Axiomes which were purposely erected as Strongholds to cover and shelter the absurd Doctrines of the Church of Rome and especially that of Transubstantiation by feigning that Revelation and Reason are at variance and that in that Case Reason is to be abandoned It may justly be admired that Cartes a Man of clear Sense should begin such Rules but it is to be remembred That he was to make some amends for the bold Truths he had elsewhere delivered and likewise That he was able to complement the Church of Rome as well as he did particular Persons without being a Slave to his Complement for when he was pressed with what he had said upon such Occasions and with his own very words he used to tell them Urbanitas Styli Gallici te fefellit you did not understand a French Complement I doubt not but the Learned Men of the Port Royal did very well understand it but it is their Craft to make silver Shrines for Diana and all the Commendation we can give them is to say that they are very able Workmen and Masters of their Trade such a one as it is To conclude Reason is that whereby we chuse our Religion and judg whether it be a Revelation which came from God and whereby we distinguish betwixt the Bible and the Alchoran And as Cartes says Presp ad 2. Obj. Art. 5. If a Turk or a Heathen being induced by some False Reasonings should embrace Christianity and did not know that it came from God he would not thereupon be a Christian but rather he would be guilty of a Sin in not using his Reason aright Reason is that whereby we interpret a Revelation or else a man can give no reason why he interprets it in that manner rather than in another And as St. Paul speaks in another Case Do ye not know that the Saints shall judg the World c. Do ye not know that Reason must judg of the Sum of Religion And if the whole must be judged by it Is it unworthy to judg in the smallest Matters such as a Phrase or a Figure Shall it not judge in so plain and so easie a Case as this That Christ's Body on which the Woman poured her Alabaster Box of Ointment Matth. 26.12 was his living Natural Body And the Body which Joseph of Arimathea begged and buried Matth. 27.58 was his dead Natural Body And the Body of Christ which is to be Edified Eph. 4.12 is the Church or Society of all Christian People And the Body of Christ which is to be eaten Matth. 26.26 is the Sign or Sacrament or Memorial of his Body If Reason may not judg in this Case by considering and examining these several Places but is to be set aside or renounced and the Letter of Scripture to determine it Then I am sure that if the Communicant by vertue of those words This is my Body eats the Natural Body of Christ either dead or alive At the same time he also eats up all Christian People by vertue of St. Paul's words who in like manner expresly calls Them the Body of Christ In a word whatsoever is believed or done in Religion must be by Reason or else it is an Irrational Belief and Practice For Reason is the Principle of a Man and whatsoever is not done by it is not done by the Man it is not an Humane Act but the Act of a Brute Whenever therefore I become a Scholar in the School of the Eucharist and renounce the Reason which God has given me to embrace the Romish Doctrine of Transubstantiation I am fully resolved to keep a decorum in it and I will certainly go over to that Church upon all Four. I have not thus much insisted upon Reason because we are destitute of Scripture-proof to shew that Transubstantiation is false for we have not a clearer and fuller evidence from Revelation that our Saviour came into the World than we have that his Body even since his Resurrection is such as cannot possibly be present in form of Bread. As to name no more Luke 24.39 Behold my hands and my feet that it is I my self handle me and see for a Spirit hath not flesh and bones as ye see me have These are the Scripture-marks of our Saviour's Body which he himself gave on purpose to know it by But can we possibly behold Hands and Feet in a Wafer Can we handle and see Flesh and Bones in it If we cannot Then it is not He himself otherwise these are fallacious Marks of him for roundness and whiteness and no Hands and Feet and no Flesh and Bones might have been the Marks as well But I was hereby willing to shew that as Scripture is against Transubstantiation so the primitive Light of Reason is against it too the Vnwritten as well as the Written Word of God And that as Transubstantiation tends to the destruction of all that is Man or Christian in us So on the other hand Common Sense Reason Christianity and all that is within us does rise up in opposition against so monstrous and mischievous a Doctrine THE ABSOLUTE IMPOSSIBILITY OF Transubstantiation DEMONSTRATED TRansubstantiation is not the Name of one single Absurdity but it signifies as Legion does many Thousands in one For which reason it is very hard to draw them up or put them into any good order which