« 上一頁繼續 »
manded thit they should eat Bread, and drink Wine, as it is witnessed by St. Paul, and confirmed by Christ him.. self. For of the Bread, St. Paul, in one Part of a Chapter to the (a) Corinthians, calls it Bread four Times, And of the Wine, (b) Christ, after he bad given Thanks, and it was confecrate, and atter Supper, called it Wine. And if we may believe Christ, the felt lame Wine did remain. Therefore, the Elements themselves do remain after the Confecration, and not the Accidents onlý, Tranfwbffantiation is & Fable.
2dly, If the confecrated Bread be the real Body of Christ, then it holds some Resemblance and Proportion with the Figure and Type of Christ's Body, the Pafchal Lamb: But it holds no such Resemblance or Proportion; therefore, it is not to be believed the real Body of Christ. For the Paschal Lamb was a living Thing, so was the real Body of Christ : The Faschal Lamb was a fleihly Body, so was the real Body of Christ: The Paschal Lamb had Blood to shed, so had the real Body of Christ: The Paschal Lamb was wounded and killed, so was the real Body of Christ: But in none of all these Particulars doth the consecrated Bread correspond.
3thly, If there be any Tranfubftantiation, the fame must be made, either before the Words of Conlecration, or after, or together with them : But the same is not made before, for then it wou'd not be done by Virtue of the Words, which all Papists agree: Nor after, for then the Priest speaks falsly, when he says, “ This is my
Body,” for he ought to say, this will, or fall be my Body. Nor, Lastly, can it be together with the Words ; for then it must be successively as the Words, Hoc eft Çorpus meum, are spoken, and so if the Priest shou'd
(a) 1 Cor. 11. (6) Matth. 26.29.
- leave off in the Middle, and say only, Hoc est, there wou'd
be but half the Body made, and not completely till he comes to the last Syllable, 'um; which is absurd, and consequently, we may conclude, there is not any Tranfubftantiation at all.
4thly, It is a flat Contradiction to say, that a fingular, or individual Body, remaining so, shou'd not be so. But the Doctrine of fransubstantiatio putteth the self fame numerical, individual Body of Christ, to be at Rome, at Paris, at Dublin, and a Million of Places more at the fame Time: And whatsoever Body is distant from ano. ther, in its numerical and individual Substance, is feparated from the other : But the Body of Christ at Rome, is distant from the Body of Christ at Paris, or at Dublin, and consequently, cannot be the felt same numerical Body. But nothing is more obvious, than that it implies a ffat Contradiction, that the self same numerical Body fhou'd be divided from it felt ; for if one and the same Body may be at divers Places at once, it may move from it felt in one place, to it self in another; if it may move from it self, it must be distant from it self, then divided from it self; if divided from it sell, their no Individuum; thus, Individuum, by the Doctrine of Transubstantiation, is made Dividuum; that is, one and the self same Thing, is at the same Time, not one and the self same Thing; which is such Logick as is fit only for Jesuits to teach, and natural Fools to learn.
5thly, In this pretended Tranfubftantiation, the Bread wholly ceases, as to its Substance, as Bellarmine (a) tells us. But this cannot be, unless it be annihilated, for ihat which was, and ceases to be any Substance, must be annihilated : But that which is annihilated, is not said to be changed, or to pass into another Substance, but Ceafes to
(a) Bell. de Eucharist. Lib. 3. Cap. 24:
exist, and is nothing for in every change, the Mat. ter ought to remain; otherwise, it will not be a Conversion, but a Recellion; that is, when one Thing coming, another gives place to it. Nor will it help the Matter to say as Bellarmine does, " That the Body «s of Christ succeeds in the Place of Bread : " For since there is nothing of the Substance of Bread in the Body of Christ, it can no more be called a Conversion, or Tranfubftantiation, than the Succession of the Day and Night can be called a Conversion or Transubstantiation.
6thly, If the Substance of the Bread and Wine doth not remain, then when Poison is mixed with the Sacrament, after Consecration, either it is mixed with bare Accidents, or with the Body of Christ, both which are absurd. Theret re, the Substance of the Bread and Wine must remain : And that Poison may be mixed with the confecrated Signs, is evident from Experience.
