sent it home again with such Arguments ad Hominem as would close the Mouths of any body but Papists But because it now also lies just cross my way I ought likewise to say something to it 1st Therefore I say That the Supposition of One Body in Two Places at once is an utter Impossibility which I have already Demonstrated over and over again both under the 1st Head of Place and also under the 4th Head of Number 2ly One Body Equivalent to Two that is One Body which to all Intents and Purposes is Two is a Contradiction in 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 bettet 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 I H S is Present to Christs Body being imprinted upon it and at the same time it is Absent from the self-same Body having instead of I H S a Crucifix upon it and therefore the Mark of I H S is Present to Christs Body and Absent from the self-same Body at the same time which is Impossible Q. E. D. Again Gods Body in Form of Bread is not Gods 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 Gods Body in Form of Bread is Gods 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 Assections of that Body could not subsist apart nor be made to Exist separately by an Infinite Power
most close and intimate that can be and consequently the Concomitancy must be the strictest Nay the very Reason Ground Bottom and Foundation of the Rule of Concomitancy is this Because from Two single Things Really joyned together there results One Compound The Union is the Cause of the Concomitancy because it is Impossible for the same thing to be Divided from it self So that if two things which are Really joined together must always of Necessity keep company together then it is utterly Impossible for one and the same thing to straggle from it self but it must ever be its own Individual Companion From these Premises I say That Christ's Body having been in Heaven these 1600 Years if in that Space of Time it has been upon Altars here on Earth then it has not been at the same time where it has been but it has broken the Rule of Concomitancy and has strangely stragled from it self which is Impossible Q. E. D. I have studied with all the Application of Mind of which I am capable to forecast in my thoughts what fault the Papists would find with any of the former Reasonings or with this last in particular and cannot foresee nor imagine any For though we should allow Christ's Body to be Independent of Place or to have any other Impossible Prerogatives which they list to Invent yet still this Body must be subject to the Rule of Concomitancy because they themselves are forced to make use of it to prove that the Body of Christ is under the Species of Wine and that the Blood of Christ is under the Species of Bread and it is the only Proof they have Now if of Necessity the Body must be by Concomitancy where the Blood is then by an antecedent Necessity the Blood must be where the Blood is for the Blood 's being there is the cause of the Bodies being there likewise So the Body being under the Form of Bread is the reason that the Blood is there also but then to be sure the Body must be there From whence as I shewed before it undeniably follows That Christ's Body is only in Heaven or else it is not where it is which overthrows the very Foundation of Concomitancy 2. The Second Argument shall be drawn from their Form of Consecration For this is my Body being the words of our Saviour from whence they have wrested the Doctrine of Transubstantiation Now to give them a Samplar of their own and to shew them how they themselves interpret Scripture I say that it appears by the very words of Consecration That the Priest himself is also Transubstantiated for the Body is Christ's and yet the Priest says it is My Body which cannot be True unless the Priest and Christ be the same And that cannot be but by an Admirable Change and Conversion which the Holy Catholick Church has conveniently and properly named Transubstantiation No say the Papists in great anger There is no such Change at all for the Priest only stands for Christ and (a) Sect. 82. Personam suscipiunt Personam gerens sustains his Person he only Represents him in that Action and is in Christ's stead so that we are not to look upon the Priest in that solemn Action as Friar John but as Christ himself And therefore the Priest may say with Truth this is My Body tho Literally and Properly and in strictness of Speech it is Christ's Body and not His. To which I again reply Why this is the very Exposition of these words of our Saviour for which the Hereticks have all along been Burnt namely This Bread stands for my Body and Represents it in this Action it is instead of my Body and bears the Character of it and you are not so much to consider it as Bread but to look upon it as the Representation of my Body which is given for you And therefore with Truth I