however I shall endeavour to do under these two Heads First Of Intellectual Absurdities And Secondly Of Practical Absurdities 1. The first Head is of Intellectual Absurdities by which I mean such Falshoods as are repugnant to the common Reason and Understanding of Mankind And I purposely wave all those Absurdities of Transubstantiation which contradict our Senses because if a man be bent upon it and will outface me out of all all my senses as I cannot believe him so I cannot disprove him If he says the Sun does not shine when at the same time I am really dazled with the light and brightness of it I can only say as I find and appeal to his own senses and desire him to do me right In case a Romanist should bear me down that the Bible in my hand is not a Book but the living Judg of Controversie Pope Innocent the Eleventh and all the Bishops of the Christian World sitting together in Council I can't help my self especially if he pretend to have chang'd the Book into such and so many living men by saying some powerfully charming words over it and further if in condescension and compliance with the frailty of human sense he likewise acknowledges that it looks like a Printed and Bound Book and is cloath'd with all the Accidents and Properties of a Book and that one part of the Enchantment lies in this that tho in all appearance it is a Book yet it is in reality Pope Innocent the Eleventh and an Assembly of living Bishops in this case I can't use my senses because he has already foreclosed the use and evidence of them But if
Sacraments and to know your Maker from a Bit of Bread. Who have the Advantage of reading God's pure Word without either Romish Comments or Rhemish Annotations which overthrow the Text. Who are allowed to see with your own Eyes That if Scripture should be so forced and wrested as the Papists have used it in this Case then we must all be Anthropomorphites and either Believe that God is of Human Shape or else give him the Lye I know not how oft For the Right Hand of God and many other Bodily parts of him are ten times oftner asserted in Scripture than This is my Body If the Papists say That the Scripture in affirming that God is a Spirit does sufficiently rectifie all such blockish Mistakes I say so too And withal that our Saviour has done abundantly more to prevent and foreclose the no less blameable mistake concerning Transubstantiation For after he had called the Cup his Blood he afterwards again called it the Fruit of the Vine and after his Resurrection it self he gave his Disciples this Test to judg and discern his Body and to know it by Luke 24.39 Behold my hands and my feet that it is I my self handle me and see for a spirit hath not flesh and bones as ye see me have From whence we are bound to conclude That where we cannot see Hands and Feet where we cannot see and feel Flesh and Bones where we cannot handle and see Christ's Body there it is not he himself Well may there be some Sign or Token or Memorial of his Body but it cannot be he himself I shall not stand to enquire whether this be the Criterion to know Human Bodies from those Bodies which Angels heretofore assumed but we are sure that these are Infallible Marks to know our Saviour's Body by and that is all our present Business But as for the Noise they have lately made about our Saviour's surprizing the Disciples and entring into the room when the Doors were shut there never was any thing more precarious than the sense which the Papists have put upon that place as if our Saviour had passed through the Doors For there were Two Things as appears by the Scripture which disturbed the Disciples First That a Person should come into the Room without knocking or giving them any warning when they had made all fast and kept themselves close for sear of the Jews And the Second was That he entred in such a manner as made them apprehend him to be a Spirit Now how did ever Angels or Spirits enter into a Room or St. Peter come out of Prison under the conduct of an Angel but by the Doors opening before them of their own accord and shutting again after them As in the case of all the Apostles where the Officers found the Prison shut with all safety Acts 5.23 And I never yet heard or read of Angel or Spirit which entred a Room through Crannies or Key-holes or through Inch-boards But let that be as it will if our Saviour had entred in any such manner it had absolutely overthrown the Criterion which he gave them at the same time to judg of his Body and to Demonstrate that he was not a Spirit For common sense would have taught the Disciples to reply It is true indeed whatever you are Man or Spirit that you have now a gross Human Body and we cannot deny it but that it seems is only when you please for you had not such a one a while ago when you were pleased to come in at the Key-hole whereas there was nothing at all of this but they knew and owned him and were glad to see the Lord. But