« AnteriorContinuar »
received' the bread of the Lord against the Lord: but the other apostles received the bread which was the Lord, that is, his body. But I have already spoken of the matter of this argument in the third paragraph, numb. 7., which the reader may please to add to this to make it fuller.
10. Ninthly: Lastly,–In the words of institution and consecration, as they call them, the words, which relate to the consecrated wine, are so different in the evangelists, and St. Paul respectively, as appears by comparing them together; that, 1. It does not appear which words were literally spoken by our blessed Saviour: for all of them could not be so spoken as they are set down. 2. That they all regarded the sense and meaning of the mystery, not the letters and the syllables. 3. It is not possible to be certain, that Christ intended the words of any one of them to be consecratory or effective of what they signify, for every one of the relaters differs in the words, though all agree in the things; as the reader may observe in the beginning of the fourth paragraph, where the four forms are set by each other to be compared. 4. The church of Rome, in the consecration of the chalice, uses a form of words, which Christ spaké not at all, nor are related by St. Matthew, or St. Mark, or St. Luke, or St. Paul, but she puts in some things and changes others : her form is this: " Hic est enim calix sanguinis mei Novi et æterni Testamenti, mysterium fidei, qui pro vobis et pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum :" “ For this is the chalice of my blood, of the New and eternal Testament, the mystery of faith, which shall be shed for you, and for many, for the remission of sins :" what is added is plain, what is altered would be very material, if the words were consecratory; for they are not so likely to be operative and effective as the words of Christ recited by St. Matthew and St. Mark, ' This is my blood :' and if this had not been the ancient form used in the church of Rome long before the doctrine of transubstantiation was thought of; it is not to be imagined, that they would have refused the plainer words of Scripture, to have made the article more secret, the form less operative, the authority less warrantable, the words less simple and natural. But the corollary, which is natural and proper from the particulars of this argument, is, that the mystery was so wholly spiritual, that it was no matter by what words it were expressed, so the spirit of it were re
tained; and yet if it had been an historical, natural, proper sense that had been intended, it ought also, in all reason, to have been declared, or (much more) effected by a natural and proper
and constant affirmative. But that there is nothing spoken properly, is therefore evident; because there are so many predications, and all mean the same mystery : “ Hic est sanguis meus Novi Testamenti;” and “Hic calix est Novum Testamentum in meo sanguine;" and, " Hic est calix sanguinis mei,” in the Roman missal : all this declares it is 'mysterium fidei,' and so to be taken in all senses: and those words are left in their canon, as if on purpose either to prevent the literal and natural understanding of the other words, or for the reducing the communicants to the only apprehensions of faith: it is 'mysterium fidei,'notó sanguis naturalis,' ' a mystery of faith,' not ‘natural blood.' For supposing that both the forms used by St. Matthew and St. Luke, respectively, could be proper -and without a figure ; and St. Matthew's 'Hic est sanguis testamenti, did signify, “This is the divine promise' (for so Bellarmine a dreams that testament there signifies), and that in St. Luke's words, . This cup is the testament,' it signifies the instrument of the testament (for so a will, or a testament, is taken either for the thing willed, or the parchment in which it is written); yet how are these, or either of these, affirmative of the wine being transubstantiated into blood ? It says nothing of that, and so if this sense of those words does avoid a' trope, it brings in a distinct proposition; if it be spoken properly, it is more distant from giving authority to their new doctrine; and if the same word have several senses, then in the sacramental
proposition, as it is described by the several evangelists, there are several predicates, and therefore it is impossible, that all should be proper. And yet besides this, although he thinks he may freely say any thing, if he covers it with a distinction, yet the very members of this distinction conclude against his conclusion; for if'testament in one place be taken for the instrument of his testament,' it is a tropical locution; just as I say, 'My bible' (meaning 'my book') is the word of God,' that is, contains the word of God, it is a metonymy of the thing containing, for that which it contains. But this was more than I needed, and therefore I am content it should pass for nothing. z Lib. 1. de Euch. c. 11. sect. Ad tertiam dico.
SECTION VIII. Of the Arguments of the Romanists from Scripture. 1. Thus I have, by very many arguments taken from the words and circumstances and annexes of the institution or consecration, proved, that the sense of this mystery is mysterious, and spiritual,--that Christ's body is eaten only sacramentally by the body, but really and effectively only by faith, which is the mouth of the soul; that the flesh profiteth nothing, but the words which Christ spake, are spirit and life.' And let it be considered, whether besides a pertinacious resolution that they will understand these words as they sound in the letter, not as they are intended in the spirit, there be any thing, or indeed can be, in the nature of the thing, or circumstances of it, or usefulness, or in the different forms of words, or the analogy of the other discourses of Christ, that can give colour to their literal sense ? against which so much reason, and Scripture, and arguments from antiquity, do contest. This only I observe, that they bring no pretence of other scriptures to warrant this interpretation, but such which I have or shall wrest out of their hands; and which, to all men's first apprehensions, and at the very first sight, do make against them, and which, without curious notions and devices, cannot pretend on their side : as appears first in the tenth chapter of the First Epistle to the Corinthians, verses 16, 17.
