Abbildungen der Seite

ticipated", the sensible qualities only of the bread and wine remain, their substances being changed into those of Christ's natural body and blood.

• At the council of Florence, which began its sessions in 1439, and ended them in 1442, it was determined, that the priest's intention was necessary to confer validity upon a sacrament. At the council of Trent, in 1547, it was found difficult to define exactly in what this intention consists, but it was considered to consist in doing as the Church enjoins, in particular cases; that is, to baptise an infant when one is brought for that purpose, to consecrate the elements at a mass. In the end, the Trentine fathers affirmed the decision of their predecessors at Florence as to the necessity of ministerial intentions. F. Paul. 240, 264.

• As their taste, smell, colour, extension and the like. These properties are technically termed Accidents. “ An accident is such a mode as is not necessary to the being of a thing, for the subject may be without it, and yet remain of the same nature that it was before; or it is that mode which may be separated, or abolished from its subject; so smoothness or roughness, blackness or whiteness, inotion or rest, are the accidents of a bowl ; for these may all be changed, and yet the body remain a bowl still.” Watts's Logic. Lond. 1733. p. 18.

c“ The Papists say that in the Supper of the Lord, after the words of consecration, as they call it, there is none other substance remaining but the substance of Christ's flesh and blood, so that there remaineth neither bread to be eaten, nor wine to be drunken. And although there be the colour of bread and wine, the savour, the smell, the bigness, the fashion, and all other, as they call them, accidents, or qualities and quantities of bread and wine, yet, say they, there is no very bread nor wine, but they be turned into the flesh and blood of Christ. And this conversion they call transubstantiation, that is to say, turning of one substance into another substance. And although all the accidents, both of the bread and wine, remain still, yet say they, the same accidents be in no manner of thing; but hang alone in the air, without any thing to stay them upon., For in the body and blood of Christ, say they, these accidents cannot be, nor

Romish ecclesiastics, therefore, claim the power of presenting at all times to the senses of their congregations an incarnation of the Deity, and of exhibiting the naked qualities of things, after those things themselves have wholly disappeared“. Few facts in the intellectual history of man are more remarkable, than the extensive credence attained by these pretensions. It is, however, obvious, that such pretensions are well adapted to captivate ordinary minds. Men unused to serious thought, and unacquainted with God's recorded Word, would readily allow themselves to be persuaded, that the sacerdotal voice is privileged to draw down the Deity sensibly into the midst of his worshippers, and that, although they may eat the bread of life without the preparation of a true Christian faith, yet none, unless wilfully bent on sin, can altogether miss the benefits of fered in the Holy Supper. Transubstantiation also tends immeasurably to exalt the priestly character; it is, therefore, a doctrine unlikely to encounter an effectual opposition, in an age of gross ignorance, and increasing superstition, from a large proportion of the clergy. Nor is it unimportant, that this tenet furnishes facilities for rendering religious rites attractive to the grosser elements of society. To the Deity, sensibly amidst his creatures, no demonstrations of respect can be deemed excessive; but the profoundest adoration, the most imposing ceremonies, the proudest triumphs of human ingenuity must be well employed in rendering honour to a presence so august. Such honours, accordingly, have been prodigally lavished by the believers of transubstantiation upon the principal visible object of their worship; and hence even persons careless

yet in the air ; for the body and blood of Christ, and the air, be neither of that bigness, fashion, smell, nor colour, that the bread and wine be. Nor in the bread and wine, say they, these accidents cannot be; for the substance of bread and wine, as they affirm, be clean gone. And so there remaineth whiteness, but nothing is white; there remaineth colours, but nothing is coloured therewith; there remaineth roundness, but nothing is round ; and there is bigness, and yet nothing is big; there is sweetness, without any sweet thing; softness, without any soft thing ; breaking, without any thing broken ; division, without any thing divided ; and so other qualities and quantities, without any thing to receive them. And this doctrine they teach as a necessary article of our faith." Abp. Cranmer's Catholic Doctrine of the Sacrament, 36.

d“ Neque aliud forte sunt omnia accidentia, quam qualificationes seu modificationes substantiæ. Quod haud ægre

faterentur plerique omnes, nisi propter Eucharistiam contrarium dicendum putaverint Papistæ, ut existere possint accidentia a subjecto suo separata. Sic Jesuita Suarez, in Metaphys. Dis. 7. Sect. 2. Numh. 10. Per mysterium, inquit, Eucharistia, certius nobis constat quantitatem esse rem distinctam a materia, quam per cognitionem naturalem constare potuisset.Institut. Logic. per J. Wallis, S. T. D. Oxon. 1729. p. 28.

