Pagina-afbeeldingen
PDF
ePub

THE

Second PART,

OF

Tranfubftantiation, &c.

C c

MAS

49

§. 1.

OF

Tranfubftantiation, &c.

HE Doctrin of the Church of Rome is determin'd by Conc. Trid. the Council of Trent in these Words.

TH

Because Christ our Redeemer faid, truly that was his Body, which he offer'd under the Species of Bread and Wine, therefore the Church of God always was perfwaded of this, and this Holy Synod now at laft declares, That by the Confecration of the Bread and Wine, there is made a Converfion of the whole Substance of the Bread into the Subftance of the Body of Christ our Lord, and of the whole Subftance of the Wine into the Subftance of his Blood: Which Converfion is conveniently and properly call'd by the Holy Catholick Church, Tranfubftantiation.

S. 2. So that hereby the real Prefence of Chrift in the Eucharift is determin'd to be Substantial and Corporeal, Which if I prove falfe, the Church of Rome, that hath thus determin'd the Matter cannot be Infallible. In order to that I fhall offer fome Arguments on thefe Heads.

[ocr errors]

701

1. That this Doctrin hath no Foundation in the Words of
Inftitution.

2. That it is contrary to them.

3. That it undermines the Foundation of our Christian Faith
by contradicting our Senfes.

4. That it contradicts the most unquestionable Principles of

Reafon.

5. That it is repugnant to Humanity.

6. That it was never known to, much lefs believ'd by, the
ancient Fathers.

S. 3. (1.) There is no more Ground in the Words of Inftitution for Tranfubftantiation, than there is to prove that Chrift was fubftantially and corporeally chang'd into a Door, a Vine or

Cc 2

a Rock,

Seff. 13. 6. 4.

a Rock. For as it is faid, This is my Body: It is also said, I am the Vine, and the Rock is Christ, and there is no more Reason that the first Expreflion fhou'd fignify a fubftantial Change, than the latter. This is fo clear, That many Learn'd Men of the Romish Church grant that this Doctrin cannot be prov'd by Scripture, as I undertake to prove if it be question'd.

Be

§. 4. (2.) Tranfubkantiation is contrary to that Scripture. For when Chrift at the Inftitution faid, This is my Body, holding the Bread in his Hand, it cannot be understood of a fubftantial Change; For then Chrift had his whole Body in his Hand, and gave his whole Body to the Twelve, and yet kept it wholly to himself. Which is fo abfurd, that nothing can be more. fides, he calls it then his Body, which was broken for them, and yet it was not literally broken before his Paffion, when he first inftituted this Sacrament. And fince you are for a literal Senfe, judge impartially whether ours or yours be most literal; if a Man pointing to the King's Perfon fhould fay, That is the King, the literal Senfe would be, that is the King's Perfon: But if pointing to a Picture he should say, That is the King, the literal Senfe would be, that is the King's Picture. Likewife had Chrift laid his Hand on his Breaft, and faid, This is my Body, it must have been understood of his fubftantial Body: But when being about to Institute a Sacrament, he takes Bread, bleffes and breaks it, and then giving it to his Disciples, fays, Take, Eat, this is my Body; the most plain and obvious Senfe is, This is the Sacrament of my Body. The Bread could not be literally Christ's broken Body, before his Body was broken; not confequently at the Inftitution, which was before his Paffion. And certainly the Disciples never imagin'd that the Wine at the Inftitution was turn'd into Chrift's Blood: For then St. Peter, who refuses to Eat unclean Beafts, offer'd him in a Vision, would certainly have fhew'd fome Reluctancy to drinking Blood, fo exprefly forbid by the Law of Mofes, which was not abrogated till all its Ceremonies were fulfill'd at Chrift's Death. And if Tranfubftantiation could not be the Sense of these Words at the time of the firft Inftitution, it cannot be the Senfe of them now. For whatever was the Senfe of the Words at first, is always the true Meaning of Them.

§. 5. (3) Tranfubftantiation undermines the Foundation of Chriftian Faith. For what Reafon have we to believe the Doarins of Chrift, but that he deliver'd them as coming from God, and confirm'd his Commiffion by Miracles? Efpecially by his Refurrection from the Dead? But what Evidence can there be of this, or any other Miracles, but from the Teftimony of Senfe?

When

[ocr errors]

When the Bapift's Difciples come to Jefus from their Master with this Question, Art thou be that should come (that is, the pro- Matt. 11. 4. mis'd Meffias) or look we for another? He gives them this Anfwer, Go fhew John again thofe Things you do hear and fee. The Blind receive their Sight, and the Lame walk, &c. Which is a plain Appeal to their Senfes for the Truth of his Miracles, and the Proof of his Divine Authority. And again, Chrift fays to his Difciples, doubting of the reality of his Refurrection, Handle me, and fee me, for a Spirit hath not Flesh and Bones as ye fee me have. Either this was a good and folid Proof, or not. If not, Chrift put a Fallacy on his Difciples. If it were, then the Testimony of the Senfes is to be credited in fenfible Matters, and that which to our Sight, taste and touch seems Bread, is not Flesh. How could the Apostles perfwade Men to believe the Miracles of Chrift, but by perfwading them to give credit to their Testimony, who were Eye-Witneffes of them? But how could they perfwade them to believe Tranfubftantiation (if that had been one of their Doctrins) but by perfwading them not to believe their Senfes ? So that if our Senfes are not to be trufted, there is no Evidence of the Truth of the Christian Religion: And if they are to be trufted, Transubstantiation cannot be true, which is contradicted by them. All our Senfes tell us, it is Bread, and not Flesh, that we take and eat. So that we have as great Evidence that Tranfubftantiation is falfe, as the Apostles, and other Eye-Witnesses of Chrift's Miracles had, that they were true and real: And we have more affurance it is falfe, than we have of thofe Miracles, for we do not fee them with our own Eyes, but only have a credible Report of them; whereas we fee and taste the Sacramental Elements, and thofe Senfes affure us there is no Bodily Change therein. I defire you to tell me, how you know there is fuch a Sentence in the Bible, as, This is my Body, but that you fee it there? And do you think this Evidence enough that it is there, because you fee and read it there? And have you not more Evidence, that there is no Bodily Change in the confecrated Bread, than you have, that thefe Words, This is my Body, are to be found in the Bible? For you bave only the Evidence of one Senfe for this, but the concurring Teftimony of feveral Senfes for that. We can have no Evidence of the Truth of any thing God hath reveal'd, if our Senses, in plain fenfible Matters, are not to be credited: And if they are to be credited, we have as good Grounds to believe Tranfubftantiation falfe, as we have to believe any thing God hath reveal'd to be true.

§ 6. (4) Tran

« VorigeDoorgaan »