Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

of the ancient church; I sum them up with the saying of St. Athanasius: Οὐκ ἔστι τοῖς δικαίοις θάνατος *, &c. “ It is not death that happens to the righteous, but a translation: for they are translated out of this world into everlasting rest And as a man would go out of prison, so do the saints go out of this troublesome life, unto those good things which are prepared for them." Now let these and all the precedent words be confronted against the sad complaints made for the souls in purgatory by John Gerson in his 'Querela Defunctorum,' and Sir Thomas More in his 'Supplication of Souls,' and it will be found that the doctrine of the fathers differs from the doctrine of the church of Rome as much as heaven and hell, rest and labour, horrid torments and great joy. I conclude this matter of quotations by the saying of Pope Leo, which one of my adversaries" could not find, because the printer was mistaken; it is the ninety-first epistle, so known and so used by the Roman writers in the question of confession, that if he be a man of learning, it cannot be supposed, but he knew where to find them. The words are these: "But if any of them, for whom we pray unto the Lord, being intercepted by any obstacle, falls from the benefit of the present indulgences, and, before he comes to the constituted remedies, shall end his temporal life by human condition (or frailty), that which abiding in the body he hath not received, being out of the flesh he cannot." Now against these words of St. Leo, set the present doctrine of the church of Rome; "that what is not finished of penances here, a man may pay in purgatory:"-and let the world. judge, whether St. Leo was, in this point, a Roman Catholic. Indeed St. Leo forgot to make use of the late distinction of sins venial and mortal, of the punishment of mortal sins remaining after the fault is taken away; but I hope the Roman doctors will excuse the saint, because the distinction is but new and modern. But this testimony of St. Gregory must not go for a single testimony: "That, which abiding in the body, could not be received, out of the body cannot ;" that is, when the soul is gone out of the body, as death finds them, so shall the day of judgment find them. And this was the sense of the whole church; for after death there is no change of state before the general trial: no passing from

b De Virgin.

⚫ Letter, p. 18.

pain to rest in the state of separation, and therefore either there are no purgatory-pains; or if there be, there is no ease of them before the day of judgment, and the prayers and masses of the church cannot give remedy to one poor soul; and this must of necessity be confessed by the Roman doctors, or else they must shew that ever any one catholic father did teach, that after death, and before the day of judgment, any souls are translated into a state of bliss out of a state of pain: that is, that from purgatory they go to heaven before the day of judgment. He that can shew this, will teach me what I have not yet learned; but he that cannot shew it, must not pretend, that the Roman doctrine of purgatory was ever known to the ancient fathers of the church.

SECTION III.

Of Transubstantiation.

THE purpose of The Dissuasive was to prove the doctrine of transubstantiation to be new, neither catholic nor apostolic. In order to which I thought nothing more likely to persuade or dissuade, than the testimonies of the parties against themselves. And although I have many other inducements (as will appear in the sequel), yet by so earnestly contending to invalidate the truth of the quotations, the adversaries do confess by implication; if these sayings be, as is pretended, then I have evinced my main point, viz. that the Roman doctrines, as differing from us, are novelties, and no parts of the catholic faith.

Thus therefore the author of The Letter begins: “He quotes Scotus, as declaring that the doctrine of transubstantiation is not expressed in the canon of the Bible; which he saith not. To the same purpose he quotes Ocham, but I can find no such thing in him. To the same purpose he quotes Roffensis, but he hath no such thing." But in order to the verification of what I said, I desire it be first observed what I did say, for I did not deliver it so crudely as this gentleman sets it down: for, 1. These words-"the doctrine of

d P. 18.

transubstantiation is not expressed in the canon of the Bible"-are not the words of all them before named; they are the sense of them all, but the words but of one or two of them. 2. When I say that some of the Roman writers say, that transubstantiation is not expressed in the Scripture, I mean, and so I said plainly, "as without the church's declaration to compel us to admit of it." Now then, for the quotations themselves, I hope I shall give a fair account. 1. The words quoted, are the words of Biel: when he had first affirmed that Christ's body is contained truly under the bread, and that it is taken by the faithful (all which we believe and teach in the church of England), he adds; "Tamen quomodo ibi sit Christi corpus, an per conversionem alicujus in ipsum" (that is the way of transubstantiation), “an sine conversione incipiat esse corpus Christi cum pane, manentibus substantia et accidentibus panis, non invenitur expressum in canone Biblii :" and that is the way of consubstantiation; so that here is expressly taught what I affirmed was taught, that the Scriptures did not express the doctrine of transubstantiation; and he adds, that concerning this, there ́were anciently divers opinions. Thus far the quotation is right but of this man there is no notice taken. But what of Scotus? He saith no such thing;'-well, suppose that; yet I hope this gentleman will excuse me for Bellarmine's sake, who says the same thing of Scotus as I do, and he might have found it in the margent against the quotation of Scotus, if he had pleased. His words are these; "Secondly, he saith (viz. Scotus) that there is not extant any place of Scripture so express, without the declaration of the church, that it can compel us to admit of transubstantiation: and this is not altogether improbable: for though the scriptures which we brought above, seem so clear to us, that it may compel a man that is not wilful, yet whether it be so or no, it may worthily be doubted, since most learned and acute men (such as Scotus eminently was) believe the contrary." Well! But the gentleman can find no such thing in Ocham: I hope he did not look far, for Ocham is not the man I mean; however, the printer might have mistaken, but it is easily pardonable, because from O. Cam. meaning Odo Cameracensis, it was easy for the printer or transcriber to write.

