Thought does in a Man's Mind yet it were impossible for it to be in many Places at once So that if we should grant Matter to be Immaterial and a Body to be a Spirit yet the Papists are so intangled in the Absurdity of this Doctrine that it would do them no good to allow them half a score Contradictions neither would it any way relieve them or free them from the rest Whereas on the other hand a Body is known to fill and possess the Place in which it is and is circumscribed by the bounds and limits of the Place which is commensurate to the Magnitude and Figure of the Body So that if a Body should be in many Places at once it might not only have quite contrary Situations and be East West North and South of it self be above it self and below it self all at once but also it would be Circumscribed and not Circumscribed at the same time which is a very plain and open Contradiction 2. The Second Head of Contradictions are those which attend the Doctrine of Transubstantiation in point of Time. Every thing that has now a Being either always had a Being and is Eternal which only God is or else it had a beginning of its Being in which it has continued ever since which is the condition of all Creatures and this Continuance of a Creature in Being we call the Duration of it which is so essential to all Substances whether Material or Immaterial that it is absolutely inseparable from them For when their Being began their Duration began and when their Duration ceases their Being ceases This Duration is counted by Days Months and Years and such like greater or lesser portions of Time which Time is nothing else but the measure of Duration whereby we reckon how long a Substance has continued or persevered in Being And now we have a Test in our hands to try whether it be not absolutely impossible for the Transubstantiation-Body in the Sacrament to be the very Body of Christ which was born of the Virgin Mary The Body which was born of the Virgin Mary has continued in Being 1688 years whereas the Body which the Priest made yesterday has continued in Being but one Day but the Duration of one Day only cannot be the Duration of 1688 years And the Duration of 1688 years is now inseparable from the Body of Christ born of the Virgin Mary for the Duration of a Substance is inseparable from the Substance therefore the Body which the Priest made yesterday cannot be the Body which was born of the Virgin Mary Which was to be Demonstrated Again If the Body in the Sacrament which was made that is began to be yesterday is the same Body which has continued 1688 Years then the same Body continued 1687 Years and upwards before it began to be but before it began to be it was not in Being and consequently in every Minute during that 1687 Years the same Body was in Being and was not in Being Which amounts to Millions of Contradictions Once more It must be granted That the Cause is in Being before the Effect and it would be a double Repugnancy to say the contrary for then the Effect would be both before it self for it is not an Effect till it be Caused and also before its Cause and so would be Caused by that which is not Now the Causes of the Transubstantiation-Body are these amongst others 1. The Bread out of which it is produced which is so necessary that this Change cannot be wrought out of any other Substance in the World Flesh nor Fish Pillar nor Post nor any thing else that can be named and therefore this is the necessary Matter of the Transubstantiation Body or the Cause out of which it is made 2ly The Baker by whom the Bread was made for he that is a Cause of the Cause is a Cause of the thing Caused 3ly The Marvellous Operator the Priest who makes the Body together with his Intention 4ly Which seems to be an Instrumental Cause his Pronouncing these words Hoc enim est Corpus meum in one Breath 5ly The Consideration which moved him to say a Mass at that time But neither the Bread nor the Baker nor the Priest nor his Intention nor his Voice nor his Breath nor the Proposal suppose of Twelve-pence to him to say a Mass neither all nor any of these which were the Causes of that Transubstantiation-Body which was made yesterday and did contribute more or less to the producing of it I say none of these Causes were in Being an Hundred years ago and if the Causes were not in Being much less was the Effect in Being otherwise the Effect must be before the Cause which is impossible But the Body of Christ born of the Virgin Mary was in Being 1600 Years ago which is more than One hundred Years ago and this is impossible for the Transubstantiation-Body which was made yesterday therefore it is impossible for the Transubstantiation-Body to be the Body of Christ born of the Virgin Mary Q. E. D. I wonder that when the Representer's hand was in and he had made Christ's Body Independent of Place he had not likewise made it Independent of Time for that was full as necessary to be done as the other 3. The Third Head of Contradictions are those which relate to Quantity under which Head I was going to Demonstrate That the same Body cannot at the same time be Bigger and Less than it self That it cannot be an Organized Humane Body Five Foot and an half long and at the same time bestowed within the Compass of a Wafer no bigger than a Six-pence nay within the compass of every Crumb of that Wafer though not so big as a Pins-head But I am interrupted from proceeding any further in this Attempt for by a slight Conveyance the very Subject-Matter of my Demonstration is taken away and instead of a Solid Body with Figure and Dimensions with different and distinct parts divisible and measurable they have left me only the Appearance of a Body which no Demonstration can fasten upon For they say That this Body is induced with a Supernatural manner of Existence by which being left without Extension of Parts it may be whole in every part of the Symbols and not obuoxious to any Corporeal Contingencies Now though we cannot demonstrate any Property of such an incomprehensible Body as this is no more than we can draw the Picture of a Non-entity or weigh it in a Pair of Scales for it scorns and tramples upon all the Principles and Axioms of Euclid yet we may a little consider the Terms of Art by which it is exprest 1. It is a Body without Extension of Parts So that it is a whole which has Parts though those Parts are without Extension and accordingly as it follows It may be whole in every Part of the Symbols But if the Parts be without Extension so is the Whole for the Whole is nothing else but all
