A brief discourse of the real presence of the body and blood of Christ in the celebration of the Holy Eucharist wherein the witty artifices of the Bishop of Meaux and of Monsieur Maimbourg are obviated, whereby they would draw in the Protestants to imbrace the doctrine of transubstantiation. More, Henry, 1614-1687. 1686 Approx. 170 KB of XML-encoded text transcribed from 48 1-bit group-IV TIFF page images. Text Creation Partnership, Ann Arbor, MI ; Oxford (UK) : 2003-07 (EEBO-TCP Phase 1). A51288 Wing M2643 ESTC R25165 08788055 ocm 08788055 41811 This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal . The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission. Early English books online. (EEBO-TCP ; phase 1, no. A51288) Transcribed from: (Early English Books Online ; image set 41811) Images scanned from microfilm: (Early English books, 1641-1700 ; 1266:3) A brief discourse of the real presence of the body and blood of Christ in the celebration of the Holy Eucharist wherein the witty artifices of the Bishop of Meaux and of Monsieur Maimbourg are obviated, whereby they would draw in the Protestants to imbrace the doctrine of transubstantiation. More, Henry, 1614-1687. Wake, William, 1657-1737. 94 p. Printed for Walter Kettilby, London : 1686. Attributed to Henry More, and also to William Wake--NUC pre-1956 imprints. Reproduction of original in the Huntington Library. Created by converting TCP files to TEI P5 using tcp2tei.xsl, TEI @ Oxford. Re-processed by University of Nebraska-Lincoln and Northwestern, with changes to facilitate morpho-syntactic tagging. Gap elements of known extent have been transformed into placeholder characters or elements to simplify the filling in of gaps by user contributors. EEBO-TCP is a partnership between the Universities of Michigan and Oxford and the publisher ProQuest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by ProQuest via their Early English Books Online (EEBO) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). The general aim of EEBO-TCP is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic English-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in EEBO. EEBO-TCP aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the Text Encoding Initiative (http://www.tei-c.org). The EEBO-TCP project was divided into two phases. The 25,363 texts created during Phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 January 2015. Anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source. Users should be aware of the process of creating the TCP texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data. Text selection was based on the New Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature (NCBEL). If an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in NCBEL, then their works are eligible for inclusion. Selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. In general, first editions of a works in English were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably Latin and Welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so. Image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. Quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in Oxford and Michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet QA standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. After proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. Any remaining illegibles were encoded as s. Understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of TCP data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. Users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a TCP editor. The texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the TEI in Libraries guidelines. Copies of the texts have been issued variously as SGML (TCP schema; ASCII text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable XML (TCP schema; characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless XML (TEI P5, characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or TEI g elements). Keying and markup guidelines are available at the Text Creation Partnership web site . eng Bossuet, Jacques Bénigne, 1627-1704. Maimbourg, Louis, 1610-1686. Transubstantiation. 2002-12 TCP Assigned for keying and markup 2003-02 Apex CoVantage Keyed and coded from ProQuest page images 2003-05 Rina Kor Sampled and proofread 2003-05 Rina Kor Text and markup reviewed and edited 2003-06 pfs Batch review (QC) and XML conversion Imprimatur . Guil. Needham R mo in Christo Patri ac D. D. Wilhelmo Archiep. Cantuar. à sacr . Domest . Ex Aedib . Lambeth . Iul. 2. 1686. A BRIEF DISCOURSE OF THE Real Presence OF THE Body and Blood of CHRIST In the Celebration of the HOLY EUCHARIST : WHEREIN The Witty Artifices of the Bishop of Meaux and of Monsieur Maimbourg are obviated , whereby they would draw in the Protestants to imbrace the Doctrine of Transubstantiation . John 6. v. 54 , 63. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Calvin Instit. lib. 4. cap. 17. In sacra sua coena jubet me Christus sub Symbolis panis ac vini corpus ac sanguinem suum sumere , manducare ac bibere . Nihil dubito quin & ipse verè porrigat & ego recipiam . Tantum absurda rejicio quae aut coelesti illius Majestate indigna , aut ab humanae ejus naturae veritate aliena esse , apparet . LONDON , Printed for Walter Kettilby at the Bishop's Head in S t Paul's Church-Yard , 1686. A BRIEF DISCOURSE OF THE Real Presence . CHAP. I. 1. The occasion of writing this Treatise . 2. The sence of the Church of England touching Transubstantiation . 3. Three Passages in her Articles , Liturgie and Homilies that seem to imply a Real Presence . 