« הקודםהמשך »
to beget admiration, though without contesting against the unalterable laws of nature, to dream it must be this way, is to challenge confidently, but to be careless of our warrant; I conclude, that it hath never been yet known, that two bodies ever were, at once, in one place.
33. I find but one objection more pretended, and that is, that place is not essential to bodies; because the utmost heaven is a body, and yet is not in a place ; because it hath nothing without it, that can circumscribe it. To this I have already answered* in the confutation of Aristotle's definition of a place. But besides; I answer, that what the utmost heaven is, our philosophy can tell or guess at; but it is certain that beyond any thing that philosophy ever dreamed of, there are bodies. For Christ " is ascended far above all heavens ;” and, therefore, to say it is not in a place, or that there is not a place where Christ's body is, is a ridiculous absurdity. But if there be places for bodies above the highest heavens, then the highest heaven also is in a place, or may be for aught any thing pretended against it. “In my Father's house are many mansions,” said Christ, 'many places of abode;' and it is highly probable, that that pavement, where the bodies of saints shall tread to eternal ages, is circumscribed, though by something we understand not. Many things more might be said to this. But I am sorry, that the series of a discourse must be interrupted with such trifling considerations.
34. The sum is this y; as substances cannot subsist without the manner of substances; no more can accidents, without the manner of accidents; quantities, after the manner of quantities ; qualities, as qualities; for to separate that from either, by which we distinguish them from each other, is to separate that from them, by which we understand them to be themselves. And four may as well cease to be four, and be reduced to unity, as a line cease to be a line, and a body a body, and a place a place, and a 'quantum' or 'extensum' to be extended in his own kind of quantity or extension : and if a man had talked otherwise, till this new device arose, all sects of philosophers of the world, would have thought him mad; and I may here use the words of Cotta in Cicero:
* Num. 28.
y Vide Boeth. in Prædicam. Aristot.
" Corpus quid sit, sanguis quid sit, intelligo : quasi corpus, et quasi sanguis, quid sit, nullo prorsus modo intelligoz.” But concerning the nature of bodies and quantities, these may suffice in general. For if I should descend to particulars, and insist upon them, I could cloy the reader with variety of one dish.
35. Tenthly : By this doctrine of transubstantiation, the same thing is bigger and less than itself: for it is bigger in one host, than in another; for the wafer is Christ's body, and yet one wafer is bigger than another: therefore Christ's body is bigger than itself. The same thing is above itself, and below itself, within itself, and without itself: it stands wholly upon his own right side, and wholly, at the same time, upon his own left side; it is as very a body, as that which is most divisible, and yet is as indivisible as a spirit; and it is not a spirit but a body; and yet a body is no way separated from a spirit, but by being divisible. It is a perfect body, in which the feet are further from the head, than the head from the breast; and yet there is no space between head and feet at all: so that the parts are further off and nearer, without any distance at all; being further and not further, distant, and yet in every point. By this also here is magnitude without extension of parts; for if it be essential to magnitude to have 'partem extra partem,' that is, 'parts distinguished, and severally sited,' then where one part is, there another is not; and, therefore, the whole body of Christ is not in every part of the consecrated wafer; and yet if it be not, then it must be broken into parts, when the wafer is broken, and then it must fill his place by parts. But then it will not be possible, that a bigger body, with the conditions of a body, should be contained in a less thing than itself ;that a man may throw the house out at the windows: and if it be possible, that a magnitude should be in a point, and yet Christ's body be a magnitude, and yet in a point, then the same thing is in a point, and not in a point; extended, and not extended; great and not divisible; a quantity without dimension; something and nothing. By this doctrine, the same thing lies still and yet moves; it stays in a place and goes away from it; it removes from itself, and yet abides close by itself, and in itself, and out of itself; it is removed, and yet cannot be moved; broken, and cannot be divided ; passes from east to west through a middle place, and yet stirs not; it is brought from heaven to earth, and yet is no where in the way, nor ever stirs out of heaven; it ceases to be where it was, and yet does not stir from thence, nor yet cease to be at all; it is removed at the motion of the accidents, and yet does not fall when the host falls; it changes his place, but falls not, and yet the changing of place was by falling. It supposes a body of Christ, which was made of bread", that is, “Not born of the Virgin Mary;" it says, that Christ's body is there, without power of moving, or seeing, or hearing, or understanding; he can neither remember nor foresee, save himself from robbers or vermin, corruption or rottenness: it makes that which was raised in power, to be again sown in weakness; it gives to it the attribute of an idol, to have 'eyes and see not, ears and hear not, a nose and not to smell, feet and yet cannot walk'. It makes a thing contained bigger than the continent,-and all Christ's body to go into a part of his body ; his whole head into his own mouth, if he did eat the eucharist, as it is probable he did, and certain that he might have done. These are the certain consequents of this most unreasonable doctrine, in relation to motion and quantity. I need not instance, in those collateral absurdities, which are appendent to some of the foregoing particulars; as how it should be credible that Christ, in his sumption of the last supper, should eat his own flesh; ουδέν γαρ εαυτό επιδέχεται, αλλά τών έξωθέν τι, said Simplicius ; nothing can receive itself; nothing can really participate of itself, and properly ; figuratively and sacramentally, this may be done; but not in a natural and physical sense; for as St. Cyril * of Alexandria argues ;“ Si verè idem est, quod participat et quod participatur,-quid opus est participatione ?” What need he partake of himself? what need he receive a part of that, which he is already whole ? and if the partaker, and the thing partaken, be naturally the same, then the sacrament did as much eat Christ, as Christ did eat the sacra
i De Nat. Deor. i. 26. Creuzer, p. 118.