2. Out of which I have already proved, that Christ's body is not taken in the natural sense, but in the spiritual. But when Bellarmine a had, out of the same words, forced for himself three arguments proving nothing; to save any man the labour of answering them, he adds at the end of them these words : Sed tota difficultas est b, an corporaliter, realiter, propriè sumatur sanguis et caro, an solùm significativè et spiritualiter. Quod autem 'corporaliter et propriè' probari posset omnibus argumentis, quibus supra probavimus propriè esse intelligenda verba illa institutionis, Hoc est corpus meum.”—That is, after his arguments out of the First Epistle to the Corinthians were ended, all the difficulty of the question still remained ; and that he was fain to prove by
a Sect. 5. n. 6. lib. 1. Euch. c. 12.
b Sect. Sed tota difficultas. c Chap. x. ver. 16.
Hoc est corpus meum,' and the proper argument of that; but brings nothing from the words of St. Paul in this chapter. But to make up this also he does 'corrodere,'' scrape together' some things extrinsical to the words of this authority; as, 1. That the literal sense is to be presumed, unless the contrary be proved ;-which is very true : but I have evidently proved the contrary concerning the words of institution; and for the words in this chapter, if the literal sense be preferred, then the bread remains after consecration, because it is called bread. 2. So the primitive saints expounded iť—which how true it is, I shall consider in his own place. 3. “ The Apostle, calling the Gentiles from their sacrificed flesh, proposes to them a more excellent banquetbut it were not more excellent, if it were only a figure of Christ's body;"—so Bellarmine : which is a fit cover for şuch a dish : for, 1. We do not say, that, in the sacrament, we only receive the sign and figure of Christ's body; but all the real effects and benefits of it. 2. If we had, yet it is not very much better than blasphemy, to say that the apostles had not prevailed upon that account. For if the very figure and sacrament of Christ's body be better than sacrifices offered to devils, the Apostle had prevailed, though this sentence were true, that in the sacrament we receive only the figure. And thus I have, for all that is said against it, made it apparent that there is nothing in that place for their corporal presence.
3. There is one thing more, which, out of Scripture, they urge for the corporal presence, viz. “ He that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body:” and, “He shall be guilty of the body and blood of Christ d.” Where they observe, that they, that eat unworthily, do yet eat Christ's body ; because how else could they be guilty of it, and condemned for not discerning it?
4. To this I answer many things. 1. St. Paul does not say,
“ He that eateth and drinketh Christ's body and blood unworthily,” &c. but indefinitely, “ He that eateth and drinketh €,” &c. yet it is probable he would have said so, if it had been a proper form of speech, because, by so doing, it would have laid a greater load upon them. 2. Where St. Paul does not speak indefinitely, he speaks most clearly
d 1 Cor. xi. 27. 29.
e Ver. 29.
against the article in the Roman sense ; for he calls it mornplov Kvplov, 'the cup of the Lord,' and aprov toūrov,' this bread,' and,· He that eats this bread unworthily, is guilty of the body and blood of Christf:' and now these comminatory phrases are quitted from their pretence, but yet have their proper consideration: therefore, 3. Not discerning' the Lord's body, is, ' not separating it from profane and common usages, not treating it with addresses proper to the mystery. To which phrase Justin gives light in these words:
Ου γαρ ως κοινόν άρτον ουδε κοινον πόμα ταύτα λαμβάνομεν, , “We do not receive it as common bread and common drink;" but την δι' ευχής λόγου του παρ' αυτού ευχαριστηθείσαν τροφήν,
nourishment made eucharistical, or blessed, by the word of prayer;" and so it is the body and blood of the Lord. 4. It is the body of the Lord in the same sense here as in the words of institution, which I have evinced to be exegetical, sacramental, and spiritual ; and, by despising the sacrament of it, we become guilty of the body and blood of Christ. " Reus erit corporis et sanguinis Christi, qui tanti mysterii sacramentum despexerit,” saith St. Jerome 5. And it is in this, as Severianus said concerning the statues of Theodosius broken in despite by the Antiochians :Ύλη άψυχος, του βασιλέως εικόνα φέρουσα, την έαυτής ύβριν είς βασιλέα ανάγει : you abuse the king's image, the affront relates to your prince.”-5. The unworthy receiver is guilty of the body and blood of Christ; not naturally, for that cannot now be; and nothing is a greater probation of the spiritual sense of the words in this place, than this, which they would entice into their party ; for Christ's body is glorified, and not capable of natural injury : but the evil communicant is' guilty of the body and blood of Christ;' just as relapsing Christians are said by the same apostles,' to crucify the Lord of life again, and put him to an open shame,' which, I suppose, they cannot do naturally or corporally. One is as the other, that is, both are tropical or figurative.
5. These are all that they pretend from Scripture; and all these are nothing to their purpose; but now, besides what I have already said, I shall bring arguments from other scriptures, which will not so easily be put off.