can say it is my Body though Literally and Properly and in strictness of Speech it is Bread and not my Natural Body Now therefore let the Papists give or take Either the Bread is not Transubstantiated or if it be by virtue of the self-same words the Priest is Transubstantiated too For every word in the Prolation with one Breath except the word Enim Sect. 20. does Operate as well as Signifie and Does what it Says and therefore if the word Corpus be effectual to make it a Body then the word Meum makes it the Priests Body The Wit of Man cannot find an Evasion and I doubt not but I am able to maintain this Argument against all the Popish Priests in the world For all the Advantage lies clearly on the Protestant Side For our Saviour visibly took Bread and gave it the office of Representing him and made it the Figure of his Body as Tertullian's word is He erected it as a standing Memorial to be used in Remembrance or Commemoration of him as S Luke's word is To shew forth his Death till he come as S. Paul speaks 'T is true he commanded his Disciples to repeat the same Action and to do as he had done But where did he bid the Priest to Personate him That he gave us the Bread by the Name of his Body Three of the Four Gospels witness and by the Name of his Broken Body S. Paul witnesses But where did he ever say That He himself would always Sacrifice himself by the Priests Hands and say Hoc est Corpus meum to the end of the world by the Priests Mouth And further There is not one word which the Papists have said in behalf of the Bread being Transubstantiated but holds as strongly for the Priests being Transubstantiated which makes full as much for the Dignity and Majesty of the Sacrament for the abasing and mortifying of our Deceivable Senses and for the improving and exalting our Faith and making it Meritorious as the other can We have gained such considerable Advantages by the foregoing part of our Discourse that now we are able unalterably to renounce the Doctrine of Transubstantiation For having Demonstrated the Impossibility of it We have thereby Demonstrated that though Heaven and Earth should pass away yet that Doctrine can never be True. We have likewise at the same time Demonstrated the Protestant Exposition of those words of our Saviour This is my Body to be the true and necessary Sense of them for either there is a Change of the Bread into the Body of Christ or there is not But because such a Change is an utter Impossibility as we have abundantly proved therefore it remains That the Protestant Doctrine which asserts there is no such Change is Demonstrably True. We have also made it as clear as the Light That neither the Letter of a Divine Revelation nor the pretence of an Infinite Power nor any thing in the world can support one single Contradiction because if one single Contradiction could stand it would destroy the very Being of God himself and deprive the world of the
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 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 an 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 Possibillty 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 vera 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 concontain 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 Sect. 43. 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 are of Different Natures so there is a Necessity of their keeping a considerable Distance in their Situation because there are many Essential Parts of the body interposed betwixt them which would otherwise be swallowed up But 2ly Suppose an Human Body were no Compound but as pure Element as Air or Water yet the same Substance could not be contained in a less room as well as in a greater For the Air which is contained in a Bubble is indeed a Substance of Air but it is not the same Substance of Air as fills a Chamber for it is not the Hundredth part of that Substance Nor is a Spoonful of Water the same Substance with an Hogshead of Water for an Hogshead of Water cannot be contained in a Spoon but is at least a Thousand Spoonfuls And in common Arithmetick Units are not the same with Thousands So that when they bring Air and Water to prove that the same Substance may be contained in a little room as well as in a greater their Proofs seem to partake of the Nature of those Two Elements for they are as Light as the one and as Weak as the other This tedious Digression which has proceeded to an unexpected length has not been wholly Unprofitable for I have again recovered Materials out of the Infallible Exposition it self to furnish my intended Demonstration which I shall now re-assume In the 31st Section we are told That the Real Body of Christ is in the Sacrament and whatsoever belongs to the Nature of a Body as Bones and Sinews And that All the Parts of the Body are contained in it and in the smallest Crumb of it