"

Lib. 3. de Euchar. c. 23. sect. Secundo dicit.

Ocam, as being of more public name; but the Bishop of Cambray is the man that followed Scotus in this opinion, and is acknowledged by Bellarmine to have said the same that Scotus did, he being one of his docti et acutissimi viri' there mentioned. Now if Roffensis have the same thing too, this author of The Letter will have cause enough to be a little ashamed: and for this, I shall bring his words: speaking of the whole institution of the blessed sacrament by our blessed Saviour, he says, "Neque ullum hic verbum positum est, quo probetur in nostra missa veram fieri carnis et sanguinis Christi præsentiam "." I suppose I need to say no more to verify these citations; but yet I have another very good witness to prove that I have said true; and that is Salmeron ", who says that Scotus, out of Innocentius, reckons three opinions, not of heretics, but of such men who all agreed in that which is the main; but he adds, "Some men and writers believe, that this article cannot be proved against a heretic, by Scripture alone, or reasons alone. And so Cajetan is affirmed by Suarez and Alanus to have said; and Melchior Canus:“Perpetuam Mariæ virginitatem-conversionem panis et vini in corpus et sanguinem Christi-non ita expressa in libris canonicis invenies, sed adeo tamen certa in fide sunt, ut contrariorum dogmatum auctores ecclesia hæreticos judicarit." So that the Scripture is given up for no sure friend in this question: the article wholly relies upon the authority of the church, viz. of Rome, who makes faith, and makes heresies as she please. But to the same purpose is that also which Chedzy said in his disputation at Oxford; "In what manner Christ is there, whether with the bread transelemented or transubstantiation, the Scripture, in open words, tells not.

But I am not likely so to escape, for E. W.1 talks of a famous, or rather infamous, quotation out of Peter Lombard, and adds foul and uncivil words, which I pass by: but the thing is this; that I said, " Petrus Lombardus could not tell, whether there was a substantial change or no." I did say so, and I brought the very words of Lombard to prove it, and these very words E. W. himself acknowledges. "Si autem

* Contra Captiv. Babyl. c. 1.

i Lib. 1. de Euchar. c. 34.

f Ubi supra.

Tom. 9. tract. 16. p. 108. 110.

* Pag. 37. vide Letter, p. 18.

Pag. 38. See also the Letter to a Friend, p. 19.

97

quæritur qualis sit ista conversio, an formalis an substantialis, vel alterius generis, definire non sufficio:" "I am not able to define or determine, whether that change be formal or substantial:"-so far E. W. quotes him, but leaves out one thing very material, viz." whether besides formal, or substantial, it be of another kind."-Now E. W. not being able to deny that Lombard said this, takes a great deal of useless pains, not one word of all that he says being to the purpose, or able to make it probable, that Peter Lombard did not say so, or that he did not think so. But the thing is this: Biel reckoned three opinions which, in Lombard's time, were in the church the first of consubstantiation, which was the way, which long since then, Luther followed. The second, that the substance of bread is made the flesh of Christ, but ceases not to be what it was. But this is not the doctrine of transubstantiation; for that makes a third opinion, which is, that the substance of bread ceases to be, and nothing remains but the accident. "Quartam opinionem addit magister," that is, Peter Lombard "adds a fourth opinion;" that the substance of bread is not converted, but is annihilated: this is made by Scotus to be the second opinion. Now of these four opinions, all which were then permitted and disputed, Peter Lombard TM seems to follow the second; but if this was his opinion, it was no more; for he could not determine, whether that that were the truth or no. But whether he does or no, truly, I think it is very hard for any man to tell: for this question was but in the forge, not polished, not made bright with long handling. And this was all that I affirmed out of the Master of Sentences; I told of no opinion of his at all; but that, in his time, they did not know whether it (viz. the doctrine of transubstantiation) were true or no, that is, the generality of the Roman Catholics did not know and he himself could not define it. And this appears unanswerably by Peter Lombard's bringing their several sentiments in this article: and they that differ in their judgments about an article, and yet esteem the others catholic, may think what they please, but they cannot tell certainly what is truth. But then, as for Peter Lombard himself, all that I said of him was this, that he could not tell, he could not determine, whether there was any substantial change or no. If, in his after-discourse, he

:

m Ubi supra.

H

VOL. XI.

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »