith : but since Christ did not affirm, that he spake it in the natural sense, but there are, not only in Scripture, many prejudices, but in common sense much evidence against it, if reason also protests against the article, it is the voice of God, and to be heard in this question. For,

Nunquam aliud natura, aliud sapientia dicita, And this the rather, because there are so many ways to verify the words of Christ, without this strange and new doctrine of transubstantiation, that in vain will the words of Christ be pretended against reason; whereas the words of Christ may be many ways verified, if transubstantiation be condemned: as, first, if Picus Mirandula's proposition be true, which in Rome he offered to dispute publicly, that • Paneitas possit suppositare corpus Domini,' which I suppose, if it be expounded in sensible terms, means, ' that it may be bread and Christ's body too;' or, secondly, if Luther's and the ancient schoolmen's ways be true, that Christ's body be present together with the bread;- in that sense Christ's

• Juyen. Sat. xiv. 2.

words might be true, though no transubstantiation; and this is the sense, which is followed by the Greek church. 3. If Boquinus's way be true, that between the bread and Christ's body there were a communication of proprieties, as there is between the Deity and humanity of our blessed Saviour ; then, as we say, God gave himself for us,' and the blessed virgin is geotóxos, the mother of God,' and God suffered and rose again,' meaning, that God did it according to his supposed humanity,—so we may say, 'this is Christ's body,' by the communication of the idioms or proprieties to the bread, with which it is united. 4. If our way be admitted, that Christ is there after a real spiritual manner; the words of Christ are true, without any need of admitting transubstantiation. 5. I could instance, in the way of Johannes Longus, in his annotations upon the second apology of Justin Martyr, “ Hoc est corpus meum,” that is, “My body is this,”

is nourishment spiritual, as this is natural.' 6. The way of Johannes Campanus would afford me a sixth instance, “ Hoc est corpus meum,” that is, ' meum'as it is ' mea creatura.' 7. Johannes à Lasco, Bucer, and the Socinians, refer 'hoc' to the whole ministry, and mean that to be representative of Christ's body. 8. If Rupertus the abbot's way were admitted, which was confuted by Algerus, and is almost like that of Boquinus, that, between Christ's body and the consecrate symbols there was an hypostatical union, then both substances would remain, and yet it were a true proposition to affirm of the whole hypostasis,'this is the body of Christ.' - Many more I could reckon; all which, or any of which, if it were admitted, the words of Christ stand true and uncontradicted ; and, therefore, it is a huge folly to quarrel at them, that admit not transubstantiation, and to say, they deny the words of Christ. And, therefore, it must not now be said, ' Reason is not to be heard against an article of faith ;' for that this is an article of faith, cannot nakedly be inferred from the words of Christ, which are capable of so many meanings. Therefore, reason, in this case, is to be heard by them, that will give a reason of their faith ;' as it is commanded in Scripture; much less is that to be admitted, which Fisher or Flued, the jesuit, was bold to say to king James; that because transubstantiation seems so much against reason, therefore it is to be admitted, as if faith were more

[blocks in formation]

faith for being against reason. Against this, for the present, I shall oppose the excellent words of St. Austin: “Si manifestissimæ certæque rationi velut Scripturarum sanctarum objicitur auctoritas, non intelligit qui hoc facit, et non Scripturarum illarum sensum, ad quem penetrare non potuit, sed suum potiùs objicit veritati: nec quod in eis, sed quod in seipso, velut pro eis, invenit, opponit :" " He that opposes the authority of the holy Scriptures against manifest and certain reason, does neither understand himself nor the Scripture.” Indeed, when God hath plainly declared the particular, the more it seems against my reasons, the greater is my obedience in submitting; but that is, because my reasons are but sophisms, since truth itself hath declared plainly against them: but if God hath not plainly declared against that which I call reason, my reason must not be contested, by a pretence of faith, but upon some other account; “ Ratio cum ratione concertet.”

3. Secondly; But this is such a fine device, that it can, if it be admitted, warrant any literal interpretation against all the pretences of the world : for when Christ said, “If thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out;"— Here are the plain words of Christ : And, "Some make themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven;"— nothing plainer in the grammatical sense: and why do we not do it? Because it is an unnatural thing to mangle our body for a spiritual cause, which may be supplied by other more gentle instruments. Yea, but reason is not to be heard against the plain words of Christ, and the greater our reason is against it, the greater excellency in our obedience; that as · Abraham, against hope, believed in hope,' so we, against reason, may believe in the greatest reason, the Divine revelation : and what can be spoken against this?