Sect. 42. From whence I gather That if All the Parts of the Body are contained in the smallest Crumb then the Hand is which is 〈◊〉 of the Parts of the Body and if the whole Hand then all the Fingers and Thumb for they are Parts of the Hand which is Part of the Body and for the same reason if all the fingers then all the joynts of those fingers Now I want but One joynt of any one Finger to manifest the Contradictions and Absurdities of this Doctrine nay the Bone in the first joynt of the fore-finger will serve the Turn Now a Bone is a solid firm hard Substance which as to its Use serves to strengthen the fabrick of the Body And if it have not these Properties it is not a Bone it is not the thing we speak of for a fluid loose or soft Substance is not a Bone neither will it serve for the above mentioned Use in the Body Having therefore these Properties it consists of Parts Extended Impenetrable and firmly joined together so that they cannot be separated without great force and consequently they resist the Touch and feel Hard. Besides this Bone in particular is of a Cylindrical Figure an Inch long and as much in compass round about Now if any of the Parts of this Bone be Diminished then All the Parts of the Body are not there for the Parts of this Bone which are Parts of the Body are not there And if the Parts be Altered the Nature of the Thing is destroyed and it is not a Bone. So that with much ado we have gained a Bone Entire of an Inch in Magnitude which according to the Infallible Doctrine is contained in a Crumb of the Sacrament of the Compass of a Pins-head Now the Fortieth Part of this Bone is equal to that Crumb as is manifest either by applying them to one another or by their filling the same Place but the Crumb is Greater than the whole Bone for it Contains it and therefore the Fortieth Part of the Bone is Greater than the whole Bone which is Impossible So that the whole Bone cannot Possibly be Contained in that Crumb but yet it is Contained in it which is a plain Contradiction Q. E. D. Corollary Now if that Bone cannot be Contained in such a Crumb of the Sacrament much less can the whole Body for that Bone is not the Five hundredth Part of the Whole Body Which we have proved by the Hypothesis to be there Full and Entire and in its Just Dimensions because All the Parts of the Body are there and consequently Every Part of Every Member of the Body which make up the Integrity of the whole So that we have here at Once about Twenty Thousand Contradictions that is to say so many Impossibilities Again This is an Everlasting Truth Those things which are Equal to One and the same thing are Equal to one another Insomuch that all the Syllogisms and Demonstrations in the World are in a manner built upon this Axiome And whoever gainsays it must assert one of these Two Things Either that One and the Same thing is not the Same Or else that what is Equal is not Equal at the same time Now a Body of Five Foot and an half long and One Foot Diameter is equal to the Natural Body of Christ but a Crumb of Bread less than a Pins-head is equal to the self-same Natural Body of Christ for a Crumb of Bread as big as a Pins-head is bigger than the Natural Body of Christ and Contains it therefore a Crumb of Bread less than a Pins-head is equal to a Body of Five Foot and an half long and One Foot Diameter Furthermore by another Undeniable Maxim which says If of Equal things you take as much from the One as from the Other the Remainders shall be Equal Let us take the Quantity of a Pins-head from the Body of Five Foot and an half long and there remains a Body of Five Foot Five Inches and Two Barley Corns and somewhat better Let us likewise take the same Quantity of a Pins-head from the Crumb of Bread which is less than a Pins-head and there remains Transubstantiation that is to say something Worse and Less than Nothing Nevertheless because they are the Equal Remainders of Equal Bodies as much having been taken away from the one as from the other I say that the Remainder of the Crumb is Equal to the Remainder of the Body of Five Foot and an half long which is clearly Impossible Q. E. D. In this last Demonstration for dispatch sake I have been forced to do as the Papists do and to lay Contradictions and Impossibilities upon Heaps because I hasten to proceed to other Heads Only I must stay to Demonstrate some Gross Contradictions which may be referred either to this Head of Quantity or to the former of Place Supposing Christ's Natural Body to be five Foot and an half long and one Foot Diameter if the self-same body be in another place at the same time where