organs of Sense as ours are What is it that so fēelingly moves our Senses and resists our Touch but a Body or Material Substance For Ten thousand Roundnesses and Whitenesses will not make up One Object of Sense And as for the instance which lies before us of a piece of Bread it is a Substance the most familiar and best known to us of all others We can see and taste and seel and smell it and know it blindfold And not only we but most of the Creatures about us can see and taste and smell the Substance of Bread as well as we and know it very distinctly and will single it out from twenty other Round and White Substances whatsoever And their Senses were certainly given them to discern Substances and not Accidents for otherwise a round and white Stone or a round and white Chip would serve their turn as well but Figure and Colour are not their business but a Substance which will nourish them and which will be altered and assimilated into the substance of Flesh and Blood. And therefore whether the substance of a Wafer be Bread or whether it be a Humane Body I will refer it wholly to all the Animals in the World which love Bread and will not seize upon a living Man for they are competent and indifferent judges in this matter Always excepting those Animals which are the Masters of The School of the Eucharist for they are all Parties and Bigots and especially the Dog of Lisbon In short I challenge all the world to tell me what there is belonging to the substance of Bread which we do not see and discern by our senses and which is not faithfully reported to us by them And therefore when our senses evidently shew us that a Wafer is the substance of Bread and on the other hand the Popish Faith teaches us that it is not the substance of Bread but the substance of a Human Body That Faith is plainly contrary to the evidence of our Senses which because the Messieurs said before Divine Faith Never is it leaves their Faith under a different character from that which is Divine They proceed in the following words Nostre raison de mesme c. Our Reason in like manner shews us that one single Body is not at the same time in divers places nor two Bodies in one and the same place but this ought to be understood of the natural condition of Bodies because it would be a desect of Reason for a Man to imagine that our Mind being Finite is able to comprehend how far the Infinite Power of God reaches And therefore when Hereticks in order to destroy the Mysteries of Faith as the Trinity Incarnation and Eucharist do object those Pretended Impossibilities which they draw from Reason in this very thing they themselves do visibly depart from Reason in pretending to be able to Comprehend in their Finite Mind the Infinite extent of the Power of God. In this short passage there are many things liable to exception For 1st Our Reason does not only shew us that one single Body is not at the same time in divers Places but it shews us also that it cannot be in divers Places at once for this reason because in that case one single Body would be divers Bodies which is a Contradiction And therefore 2dly The Limitation which follows is false That this ought to be understood of the Natural Condition of Bodies and restrained only to that For whether Bodies be in a Natural condition or Supernatural one single Body cannot be divers Bodies at the same time for then it is no longer one single Body No Supernatural case or condition can make a Contradiction to be true For instance St. John Baptist told the Jews that God was able of those Stones which lay upon the Banks of Jordan to raise up Children unto Abraham In their Natural condition they were Stones but in this Supernatural condition they would have been Men but in no condition was it possible for them to be both Stones and Men at the same time because it is a Repugnancy For to say a Stone is a Man is to say a Stone is not a Stone that is to say it is not or it is nothing at all which I hope no Man will say is the work of an Infinite Power And therefore 3ly in saying That One Body cannot be in divers places at once we do not thereby imagine that a Finite Mind can comprehend how far the Infinite Power of God reaches This is both a false charge and a false inference For what has Omnipotency to do with nothing To effect Nothing is a derogation to all Power much more is it beneath that which is Infinite When therefore we vindicate the Divine Power and assert the Infinity of it and say it is removed at the greatest distance from all defect Is this to say that a Finite mind can comprehend it No God forbid that our heads should be filled with such cross Popish Contradictions as to say that every Contradiction is Impossible and yet this Contradiction is Possible That a Finite may hold an Infinite and that the Greater may be contained by the Less We admire and adore the Infinite Power of God and we are sensible of it every Minute for in Him we live and move and have our Being and yet we do not comprehend it neither have we the least thought or imagination of Comprehending it for we know