common accidents and consequently the Argument proceeds in its full strength against all these The Third Proof Insisting upon the Principles of Transubstantiation an irreconcileable difficulty will occur when that complex of first and second qualities and other accidents is so altered and changed that it becomes an apt disposition to a new specifical Forme As for example A Communicant receives a consecrated Hoaste which is log'd in the Stomach of the Receiver and by the natural activity of the Stomach is fitly disposed to receive the Forme of Chyle then there is a strict exigence in nature that the Forme of Chyle be introduced What is to be done in this case Nature may spend it self in clamoring to have this Forme introduced but alass here is no subject nor receptacle to receive it Some expedient must here be found you will say that in this case the Author of Nature must create new Matter to receive this Forme and to relieve the Accidents from that violent state wherein they have been detained Most excellent Philosophy How absurd would this seem to any of the Antients but meanly verst in this Science Aristotle never dreamt of such anxieties and distresses of Nature And the Divinity is yet worse which makes God subject to submit to the extravagant exigences of his creatures no way grounded in his own Providence and Disposition for the great Author of Nature Created the whole Mass of first Matter independant of any thing else and since that original creation no Matter hath been destroyed none produced but the same succeeds indifferently to all the variety of Formes that are produced and destroyed But now here comes a strict exigence of a substantial Forme to be produced dependant on the Matter and yet there is no matter to receive it but the Supreme Creator must be summoned by his creatures to supply this defect by Creating new Matter as though he had been ignorant in the Beginning what quantity of Matter was sufficient who created all things by his Infinite Wisdom and Providence in pondere mensura out of his own Free-will without any exigence or determination of his creatures Must then the Order of this Systeme be inverted and God as it were necessitated to exercise his Omnipotence in a New creation not grounded in his former Instituon But here it may be Alleg'd That the drift of all these Proofes is no other then to make it appear that the whole business of Transubstantiation is Supernatural and Miraculous which the Church of Rome freely acknowledgeth and are induced to this belief by the Autority of Christ himself who holding Bread in his hand in the Last Supper plainly told his Apostles Hoc est corpus meum This is my Body If Christ affirms it Who dares gainsay it We all know that the Substance of Bread cannot by Natural Means be converted into the Body of Christ but by the illimited power of God it may be done and Christ tells us That it is done Why therefore should we not believe it First I Answer That what is possible though Miraculous and Supernatural may be believed yet not slightly and without sufficient reason but if by an urgent and indispensable necessity or an irrefragable autority which brings with it a perfect assurance of the true sense and meaning thereof we are pressed to an assent this is a sufficient Motive to induce us to believe But in the next Proofe I shall make it appear that here is no such inductive no necessity of yielding our assent to such a prodigious number of Miracles not once only but daily and hourly repeated and constantly continued and so to last till the Worlds end Secondly I Answer That in the Second Proofe of this Assertion it appeareth that from this Doctrine of Transubstantiation it unavoidably follows That all Natural Causes both can and do actually create and annihilate who promiscuously have their insluences when duly applyed upon a consecrated Hoaste as much as they have upon one that is not consecrated which plain experience maketh manifest and to have such a power to create and annihilate or to produce something out of nothing is so peculiar to God alone as wholly depending on an Omnipotent Power that it is absolutely impossible that it should be communicated to any pure creature The Fourth Proofe There is no necessity neither from Scripture nor Reason nor from any other Revelation to admit Transubstantiation The greatest necessity that hath been hitherto alledged is drawn from those words of Christ Hoc est corpus meum but from hence no necessity can be derived for they that hold Consubstantiation and assert That Christ's Body exists in the Sacrament together with the Substance of Bread these I say as rigorously stand to the literal sense of Christ's words and as properly verify them as they who hold Transubstantiation for the words of themselves imply no conversion or change of one substance into another but if taken in a literal sense they only signifie Christ's Body there present wherefore there is no necessity from these words to multiply so many Miracles yea and Impossibilities as are inferr'd from Transubstantiation because the literal sense of the words may be saved without them But in reality there is no more necessity of understanding those words of Christ in a literal sense then when he saith I am a Door I am a Vine c. For since the Scripture is capable of so many Senses and Interpretations there is no Reason nor Necessity of wresting it to that sense alone which brings with it the greatest difficulties