Bread but Christs Body cloathed with the accidents of Bread then it may likewise be said that they that appear to be men and have all the effects properties and accidents of men are not men but horses cloathed with the accidents of men 5. The fourth Argument is this In every substantial conversion there must be a subject to pass from one substance to another for then it would be a Creation which is the sole action that doth not presuppose a subject But in the Sacrament of the Eucharist after the consecration there is no subject because according to our Adversaries there remains no subject for as they assert the accidents of Bread and Wine remain without any subject at all Therefore in the Sacrament of the Eucharist there is no substantial conversion 6. The fifth Argument is drawn from hence That Transubstantiation destroys the nature of accidents thus That doctrine which asserts that accidents are not accidents but substances destroys the nature and essence of accidents because it is impossible that an accident can be a substance But the doctrine of Transubstantiation asserts that accidents are not accidents but that they are substances which I prove thus That doctrine which asserts that accidents are not inherent but that they subsist of themselves doth assert that accidents are not accidents but that they are substances because inherence is the essential difference of an accident and subsistence the essential difference of a substance But the doctrine of Transubstantiation asserts that accidents are not inherent but that they subsist which I prove thus That doctrine which asserts that accidents may be without a subject viz. the accidents of Bread and Wine without any substance and without any subject to sustain them for by Transubstantiation the substance of the Bread and Wine is gone and their accidents remain Therefore the doctrine of Transubstantiation asserts that accidents are not inherent but do subsist by themselves and consequently asserts that accidents are not accidents but substances and so destroys the nature and essence of accidents But here it may be said that actual inherence doth not constitute an accident but aptitudinal only Against which I form this Argument Whatsoever doth exist actually either it exists in something else actually so that it cannot be without it which Philosophers call actual inherence as walking or else it exists in and by it self actually so that it may be alone by it self which Philosophers term actual existence the former of these constitutes an accident and the latter constitutes a substance But the accidents of the Bread and Wine after consecration do exist actually Therefore they must exist either in something else actually or in themselves actually But they do not exist in and by themselves actually for then they would subsist by themselves and be real substances which is impossible Therefore they exist in something else actually viz. in the substance of the Bread and Wine and consequently the substance of the Bread and Wine remains after the Consecration and so there can be no Transubstantiation 7. The sixth Argument is drawn from this That Transubstantiation destroys the nature of Sacraments because every Sacrament is a visible sign of an invisible grace as the Council of Trent saith in Sess 6. and every sign relates to the thing signified so that we must speak of signs and Sacraments as of things relating to something else But all relative things have as it were a double being viz. an absolute being which is the natural being of the thing and a relative being whereby it relates to something else For example In a man that hath begotten a child we consider his absolute and natural being as he is a man as others are and his relative being whereby he is a Father and is distinguished from other men that have no children and so are not Fathers So in the Sacrament of Baptism the sign viz. the Water hath an absolute and natural being viz. it s cold and moist substance whereby it is water as other waters are and a relative sacramental and significative being whereby it is the sign and Sacrament of Christs Bloud and differs from other waters that are not imployed for this sacred use Even so in the Sacrament of the Eucharist the Bread and Wine which are the signs have their natural and absolute being viz. their substance whereby they are Bread and Wine as other Bread and Wine which we commonly use and their relative sacramental and significative being whereby they are the Sacrament and signs of the Body and Bloud of Christ and differ from all other Bread and Wine that is not thus imployed To this I add That it is impossible a relative being should be without an absolute because a relative cannot be without its foundation For example It is impossible to be a Father without being a Man to be equal without quantity c. And this being granted I form my Argument thus That which takes away the natural being from signs and Sacraments destroys their nature and essence because the relative and sacramental being cannot be without the absolute and natural as hath been proved But the doctrine of Transubstantiation destroys the natural being of the Bread and Wine which are signs and Sacraments of Christs Body and Bloud for by transubstantiation the whole substance of the Bread and Wine is destroyed Therefore the doctrine of Transubstantiation destroys the nature and essence of Sacraments 8. To this Argument our Adversaries answer That in the Eucharist the Bread and Wine are not signs because by the consecration they are destroyed as to their substance But some of them say that the signs are the accidents of the Bread and Wine others say that the Body and Bloud of Christ contained under the accidents of the Bread and Wine are the signs of the Body and Bloud of Jesus Christ crucified Lastly others say that neither the accidents of the Bread and Wine only nor the Body and Bloud of Christ only but the Body and Bloud of Christ together with the accidents of the Bread and Wine are the signs of the Body and Bloud of Jesus Christ crucified Therefore seeing the doctrine of Transubstantiation doth not destroy the natural being of Christs Body and Bloud nor the natural being of the accidents of the Bread and Wine they maintain that the doctrine of Transubstantiation doth not destroy the nature and essence of Sacraments 9. To this I reply That neither the accidents of the Bread and Wine only nor the Body and Bloud of Christ only nor the Body and Bloud of Christ together with the accidents of the Bread and Wine are the true signs of Jesus Christ crucified but the Bread and Wine only which I prove thus First In Sacraments there ought to be an analogy and similitude between the sign and the thing signified as our Adversaries confess and particularly Card. Bellarmin Book 1. of the Sacrament chap. 9. in these words The fourth thing required in a Sacrament is that the