ever it is the self-same body must have the self-same Dimensions as we have already proved and consequently if it be in four several places at once Coroll 1. it is but five Foot and an half long and at the same time it is four times five Foot and an half long which is two and twenty Foot long And so likewise it is but one Foot Diameter and at the same time it is four times one Foot Diameter which is two Foot Diameter And by the vast number of Places in which the Papists have bestowed it it will be but five Foot and an half long and one Foot Diameter and at the same time it will be as big as Mount Atlas or Pen Men Maur or the Pic of Tenariff 4. The fourth Head of Contradictions are those which relate to Number in spight of which the Papists make ten thousand several bodies to be but one and the same body Now as we have already proved it to be impossible for one and the same body to be in several distant Places so we shall here demonstrate that it is equally impossible for what is in several distant Places to be one and the same body The Unity of a body consists in this That it be undivided from it self and divided from 〈◊〉 other Bodies so that if a body be an Individual body that is to say one and the same it must be undivided from it self Now if Christ's body in the Pix at Limestreet be the same Individual body which is in the Pix at St. James's or at Posnanie in the Higher Poland then the self-same Individual body is both undivided from it self and divided from it self For in the former case the same Individual body is divided from it self not only by two * Trent Cat. de Euch. Sect. 30. Admirabili Integumento Wonderful Coverlets of the Accidents of bread and by the less wonderful Covers of two Pixes but also by the greatest part of two great Cities London and Westminster And in the latter case of Posnanie in Poland it is divided from it self by vast Tracts of Land and a very wide Sea so that the self-same individual body is undivided from it self and yet at the same time is divided from it self which is impossible Q. E. D. On the other hand There is not any thing which more Infallibly proves a real distinction betwixt Substances and shews that they are divers and that the one is not the other than this That the one can be without the other and that they can exist separately and apart Now Christ's body at Limestreet in London and Christ's body at Posnanie in Poland do exist separately and apart for it is a long and weary Pilgrimage to go from one to the other And the one can be without the other for that body at Posnanie was many years without the other and had raised thirty six Persons from the Dead long before the body at Limestreet was made And therefore these are distinct and divers Bodies that is to say they are not the same Body And yet they are the same Body which is impossible Which was to be Demonstrated Corollary It is to be supposed that when Anti-Christ comes with Lying Wonders no body will be so Unmannerly as to call them Lying Wonders and therefore we shall not Question the Truth of any one of those Miracles which are in the School of the Eucharist (2) Translated into English and Printed at London 1687. Only thus much we gather from the Former Demonstration That the good Example of the Birds (b) School of the Eucharist pag. 2 4 7 8 19 c. Beasts and Vermin which worshipped Gods Body in other Ages and Countries is wholly Useless to us For the Gods Body which is at Limestreet and St. James's or any where hereabouts to be had is not the same Gods Body which those Devout Creatures meekly Worshipped and which the Stubborn Black Horse (c) Preface to the School of the Eucharist pag. 22. was forced to Worship with one Knee and therefore we are not in a capacity of Worshipping the same Gods Body if we would 5. The next Head of Contradictions is of those that arise from the consideration of that space or Distance which is betwixt one body and another which is always measured by a straight Line drawn from a point of the one body to a point of the other body which is the shortest Line that can be drawn betwixt them and consequently there can be but one straight line drawn betwixt the same Terms which measures and describes the just distance of them Now we are allowed to draw a straight Line from any one Point to another Corollary From the same Demonstration it follows that St. Peter's in Rome Corpus Christi Church at Posnanie in Poland and other the remotest places in the world where God's Body is are as near Neighbours to the Monument in Fishstreet as the very Mass-house in Limestreet is And there is likewise an infinite variety of other Contradictions which would result from drawing but half a score right Lines from God's Body which is in so many several Quarters which should all meet together in the Point C. which as the meanest Mathematician easily understands would not only confound all Distances but also overthrow all the Everlasting Principles of Geometry 6. The Sixth Head of Contradictions is in reference to Quality whereby a Thing is rendred Like or Unlike to another Now the self-same Body of Christ by the Doctrine of