of any especially when by congruities and other places of Scripture it may be connaturally understood in another sense and since it was usual with our Great Redeemer to speak by Allegories Parables by Tropes and Figures it is most likely he spoke so here which is sufficiently intimated by Christ himself telling his Disciples John 6. vers 63. that It is the Spirit that quickneth the Flesh profiteth nothing the words that I speak unto you are Spirit and Life and yet the words that he then spoke were concerning his Body Hence I Conclude That the words of Christ above rehersed can ground no necessary inference of Transubstantiation SECT III. Of the Possibility of Transubstantiation as held by the Church of Rome IN order to the determination of this difficulty I must first premise That according to the Rules of Logick no affirmative proposition or enunciation can be true except it have a conformity with its Object that is the Object must be in its self as the act represents it All Enunciations consist of two parts the subject and the predicate the subject is that of which it enunciates the predicate is that which it enunciates of the subject if the proposition be negative it separates the predicate from the subject but if it be affirmative it intentionally identisies the one with the other as in this Proposition Angelus est Spiritus Angelus is the subject and Spiritus is the
former then it affirms an identity between Bread and the Body of Christ which is a Chymera and all the foregoing discourse stands firm and immoveable If the latter then with assured confidence I declare that there is not the least ground or appearance of Transubstantiation to be drawn from that so often reiterated Proposition Hoc est corpus meum which I prove evidently All Conversions and Transmutations whether partial or total whether Transubstantiations or Transaccidentations essentially import two extreams the one is terminus à quo the other terminus ad quem and a Medium that passeth from one to the other as in our present case the Bread is terminus a quo the Body of Christ is terminus ad quem because the Bread is said to be Converted or Transubstantiated into the Body of Christ so that the Bread is destroyed and the Body of Christ succeeds in heu thereof the Medium is that collection of Accidents which are proper to Bread and under which the substance of Bread existed before it was destroyed and after the Body of Christ exists under the same collection of Accidents Now if the foresaid Particle Hoc do not signifie the substance of Bread then it is most manifest that in the whole proposition there is not the least mention made of Bread but only of the Body of Christ which the Predicate expresseth and the Copula or Union represents nothing but only intentionally unites or identifies the two extreams and there is nothing else in the whole proposition but the Subject which is the Particle Hoc therefore if this do not signifie Bread then there is nothing that signifieth it in the whole proposition Whence I infer That the aforesaid proposition doth no way signifie import or make the least mention of Transubstantiation no nor doth it afford the least ground to infer it from thence because it mentions no extreams really distinct no terminum à quo no terminum ad quem no Change nor Transmutation but only signifies the Body of Christ there not as terminum ad quem for this is correlative to another extreame which is terminus à quo but this it not at all signifieth How then can it administer any the least ground to assert Transubstantiation Here I appeale to the Judgment of any indifferent or impartial Reader though but meanly capacitated how a Proposition can be capable to administer such an assured belief of Transubstantiation which notwithstanding it doth not in the least signifie It ensues therefore That as the Rabbies in those times did usually speak in Parables Tropes and Figures c. So our Great Master who in most things accommodated himself to the present times did frequently express himself by Parables Emblems Tropes and Figures and particularly in this passage whereof the words as you see can in no ways bear a literal sense especially because we find so much congruity for it in other passages of Scripture where our Saviour calls it Bread John 6. v. 51. I am the living bread if any Man eate of this bread The bread that I will give you is my flesh And How can it be understood in a litteral sense that Bread should be the flesh of Christ v. 58. This is that bread which came down from Heaven c. These and diverse other sayings of our Redeemer can in no wayes be understood in the rigor of the Letter but are to be expounded according to the congruity of the Subject for the Bread was a fit Emblem of the Body of Christ and equivalently the same because it was by Christ himself elevated to be a Sacrament and as Bread feeds the Body of Man so the Sacramental effect thereof feeds the Soul by such Spiritual Graces as incline to Vertue and Piety and by fencing the Understanding and the Will against all Suggestions of Vice and Iniquity Again the Body of Christ by Offering it self in that Bloody Sacrifice upon the Cross was the Meritorious Cause of those Graces and Spiritual Food of our Souls and so it was congruously Figur'd by Bread which feeds the Body and for this reason it was fitly Instituted in this Sacrament as a Commemoration of Christ's Passion and therefore our Lord himself tells us v. 63. That