• At the council of Trent, in 1547, those were anathematised who maintain, " that the Sacraments are ordained only to nourish faith ; that they do not contain in them the grace signified, or do not give it to him that doth not resist; that grace is not always given by the Sacraments, nor unto all for as much as belongeth unto God, though they be lawfully received; that by Sacraments grace is not given, in virtue of the administration of them, called Opus operatum." F. Paul, 263,

of religion have found themselves unable to regard with perfect unconcern the more striking Eucharistic celebrations.

Notwithstanding, however, its attractions for a large portion of men, both clerical and lay, transubstantiation is a doctrine encumbered with difficulties of a kind so formidable, that an inquisitive mind cannot avoid an anxiety to ascertain, whether it is clearly revealed in the Record of God's Word. Such a question is likely to be met with little pleasure by defenders of the corporal presence.

Eminent divines holding that opinion have long since admitted, that it cannot be proved from Scripture! Romish polemics, therefore, are precluded from asserting, as to the grounds of transubstantiation, any thing more satisfactory than, that the tenet is rendered probable from Scripture, and certain from the unvarying testimony of ecclesiastical antiquity .

1 Duns, the schoolman, says, that " the words of the Scripture might be expounded more easily and more plainly without transubstantiation.” (Cranmer, Cath. Doctr. 69.) “Ockham, another famous schoolman, says expressly, that the doctrine which holds the substance of the bread and wine to remain after consecration, is neither repugnant to reason nor Scripture. Petrus ab Alliaco, Cardinal of Cambray, says plainly, that the doctrine of the substance of bread and wine remaining after consecration is more easy and free from absurdity, more rational, and no ways repugnant to the authority of Scripture : nay more, that for the other doctrine, viz. of transubstantiation, there is no evidence in Scripture. Gabriel Biel, another great schoolman, and divine of their Church, freely declares, that as to any thing expressed in the canon of the Scriptures, a man may believe, that the substance of bread and wine doth remain after consecration; and therefore, he' resolves the belief of transubstantia. tion into some other revelation beside Scripture, which he supposeth the Church had about it. Cardinal Cajetan confesseth, that the Gospel doth no where express that the bread is changed into the body of Christ : that we have this from the authority of the Church : nay he goes farther, that there is nothing in the

A careful examination of the most ancient theological works, undoubtedly genuine, will however overthrow this latter assertion. Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, who sealed his conviction with his

Gospel which enforceth any man to understand these words of Christ, This is my body, in a proper, and not in a metaphorical sense ; but the Church having understood them in a proper sense, they are to be so explained : which words in the Roman edition of Cajetan are expunged by order of Pope Pius V. Cardinal Contarenus, and Melchior Canus one of the best and most judicious writers that Church ever had, reckon this doctrine among those which are not so expressly found in Scripture. I will add but one more of great authority in the Church, and a reputed martyr, Fisher, Bishop of Rochester, who ingenuously confesseth that in the words of the institution, there is not one word from whence the true presence of the flesh and blood of Christ in our mass can be proved." Abp. Tillotson. Sermons. Lond. 1742. II. 202. where may be found references to the particular passages cited.

The Trentine fathers, accordingly, treated the grounds of this doctrine in the following vague and indefinite manner. They professed to “ deliver the doctrine which the Catholic Church, instructed by our Lord Jesus Christ himself, and by his Apostles, and taught by the Holy Spirit daily suggesting to them all truth, has always preserved, and will preserve to the end of the world.” (Bp. Marsh, Comp. View, 28.) Thus these divines only ventured to bottom the leading article of their distinctive creed upon bare assertions, and did not descend in this case, as they did in some others, to particularise whether the revelations referred to were preserved orally, or in the Record, or by means of both.

« ZurückWeiter »