that this is utterly Inconsistent with the necessary Imperfection and Limitation of a Creature state The Infinite Power of God stands like a Great Mountain Now we can see a great Mountain only by parts and cannot view it all round at once much less can we grasp or comprehend it and take it up in our Arms. But yet as we know and see that this incomprehensible Mountain which is an Object too big for our Senses is not a Valley so we are full as sure that Perfection is not Imperfection and that Infinite Power tho we never pretended to measure the extent of it is free from all Impotency and cannot atchieve Impossibilities and Nothings As we know by his Necessary Existence that God cannot cease to Be and by his Infinite Wisdom that he cannot Err and by his Infinite Truth that it is Impossible for God to Lye So we are assured by his Insinite Power that he cannot make a Contradiction a Nothing an Inconsistency which is always unmade again as fast as it is made If God should Create and Annihilate a thing at once he would plainly effect neither and nothing would follow upon such an Impossible Act. 4thly The Messieurs insinuate as if the Impôssibilities which are brought against Transubstantiation were of the same sort and as False and Pretended as those which are objected against the Trinity and the Incarnation of our Saviour but I shall leave that to the judgment of every indifferent Reader after he has weighed and considered the following Discourse And thus I
the Parts put together Now at this rate a Part is as big as the Whole and has as much Extension because either of them has none at all Is this indeed the Body which the Wonder-working Priest produces A Body without Extension is a mere Nothing and a perfect Contradiction in Terms for Extension is the very Essence of a Body and the Foundation of all the other Properties that are in it the 3 Dimensions as also Figure Divisibility and Impenetrability do all flow from it Again so much as you add to the Quantity of a Body so much you add to the Substance and so much of the Extension as you take away just so much of the Substance goes along with it In a word Body and Extension are Reciprocal for every Body is an extended Substance and every extended Substance is a Body so that they are but different Names for the same thing 2. This Body is whole in every part of the Symbols that is of the Elements of Bread and Wine But the Bread has suppose an Hundred distinct Parts one of which is not the other and therefore this Body being Whole in every distinct Part has an Hundred distinct Wholes one of which is not the other and yet is but One Body all the while which as I take it is Contradiction by whole-sale 3. This Body is not Obnoxious to any Corporeal Contingencies If it be a Body what may happen to one Body may happen to another To use Terence's words in this case Homo sum nihil Humanum a me alienum puto I am a Man and what is incident to a Man is incident to me And so if a Body could speak it would say Corpus sum nihil corporeum a me alienum puto I am a body and what belongs to a body belongs to me Whatever body is subject to be eaten is subject to be pressed and grinded with the Teeth to be swallowed down and afterwards voided and I suppose this last Clause was added on purpose to avoid such Inconveniencies and to save the Honour of this body which they call God's Body but in my Opinion it was a needless Clause for a Body without Extension can never take hurt nor come to any damage at all For a man may bite till his Jaws ake and grind all his Teeth out of his Head before he can fasten upon that which is not and which never yet had any Existence in the world save in a parcel of insignificant words ill put together on purpose It is an endless thing to encounter shadows and to oppose these manifest Impossibilities which are so contrary to the Reason of Manking that the Papists themselves own they would not hold them were it not for the sake of Revelation which is to be believed they say before Reason and ought to outweigh all other Reasons They are over-ruled they say in this case by the express words of our Saviour who in the same night in which he was betrayed took Bread and said Take Eat This is my Body do this in Remembrance of me And who has all Power in Heaven and Earth to make his words good We allow these words to be our Saviour's neither do we question his Power but conclude That he accomplished all that he intended and did make the bread his body in that sense in which he meant it should be So far we are agreed on both sides The Question therefore in short is this What he did to the bread when he said This is my Body Whether he Metamorphosed and changed the nature of it or only altered the use of it that it might be a Token of his body and serve to remember him by to all those excellent purposes of Religion which we acknowledg to be design'd by him The latter is undoubtedly the true sense considering all the circumstances of the place As 1st considering that our Saviour was upon his Departure at which time men use to leave Memorials of themselves with their Friends to be Remembred by in their Absence 2ly Considering that the Frequent use of the world Is imports no more than Signifies As in very many Places where the Scripture says one thing is another it means only that that thing must be Expounded by the Other it signifies or stands for the other And consequently This is my Body i. e. This signifies my body is the Literal sense And 3ly considering that Clause which shews the end and meaning of this whole passage and is the very Key to unlock it Do this in Remembrance of me For it is an absurd speech to say Take my body in Remembrance of my body Take me for a Token to Remember me by So that if there were not one Contradiction or Impossibility or any