Answer. If that be a natural proposition, either the same is said of it self, or else not the same, but a contrary. But neither of both is true. Therefore it can not be a natural proposition, That the same can not be said of it self, it appeareth plainly by these reasons. First because in any identical proposition, that is, where the same thing is affirmed of the self same, the Subject & the predicate must not differ in the thing, but in the name only: as when I say a blade is a sword, as a target is a shield, the son of the virgin is Christ, but bread and the body of Christ are not words of the same signification, but things altogether divers: therefore they make not ⟨image 141⟩an identical Proposition. But if now1 some froward person will have one and the same substance too be declared in these two words, first ye must show that neither bread ceaseth to be bread, nor ye the body ceaseth to be a body. Furthermore in a proposition Identical, the subject and predicate are convertible, or standing one for an other. Therefore if this proposition were identical or one, the body of Christ might as truly be said to be baked in an Oven, as it is truly said that bread is the body given for us. Therefore it is not as the schoolmen speak, an identical proposition.
Now again, that nothing divers, is herein naturally said, is thus proved by a necessary consequence. If the body as some thing divers should be regularly spoken of bread, surely either it should be spoken essentially, or as the cause, or as accidentary. We have showed in the second argument that it is not spoken essentially, as neither being unto bread as the general, or as the difference, nor as the special, in respect of the singular. Now it can much less be the causal affirmation. ⟨image 141⟩For neither hath a body the reason in respect of bread, of the efficient cause, nor of the end: but the inward causes, to wit, the matter and form are referred to the essential affirmation. Finally, it can not be any accidental affirmation, for as much as the body is no accident, yea and though it were, yet it can not be an accident to bread.
It remaineth therefore, that by neither of both ways, that same can be, either a natural or a proper Proposition.
Answeare. If that be a naturall proposition, eyther the same is sayd of it selfe, or els not the same, but a contrarie. But neyther of both is true. Therefore it can not be a naturall proposition, That the same can not be said of it selfe, it appeareth plainely by these reasons. First because in any identicall proposition, that is, where the same thing is affirmed of the selfe same, the Subiect & the predicate must not differ in the thing, but in the name onely: as when I say a blade is a sworde, as a target is a shield, the sonne of the virgin is Christ, but bread and the body of Christ are not words of the same signification, but thinges altogeather diuers: therefore they make not ⟨image 141⟩an identicall Proposition. But if nowe1 some froward person will haue one and the same substance too bee declared in these two words, first ye must shew that neither bread ceaseth to be bread, nor ye the bodie ceaseth to be a bodie. Furthermore in a proposition Identical, the subiect and predicate are conuertible, or standing one for an other. Therefore if this proposition were identicall or one, the bodie of Christ might as truely bee said to be baked in an Ouen, as it is truly saide that bread is the body giuen for vs. Therfore it is not as the schoolemen speake, an identicall proposition.
Now againe, that nothing diuers, is herein naturally said, is thus prooued by a necessary consequence. If the body as some thing diuers should bee regulerly spoken of bread, surely eyther it should be spoken essentially, or as the cause, or as accidentary. We haue shewed in the seconde argument that it is not spoken essentially, as neither being vnto breade as the general, or as the difference, nor as the special, in respect of the singular. Now it can much lesse be the causal affirmation. ⟨image 141⟩For neither hath a bodie the reason in respect of bread, of the efficient cause, nor of the end: but the inward causes, to wyt, the matter and fourme are referred to the essential affirmation. Finally, it can not bee any accidentall affirmation, for as much as the body is no accident, yea and though it were, yet it can not be an accident to bread.
It remaineth therefore, that by neyther of both wayes, that same can be, either a naturall or a proper Proposition.
- 1An identical proposition is a proposition affirmative of it self.An identicall proposition is a proposition affirmatiue of it selfe.