to conclude Is not this a very pertinent proof of Transubstantiation when the Doctrine of Transubstantiation asserts a thing quite contrary to the Passing through Doors For it asserts that our Saviour's Body is Present in a Room not by being Translated or by Passing out of one Place into another but by being produced in all fresh Places and by being Within Doors and Without Doors at the same Time. In short O my Protestant Countrymen You are Happy if you know your own Happiness and are not weary of it While you have the Light Rejoice in it and walk worthy of it and then God will continue it to you and to your Posterity So be it FINIS Books lately Printed for W. Rogers THE Doctrines and Practices of the Church of Rome truly Represented in Answer to a Book intituled A Papist Misrepresented and Represented c. Quarto An Answer to a Discourse intituled Papists protesting against Protestant Popery being a Vindication of Papists not Misrepresented by Protestants And containing a particular Examination of Monsieur de Meaux late Bishop of Condom his Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of Rome in the Articles of Invocation of Saints Worship of Images occasioned by that Discourse Quarto An Answer to the Amicable Accommodation of the Differences between the Representer and the Answerer Quarto A View of the whole Controversie between the Representer and the Answerer with an Answer to the Representer's last Reply in which are laid open some of the Methods by which Protestants are Misrepresented by Papists Quarto The Doctrine of the Trinity and Transubstantiation compared as to Scripture Reason and Tradition in a new Dialogue between a Protestant and a Papist the First Part Wherein an Answer is given to the late Proofs of the Antiquity of Transubstantiation in the Books called Consensus Veterum and Nubes Testium c. Quarto The Doctrine of the Trinity and Transubstantiation compared as to Scripture Reason and Tradition in a new Dialogue between a Protestant and a Papist the Second Part Wherein the Doctrine of the Trinity is shewed to be agreeable to Scripture and Reason and Transubstantiation repugnant to both Quarto An Answer to the Eighth Chapter of the Representer's Second Part in the first Dialogue between him and his Lay-Friend Of the Authority of Councils and the Rule of Faith. By a Person of Quality With an Answer to the Eight Theses laid down for the Tryal of the English Reformation in a Book that came lately from Oxford Sermons and Discourses some of which never before Printed The Third Volume By the Reverend Dr. Tillotson Dean of Canterbury 8vo A Manual for a Christian Soldier Written by Erasmus and Translated into English Twelves A new and easie Method to learn to Sing by Book whereby one who hath a good Voice and Ear may without other help learn to Sing true by Notes Design'd chiefly for and applied to the promoting of Psalmody and furnished with Variety of Psalm-Tunes in Parts with Directions for that kind of Singing A Book of Cyphers or Letters Reverst being a Work very pleasant and useful as well for Gentlemen as all sorts of Artificers Engravers Painters Carvers Chacers Embroiderers c. Where you may find a Cypher for any Name whatsoever curiously composed after the newest Mode By Jeremiah Marlow Price Bound 5 s. A Perswasive to frequent Communion in the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper By John Tillotson Dean of Canterbury In Octavo Price 3 d A Discourse against Transubstantiation In Octavo Price 3 d. The State of the Church of Rome when the Reformation began as it appears by the Advices given to Paul III. and Julius III. by Creatures of their Own. With a Preface leading to the matter of the Book 40. A Letter to a Friend Reflecting on some Passages in a Letter to the D. of P. in Answer to the Arguing Part of his first Letter to Mr. G. The Reflecter's Defence of his Letter to a Friend against the Furious Assaults of Mr. I S. in his second Catholic Letter In four Dialogues 40. A Sermon Preached at the Funeral of the Reverend Benj. Calamy D.D. and late Minister of St. Lawrence Jury Lond. Jan. 7th 1686. By W. Sherlock D. D. Master of the Temple A Vindication of some Protestant Principles of Church-Unity and Catholick-Communion from the Charge of Agreement with the Church of Rome In Answer to a late Pamphlet Intituled An Agreement between the Church of England and the Church of Rome evinced from the Concertation of some of her Sons with their Brethren the Dissenters By William Sherlock D. D. Master of the Temple A Discourse concerning the Nature of Idolatry in which a late Author's true and only Notion of Idolatry is Considered and Confuted 40. The Protestant Resolv'd or a Discourse shewing the Vnreasonableness of his Tarning Roman Catholick for Salvation The 2d Edition A Discourse concerning the Nature of Idolatry In which the Bishop of Oxford's True and Only Notion of Idolatry is Considered and Confuted 40. A Preservative against Popery Being some Plain Directions to Unlearned Protestants how to Dispute with Romish Priests The First Part. By William Sherlock D. D. The 4th Edition
