A brief reply to a late answer to Dr. Henry More his Antidote against idolatry Shewing that there is nothing in the said answer that does any ways weaken his proofs of idolatry against the Church of Rome, and therefore all are bound to take heed how they enter into, or continue in the communion of that church as they tender their own salvation.
More, Henry, 1614-1687.
His Reflections on some Passages in my Ar∣gument from that fundamental Principle in Logick and Metaphysicks in this sixth Para∣graph, together with my Replies thereunto.
First, saith he, a knowing Reader cannot chuse
but smile to see (Can be) or a capacity of Being
brought in for a piece of an Argument to prove that
a thing is not. That individual thing that can be,
saith the Doctor, and is to be made of any thing, is not.
So my Adversary in his first Reflection.
To which
I Reply, That some knowing Reader it may be, may
not onely smile but laugh quite out while he ob∣serves
Page 133
to what pretty shifts my Adversary is pu•, to
make the Doctor, as he calls him, seem an old do∣ting
fool to the heedless and ignorant. For the
knowing Reader will easily discern, that (That
that can be) is not to be disjoyned from the rest of
the sentence, but that (made) is to be referred 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
to (be) in both places, and that the sense is,
(though the sentence is then less succinct and ele∣gant)
That that individual thing that can be made
or is to be made of any thing, is not.
But here he makes another oblique Reflection,
and observes how fondly the Doctor playes the
confident Dogmatizer asserting as evident, That
that individual thing that can be and is to be made
of any thing, is not; As if forsooth it were evidently
demonstrable, that that individual thing which is
to day in actual being could not possibly be destroy∣ed
and made anew again to morrow by a second
generation.
Reply, This is a very oblique and di∣storted
Reflection indeed and cast off quite from the
mark it should aim at; nor does it at all respicere Ti∣tulum,
the Argument in hand, which is our ever
blessed Saviours Body never to be destroyed. So that
this Answer is onely an argute Cavil. For my Anta∣nist
is not so short sighted but he could easily dis∣cern,
that I understand the individual thing I speak
of to be such a thing as being once made is not to
be destroyed. And therefore to quit my self of my
Antagonists crafty Evasions, I will mould my Pro∣position
into a consistence more full and close, that
there may be no holes nor chinkes for a slippery
wit to creep through, and shall argue t•us
Page 134
That thing that once made is never to be destroyed,
when ever it may be truely said of it, That it can
be made and is to be made of any thing, it then is
not. But the Body of Christ is a thing that once
made to exist, is never to be destroyed. Therefore
when ever it is truely to be said of it, That it can be
made or is to be made of any thing, it then is not.
But Transubstantiation even now says, That the
Body of Christ can be made and is to be made of
Bread or a Wa•er consecrated; Therefore accor∣ding
to the doctrine of Transubstantiation, the
Body of Christ is not But we know certainly and
both the Scripture and the Church Universal do
restifie, that the Body of Christ is: Therefore if
Transubstantiation be true, The Body of Christ
both is and is not at the same time, against that
Logical and Metaphysical Principle. Idem non potest
esse & non esse simul, Is not this as clear as the Me∣ridian
Sun?
But he has not done yet, To say the Body of
Christ is to be made of the Consecrate Bread, is
suc• an unhappy absurdity with my Antagonist, that
he reflects on that in the third place even with the
eye of pitty. It is pitty, says he, to observe his
words in the next Proposition. The individual Body
of Christ is to be made of the Wafer consecrated.
Which implies as if the Wafer were the material
cause of Christs Body. What Philosophy ever
spake so Unphilosophically?
Reply, Good lack!
what Tragedies are here raised upon not an half∣penny
of harm done? If my Antagonist had but ob∣served
the many significations of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in
Page 135
Aristotles Metaphysicks, he might easily have ob∣served
more significations of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or of, than the Ma∣terial
cause. But he proceeds,
Yet to make amends he immediately contra∣dicts
himself and adds, That the Wafer is turn∣ed
into his individual Body; which is a much
different thing from being made of the Wafer,
Reply, Water is turned into Ice or Crystal or in∣to
Wine by a Miracle, and Lead, by Chymical
transmutation, into Gold; how much is that dif∣ferent,
from Ice or Crystal and Wine being made
of Water, and Gold of Lead?
But the particle (for) saith he, goes beyond
wonder. The individual Body of Christ is made
of the Wafer Consecrated (mark the word) for
it is turned into his individual Body: Which is a
piece of as Learned Non-sense, as if he said in
open terms, Because the Wafer is turned into
Christs Body by a total Conversion, which ex∣cludes
a Material cause, therefore his Body is
made of the Wafer by generation, which requires
a Material cause. Thus unfortunate are the Arts
and Sciences when they ingage against Gods
Church.
Reply, Would not one think that in this
high bluster and swaggering language he had plain∣ly
proved his Antagonist a meer dotard in matters
of Divinity? But let us reflect a little on the Reflect∣er,
And first upon his Hyperbolical wonderment
on the particle (for). Crystal is made of Water,
for Water is turned into Crystal, Vineger made
of Wine, for Wine is turned into Vineger, Gold
sometime made of Lead, for Lead sometimes is
Page 136
turned into Gold. Is the use of (for) in such cases as
these so wonderfull? Or were it not a wonder if
(for) were not used upon such occasions. And
yet my Antagonist cannot abstain from calling it a
piece of learned Non-sense; though not half so
Learned as the making of a Child of two spans
long, but double to the same Child when but
one span long, which yet I had the candour gent∣ly
to connive at. Nor do I understand any sense
in this saying of m• Antagonist, That a total con∣version
excludes the material Cause, if he will al∣low
the matter to be such. For certainly the whole
Bread includes the matter of the Bread as well as
the form, and the form perishing, else it were Bread
still, what remains but the matter of the Bread to be
turned into the Body of Christ and to become for∣mally
and individu•lly his Body. And whether this
may be called generation or no is a 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉▪ It is
no such generation as is ordinarily seen in Nature,
but being it is such a conversion, changing or muta∣tion,
as whose terminus is substance, (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,*
says Aristotle
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 it is properly and
simpl• generation. So fortunate are the Arts and
Sciences when they engage for Gods Church against
Errour and Falshood.
But the best jest is yet behind, All the stir and bluster he makes and crowing over me is, because I say, The Body of Christ is made of the Wafer, which is the v•ry language of the School-men and the Fathers. For besides that conficere corpus Christi is an usual phrase with t•em. St. Ambrose plainly Page 137 says, Vbi accessit consecratio de pane sit Christi caro. And again, Scrmo Christi creaturam mutat & •ic ex pane fit Corpus Christi. The Body or flesh of Christ is made of the Bread. Which ex pane, according to my Adversaries own sense, designs the material Cause. And St. Austin, Corpus Christi & sanguis virtute Spiritûs sancti ex panis vinique substantia effi∣citur. The Body and Blood of Christ is made of the sub∣stance of the Bread and Wine. No words can signifie the material Cause more fully then these expressi∣ons. So that now my Antagonist may clap his wings and crow over St. Austin, and St. Ambrose for their learned Non-sense, as well as over me. Thus unfortunate is humour, wit, and eloquence, when it will ingage against true Religion, sound Philosophy, and right Reason. But he knows this was but a farce to the people, and does ingenuousl▪ at last acknow∣ledge he has said nothing as yet in Answer to my Argument, in that he says he does but now come to it.
