the defence of Image worship they were betrayed into it and were driven to take shelter and sanctuary in it to avoid the force of an Argument which they could not otherwise answer Every body knows that when Image-worship was first set up there was a great number of Christians who stoutly opposed it and gathered Councils to condemn it and these went by the name of Image-Breakers On the other side the Image worshippers were furiously bent upon it and gathered Councils to maintain it particularly that famous one of Blessed Memory the second Nicene Council In these Oppositions and Disputes one Argument which the Image-breakers made use of in Reference to the Images of our Saviour was this If our Saviour has left one Image of himself which is of Divine Institution then it is not lawful to erect other Images of him which are of humane invention But he has left one Image of himself namely in the Sacrament which is of Divine Institution Ergo. To make it good That the Sacrament was an Image of our Saviour of his own Appointment they shew that all the Ancient Fathers had called it the Image the Figure the Type the Antitype the Resemblance or Representation of our Saviour This very Argument was used by the preceding Council at Constantinople and is recited by the Nicene Council which was presently after But how does the Nicene Council answer it They could not deny the Major Proposition and therefore they were forced to break through the Minor after this fashion They say that the Sacrament is not the Image Resemblance Figure Type Antitype of our Saviour but his own Body for he himself expresly says Hoc est corpus meum It is not therefore an Image or Figure of him but it is he himself in Person And thus they rescued and disengaged themselves from a very close and distressing Argument and so their show of Image-worship went on This is the first time that the Literal Interpretation as they call it of Hoc est corpus meum is to be met with which it is plain likewise the former Council was not aware of for if they could have foreseen so full and so ready an Answer common sense would never have suffered them to make use of that Argument Now after the Literal Interpretation was thus broached to serve a present turn and they had used it as a man does the next thing that comes to hand to stop a gap it was yet a long time before Transubstantiation was imposed as a Doctrine of Faith It had done good service in solving an Argument and the Image-Breakers were all broken and destroyed themselves and therefore there was no further occasion for it But in process of time they could not but discover many other advantages in it as amongst the rest That it would deck the Priesthood with the highest honour in the world and advance them above all Thrones and Crowned Heads if it were once believed that they could make their Maker when they pleased And therefore it is no wonder that they were so very sharp upon Berengarius when he set himself to oppose it And from that time forwards they were forming this Doctrine into shape and at last four hundred and odd years after the first invention of it it was made an Article of Faith in the Great Lateran Council and Christened by the name of Transubstantiation This was done by a good Token in King John's time when the Pope made himself Landlord of the Realm of England and put it under a servile Tribute which lasted for several Kings Reigns Thus you see the Rise of Transubstantiation which came not into the world by the Papists sticking close to the Scripture but by their cleaving to the Idolatry of Image-worship whereby they are faln according to David's imprecation from one wickedness to another But what we call an Idol that they say is God's Body which they affirm to be the plain and literal sense of those words This is my Body let us therefore see at last what their Literal Exposition is Now it runs after this manner This which I now give you to eat was lately Bread but I have changed the substance of the Bread into the self-same Body with which I now deliver it to you I tell you the late Bread is I my self it is mine own Body * Catech. Trid. de Euch. Sect. 31. For in that which you now have in your hands assure your selves there is whole Christ I am there Body and Soul yea and my Divinity is there also So that there is contained under the appearance of that bit of Bread my Divine Nature and my whole Humane Nature which consists of my Soul and all the parts of my Body together with my Blood. My true real Natural Body which was born of the Virgin Mary is there together with whatsoever belongs to a true Humane Body as Bones and Sinews You will say that notwithstanding all that I have said it appears to be Bread still That is true for though the substance of the Bread be gone yet the figure colour smell taste and all the other Qualities and Conditions of the Bread remain and †Sect. 44. Ipsa se nulla alia re nisa substentant hang by Geometry * Sect. 46. Nam cum a Communi Hominum naturâ maximè abhorreat Humanae carnis esca c. And this I have most wisely ordered For these Accidents of Bread disguise my Body That it may the better go down and that you may not be filled with horror at the eating of Man's flesh which humane nature detests And then besides what would the Infidel world say if they saw you devouring your Lord and eating him up in his own shape And lastly this way of Receiving of my Body the more remote it is from your senses the better it is for the improvement of your Faith and will make it the more Meritorious But you will wonder especially now I am by in Person and you have an opportunity of comparing this one same Body together how this large Body which you see is at least five Foot and a half long and of a proportionable bulk can be contained at the same time within the compass of a small crumb of Bread without any Alteration at all for it is the self same body within the Sacrament as it is without Now you may soon be satisfied in that Point * Sect. 43 For as I am now sitting at Table I am in the condition of other bodies which are in a place which are always endued with Magnitude but the other same I which am in the Sacrament am not as in a place but I am there as a substance and under that notion I am neither big nor little for that belongs to Quantity which is in another Predicament For the substance of the Bread is turned into my substance not into my Magnitude or Quantity Now no body doubts but a substance may be contained in a
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
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