sent it home again with such Arguments ad Hominem as would close the Mouths of any body but Papists But because it now also lies just cross my way I ought likewise to say something to it 1st Therefore I say That the Supposition of One Body in Two Places at once is an utter Impossibility which I have already Demonstrated over and over again both under the 1st Head of Place and also under the 4th Head of Number 2ly One Body Equivalent to Two that is One Body which to all Intents and Purposes is Two is a Contradiction in Terms for at this rate One and One is Three and Three and One is Five and in short there is a full end of all Arithmetick 3ly It is not One Body in Two Places which will serve their turn but it must be One Body in Ten Thousand Places For it must be One Body in form of Flesh and the same Body in form of New Bread and the same Body in form of Old Bread and the same Body in form of Sweet Wine and the same Body in form of Sowre Wine and the same Body at Limestreet at Rome at Avignion and in a word in all Places where a bit of Bread a Mass Priest and a Slate are to be found together And this as I have already shewn draws after it Millions of Millions of Contradictions 4thly I say That even the Impossible Supposition of One Body in several Places does plainly deny all Difference and Dissimilitude in that Body it allows indeed a Multiplication of the same Body but it perfectly excludes any Alteration of it For if it be Altered it is not the Body which was supposed to be Multiplied For instance I will suppose the same Pint of Milk to be in several Places but then it must be a Pint of Milk in all those Places For I cannot say without Contradiction That the same Pint of Milk in another Place is neither Pint Half pint nor Spoonful but perhaps an unperceivable Drop for then it is a Pint and not a Pint. And so likewise I cannot say That it is a Pint of Milk in this Place in the form of Milk and in another Place it is a Pint of Milk in form of Aqua vitae having the Smell Taste Colour and Virtues of Aqua vitae In another Place it is a Pint of Milk in the form of a Pen-full of Ink And in another Place it is a Pint of Milk in the form of a Bandelier full of Gunpowder For in these cases it is so Altered that it is not Milk it is not the Thing we spoke of and which we supposed to be Multiplied And at the same time though it be neither Milk nor Measure yet in the way of Transubstantiation it is still a very good Pint of Milk. These Men had bettet let their Contradictions alone than offer to assoil them for the Doctrine of Transubstantiation is perfectly of the nature of Birdlime the more they stir and flutter in it the faster they are caught So that this sorry Evasion being of the same piece with Transubstantiation it self or rather an aggravation of Contradiction I shall set it aside as if it had never been and proceed to my intended Demonstration We have not in our Minds a clearer and brighter first Principle than this is That nothing can be Present and Absent from the same Subject at the same time Now the Mark of I H S is Present to Christs Body being imprinted upon it and at the same time it is Absent from the self-same Body having instead of I H S a Crucifix upon it and therefore the Mark of I H S is Present to Christs Body and Absent from the self-same Body at the same time which is Impossible Q. E. D. Again Gods Body in Form of Bread is not Gods Body in Form of Wine for if it were then the Form of Bread and the Form of Wine would be the same Wine would be Bread and Bread would be Wine that is to say Bread would be Not Bread. But according to the Papists Gods Body in Form of Bread is Gods Body in Form of Wine that is to say Bread is not Bread which is Impossible Which was to be Demonstrated 7. The last Head of Contradictions arise from this part of the Doctrine of Transubstantiation which says That when the Substances of Bread and Wine are abolished and wholly cease to Be still all the Accidents of Bread and Wine are seen to Remain without any Subject at all For the Substances of Bread and Wine are departed and gone and these Accidents cannot cleave and be united to the Body and Blood of Christ and therefore it remains That in a Supernatural way they must subsist of themselves This is their own Infallible Doctrine Trid. Catech. de Euch. Sect. 25. 