John Howe on common sense and transubstantiation

Status
Not open for further replies.

Reformed Covenanter

Cancelled Commissioner
... When there have been determinations against the common uncorrupted senses of mankind, as that what their sight, and touch, and taste assures them is Bread, is said to be the flesh of an human body.

For if you cannot be sure of what both your own, and the sound senses of any other man would tell you, you can be sure of nothing at all: You cannot be sure you see one another, or hear me speaking to you; nor be sure when you heard the transforming words, This is my Body; or much less that they were ever spoken, if you heard them not; or that that was Bread and not a Stone, or a piece of Clay that is pretended to be transubstantiated by them. ...

For more, see John Howe on common sense and transubstantiation.
 

jwright82

Puritan Board Graduate
... When there have been determinations against the common uncorrupted senses of mankind, as that what their sight, and touch, and taste assures them is Bread, is said to be the flesh of an human body.

For if you cannot be sure of what both your own, and the sound senses of any other man would tell you, you can be sure of nothing at all: You cannot be sure you see one another, or hear me speaking to you; nor be sure when you heard the transforming words, This is my Body; or much less that they were ever spoken, if you heard them not; or that that was Bread and not a Stone, or a piece of Clay that is pretended to be transubstantiated by them. ...

For more, see John Howe on common sense and transubstantiation.
Well I like all of your quotes you post but I don't think his reasoning is sound here.
 

Reformed Covenanter

Cancelled Commissioner
Well I like all of your quotes you post but I don't think his reasoning is sound here.

Obviously, you are not required to agree with them all - even I do not necessarily endorse every sentiment. Nevertheless, John Howe is only agreeing with the Westminster Confession's statement that we are to reject transubstantiation as being not only contrary to scripture, but also to common sense and reason.
 

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Amanuensis
A better line of attack--not necessarily disagreeing with Howe--is the problem of having accidents without a substance. The Romanist can respond to the charge of common sense by pointing out that a substance doesn't have to be physical. That's true. The real problem is whether you can have accidents without a substance.

Or to rephrase the Real Presence debate: do we believe that the bread and wine are really present?
 

Reformed Covenanter

Cancelled Commissioner
A better line of attack--not necessarily disagreeing with Howe--is the problem of having accidents without a substance. The Romanist can respond to the charge of common sense by pointing out that a substance doesn't have to be physical. That's true. The real problem is whether you can have accidents without a substance.

Or to rephrase the Real Presence debate: do we believe that the bread and wine are really present?

The argument probably won't work with Romanists. It is, nevertheless, useful for putting people off Romanism who might be tempted to go down that route.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top