17. for that by read that if by p. 124. l. 18. for Apostle read Apostles p. 130. l. 2â— read Priest p. 133. l. 13. dele them THE FUNERAL OF THE MASS CHAP. I. Concerning the Exposition of these words This is my Body THE Romanists are wont to tell us that these words of Jesus Christ This is my Body are so clear to prove the Real Presence of Christs Body in the Host and consequently to prove Transubstantiation or the substantial conversion of the Bread into Christs Body that they are amazed we cannot perceive so manifest a truth Against which I form this Argument He that speaks contrary to the usage of all the World and takes words otherwise then all other men do must without doubt speak very obscure But if Jesus Christ by these words This is my Body had meant the real presence of his Body in the Host as the Romish Doctors assert and consequently had meant the substantial conversion of the Bread into his Body he had spoken contrary to the common usage of all the World and had taken the words otherwise then all other men do which I thus prove There was never any Author either sacred or prophane that made use of such words as these This is my Body to signifie the substantial conversion of one thing into another or to signifie the real presence of a thing immediately after the pronouncing of them and not before On the contrary there was never any man that did not use them to signifie that the thing was already that which it was said to be For example When God the Father speaking of Jesus Christ said This is my beloved Son it is certain that Jesus Christ was the Son of God before God said it and in common usage it is never said this is that except the thing be so before it is said to be so For example We do not say this is a Table before that which we mean by the word this be a Table Therefore it is contrary to the common stile of all Authors as well sacred as prophane and contrary to the common usage of all men to make these words of Jesus Christ This is my Body to signifie the substantial conversion of the Bread into Christs Body and the real presence of his Body in the Host immediately after the pronouncing of them by the Priest and not before Seeing then that Jesus Christ when he said This is my Body did not speak contrary to the common usage of all the World and did not take the words otherwise then all other men do it necessarily follows that these words of Jesus Christ This is my Body do not signifie the substantial conversion of the Bread into Christs Body nor the real presence of Christs Body in the Host immediately after the Priest hath pronounced them and not before And this being so the Romish Doctors must seek some other passages of Scripture than this This is my Body to prove such a conversion and such a presence and seeing they can find none I conclude that such a conversion and such a presence have no foundation in holy Scripture 2 That which I have said concerning common usage is founded on this reason viz. because things must be before there can be any Image Picture or Representation of them and consequently Images are after the things whereof they are Images But words are the Images of conceptions and conceptions the Images of things Therefore things are such before we can really conceive them to be such and we conceive them to be such before we can say they are such Therefore that which Jesus Christ held and gave to his Disciples expressed by the word this was his body before he conceived that it was his body and he conceived that it was his body before he said This is my Body and consequently it is not by vertue of these words This is my Body that that which Jesus Christ gave to his Disciples expressed by the word this was his Body but rather it is by blessing the bread or thanksgiving that the bread was made the Body of Christ because it was made the Sacrament of it Whence it follows that these words this is my body must be expounded thus this bread is my body and these words this bread is my body must be expounded thus this bread is the Sacrament of my body which I prove thus 3. A Proposition must be expounded according to the nature of the thing in question for example If a man pointing at the Kings Person should say this is the King the Proposition must be expounded thus this is the Kings Person because the Kings Person is meant But if a man coming into a Painters Shop and pointing at the Kings Picture should say this is the King the Proposition must be expounded thus this is the Kings Picture because here his Picture is meant Even so if Jesus Christ laying his hand on his Breast had said this is my Body we must without doubt have understood the Proposition concerning his real Body and not concerning the Sign or Sacrament of it because his very Body had been then meant and not the sign or Sacrament of it But Jesus Christ being about to institute the Eucharist and to that end having taken bread blessed it and given it to his Disciples with these words Take eat this is my Body it is evident that they must be understood of the Sacrament of his Body and the Proposition must be expounded thus this is the Sacrament of my Body because here the Sacrament of his Body is meant And seeing a Sacrament is a visible sign of an invisible grace as the Council of Trent saith in its sixth Session it is evident that this Proposition This is my Body being expounded by this this is the Sacrament of my Body may be expounded thus this is the sign of my Body which I confirm thus 4 In these two Propositions This is my body This cup is the New Testament in my bloud the word is must be taken in the same sense because they are alike having been pronounced upon the same matter viz. the one upon one part of the Sacrament and the other upon the other part of it and because of like things we must give a like judgment But in this Proposition this cup is the New Testament the word is is not taken for a real and transubstantiated being but for a sacramental and significative being because neither the cup nor that which is in the cup is changed into a Testament neither is it really and properly a Testament but the Sacrament of the New Testament Therefore in this Proposition likewise this is my body the word is is not taken for a real and transubstantiated being but for a sacramental and significative being and consequently as this Proposition this cup is the New Testament must be expounded thus the Wine that is in the cup is the sign and Sacrament of the New Testament So this Proposition this is