it is the Spirit that quickneth the flesh profiteth nothing And again The words that I speak unto you are spirit and life and so ought to be understood in a Mystical sense and not according to the sound of the Letter for by participating of this Sacrament we become Members of the Mystical Body of Christ and are as it were made one with him so that the Bread being Instituted as a Sacrament and thereby adapted to produce all these effects it is equivalently the Body of Christ SECT IV. Objections for Transubstantiation Solved THe First Objection In this Proposition Hoc est corpus meum This is my Body the Subject which is the word Hoc hath no determinate signification for when it is pronounced it neither represents the Bread nor the Body of Christ but its true meaning is suspended till the Proposition be compleated and then whatsoever is the object of the Predicate must also be the object of the Subject so that the Predicate signifying explicitly the Body of Christ the Subject or the Particle Hoc signifies the same implicitly and so the Predicate being identify'd with the Subject the Proposition is true And in this manner all definitions are predicated of the things defined for that which the definitum signifieth implicitly and obscurely the definition declares explicitly and distinctly This is a strange kind of new Logick which will not bear the Test of the weakest Sophister nor ever get admittance into any Academy wherefore my First Answer is That in all vocal Propositions the subject hath its certain and determinate object then when it is pronounced whether it expresses the same clearly or absolutely which is not material for if the predicate could determine the subject to have the same object with it self no affirmative proposition could be false because the subject and predicate would be alwayes identified But in case of equivocation as in this proposition Canis est animal latrabile where the subject canis equally signifieth more things then one for it indifferently signifies an Animal called a Dog it signifies the Dog-Star and it signifies a Dog-Fish In this case I say the indifference of the word canis must be determined either by the present circumstances or by the predicate as if one with his finger should shew an Animal called a Dog and say hic canis then the indifference would be determin'd to that Species only and the Equivocation would be taken off So likewise by the predicate Animal latrabile the indifference of the word canis would be determin'd to one kind only but note that the predicate can never draw the subject to signifie any thing beyond the extent of its proper signification for the word canis must of necessity signifie one of
as express terms To confirm this I shall in the next Assertion make it appear that in drinking the Chalice there is a different signification and a peculiar benefit which accrues to the Receiver very distinct from all that which issues from the receiving under the Species of Bread Which much commends the great love of our dear Redeemer to Mankind in Commanding us to Receive under both Species that so he might give us an entire and compleat repast and refresh us with all those Graces which correspond to each part thereof he doth not invite us to this Banquet of all Delicious Rarities with intention to feed our Souls by piece-meale and by halves but abundantly poureth forth the Treasures of his Merit and Satisfaction so to replenish our Souls with a full and compleat refection And to make us the more sensible hereof he chose to suffer that Ignominious Death upon a Cross and to permit the effusion of his most Sacred Blood though he could have wrought our Redemption without either for though as purely God he was not capable of Satisfaction nor Merit yet that Divine Word having by the Hypostatical Union assumed Humane Nature all his actions became Theandrical the least whereof was of an infinite value capable without Death or Passion to Redeem a Thousand Worlds for though he assumed the Nature of Man yet he took not upon him the Personality of Man there was but one Suppositum which was the Divine Hypostasis of the Word of God and this gave the poyse and value to all his actions which proceeded from one Person that was both God and Man as they proceeded from Man they were capable of Merit and Satisfaction and as they proceeded from God they were infinite in both kinds and so never to be exhausted So that by one act of love or any other Moral Vertue he might efficaciously have Redeemed us and yet he chose to do it by a bitter Death and Passion the better to accommodate himself to the weakness and imbecillity of our capacity for this more efficaciously strikes our fancy and imprints upon our Souls a more sensible feeling of his infinite Love towards us And for a more ample testimony hereof he hath left us his Sacred Body and Blood to participate thereof and to taste of the fulness of his Graces and Mercies thereby still renewing the Memory of his Passion Who then shall abridge us of these Favors by prescinding the one halfe and mincing the benefits bestow'd upon us by so liberal and munificent a Hand How great is the presumption of some Men who call all Christ's Actions in question and submit them to the scrutiny of their weak indagation They usurp his Infallibility they alter and change his Sacraments they Repeal his Laws they dispense in his Precepts and Impose upon him what he never Ordained Christ saith Except ye