Transubstantiation has quite contrary Qualities and is Like and Unlike to it self at the same time For in Heaven it is in Form of an Human Body and in Earth it is in Form of Bread. And so again upon Earth it has a Light about it like a Pillar of Fire which reaches up to Heaven and it has not such a Light about it at the same time It is stabbed by a Jew and is Red with Blood and at the same time the same Body has no Redness nor Mark of Blood upon it It is marked with a Crucifix and at the same time it is not marked with a Crucifix but with I H S and a Glory Now these are manifest Contradictions for the self-same thing is affirmed and denied of the self-same Body at the self-same time But before I proceed to Demonstrate the Contradictions and Impossibilities which fall under this Head lest I should lose all my pains in so doing it will be fit to consider a shuffling Answer which the Papists have invented to rid their hands of all Contradictions of this kind It is in these words A Body in two Places is Equivalent to Two Bodies and therefore one may say of it the most Opposite things without Contradiction It seems this is no new Answer but I confess it was New to me for I first met with it in the late Six Conferences concerning the Eucharist p. 89. where that very Learned and Judicious Author has answered it and
Sacraments and to know your Maker from a Bit of Bread. Who have the Advantage of reading God's pure Word without either Romish Comments or Rhemish Annotations which overthrow the Text. Who are allowed to see with your own Eyes That if Scripture should be so forced and wrested as the Papists have used it in this Case then we must all be Anthropomorphites and either Believe that God is of Human Shape or else give him the Lye I know not how oft For the Right Hand of God and many other Bodily parts of him are ten times oftner asserted in Scripture than This is my Body If the Papists say That the Scripture in affirming that God is a Spirit does sufficiently rectifie all such blockish Mistakes I say so too And withal that our Saviour has done abundantly more to prevent and foreclose the no less blameable mistake concerning Transubstantiation For after he had called the Cup his Blood he afterwards again called it the Fruit of the Vine and after his Resurrection it self he gave his Disciples this Test to judg and discern his Body and to know it by 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 From whence we are bound to conclude That where we cannot see Hands and Feet where we cannot see and feel Flesh and Bones where we cannot handle and see Christ's Body there it is not he himself Well may there be some Sign or Token or Memorial of his Body but it cannot be he himself I shall not stand to enquire whether this be the Criterion to know Human Bodies from those Bodies which Angels heretofore assumed but we are sure that these are Infallible Marks to know our Saviour's Body by and that is all our present Business But as for the Noise they have lately made about our Saviour's surprizing the Disciples and entring into the room when the Doors were shut there never was any thing more precarious than the sense which the Papists have put upon that place as if our Saviour had passed through the Doors For there were Two Things as appears by the Scripture which disturbed the Disciples First That a Person should come into the Room without knocking or giving them any warning when they had made all fast and kept themselves close for sear of the Jews And the Second was That he entred in such a manner as made them apprehend him to be a Spirit Now how did ever Angels or Spirits enter into a Room or St. Peter come out of Prison under the conduct of an Angel but by the Doors opening before them of their own accord and shutting again after them As in the case of all the Apostles where the Officers found the Prison shut with all safety Acts 5.23 And I never yet heard or read of Angel or Spirit which entred a Room through Crannies or Key-holes or through Inch-boards But let that be as it will if our Saviour had entred in any such manner it had absolutely overthrown the Criterion which he gave them at the same time to judg of his Body and to Demonstrate that he was not a Spirit For common sense would have taught the Disciples to reply It is true indeed whatever you are Man or Spirit that you have now a gross Human Body and we cannot deny it but that it seems is only when you please for you had not such a one a while ago when you were pleased to come in at the Key-hole whereas there was nothing at all of this but they knew and owned him and were glad to see the Lord. But to conclude Is not this a very pertinent proof of Transubstantiation when the Doctrine of Transubstantiation asserts a thing quite contrary to the Passing through Doors For it asserts that our Saviour's Body is Present in a Room not by