such Rock to be shunned in the Doctrine of Transubstantiation yet every thing in the Text leads us into this sense which I have now delivered We are plainly determined to this sense by reasons taken out of the very bowels of the Text the Text expounds its self But still the Papists are very urgent and pressing upon us and say That unless we believe the Bread to be changed into Christ's Real and Natural Body when he says it Is his body we make him a Lyar. Take heed of that For our Saviour calls many things by the name of those things into which they never were substantially changed He called his body a Temple when he said Destroy this Temple and in three days I will rear it up And yet his Body was never substantially changed into a Pile of Building And so likewise when that Temple was in destroying and our Blessed Redeemer was hanging upon the Cross we have a marvellous tender passage of his dutiful care to provide for his Mother when he was in the extremity of his sufferings John 19. 26 27. seeing his Mother and his Disciple John standing together by the Cross he said to her Woman behold thy Son. Which was equivalent to this Proposition That Man is thy Son. And he said to John Behold thy Mother wherein he calls the Virgin Mary John's Mother which she was not But upon this John took her for his Mother and carried her home to his own House And so in this present case This is my Body Look not upon this as common Bread for it stands for my body consider it under that notion and remember me by it Behold thy Mother Repute her as such But if it be a Reflection upon our Saviour to say that it is bread when he calls it his body is it not the same Reflection upon Saint Paul to say That it is not bread when he calls it bread three or four times over 1 Cor. 11. No no it was not Scripture which led the Papists into the Doctrine of Transubstantiation but by engaging themselves in 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
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
Terms for at this rate One and One is Three and Three and One is Five and in short there is a full end of all Arithmetick 3ly It is not One Body in Two Places which will serve their turn but it must be One Body in Ten Thousand Places For it must be One Body in form of Flesh and the same Body in form of New Bread and the same Body in form of Old Bread and the same Body in form of Sweet Wine and the same Body in form of Sowre Wine and the same Body at Limestreet at Rome at Avignion and in a word in all Places where a bit of Bread a Mass Priest and a Slate are to be found together And this as I have already shewn draws after it Millions of Millions of Contradictions 4thly I say That even the Impossible Supposition of One Body in several Places does plainly deny all Difference and Dissimilitude in that Body it allows indeed a Multiplication of the same Body but it perfectly excludes any Alteration of it For if it be Altered it is not the Body which was supposed to be Multiplied For instance I will suppose the same Pint of Milk to be in several Places but then it must be a Pint of Milk in all those Places For I cannot say without Contradiction That the same Pint of Milk in another Place is neither Pint Half-pint nor Spoonful but perhaps an unperceivable Drop for then it is a Pint and not a Pint. And so likewise I cannot say That it is a Pint of Milk in this Place in the form of Milk and in another Place it is a Pint of Milk in form of Aqua vitae having the Smell Taste Colour and Virtues of Aqua vitae In another Place it is a Pint of Milk in the form of a Pen-full of Ink And in another Place it is a Pint of Milk in the form of a Bandelier full of Gunpowder For in these cases it is so Altered that it is not Milk it is not the Thing we spoke of and which we supposed to be Multiplied And at the same time though it be neither Milk nor Measure yet in the way of Transubstantiation it is still a very good Pint of Milk. These Men had better let their Contradictions alone than offer to assoil them for the Doctrine of Transubstantiation is perfectly of the nature of Birdlime the more they stir and flutter in it the faster they are caught So that this sorry Evasion being of the same piece with Transubstantiation it self or rather an aggravation of Contradiction I shall set it aside as if it had never been and proceed to my intended Demonstration We have not in our Minds a clearer and brighter first Principle than this is That nothing can be Present and Absent from the same Subject at the same time Now the Mark of IHS is Present to Christ's Body being imprinted upon it and at the same time it is Absent from the self-same Body having instead of IHS a Crucifix upon it and therefore the Mark of IHS is Present to Christs Body and Absent from the self-same Body at the same time which is Impossible Q. E. D. Again God's Body in Form of Bread is not God's Body in Form of Wine for if it were then the Form of Bread and the Form of Wine would be the same Wine would be Bread and Bread would be Wine that is to say Bread would be Not Bread. But according to the Papists God's Body in Form of Bread is God's Body in Form of Wine that is to say Bread is not Bread which is Impossible Which was to be Demonstrated 7. The last Head of Contradictions arise from this part of the Doctrine of Transubstantiation which says That when the Substances of Bread and Wine are abolished and wholly cease to Be still all the Accidents of Bread and Wine are seen to Remain without any Subject at all For the Substances of Bread and Wine are departed and gone and these Accidents cannot cleave and be united to the Body and Blood of Christ and therefore it remains That in a Supernatural way they must subsist of themselves This is their own infallible Doctrine Trid. Catech. de Euch. Sect. 25. 