44. In which few words there is plenty of Contradictions For 1st I shall Demonstrate That Accidents subsisting without a Subject are Substances that is to say are not Accidents And because the Papists themselves are sensible how Absurd and Impossible this Doctrine of theirs is therefore they fly to Miracle and Omnipotency which is no Refuge nor Sanctuary for Contradictions and Impossibilities as we have already shewn Now the very Essence of an Accident is to subsist in a Subject and the Essence of a Substance is to subsist of it self without a Subject so that if God by his Omnipotency should make an Accident to subsist of it self without a Subject he would give one and the same single Thing Two contrary Natures Whereby the same thing would be what it is and would not be what it is it would subsist in a Subject and not subsist in a Subject at the same time which is Impossible Q. E. D. I have been beholden to the great Philosopher Des Cartes a Man of their own Communion for this Demonstration and have gathered it out of his Answer to the Fourth and Sixth Objections which were made against his Meditations and out of his Notes upon the Programma of Regius as I suppose And it has been heretofore no small diversion to me to see how the Papists stood on Tiptoe when that great Restorer of Natural Knowledg appeared expecting whether his New Philosophy would favour their Old Transubstantiation But when they found that he was not a Man for Substantial Accidents and such kind of Contradictious Stuff Dr. Arnault of the Sorbonne puts it home to him in the Fourth Objections and tells him That according to his Philosophy the Doctrine of the Church concerning the Sacrament of the Altar could not remain safe and sound because it is of Faith That the Accidents in the Sacrament remain without a Subject whereas Monsieur Cartes seemed to hold for he had not as yet spoke out nor expressed himself fully in that matter That Accidents are Inseparable from a Subject and that a Body and the Assections of that Body could not subsist apart nor be made to Exist separately by an Infinite Power
Wherefore Monsieur Arnauld prays him to take great care lest that while he is proving a God and the Immortality of the Soul he should endanger that Faith by which himself hoped to be saved Here Cartes was beset and forced to declare himself and therefore was put upon his Invention which was first to contrive a way of solving the Appearances of Bread and Wine which are in the Sacrament by a New Hypothesis of the Superficies which he told them he should more fully make out in his Physics And when he had thus first entertained them with a new Hypothesis then he shews them what Impossible Absurdities Real Accidents are and how full of Repugnancy and Contradictions and that these Contradictions made men Dissenters from the Church of Rome And then he concludes That he hoped the Time would come when the Divines of that Church would hiss the Doctrine of Real Accidents out of the world as an Unreasonable Incomprehensible and Unsafe Doctrine to be Believed and that his Superficies would be embraced instead of it as Certain and Indubitable Monsieur Arnault was a Man of sense and therefore I doubt not but he let fall his Ears at this Answer And the Paris Divines sent Cartes word afterwards in their sixth Objections Scruple the 7th That they did not understand his Superficies and knew not what to make of it And that tho he put them in hope that he would make things plainer in his Physics yet they were inclined to Believe they should never part with their old Opinion concerning Accidents for his new one But tho they were of this mind yet we find a very considerable Person Epist Vol. 2. Epis 3. who had better thoughts of it and says That he had happily shewn how the Inseparableness of Accidents from a Substance might be consistent with the Sacrament of the Altar but then he desires to know of Cartes whether he had bethought himself of a way to Reconcile another part of his Philosophy with Christs Body being without Local Extension upon the Altar for otherwise he would expose to great Peril the most sacred thing in the world Upon this Cartes stops short and does not care to give any thing more concerning the Sacrament under his hand but offers to meet him if he pleases and to tell him his Conjectures by word of mouth ibid Epist. 4. And was not this a pleasant way of proceeding Which is in effect as if they had said Sir You are a great Philosopher of our own Church you know we hold the Doctrine of Transubstantiation and you your self hope to be saved by it see therefore what can be done for it pray make it as reasonable as you can It is too like the Comical Story of the Woman who after she had eaten Pig in Smithfield went to Rabbi Buisy and prays him to make the eating of Pig as lawful as he can And is it not likewise a neat turn to quiet them with his Doctrine of the Superficies Now the Superficies is much such another Rationale of Transubstantiation as the following Argument is a proof of Purgatory If there be one whose words are recorded in Scripture who when he died went neither to Heaven nor Hell then there is such a Middle place as Purgatory but there is one whose words are recorded in Scripture c. Ergo. I have seen a Papist catch at this Syllogism very greedily and as Impatient to know who that One was as