being Translated or by Passing out of one Place into another but by being produced in all fresh Places and by being Within Doors and Without Doors at the same Time. In short O my Protestant Countrymen You are Happy if you know your own Happiness and are not weary of it While you have the Light Rejoice in it and walk worthy of it and then God will continue it to you and to your Posterity So be it FINIS Books lately Printed for W. Rogers THE Doctrines and Practices of the Church of Rome truly Represented in Answer to a Book intituled A Papist Misrepresented and Represented c. Quarto An Answer to a Discourse intituled Papists protesting against Protestant Popery being a Vindication of Papists not Misrepresented by Protestants And containing a particular Examination of Monsieur de Meaux late Bishop of Condom his Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of Rome in the Articles of Invocation of Saints Worship of Images occasioned by that Discourse Quarto An Answer to the Amicable Accommodation of the Differences between the Representer and the Answerer Quarto A View of the whole Controversie between the Representer and the Answerer with an Answer to the Representer's last Reply in which are laid open some of the Methods by which Protestants are Misrepresented by Papists Quarto The Doctrine of the Trinity and Transubstantiation compared as to Scripture Reason and Tradition in a new Dialogue between a Protestant and a Papist the First Part Wherein an Answer is given to the late Proofs of the Antiquity of Transubstantiation in the Books called Consensus Veterum and Nubes Testium c. Quarto The Doctrine of the Trinity and Transubstantiation compared as to Scripture Reason and Tradition in a new Dialogue between a Protestant and a Papist the Second Part Wherein the Doctrine of the Trinity is shewed to be agreeable to Scripture and Reason and Transubstantiation repugnant to both Quarto An Answer to the Eighth Chapter of the Representer's Second Part in the first Dialogue between him and his Lay-Friend Of the Authority of Councils and the Rule of Faith. By a Person of Quality With an Answer to the Eight Theses laid down for the Tryal of the English Reformation in a Book that came lately from Oxford Sermons and Discourses some of which never before Printed The Third Volume By the Reverend Dr. Tillotson Dean of Canterbury 8vo A Manual for a Christian Soldier Written by Erasmus and Translated into English Twelves A new and easie Method to learn to Sing by Book whereby one who hath a good Voice and Ear may without other help learn to Sing true by Notes Design'd chiefly for and applied to the promoting of Psalmody and furnished with Variety of Psalm-Tunes in Parts with Directions for that kind of Singing A Book of Cyphers or Letters Reverst being a Work very pleasant and useful as well for Gentlemen as all sorts of Artificers Engravers Painters Carvers Chacers Embroiderers c. Where you may find a Cypher for any Name whatsoever curiously composed after the newest Mode By Jeremiah Marlow Price Bound 5 s. A Perswasive to frequent Communion in the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper By John Tillotson Dean of Canterbury In Octavo Price 3 d A Discourse against Transubstantiation In Octavo Price 3 d. The State of the Church of Rome when the Reformation began as it appears by the Advices given to Paul III. and Julius III. by Creatures of their Own. With a Preface leading to the matter of the Book 40. A Letter to a Friend Reflecting on some Passages in a Letter to the D. of P. in Answer to the Arguing Part of his first Letter to Mr. G. The Reflecter's Defence of his Letter to a Friend against the Furious Assaults of Mr. I S. in his second Catholic Letter In four Dialogues 40. A Sermon Preached at the Funeral of the Reverend Benj. Calamy D.D. and late Minister of St. Lawrence Jury Lond. Jan. 7th 1686. By W. Sherlock D. D. Master of the Temple A Vindication of some Protestant Principles of Church-Unity and Catholick-Communion from the Charge of Agreement with the Church of Rome In Answer to a late Pamphlet Intituled An Agreement between the Church of England and the Church of Rome evinced from the Concertation of some of her Sons with their Brethren the Dissenters By William Sherlock D. D. Master of the Temple A Discourse concerning the Nature of Idolatry in which a late Author's true and only Notion of Idolatry is Considered and Confuted 40. The Protestant Resolv'd or a Discourse shewing the Vnreasonableness of his Tarning Roman Catholick for Salvation The 2d Edition A Discourse concerning the Nature of Idolatry In which the Bishop of Oxford's True and Only Notion of Idolatry is Considered and Confuted 40. A Preservative against Popery Being some Plain Directions to Unlearned Protestants how to Dispute with Romish Priests The First Part. By William Sherlock D. D. The 4th Edition