nothing in the host it will love in heaven and love nothing in the host it will see in heaven and see nothing in the host But if Christs Manhood can act in the host as it doth in heaven then it will follow that it will open its eyes and move its feet in a point because according to our Adversaries it is whole and entire in every point of the host And being as they tell us God can as easily put the whole World into a point as he doth the whole Manhood of Christ into a point of the host it will follow that all the parts of the World existing in a point may do in it all those actions which they now do in a vast space as the parts of Christs Manhood existing in a point of the host can do in it all those actions which they do in heaven and so in a less space then is occupied by a grain of Corn the Sun may move from East to West the Sea may have its flouds and ebbs and the English may have a Sea-fight with the Spaniards In a word A Sparrow may easily swallow all the World seeing the World will not occupy so much space as a grain of Corn doth and yet the World which it shall swallow will be as great as it is at present even as Christs body in the host is as big and as tall as it was on the Cross as our Adversaries affirm 17. The ninth Argument is this As a body cannot be in a place except it be produced there or that it comes or be brought thither from some other place so a body cannot cease to be in a place without being destroyed or going to some other place and consequently if Christs body ceaseth to be in the host after the consumption of the accidents it must necessarily either perish or go to some other place But Christs body cannot perish for Jesus Christ dieth no more Rom. 6. And Christs body goes to no other place for if it should go to any other place it would go to heaven But it cannot go to heaven because it is there already and a man cannot go to a place where he is already Therefore Christs body doth not cease to be in the host Whence it follows that either Christs body still remains in the host and that it is impossible that should be consumed or else that it never was in the host But every one knows by experience that the hosts are eaten and consumed and that Christs body cannot be there after the consumption of the accidents of the bread Therefore it never was in the host 18. The tenth Argument is drawn from hence That the pretended presence of Christs body in the host destroys the nature of Christs body thus The properties of a Species are incommunicable to every other Species For example The properties of a man are incommunicable to a beast for seeing the properties flow from the essence or are the very essence it self it is evident that if the essence of a Species be incommunicable to another Species then the properties of a Species are also incommunicable to another But the body and the Spirit are the two Species of substance Therefore the properties of the Spirit cannot be communicated to the body as the properties of the body cannot be communicated to the spirit But there are two principal properties which distinguish bodies from spirits The first is That spirits are substances that are penetrable amongst themselves that is may be together in one and the same place but bodies are impenetrable substances amongst themselves that is they cannot be together in one and the same place The second is That bodies are in a place circumscriptively that is all the body is in all the place but all the body is not in every part of the place but the parts of the body are in the parts of the place but spirits are in a place definitively that is all the spirit is in all the place and all the spirit is in every part of the place because a spirit having no parts must necessarily be all wheresoever it is Whence I form my Argument thus That doctrine which gives to a body the properties of a spirit changes the body into a spirit and consequently destroys the nature of a body seeing properties cannot be communicated without the essence But the doctrine of the pretended presence of Christs body in the host gives to a body the properties of a spirit because it affirms that the quantity of Christs body penetrates the quantity of the Bread and is in the same place with it that all the parts of Christs body are penetrated amongst themselves and are all in one and the same place and that Christs body is all in all the host and all in every part of the host Therefore the doctrine of the Romish Church touching the pretended presence of Christs body in the host destroys the nature of Christs body 19. The eleventh Argument is drawn from hence That Jesus Christ being sate at Gods right hand is in a glorious estate and yet the doctrine of the pretended presence of Christs body in the host subjects him to divers ignominies viz. that his body goes into peoples bellies and amongst their excrement that it is subject to be eaten by his enemies yea by Mice and other Beasts Hear what Claude de Xaintes a famous Romish Doctor saith of it Repet 5. Chap. 2. Of all these we exclude not one from the true and corporal receiving of the Lords flâ—sh in the Sacrament let him be Turk Atheist Infidel or Hypocrite yea though he should be the Devil himself incarnate It is also subject to be stoln for about 25 years since a Thief was executed at Paris for stealing out of a Church the Chalice and this God in it and the Priest went to the Prison in his sacerdotal Ornaments and falling on his knees before the Thiefs pocket pulled his God out of it And as it is a God that cannot keep himself from being stoln so neither can he keep himself from being burnt as it appeared when the Palace-Hal at Paris was burnt In short The host or God of the Mass hath been seen in the hands of one possessed by the Devil and consequently in the Devils power yea there are charms made by the Romish Priests to compel the Devil to restore God to them A horrible and prodigious thing to put God into the Devils power and into a capacity of being eaten by the Devil incarnate especially seeing he is now glorious in heaven 20 The twelfth Argument is drawn from hence That God doth no miracles without necessity But what necessity is there that he should do so many miracles in this Sacrament viz. that accidents should be without a subject that the Bread should be converted into Christs body which is already that Christs body should be in a point and in a hundred thousand places at once What necessity is there that it should be eaten