drink the Blood of the Son of Man ye shall have no life in you The Church of Rome saith Though ye drink not the Blood of the Son of Man so you eate his Body ye shall have life in you Whom shall we believe Christ or the Church of Rome Shall we desert a certain Infallibility to adhere to an uncertain and presumptive one Could not the All-knowing Word of God whose Prudence and Wisdom hath no bounds foresee all the Inconveniences that could or would come to pass And Could not his Infinite Providence order and dispose all for the best Is it to be presumed that Christ left his Work imperfect or not duly order'd to be compleated or reformed by the weak industry of Man Wherefore by what hath been said I conclude That the practice of the Roman Church in denying the Chalice to the Laity is an express violation of Christ's Precept The Second Assertion This kind of half-Communion Prohibiting the Sacrament under both Kinds is a high Injustice and very prejudicial and injurious to the Receiver This Assertion I prove first because all the Laity yeà and the Clergy also that are not Priests are rendred uncapable of fulfilling Christ's Precept at least as long as they shall remain in their Communion and though the Authors of this Prohibition are highly culpable and very unjust in denying the Faithful what Christ hath left them yet the Receivers also are transgressers for not fulfilling Christ's Precept But you will say How can they help themselves if the Priest refuseth to exhibit the Sacrament to them in both Kinds which is not in their power to procure neither can they be obliged to impossibilities I Answer That they who seriously endeavor to fulfill Christ's Precepts are bound in Conscience to forsake the Communion of that Church and to Imbrace the Communion of the Protestant Church where these Sacred Mysteries will be compleatly Administred to them for by this means they are capable of complying with Christ's Command which they are strictly obliged to do The Second Proofe They who never receive those Holy Rites but in one Kind not only transgress against Christ's Command but also incur the penalty that is annexed to it which is no less than the privation of eternal happiness Except you eate the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink his Blood you shall have no life in you And what is consequent hereto they are liable to the everlasting torments of Hell How enormous therefore must the Injustice be of those that are Instrumental What do I say instrumental that are the principle cause of reducing men to that extremity that unavoidably they must violate Christ's Command and thereby incur eternal damnation and all this by denying them that which by Christ's Institution they have right to Can any Injustice be compared to this Can any damage be more prejudicial and injurious to the Receiver The Third Proof The Sacramental products of Communion under the Species of Wine are very different and heterogeneal from all the Graces and Favors conferr'd upon him that participates the Sacrament in the other kind only for this Spiritual refection hath a great analogy and proportionable similitude with the natural repast of the Body and their respective operations are reciprocal correlatives by way of similitude with each other and therefore the Original Instituter adapting these Mysteries to the procedure of Nature congruously Instituted them under the Symboles of Bread and Wine the Bread we esteem to be the Staffe of Mans Life because it Administers such vital and animal Spirits as are the substantial support of Mans Life and thereby it gives aliment vigor and growth to the body which is the principal part of nutrition The Wine makes the heart glad and enlivens it to exercise the functions incident to human imploy with more life and expedition it also supplies the radical heat and moisture with seasonable accesses of its innate qualities it delibutes the vessels and organs which are the vehicles of the Spirits and furnishes them with such proportionable qualities as are most accommodated to expediate the exercise of their nutritive Functions
have a strict dependance on the first Matter as their proper Subject and on several qualities and accidents as their Natural disposition so that if their Matter should be Annihilated or their disposition destroyed by the Law of Nature they could not subsist though many of them Teach that the Heavens Planets and Fixt Stars admit of no such Composition but are Compleat yea simple substantial Bodies which cannot be dissolved but only into Integral and Homogeneal parts Thirdly They Assert That though according to Nature the same Individual Body cannot be in more then one place at the same time yet that by Divine Power one and the same Body may be collocated in several and distinct places the same moment of time how distant and remote soever these places are the one from the other Which is far different from the Manner how the Soul of Man exists in the Body for though the same Soul be at the same time in the head and in the foot and because it is a Spirit and hath no substantial nor integral parts it must of necessity be all in the head and all in the foot and other parts of the Body the same instant because it is indivisible yet in this Case the whole Body is but one adequate place of the Soul for if the head should be sever'd from the Body the Soul could not in that state of Separation be both in the head and the Body no not for one