44. In which few words there is plenty of Contradictions For 1st I shall Demonstrate That Accidents subsisting without a Subject are Substances that is to say are not Accidents And because the Papists themselves are sensible how Absurd and Impossible this Doctrine of theirs is therefore they fly to Miracle and Omnipotency which is no Refuge nor Sanctuary for Contradictions and Impossibilities as we have already shewn Now the very Essence of an Accident is to subsist in a Subject and the Essence of a Substance is to subsist of it self without a Subject so that if God by his Omnipotency should make an Accident to subsist of it self without a Subject he would give one and the same single Thing Two contrary Natures Whereby the same thing would be what it is and would not be what it is it would subsist in a Subject and not subsist in a Subject at the same time which is Impossible Q. E. D. I have been beholden to the great Philosopher Des Cartes a Man of their own Communion for this Demonstration and have gathered it out of his Answer to the Fourth and Sixth Objections which were made against his Meditations and out of his Notes upon the Programma of Regius as I suppose And it has been heretofore no small diversion to me to see how the Papists stood on Tiptoe when that great Restorer of Natural Knowledg appeared expecting whether his New Philosophy would favour their Old Transubstantiation But when they found that he was not a Man for Substantial Accidents and such kind of Contradictious Stuff Dr. Arnault of the Sorbonne puts it home to him in the Fourth Objections and tells him That according to his Philosophy the Doctrine of the Church concerning the Sacrament of the Altar could not remain safe and sound because it is of Faith That the Accidents in the Sacrament remain without a Subject whereas Monsieur Cartes seemed to hold for he had not as yet spoke out nor expressed himself fully in that matter That Accidents are Inseparable from a Subject and that a Body and the Affections of that Body could not subsist apart nor be made to Exist separately by an Infinite Power Wherefore Monsieur Arnauld prays him to take great care lest that while he is proving a God and the Immortality of the Soul he should endanger that Faith by which himself hoped to be saved Here Cartes was beset and forced to declare himself and therefore was put upon his Invention which was first to contrive a way of solving the Appearances of Bread and Wine which are in the Sacrament by a new Hypothesis of the Superficies which he told them he should more fully make out in his Physics And when he had thus first entertained them with a new Hypothesis then he shews
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 straggled 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 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 strictnefs 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 Adorable Object of all Religion For supposing it Impossible for a Being of Necessary Existence to Exist which is but supposing a Contradiction and we have immediately lost the Author of all Divine Revelation And not only so but the whole Universe likewise must presently sink into Nothing or rather indeed it could never have been at all But more particularly we shall find the Benefit of the former Demonstrations in the short remainder of our present Discourse for they will add to what we have further to say against Transubstantiation all the force and strength which Demonstration can give Costerus the Jesuit acknowledges and I suppose all Papists with him that If the Bread be not changed
have at least-shaken those Axiomes which were purposely erected as Strongholds to cover and shelter the absurd Doctrines of the Church of Rome and especially that of Trasubstantiation 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 fesellit 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 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 judg 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 is to determine it Then I am sure that if the Communicant by virtue 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 virtue 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 Unwritten 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 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 cannot help my self especially if he pretend to have chang'd the Book into such and so many living men by saying some powerful 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 cannot plead my senses because he has already foreclosed the use and evidence of
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 And to the Worship of their Holy Images they have joyned the Idolatry of Host-worship 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 * 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 hang by Geometry 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 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 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 Pitcher than in a River Seeing therefore that my Body succeeds and comes in the place of
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 Supersicies and knew not what to make of it And that though 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 though they were of this mind yet we find a very considerable Person Epist. Vol. 2. Epist. 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 Christ's 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 Baalam'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 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 I st 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 joined together there results One Compound The Union is the Cause of the Concomitancy becaufe 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