if he would presently have gone a Converting with the Argument But he was as blank when he was told that it was Balaam's Ass as I fancy Dr. Arnault was when he had read and considered the long Story of the Superficies which I believe never yet drew one of those back again to the Church of Rome whom Cartes complains the Doctrine of Real Accidents drove away 2. This Proposition Nihili nullae possunt esse Affectiones That Nothing cannot possibly have any Qualities or Affections is a Necessary and Everlasting Truth and it is so clear and self-evident that all words and discourse about it would but darken the Natural Light which is in it Now a Wafer or singing Cake is an Extended Round White Substance having all the Qualities and Affections of Bread and when this Substance (a) Sect. 25. ut Omnino esse desinant wholly ceases to be it is nothing But if the Extension Roundness Whiteness and all the Bready Qualities of it still Remain then at the same time there do Remain the Extension the Roundness the Whiteness and the Bready Qualities or Affections of Nothing which is Impossible And that Nothing whose Extension Roundness Whiteness and Bready Qualities are still Remaining is an Extended Round White and Bready Nothing which are so many Contradictions and Impossibilities Q. E. D. I see that I must either break off Abruptly or never have done For I find the Dividing of the Accidents of a Wafer into 3 Parts which is one of the Operations performed in the Mass and with the self same Division the Dividing of Christ's Body into 3 Wholes and many more of their Absurdities coming thick into my head and therefore I will here Conclude in time All these Demonstrations hitherto are Arguments to all Mankind I have now an Argument or Two ad Hominem or to the Papists themselves And 1st By their own Infallible Doctrine of Concomitancy I shall Demonstrate That there has been never a God's Body as they call it upon Earth these 1600 Years Provided they will allow me First That Christ's Body has been in Heaven these 1600 Years And 2ly That Heaven and Earth are different and distant Places I reckon that Infallibility her self either has granted me both these Postulata already in these following words Tr. Cat. de Euch. Sect. 37. But it is plainly Impossible That the Body of Christ should be in the Sacrament by coming out of one Place into another for so it would come to pass that the Body of Christ would be Absent from its Seat in Heaven Now I presume if it has not been Absent from its Seat in Heaven to come and be Present in the Sacrament these 1600 Years it has not been Absent upon any other Account Or else I reckon that because the things Demanded are very Reasonable she will not now stick at the Granting of them Now the Rule of Concomitancy is this Tr. Cat. de Euch. Sect. 33. Si enim duo aliqua inter se reipsa conjungantur Ubi unum sit ibi alterum etiam esse Necesse est If any two things are Really joined together where the one is there of Necessity the other must be also That is to say it is Impossible for it to be in any other Place But no two things in the World are more Really joined together than one and the same thing is with it self and if it were not so no one thing could be Really joined to another The Union of one and the same thing with it self is the
most close and intimate that can be and consequently the Concomitancy must be the strictest Nay the very Reason Ground Bottom and Foundation of the Rule of Concomitancy is this Because from Two single Things Really joyned together there results One Compound The Union is the Cause of the Concomitancy because it is Impossible for the same thing to be Divided from it self So that if two things which are Really joined together must always of Necessity keep company together then it is utterly Impossible for one and the same thing to straggle from it self but it must ever be its own Individual Companion From these Premises I say That Christ's Body having been in Heaven these 1600 Years if in that Space of Time it has been upon Altars here on Earth then it has not been at the same time where it has been but it has broken the Rule of Concomitancy and has strangely stragled from it self which is Impossible Q. E. D. I have studied with all the Application of Mind of which I am capable to forecast in my thoughts what fault the Papists would find with any of the former Reasonings or with this last in particular and cannot foresee nor imagine any For though we should allow Christ's Body to be Independent of Place or to have any other Impossible Prerogatives which they list to Invent yet still this Body must be subject to the Rule of Concomitancy because they themselves are forced to make use of it to prove that the Body of Christ is under the Species of Wine and that the Blood of Christ is under the Species of Bread and it is the only Proof they have Now if of Necessity the Body must be by Concomitancy where the Blood