do remain; but neither in the bread, nor in the body of Christ, but by themselves, that is, so that there is whiteness, and nothing white; sweetness, and nothing sweet, &c. 3. That in the place of the substance of bread and wine, there is brought the natural body of Christ, and his blood that was shed upon the cross. 4. That the flesh of Christ is eaten by every communicant, good and bad, worthy and unworthy. 5. That this is conveniently, properly, and most aptly, called transubstantiation, that is, a conversion of the whole substance of bread into the substance of Christ's natural body, of the whole substance of the wine into his blood. In the process of which doctrine they oppose 'spiritualiter' to 'sacramentaliter' and 'realiter,' supposing the spiritual manducation, though done in the sacrament by a worthy receiver, not to be sacramental and real $. 13. So that now the question is not, whether the symbols be changed into Christ's body and blood, or no? For it is granted on all sides: but whether this conversion be sacramental and figurative? Or whether it be natural and bodily? Nor is it, whether Christ be really taken, but whether he be taken in a spiritual, or in a natural manner? We say, the conversion is figurative, mysterious, and sacramental; they say it is proper, natural, and corporal: we affirm, that Christ is really taken by faith, by the Spirit, to all real effects of his passion; they say, he is taken by the mouth, and that the spiritual and the virtual taking him, în virtue or effect, is not sufficient, though done also in the sacrament. Hic Rhodus, hic saltus.' This thing I will try by Scripture, by reason, by sense, and by tradition. SECTION II. Transubstantiation not warrantable by Scripture. 1. THE scriptures pretended for it, are St. John vi. and the words of institution, recorded by three Evangelists, and St. Paul. Concerning which, I shall first lay this prejudice; that, by the confession of the Romanists themselves, men learned and famous in their generations, nor these places, s Can. 8. Anathematis. nor any else in Scripture are sufficient to prove transubstantiation. Cardinal Cajetan affirms, that there is in Scripture nothing of force or necessity to infer transubstantiation out of the words of institution, and that the words, seclusâ ecclesiæ auctoritate,' 'setting aside the decree of the church,' are not sufficient. This is reported by Suarez; but he says, that the words of Cajetan, by the command of Pius V., were left out of the Roman edition, and he adds that Cajetanus solus ex catholicis hoc docuit,' 'he only of their side taught it;' which is carelessly affirmed by the Jesuit; for another cardinal, bishop of Rochester, John Fisher, affirmed the same thing; for, speaking of the words of institution recorded by St. Matthew, he says, "Neque ullum hic verbum positum est, quo probetur in nostrâ missâ, veram fieri carnis et sanguinis Christi præsentiam ";""There are no words set down here [viz. in the words of institution] by which it may be proved, that in our mass there is a true presence of the flesh and blood of Christ."-To this I add a third cardinal, Bishop of Cambray, De Aliaco, who though he likes the opinion, because it was then more common, that the substance of bread does not remain after consecration; yet 'ea non sequitur evidenter ex Scripturis,' it does not follow evidently from Scripture *.' 2. To these three cardinals, I add the concurrent testimony of two famous schoolmen; Johannes Duns Scotus, who, for his rare wit and learning, became a father of a scholastical faction in the schools of Rome,-affirms, "Non exstare locum ullum Scripturæ, tam expressum, ut sine ecclesiæ declaratione evidenter cogat transubstantiationem admittere :" "There is no place of Scripture so express, that, without the declaration of the church, it can evidently compel us to admit transubstantiation ." And Bellarmine himself And Bellarmine himself says, that it is not altogether improbable, since it is affirmed "à doctissimis et acutissimis hominibus," "by most learned and most acute men." The Bishop of Evreux, who was afterward Cardinal Richelieu, not being well pleased with Scotus in this question, said that Scotus had only considered the tes t Tom. 3. disp. 46. sect. 3. * In 4. Sent. q. 6. lit. f. ú Cap. 1. contr. Captiv. Babylon. y Veritas Eucharistiæ sine Transubstantiatione salvari potest. Scotus in 4. dist. 11. q. 3. z Bellarmin, de Euch. lib. 3. c. 23. sect. secundo dicit. timonies of the fathers cited by Gratian, Peter Lombard, Aquinas, and the schoolmen before him; suppose that. But these testimonies are not few, and the witty man was as able to understand their opinion by their words as any man since; and therefore we have the income of so many fathers as are cited by the canon law, the Master of the Sentences and his scholars, to be partly a warrant, and none of them to contradict the opinion of Scotus; who neither believed it to be taught evidently in Scripture, nor by the fathers. 3. The other schoolman I am to reckon in this account, is Gabriel Biel. "Quomodo ibi sit corpus Christi, an per conversionem alicujus in ipsum, an sine conversione incipiat esse corpus Christi cum pane, manentibus substantiâ et accidentibus panis, non invenitur expressum in canone Bibliæ:" "How the body of Christ is there, whether by conversion of any thing into it, or without conversion it begin to be the body. of Christ with the bread, the accidents and the substance of the bread still remaining, is not found expressed in the canon of the Bible "."