moment of time Fourthly They agree in the notion of Substantial Conversion that it is a Transmutation of one Substance into another which they distinguish into two Members the one is a partial or inadequate Conversion the other a total or adequate Commutation The first is common and proper to the present order of Nature for in all the Changes that we observe of several Substances destroy'd and others produc'd there never happens but a partial Conversion for example We see Wood or other Combustible Matter Converted into Fire the Form of Wood is destroyed but the Matter as being susceptible of any Form remains under the Forme of Fire that was before under that of Wood So that you see in all these Conversions one part is destroy'd but the other persists in being so in that which succeeds one part is newly produced but the other was extant before But in a total Conversion the precedent substance is wholly destroyed the Matter is Annihilated and the Forme Corrupted and the subsequent substance which succeeds in place of that which is destroyed both Matter and Forme is all Collocated under the same Collection of Accidents either by a new production or else by an adduction for if this substance into which the former was Converted were before extant then there needs only a new Ubication in the place where the Conversion is made without relinquishing its former Vbi or place where it was existent and so is now in two distinct places at once and this total Conversion can never be made without infringing the Laws of Nature for nothing in Nature can ever lay a disposition determining to the destruction of the first Matter which depends upon no dispositions but is produced by a Creative action independant of all things else And therefore its destruction exceeds the power of all Natural Causes Then the Constituting of a Body in two distinct and adequate places at once is not in the power of Nature as all grant Fifthly They grant That Quantity Qualities Dispositions and all other Accidents cannot naturally subsist without a Subject or Receptacle to support them and keep them in being for as Aristotle saith Accidens est ens in alio or entis ens it is ordained by Nature to be subservient to substance and so is not intended for it self but to dispose the substance to several Changes and Mutations upon which it hath consequently a strict dependance neither can it have any use in Nature without the Substance So that Accidents cannot remain without a Substance but by the Miraculous assistance of a Supernatural Power and where this intervenes they maintain that all Accidents except Moodes may be conserved in being without a Subject These several Points of Doctrine being premised they conclude That in the Sacrament of the Eucharist by the words of Consecration which are these Hoc est corpus meum This is my Body which are pronounced by the Priest assuming Christ's Person there is wrought a total substantial Conversion which they call Transubstantiation so that the whole substance of Bread both Matter and Forme is totally destroyed and the whole substance of Christ's Body is really placed there in lieu of the Bread which is really Converted into the Body of Christ yet so as that the Species of Bread which is the collection of Accidents that were before in the Bread keep their state of being though the Bread be destroyed and are Miraculously preserved without a Subject though they are Sacramentally united to the Body of Christ And though ex vi verborum only the Body of Christ be rendred present nothing else being signified by the words of Consecration nor requisite to verifie Concomitance and Connexion whereby all the parts of Christ are united with each other there is also put under the Species of Bread the Blood of Christ the Soul of Christ with the Natural Union between his Body and Soul the Divine Word the Hypostatical Union which Connects the Divine Word to the Humanity and consequently all the Sacred Trinity are all there really Existent under the Species of Bread which Species or Complex of Accidents were produced and conserved before the Bread was destroyed by an Action called Eduction that is a production dependant on another to wit the Substance of Bread to which they were the natural disposition but that substance being destroyed they are now conserved by another action which they terme Creation that is a production independant of all others By the Species of Bread they understand the Heat the Cold the Dryeth the Moysture the Quantity the Rarity the Density the Colour the Odour the Taste c. which were all appropriated to the Bread They also Affirm That these strange Wonders are wrought by the words of Consecration which are Instituted by Christ to this purpose and by their Obediential Power are elevated to effect what of themselves they are uncapable of the Divine Power Cooperating with them to accomplish this design so that these few words pronounced by a Priest who assumes Christ's Person and Officiates in his Name are not only representative but also practical they effect what they signifie and so reduce themselves to a Conformity with their Object which makes them true But it may be demanded In what Critical Moment of time this great Change is made For the words though few yet are pronounced by the Priest successively whence the doubt ariseth Whether this strange Conversision be made in the beginning the middle or the end of the words of Consecration To this they Answer