4. Thirdly ; Stapleton, confuting Luther's opinion of consubstantiation, pretends against it many absurdities drawn from reason"; and yet it would have been ill taken, if it should have been answered, that the doctrine ought the rather to be believed, because it is so unreasonable ;'- which answer is something like our new preachers, who pretend,

5 Ep. 7.

c Prompt. Cath. ser. 3. hebd. Sanct. sec. 3. in hæc verba : Hoc est corpus meum.

that therefore they are spiritual men, because they have no learning; they are to confound the wise, because they are the weak things of the world; and that they are to be heard the rather, because there is the less reason they should ;-50 crying stinking fish, that men may buy it the more greedily. But I will proceed to the particulars of reason in this article; being contented with this, that if the adverse party shall refuse this way of arguing, they may be reproved by saying,

they refuse to hear reason,'-and it will not be easy for them, in despite of reason, to pretend faith; for äromol, and rein XOVTES KioTiv,' unreasonable men,' and they that have not faith,' are equivalent in St. Paul's expression".

5. First; I shall lay this prejudice in the article, as relating to the discourses of reason; that in the words of institution, there is nothing that can be pretended to prove the conversion of the substance of bread into the body of Christ, but the same will infer the conversion of the whole into the whole; and therefore of the accidents of the bread into the accidents of the body. And, in those little pretences of philosophy, which these men sometimes make to cozen fools into a belief of the possibility, they pretend to no instance, but to such conversions, in which, if the substance is changed, so also are the accidents : sometimes the accident is changed in the same remaining substance; but if the substance be changed, the accidents never remain the same individually; or in kind, unless they be symbolical, that is, are common to both, as in the change of elements, of air into fire, of water into earth. Thus when Christ changed water into wine, the substances being changed, the accidents also were altered, and the wine did not retain the colour and taste of water; for then, though it had been the stranger miracle, that wine should be wine, and yet look and taste like water,--yet it would have obtained but little advantage to his doctrine and person, if he should have offered to prove his mission by such a miracle. For if Christ had said to his guests; . To prove that I am come from God, I will change this water into wine;' well might this prove his mission : but if, while the guests were wondering at this, he should proceed and say, 'Wonder ye not at this, for I will do a stranger thing

d 2 Thess, iij. 2.

than it, for this water shall be changed into wine, and yet I will so order it, that it shall look like water, and taste like it, so that you shall not know one from the other:' Certainly this would have made the whole matter very ridiculous; and indeed it is a strange device of these men to suppose God to work so many prodigious miracles, as must be in transubstantiation, if it were at all, and yet that none of these should be seen; for to what purpose is a miracle, that cannot be perceived ? It can prove nothing, nor do any thing, when itself is not known whether it be or no. When bread is turned into flesh, and wine into blood, in the nourishment of our bodies (which I have seen urged for the credibility of transubstantiation), the bread, as it changes his nature, changes his accidents too, and is flesh in colour, and shape, and dimensions, and weight, and operation, as well as it is in substance. Now let them rub their foreheads hard, and tell us, it is so in the holy sacrament. For if it be not so, then no instance of the change of natural substances, from one form to another, can be pertinent : for, 1. Though it be no more than is done in every operation of a body, yet it is always with change of their proper accidents; and then 2. It can, with no force of the words of the institution, be pretended, that one ought to be, or can be, without the other. For he that says, this is the body of a man, says that it hath the substance of a human body, and all his consequents, that is, the accidents : and he that says, this is the body of Alexander, says (besides the substance) that it hath all the individuating conditions, which are the particular accidents; and therefore Christ, affirming this to be his body, did as much affirm the change of accidents as the change of substance: because that change is naturally and essentially consequent to this. Now if they say, “they therefore do not believe the accidents of bread to be changed, because they see them remain ;' I might reply, 'Why will they believe their sense against faith ? since there may be evidence, but here is certainty; and it cannot be deceived, though our eyes can: and it is certain, that Christ affirmed it without distinction of one part from another, of substance from his usual accidents. “This is my body :” Hoc,': Hîc,' • Nunc,' and . Sic.'—Now, if they think their eyes may be credited for all the words of our blessed Saviour, why shall

« הקודםהמשך »