Imprimatur Liber cui Titulus The Absolute Impossibility of Transubstantiation Demonstrated Maij 3. 1688. Guil. Needham RR. in Christo P. ac D. D. Wilhelmo Archiep Cant. a Sacr. Dom. THE Absolute Impossibility OF Transubstantiation DEMONSTRATED The Second Edition LONDON Printed for William Rogers at the Sun over against St. Dunstan's Church in Fleetstreet M DC LXXXVIII THE PREFACE UPON a careful Review of this ensuing Discourse I find no cause to make any abatement from the Title of it which promises to the Reader no less than strict Demonstration If any of the following Arguments should happen to fall short of these pretensions to the highest and clearest sort of Proof that can be it is wholly My fault and I will mend it upon the first Notice of it For I am sure that the Subject-matter is capable of the most rigorous Demonstration that ever was and it has always been held That the Essential Properties and Affections of a Body such as Quantity Figure and its relation to Place c. are the Proper Subject of Demonstration And let me here add That such a Doctrine as Transubstantiation neither is nor can be a Matter of Revelation For Scripture was given us Either I st to Reveal things which were unknown to us by Natural Light Such as the manner of the Creation of the World and the greater and more amazing Secret of the Redemption of it wherein all Heaven was engaged the Father sent the Son and the Son afterwards sent the Holy Ghost upon which occasion we have a clear and manifest declaration of that Doctrine which is commonly called the Trinity of Persons in the Godhead which was not so express before under the Old Testament To these may be added the assurance which is given us of a Resurrection and of a future Iudgment and of the different portion of good and bad men of the one in Happiness with all the blessed Company of Heaven and of the other in Eternal Torments prepared for the Devil and his Angels Now these are things which are Vndiscoverable by Natural Light but being Revealed are very agreeable to it and in nowise contradict it Or 2dly To furnish us with an History of Providence and of God's government of the World Wherein most of the Divine Attributes are visibly displayed His Holiness and Justice are to be seen in his Judgments his Mercy in Deliverances his Power in Miracles his Knowledg Faithfulness and Truth in Prophesies and the like Now this part of Scripture does only clear up and exemplify our Natural Knowledge of God and our Reason is so far from being distressed that it is very much strengthened and confirmed by it As to compare great things with small the Grammar Rule is proved and confirmed by the Example Or 3dly It was given us to improve our Natural Notices and inforce our Natural Obligations to those Duties which we owe to God our Neighbour and our selves And here our Reason triumphs and is made perfect Or 4thly To establish certain Religious Ordinances and Institutions such as are the Sacraments Religious Assemblies Preaching and the like which our very Reason does subscribe and approve as wise and holy Appointments and as highly Instrumental to a good Life Now these are matters worthy of God and such as all the Wisdom in the World would expect should be the Contents of a Divine Revelation If God should vouchsafe to make new Discoveries to the World a man would look for somewhat of this nature which should improve us and supply the defects of Human Vnderstanding and tend to the perfecting of our Nature But no man would expect that God should send after us from Heaven to unteach us all that ever he had taught us in the day of our Creation and to bless us with such Discoveries as these That the same Body is in the same Place and is not in the same Place at the same time That the Duration of 24 Hours is the Duration of 1688 Tears That a Miles Distance and the Distance of 10000 Miles is Equal That the same thing may Exist and not Exist at once That the self-same single thing may have two contrary Natures at the same time and not be what it is together with the rest of the Mysteries of Transubstantiation We are sure that a Divine Revelation cannot contradict the Common Sense and Reason of Mankind for that would be to pronouce them False Witnesses of God when by these alone we know that there is a God and are led to the discovery of his Eternal Power and Godhead which must be known before we can think of Revelation For it is in vain to talk of the Word of God till we know that there is a God whose Word this Revelation is In short If any supposed Revelation should contradict the plain Principles of Reason it would be the same thing or rather worse than if that Revelation should contradict it self For if a Revelation should contradict it self we could not indeed receive it upon those terms because we should be bound to believe it and disbelieve it at once and therefore we could not believe it at all But if this