-Hitherto I could add the concurrent testimony of Ocham in 4. q. 6. of Johannes de Bassolis,' who is called Doctor Ordinatissimus,' but that so much to the same purpose is needless, and the thing is confessed to be the opinion of many writers of their own party; as appears in Salmeron. And Melchior Camus, bishop of the Canaries, amongst the things not expressed in Scripture, reckons the conversion of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ". 4. If it be said,-that the church's determination is a better interpreter of Scripture than they ;-it is granted: but did the church ever interpret Scripture to signify transubstantiation, and say, that, by the force of the words of Scripture, it was to be believed? If she did not, then to say she is a better interpreter, is to no purpose; for though the church be a better interpreter than they, yet they did not contradict each other; and their sense might be the sense of the church. But if the church, before their time, had expounded it against their sense, and they not submit to it, how do you reckon them Catholics, and not me? For. it is certain if the church, expounding Scripture, did declare it to signify' tran a Vide infra, sect. 11. n. 19. b Lect. 40. in can. Missæ. substantiation,' they did not submit themselves and their writings to the church. But if the church had not in their times done it, and hath done it since, that is another consideration; and we are left to remember, that till Cajetan's time, that is, till Luther's time, the church had not declared that Scripture did prove transubstantiation; and since that time we know who hath; but not the church catholic. : 5. And indeed it had been strange, if the cardinals of Cambray, de Sanctovio, and of Rochester, if Scotus and Biel should never have heard, that the church had declared that the words of Scripture did infer transubstantiation. And it is observable, that all these lived long after the article itself was said to be decreed in the Lateran; where if the article itself was declared, yet it was not declared as from Scripture; or if it was, they did not believe it. But it is a usual device amongst their writers to stifle their reason, or to secure themselves with a submitting to the authority of their church, even against their argument: and if any one speaks a bold truth, he cannot escape the Inquisition, unless he compliment the church, and with a civility tell her that she knows better which, in plain English, is no otherwise than the fellow, that did penance for saying the priest lay with his wife he was forced to say, ' Tongue, thou liest,' though he was sure his eyes did not lie. And this is that which Scotus said: "Transubstantiation, without the determination of the church, is not evidently inferred from Scripture." This I say is a compliment, and was only to secure the friar from the inquisitors: or else was a direct trifling of his reason for it contains in it a great error, or a worse danger : for if the article be not contained so in Scripture as that we are bound to believe it by his being there, then the church must make a new article; or it must remain as it was, that is, obscure and we uncompelled and still at liberty. For she cannot declare, unless it be so: she declares what is, or what is not: if what is not, she declares a lie: if what is, then it is in Scripture before, and then we are compelled, that is, we ought, to have believed it. If it be said it was there, but in itself obscurely; I answer, then so it is still: for it was obscurely there, and not only 'quoad nos,' or by defect on our part, she cannot say it is plain there: neither can she alter it, for if she sees it plain, then it was plain: if it be obscure, then she sees it obscurely: for she sees it as it is, or else she sees it not at all: and therefore must declare it to be so: that is, probably, obscurely, peradventure, but not evidently, compellingly, necessarily. 6. So that if, according to the casuists, especially of the Jesuits' order, it be lawful to follow the opinion of any one probable doctor; here we have five good men and true, besides Ocham, Bassolis, and Melchior Camus, to acquit us from our search after this question in Scripture. But because this, although it satisfies me, will not satisfy them that follow the decree of Trent; we will try whether this doctrine be to be found in Scripture.-' Pede pes.' SECTION III. Of the Sixth Chapter of St. John's Gospel. In this chapter, it is earnestly pretended, that our blessed Saviour taught the mystery of transubstantiation; but with some different opinions; for in this question they are divided all the way some reckon the whole sermon as the proof of it, from verse 33. to 58.; though how to make them friends with Bellarmine I understand not; who says, "Constat,' 'It is known' that the eucharist is not handled in the whole chapter for Christ there discourses of natural bread: the miracle of the loaves, of faith, and of the incarnation, are a great part of the chapter; Solùm igitur quæstio est de illis verbis,-Panis quem ego dabo, caro mea est pro mundi vitâ— et de sequentibus, fere ad finem capitis ;'- The question only is concerning those words, (verse 51.) The bread which I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world, and so forward almost until the end of the chapter.'" The reason which is pretended for it, is, because Christ speaks in the future, and therefore probably relates to the institution, which was to be next year: but this is a trifle; for the same thing, in effect, is before spoken in the future tense, and by way of promise f; "Labour not for the meat that perisheth, but for that meat, that endureth to everlasting life, Lib, de Euchar. cap. 5. f John, vi. 27. |