[Canones vibvs Defenditvr Dianoia In Verbis Christi, Hoc Est Corpvs Mevm: et Controversiae De Coena Domini atque similium dijudicandae certissima ratio demonstratur; Item Assertio ritus fragendi, in manúsque sumendi panis in celebratione Coenae Domini; Avctore, P. Boquino Theologo; (Heydelbergae: Michael Schirat, 1563)]
Pierre Boquin (c. 1518–1582), that eminent Doctor of sacred theology and steadfast pillar of the Reformed Churches, was born in the province of Guyenne in France, about the year of our Lord 1518. Having been trained up in the schools of learning, he attained the doctorate of theology at the renowned University of Bourges in 1539. For a time, he served as prior of the Carmelite order in Bourges, but the bright beams of evangelical truth so shined into his soul that he forsook the darkness of popery and embraced the Reformation, holding fast the pure doctrine of Christ. Persecuted for the Gospel’s sake, Boquin sojourned in Basel and Leipzig, and thence to Wittenberg, whence he was called to the faculty of the Strasbourg Academy, succeeding the learned Calvin. After a brief return to France under the favor of Queen Marguerite, he was compelled by adversity to seek refuge anew in Strasbourg, where he ministered to the French refugees. In 1557, he was chosen professor of theology at the University of Heidelberg and was greatly esteemed by Frederick III, being appointed dean and counsellor of the Church. Boquin contended earnestly for the Reformed faith against Lutheran adversaries, notably in disputations upon the Holy Supper. After the death of his patron, when the Palatinate returned to Lutheranism, he was exiled, but found a final resting place as preacher and instructor at Lausanne. There, having finished his course in faith and patience, he entered into rest in 1582, his memory blessed among the churches.
Table of Contents:
<aside>
</aside>
Those who have delivered precepts concerning the various method of questions or controversies and concerning the mode and way of discovering the state of the question, which the Greeks call στάσις, think that the highest diligence ought to be applied in this part, and they especially require singular perspicacity in it. Men as they were by nature acute and skilled by use, they easily saw that it is not for anyone immediately to perceive that concerning which inquiry is especially made, or the head of the cause, as they call it; and yet they knew this to be altogether necessary if anyone should wish to judge rightly concerning any matter and to discourse conveniently.
Since it is established that those who, without constituting the state, either differ or dispute concerning any matter, act just as those who shoot arrows with no mark proposed to themselves, or who, to speak with our Apostle, beat the air—that is, who labor in vain and weary themselves fruitlessly. And this is, I believe, what Basil calleth shadow-fighting. And such a thing is what Jerome once objected to Helvidius the heretic: namely, that to confirm and illustrate his fabrication, he forced very many examples from the Scriptures, after the manner of the Antabatae, as they say, brandishing a sword in darkness.
Whether certain persons can and ought deservedly to be noted today with similar insanity, let the judgment rest with fair readers. To speak of that concerning which discourse hath been instituted, we should without doubt long since have had an end of this controversy or contention concerning the Lord’s Supper, had it not been thought of more seriously, in my opinion, to designate and precisely circumscribe the state as the matter requireth. Yea indeed, I judge it to be not the least cause why this fire still liveth and burneth, that it hath not yet been sufficiently pressly constituted.
Wherefore I think we ought still to apply ourselves to this with oars and sails, if we desire to find and see its happy outcome, which I do not doubt all pious persons desire. Indeed, experience itself hath taught that it is by no means sufficient for those who desire seriously to contend among themselves either in running or archery or in some other manner, if they designate some mark for themselves or note boundaries generally or, to speak more openly, confusedly; but they have learned that these ought to be described precisely and distinctly; otherwise they know there will be no end to strifes and that it can by no means be defined with whom victory standeth.
Wherefore if there must be contention in a race course, we see that both the goals and the starting places are definitely and distinctly designated, and the place is enclosed and diligently fenced, lest anyone should be able rashly to transfer himself from the course and, however much he may wish and endeavor, to withdraw himself from the contest. Finally, the matter is wont to be so instituted that each of the contenders is compelled to await and sustain the attack of his antagonist coming from the opposite direction and rushing upon him. Assuredly, unless this were done, there would scarcely ever be any serious encounter.
Those to whom there is some judgment easily judge that something similar ought to be done by all who seriously desire to dispute concerning any matter. I judge that Augustine wished to signify this when he wrote to Honoratus what I have inscribed on the front of this booklet: “Setting aside,” as he saith, “the trifles of commonplaces, let matter contend with matter, cause with cause, reason with reason.”
Wherefore I have often wished that I and my antagonist might follow this method in this controversy concerning the Lord’s Supper, and I have admonished him that he might wish the same with me. And that my petition or admonition might have more weight and authority, I have fortified it with the gravest authorities of certain most grave writers. This I did the more studiously, the more troublesomely I experienced that the man often, upon no just occasion, leapeth beyond the bounds like a wanton and petulant horse.
I also permit it to be judged by his colleagues—that is, my adversaries—how deservedly I again seek and demand from him that he cease to run out wildly and contain himself within the bounds of our disputation, so that we may at length constitute our controversy and this disputation and seriously engage. For thus it will come to pass that those studious of truth may read and behold our encounter with some utility and pleasure and judge rightly concerning it.
Assuredly, if we continue to contend concerning a thesis only—an infinite question, as they speak—the disputation will be altogether infinite, unworthy of those studious of piety and of public peace and utility, and our question will be of that kind to which Paul wisheth no place to be given in Christ’s Church.
Furthermore, that I may more conveniently designate the state of our controversy, which I now endeavor to do, a few things must be repeated by me from our former writings. Heshusius had named and inscribed that first offspring of his “Concerning the Presence of Christ’s Body,” etc., and I perceived that he was directing and turning all his weapons to this end, that he might prove the presence of Christ’s body in the Supper. Therefore I showed that the man ought to be admonished that he was continually laboring in demonstrating what no one failed to see and not rarely working vehemently in confirming what was held as most firm among all.