Zehly, If Christ had given his Body, fubftantially and carnally in the Supper, then was that Body, either pascible, or impafcible. But they cannot say it is either pascible, or impafcible : For, i Christ's pafciblc Body is not now given to be eaten, for Christ dieth no more, his Body is now glorified, and can no more suffer. 2. Neither did Christ give an impascible Body to be eaten, for be faith, " This
is my Body which fhall be given for you; that is, which shou'd suffer, and be crucified for them. Now, if it be neither pafcible, nor impascible, then it is not any Body at all.
8thly, Our Saviour Christ faith, (a) " there shall also my Servants be; " that is, they shall be with him in Glory; therefore, his Saints, and Servants departed this Lite, are with him. But we suppose no
« Where I am,
(a) John 12. 26.
Papift will affirm, that all the Saints departed are in the Eucharist ; therefore, neither is Christ present Bodily there. They must confels, that it is either glorious to Christ to be carnally in the Sacrament, or inglorious: If it be glory to him, then the Saints must be there present, to fee, and be Partakers of his Glory; (a) “ For they
are ever with the Lord; and follow the Lamb whi" therfoever he goeth : " If it be inglorious, it is the greatest Sacrilege in the World to deprive Christ of his Glory; therefore, Tranfubftantiation is a most damnable Doctrine,
9thly, He that is ascended into Heaven bodily, and does truly remain in Heaven to the End of the World; his Body cannot be daily transubstantiated in infinite Places. But the Body of Christ (6) is so ascended, and must remain, as we profess in the Creed, and are taught by the Apostles. Therefore, Transubstantiation ought: not to meet with any Countenance.
12thly, That which neither Sense teaches, nor Reafon affures us, nor any holy Scripture requires us to be-lieve; chat we are not bound to believe. But neither Sense teaches, nor Reason assures us, that the Bread by Confecration is tranfubftantiated into Fles, but directly otherwise; nor are we required by any Scriptures to be-lieve it, as we have already proved; therefore, Transaba stantiation is moft abfurd.
Secondly, We are to answer the popish Allegacions in: Support of Tranfubftantiation.
Obje&tion, 1: (c) The Papists Any urge the Words of our Saviour in the Institution it self; after he had takene
Bread, and bleffed it, he said, “ This is my Body;" that is, fay they, that which is contained under the Form of this Bread, is my very Body. Since he plainly and pofitively calls it his Body, will you contradict our Saviour?
Answer, This is my Body, differs very much from this is transubstantiated or changed into my Pody. This is my Body, speaks what is already in being; not what may, or hall be effective of something else. To be, and to be changed into a Thing, are quite different Exprefftons, and he that says a Thing is, or hath a Being, cannot be therefore supposed neceffarily to say that it is changed, or transubltantiated, or shall be so. For 2. Thing may be several Ways, besides being changed. That of which Christ affirms, that it is his Body, was the Bread he took in his Hand, or that which he brake, and that may be faid to be his Body, without being changed or transubstantiated into his Body. Therefore those Words of our Saviour do not infer a Transul ftantiation.
Answ. 2. Though Chrit faith, (a) John is Elias," and John himself faith, (b) “ I am not Elias," yet neither of them really contradicts the other, because, as St. Auftin faith, (c)“ John speaks properly, and our Lord figuratively; " so, tho' Chrift laid here, “. This is
my Body," yet we contradict not our blessed Saviour, because he spake not properly, but figuratively; as by the Context and the Nature of the Thing is apparent. But on the other side, they were false Witnesses, (d) though they alledg’d Christ's own Words misexpounded of the material Temple, which he meant of the mystical Temple his Body: And fo may others be, though they alledge Chrilt's own Words of the Bread being his Body, urging that as spoken properly, that was by him figuratively intended.
(a) Malt. J1.14. (b) John 1. 12. (c) Aug. in Joan. Tract. 4. (d) Matt.26. 60.