Revelation should contradict the plain Principles of Reason then it would overthrow that Vnderstanding which we are sure we received from the hands of God And therefore if we should renounce our Reason to believe such a Revelation we must in that case part with a Certainty for an Uncertainty For we cannot know unless we will receive it blindfold and then we know nothing That ever any Revelation came from God till our Reason has made it out to us that it did And therefore to abandon our Reason for the sake of any Revelation is to make our selves surer of the thing proved than of the Proof it self which is very absurd for that which makes us certain of another thing must needs be first and best known to us I should not have put such a Case as this for it is an impossible Case but that the Papists themselves have put it and have decided it the wrong way and have made Axiomes and self-evident Principles out of the false determination of it So Cartes concludes his First Book of Principles That we must fix this in our minds as the chief and principal Rule That those things which are revealed to us by God are to be believed as the most certain of all others And although perchance the most clear and evident Light of Reason that can be should seem to suggest to us the contrary yet we must believe Divine Authority alone rather than our own Judgment Now this I say is an impossible Case for we have not a more clear and evident proof than the most clear and most evident Light of Reason that can be Either that God has revealed any one Doctrine in particular Or made any Revelation at all Or that there is a God. And therefore if any revealed Doctrine in particular can be supposed to contradict the
most clear and most evident Light of Reason that can be so that it ought to be set aside and disbelieved as False Then that Doctrine does therein overthrow both its own Credit and the belief of a Revelation in general and even of a Deity And consequently it is as I said an Impossible Case and a perfect Inconsistency for at once it supposes the belief of a Divine Revelation and yet destroys the belief of any such thing The Gentlemen of the Port Royal in their Logick or Art of Thinking have advanced this Rule of Cartes to the state and degree of an Axiome or undoubted Principle For in Part 4. Chap. 7. they make this together with two other Axiomes which usher it in to be the Foundation of Faith. I shall consider them all three AXIOME VIII A Man ought not to deny that which is clear and evident for not being able to comprehend that which is obscure This is but a lame Axiome for tho it be Truth yet it is not the whole Truth in this matter For a Man ought not to deny that which is clear and evident upon any acceunt what soever He ought not to go against known Truth for that is the English of what is clear and evident for the sake of any thing either known or unknown AXIOME IX It is of the nature of a Finite mind not to be able to comprehend that which is Infinite This is an undoubted Truth and no man can gainsay it only it has the misfortune to be found here in bad company and to be applied to false purposes as we shall see by and by AXIOME X. The Testimony of a Person infinitely powerful infinitely wise infinitely good and infinitely true ought to have more force to persuade our Minds than the most convincing Reasons But I ask again Have we any more than the most convincing Reasons to persuade us that there is any such Person thus qualified Or that this Infinitely Credible and Adorable Being has given any Testimony at all If not Then I say that this Axiome is an Inconsistency it supplants it self and undermines the very ground on which it stands That must needs be a very tottering and ruinous foundation of faith which is established upon a contrariety and opposition to the Most Convincing Reasons But an absurd Religion may be glad of such Axiomes as it can get and must be content to be served with an absurd Logic. The Messieurs promise us here to say somewhat more of Faith afterwards which accordingly they do Chap. II. and therefore thither we will follow them and see how they apply these Axiomes to establish Transubstantiation Where first they inculcate their former Axiome in these words Il est certain c. It is certain that Divine Faith ought to have more power over our Minds than our own Reason And this is certain even by Reason it self which shews us that we ought always to prefer that which is more certain before that which is less certain and that it is more certain that what God says is true than what our Reason persuades us because God is more uncapable of Deceiving us than our Reason of being Deceived Now if what Reason persuades us be not certain when for instance it persuades us that there is a God then there is no possible certainty of a Revelation which shall stand in competition with Reason and be preferred before it And therefore this