* Bellarm. Euch. lib. iii. c. 10. Sect. Respondeo corptis.--Suarez, in 3. Tho. 9. 70. art. 7. dispens. sect. 4.
b Quomodo potest Deus alibi esse vivus, alibi mortuus ? Lact. lib. i. c. 1. • Id Categ. cap. de Substant.
# In S. Joh. ix,
ment. It would also follow from hence, that the soul of Christ should enter into his body, though it were there before it entered ; and yet it would now be there twice at the same time; for it is but one soul, and yet enters after it is there, it never having gone forth. Nay further yet, - upon supposition that Christ did eat the sacrament, as it is most likely he did, and we are sure, he might have done, then the soul of Christ, which certainly went along with his body, which surely was then alive, should be in his body in two contrary and incompatible manners; by one of which he does operate freely, and exercise all the actions of life ; by the other, he exercises none; by one he is visible, by the other invisible; by one movable, by the other immovable; by one after the manner of a body, by the other after the manner of a spirit. The one of these being evident in itself, the other by their own affirmation. But these are by the by: there are whole categories of fond and impossible consequents from this doctrine.
36. Eleventhly: But if I should also consider the change of consecration, i. e. the conversion of bread into Christ's body, and their rare stratagems and devices in ridiculous affirmatives and negatives as to that particular, it would afford a new heap of matter.
37. For this conversion is not generation; it is not corruption; it is not creation; because Christ's body already is, and cannot be produced again ; it is not after the manner of natural conversions, it differs from the supernatural; there is no change of one form into another; the same tirst matter does not remain under several forms, first of bread, then of Christ's body. It is turned into the substance of Christ's body, and yet nothing of the bread becomes any thing of the body of Christ. It is turned into Christ, and yet it is turned into nothing; the substance is not annihilated (for then it were not turned into Christ's body), and yet it is annibilated or turned to nothing, for it does not become Christ's body; it is determined upon Christ's body, and yet does not become it, though it be changed into it: for if bread could become Christ's body, then bread could receive a greater honour than any of the servants of Christ; for it could be glorified with the biggest glorification, it would be exalted far above all angels; bread should reign for ever, and be king of all the
world; which are honours not communicable to mere man, and by no change can be wrought upon him: and if they may upon bread, then bread is exalted higher than the sons of men; and yet so it is, if it be naturally and substantially changed into the body of Christ. I cannot insist upon any thing of this, the absurdity being so vast, the labour would be as great as needless : only I shall transcribe part of a disputation, by which Tertullian proves the resurrection of our bodies, by such words which do certainly confute the Roman fancies of transubstantiation. “ Discernenda est autem demutatio ab omni argumento perditionis,” &c. “ Change must be distinguished from perdition. But they are not distinguished, if the flesh be so changed, that it perishes. As that which is lost, is not changed, so that which is changed, is not lost or perished. For it suffered change, not perdition ; for to perish, is wholly not to be that which it was; but to be changed, is only to be otherwise; moreover, while it is otherwise, it can be the same thing, or itself: for it hath his being, which did not perish.” – Now how it is possible that these words should be reconciled with transubstantiation, in which they affirm the bread to be changed, and yet totally to have perished; that is, that nothing of it remains, neither matter nor form,-it concerns them to take care; for
my part, I am satisfied that it is impossible: and I choose to follow the philosophy of Tertullian, by which he fairly confirms the article of the resurrection; rather than the impossible speculations of these men, which render all notices of men to be mere deceptions, and all articles of faith in many things uncertain, and nothing to be certain but that which is impossible. This consideration so moved Durand, and their doctor Fundatissimus, Egidius Romanus“, that they thought to change the word 'transubstantiation,' and, instead of it, that they were obliged to use the word of transformation’ simply, affirming that other to be unintelligible. But I proceed. By this doctrine, Christ's body is there where it was not before, and yet not by change of place, for it descends not;- nor by production, for it was
e Sola enim mutari transformarique in se possunt, quæ habent unius materiæ commune snbjectum. Boeth. de duab. Nat. Christi. i De Resurrectione Carnis. c. 55.
& In iv. d. 11. q. 3. sect. 5. Theor. i. 2.