is then by an antecedent Necessity the Blood must be where the Blood is for the Blood 's being there is the cause of the Bodies being there likewise So the Body being under the Form of Bread is the reason that the Blood is there also but then to be sure the Body must be there From whence as I shewed before it undeniably follows That Christ's Body is only in Heaven or else it is not where it is which overthrows the very Foundation of Concomitancy 2. The Second Argument shall be drawn from their Form of Consecration For this is my Body being the words of our Saviour from whence they have wrested the Doctrine of Transubstantiation Now to give them a Samplar of their own and to shew them how they themselves interpret Scripture I say that it appears by the very words of Consecration That the Priest himself is also Transubstantiated for the Body is Christ's and yet the Priest says it is My Body which cannot be True unless the Priest and Christ be the same And that cannot be but by an Admirable Change and Conversion which the Holy Catholick Church has conveniently and properly named Transubstantiation No say the Papists in great anger There is no such Change at all for the Priest only stands for Christ and (a) Sect. 82. Personam suscipiunt Personam gerens sustains his Person he only Represents him in that Action and is in Christ's stead so that we are not to look upon the Priest in that solemn Action as Friar John but as Christ himself And therefore the Priest may say with Truth this is My Body tho Literally and Properly and in strictness of Speech it is Christ's Body and not His. To which I again reply Why this is the very Exposition of these words of our Saviour for which the Hereticks have all along been Burnt namely This Bread stands for my Body and Represents it in this Action it is instead of my Body and bears the Character of it and you are not so much to consider it as Bread but to look upon it as the Representation of my Body which is given for you And therefore with Truth I can say it is my Body though Literally and Properly and in strictness of Speech it is Bread and not my Natural Body Now therefore let the Papists give or take Either the Bread is not Transubstantiated or if it be by virtue of the self-same words the Priest is Transubstantiated too For every word in the Prolation with one Breath except the word Enim Sect. 20. does Operate as well as Signifie and Does what it Says and therefore if the word Corpus be effectual to make it a Body then the word Meum makes it the Priests Body The Wit of Man cannot find an Evasion and I doubt not but I am able to maintain this Argument against all the Popish Priests in the world For all the Advantage lies clearly on the Protestant Side For our Saviour visibly took Bread and gave it the office of Representing him and made it the Figure of his Body as Tertullian's word is He erected it as a standing Memorial to be used in Remembrance or Commemoration of him as S Luke's word is To shew forth his Death till he come as S. Paul speaks 'T is true he commanded his Disciples to repeat the same Action and to do as he had done But where did he bid the Priest to Personate him That he gave us the Bread by the Name of his Body Three of the Four Gospels witness and by the Name of his Broken Body S. Paul witnesses But where did he ever say That He himself would always Sacrifice himself by the Priests Hands and say Hoc est Corpus meum to the end of the world by the Priests Mouth And further There is not one word which the Papists have said in behalf of the Bread being Transubstantiated but holds as strongly for the Priests being Transubstantiated which makes full as much for the Dignity and Majesty of the Sacrament for the abasing and mortifying of our Deceivable Senses and for the improving and exalting our Faith and making it Meritorious as the other can We have gained such considerable Advantages by the foregoing part of our Discourse that now we are able unalterably to renounce the Doctrine of Transubstantiation For having Demonstrated the Impossibility of it We have thereby Demonstrated that though Heaven and Earth should pass away yet that Doctrine can never be True. We have likewise at the same time Demonstrated the Protestant Exposition of those words of our Saviour This is my Body to be the true and necessary Sense of them for either there is a Change of the Bread into the Body of Christ or there is not But because such a Change is an utter Impossibility as we have abundantly proved therefore it remains That the Protestant Doctrine which asserts there is no such Change is Demonstrably True. We have also made it as clear as the Light That neither the Letter of a Divine Revelation nor the pretence of an Infinite Power nor any thing in the world can support one single Contradiction because if one single Contradiction could stand it would destroy the very Being of God himself and deprive the world of the