is the old Enchantment over again which perfectly turns the Reason of Mankind into a Stone so that it cannot move one step either forward or backward For if the most clear and evident light of Reason that can be as Cartes's word is if the most convincing Reasons as the Port-Royal word is may be false Then it is impossible for us us to know any thing Nay it is impossible for us so much as to know that we know nothing But in the very next words they relent and tell us quite another story Neanmoins a considerer c. Nevertheless to consider things exactly that which we evidently perceive both by Reason or by the faithful report of our Senses is never contrary to that which Divine Faith teaches us But that which makes us believe so is that we take no heed where it is that the evidence of our Reason and of our Senses ought to stop and to go no further Methinks men should consider things exactly before they lay down Axiomes and first Principles and not after For now it seems that Revelation is never contrary to the evidence of Reason or the faithful report of our Senses for if they are never contrary to that then that is never contrary to them and therefore the opposition which was supposed to be betwixt them and the renouncing of Reason and cleaving to Faith which followed thereupon proves to be wholly a mistake So that they have plainly given up their 10th Axiome for Nonsense and now they are upon a new question which is concerning the just bounds and full extent of sense and reason and to shew how short sighted they both are in discerning a bit of Bread. Their next words are these Par exemple c. For Example Our Senses shew us clearly in the Sacrament some roundness and whiteness but our senses do not teach us whether it be the substance of Bread which causes our eyes to perceive this Roundness and Whiteness And thus Faith is not contrary to the evidence of our Senses when it tells us that this is not the substance of Bread which is abolished having been changed into the Body of Jesus Christ by the Mystery of Transubstantiation and that we see nothing more than the species and appearances of Bread which still remain although the substance be abolished and be no more When the Papists are disposed to make themselves merry with the follies of us poor Hereticks there is no such happy subject of their Drollery as this That we pretend to see Substances and have such exquisite Senses as will penetrate farther and deeper than all other mens Now on the other hand we can tell them very seriously that we never saw Roundness or Whiteness in our lives nor can any of our Senses shew us any such rarities We cannot deny but that we have seen Round and White Substances or Bodies or pieces of Matter call them what you will but as for Roundness and Whiteness we believe them to be objects so dazling that they would certainly blind us The roundness and whiteness and sweetness which they see and tast in the Sacrament without a Subject are the round and white and sweet nothings which we never yet saw nor tasted tho we sometimes promise them to our Children for Fairings But Substances we continually see and cannot look beside them For every thing which is seen heard smelt tasted or felt is a Substance and which is more it is a gross material Substance or else it could not affect and make an impression upon such gross material
the substance of the bread you must acknowledg That my Body is in the Sacrament plainly after the same manner as the substance of the bread was before the Consecration But to say whether the substance of the bread was under a greater bulk or under a less was nothing at all to the thing Now this Exposition of these words This is my Body is an Authentick and Infallible Exposition for it is the very Interpretation of them which the Romish Church delivers to all her Parish Priests in the Trent-Catechism which was written on purpose for their instruction so that I have taken it from the Fountain head and have it at the first hand This they say is the meaning of those words of our Saviour This is my Body and therefore they make our Saviour to say all this which is such a sense of his words as any considerate Christian would sooner die than put it upon them Is this the Literal Sense and proper Meaning of na Organized Human Body That it has no Magnitude and is neither Little nor Big That it is a Solid Massy Bulk consisting of Flesh and Blood Bones and Sinews and yet can be perceived by no Sense can neither be seen felt nor understood but only Believed That it has a Head Trunk and Four large Limbs which may all be contained in the compass of a Pins-head which according to the Letter will not hold the Fourth part of a Little finger Nail Methinks these are all strange Figures and the most harsh Abuses of Speech imaginable At this rate the Literal Sense of East is West and the Literal Sense of Noon-day is Midnight The Private Spirit never made such Expositions as these neither would any man alive receive them if he were not first Practis'd upon and his Belief widened for that Purpose We have an Instance of these Preparatory Arts in the 42d Section where the Pastors are charged if they cannot otherwise avoid discoursing of these Matters To remember in the first place that they fore-arm the minds of the Faithful with that saying Luke 1. 37. For with God nothing shall be Impossible This is neither better nor worse than one of their Pious Frauds for I am sure they know that this Scripture is very deceitfully applied to the Case of Transubstantiation The Virgin Mary scrupled the Possibility of her being a Mother when she knew not a Man and asked How this thing could be Upon this the Angel told her That the most High would employ his Power in it and bring it to pass in an extraordinary way to whom nothing was Impossible And the Omnipotence of God was a just ground of her Belief upon this occasion who very well knew That as God had made the First Adam so if he pleased he could make the Second without the Concurrence of either Man or Woman and as he had formed Eve of her Husband's Rib so he could make the Messiah of the Substance of his Mother So that tho this was beside the common Course of Nature yet God was not tyed to that for what he had done he might do again But what Argument is this to induce the belief of Transubstantiation which involves manifold Contradictions which the Papists themselves acknowledg do not fall under the Divine Power They themselves know full well that the Scripture says It is Impossible for God to Lye to whom nothing is Impossible and he who can do all things cannot deny himself because these are Contradictions to his own Being And for the like reason they know that he cannot make a Contradiction in any kind because a Contradiction destroys it self it has within it self an utter Repugnance to Being To make a Thing to be and not to be at the same time is such an Inconsistency that one part of it overthrows the other and therefore it is no Act of Possibility but is an utter Impossibility which is the Contradiction of all Power even of that which is Infinite Methinks St. Austin very well lays open the Reason why an Almighty Power cannot make a Contradiction Contra Faustum l. 26. c. 5. Quisquis dicit si Omnipotens est Deus faciat ut quae facta sunt facta non fuerint non videt hoc se dicere si Omnipotens est faciat ut ea quae ver a sunt eo ipso quo vera sunt falsa sint Whosoever says If God be Almighty let him make those things which have been Done never to have been done does not see that he says this in other words If he be Almighty let him make the things which are True to be False even wherein they are True. So that the Angel does not tell us in this Text That the Doctrine of Transubstantiation shall not be Impossible with God he does not tell us that God can make a Heap of Contradictions No for if all the Angels of Heaven according to St. Austin's Expression should say That a Thing may be False even wherein it is True so may what they say be and consequently there is no believing of them nor indeed of any Being in the World upon those Terms We are able therefore to bring their Expositions of Scripture upon this occasion to this Infallible Test. If they contain in them things Contradictious and Impossible then they are not the True Sense and Meaning of that Revelation which came from God for if he cannot Do an Impossibility neither can he Say it And just such as their Divinity Expositions are so deceitful are their Philosophical Illustrations As particularly when they shew how the whole Body of Christ may be in the least Particle or Crumbling of the Bread by the Two Instances of Air and Water Their words are these The Substance of Bread is turned into the Substance of Christ not into his Magnitude or Quantity Now no body doubts but a Substance may be contained in a little room as well as in a great For both the Substance of Air and its whole Nature must be alike in a small portion of Air as in a greater as also the whole Nature of Water no less in a small Pitcherful than in a River In these words there are no less than two Egregious Fallacies For 1. Their Instances are of Homogeneous or Similar Bodies that is such Bodies whose Parts are all Alike and which have the same Name and Nature so every Part of Air is Air and every drop of Water is Water and has the whole Nature of Water in it as well as that Aggregate Body of it which is in the Ocean But these Instances are very deceitfully applied to an Heterogeneous Dissimilar Organized Body as a Human Body is which consists of Parts altogether Unlike and of Different Names and Natures For Bone is not Flesh nor either of them Blood nor any of them Brain The Thumb-nail has not the whole Nature of the Eye nor the Skull of the Cawl The Hand is not the Heart nor the Head the Foot. And as these Parts