4. A yielding at least for the present that the Church of England is for a Real Presence , but of that Flesh and Blood of Christ which he discourses of in the sixth Chapter of St. John's Gospel , though she be for a Real Absence of that which hung on the Cross. 5. That our Saviour himself distinguishes betwixt that Flesh and Blood he bore about with him , and that he there so earnestly discourses of . 6. That this Divine Food there discoursed of , the Flesh and Blood of Christ , is most copiously to be fed upon in the Holy Eucharist , and that our Communion-Service alludes to the same , nor does by such a Real Presence imply any Transubstantiation . 1. THE occasion of writing this short Treatise was this . I observing the Papers here in England , published in behalf of the Church of Rome , and for the drawing off People from the Orthodox Faith of the Church of England , which holds with the ancient pure Apostolick Church in the Primitive Times , before that general Degeneracy of the Church came in , to drive at nothing more earnestly , than the maintaining their grand Error touching the Eucharist , viz. their Doctrine of Transubstantiation : Into which they would bring back the Reformed Churches , by taking hold of some Intimations , or more open Professions of theirs , of a Real Presence ( though they absolutely deny the Roman Doctrine of Transubstantiation ) and thus entangling and ensnaring them in those free professions touching that Mystery of the Eucharist , would by hard pulling hale them into that rightfully relinquish'd Errour , for which and several others , they justly left the Communion of the Church of Rome : I thought it my duty so far as my Age , and Infirmness of my Body will permit , to endeavour to extricate the Reformation , and especially our Church of England from these Entanglements with which these witty and cunning Writers would entangle Her , in Her Concessions touching that mysterious Theory , and to shew there is no clashing betwixt her declaring against Transubstantiation and those Passages which seem to imply a Real Presence of the Body and Bloud of Christ at the Celebration of the Holy Eucharist . 2. Concerning which , that we may the more clearly judge , we will bring into view what She says touching them both . And as touching the former ( Article 28. ) her words are these : Transubstantiation ( or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine in the Supper of the Lord ) cannot be proved by Holy Writ , but it is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture , overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament , and hath given occasion to many Superstitions . And in the latter part of the Rubrick at the end of the Communion-Service , She says , That the Sacramental Bread and Wine remain still in their very natural Substances , and therefore may not be adored ( for that were Idolatry to be abhorred of all faithful Christians ) and the natural Body and Bloud of our Saviour Christ are in Heaven and not here , it being against the Truth of Christ's natural Body to be at one time in more places than one . This is sufficiently express against Transubstantiation . 3. Now those passages that seem to imply a Real Presence in the Eucharist are these . In the above-named Article 28. The Body of Christ , saith our Church , is given , taken , and eaten in the Supper only after an Heavenly and Spiritual manner . And the mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper , is Faith. Against which our Adversaries suggest ; that no Faith can make us actually receive and eat that , which is God knows how far distant from us , and that therefore we imply that the Body of Christ is really present in the Eucharist . Another Passage occurs in our Catechism ; where it is told us , That the inward part of the Sacrament , or thing signified , is the Body and Bloud of Christ , which are verily and indeed taken and received by the faithful in the Lord's Supper . Where [ verily ] and [ indeed ] seems to imply a Real Presence and Participation of the Body and Bloud of Christ. The last place shall be that in the Homily , of worthy receiving and reverend esteeming of the Sacrament of the Body and Bloud of Christ. The words are these . But thus much we must be sure to hold , that in the Supper of the Lord there is no vain Ceremony , no bare Sign , no untrue Figure of a thing absent . But as the Scripture saith , the Table of the Lord , the Bread and Cup of the Lord , the Memory of Christ , the Annunciation of his Death , yea the Communion of the Body and Blood of the Lord , in a marvellous Incorporation , which by the Operation of the Holy Ghost ( the very bond of our conjunction with Christ ) is through Faith wrought in the Souls of the faithful . Whereby not only their Souls live to Eternal Life , but they surely trust to win their Bodies a Resurrection to Immortality . And immediately there is added , The true understanding of this Fruition and Union which is betwixt the Body and the Head , betwixt the true Believers and Christ , the ancient Catholick Fathers both perceiving themselves , and commending to their people , were not afraid to call this Supper , some of them , the Salve of Immortality , and sovereign Preservative against Death ; others the Deifick Communion , others the sweet Dainties of our Saviour , the Pledge of Eternal Health , the Defence of Faith , the Hope of the Resurrection ; Others the Food of Immortality , the Healthful Grace and the Conservatory to Everlasting Life . There are so many high Expressions in these passages , that our Adversaries who would by this Hook pluck us back again into the Errour of Transubstantiation , will unavoidably imagine and alledge from hence that if we will stand to the Assertions of our own Church , we must acknowledge the Real Presence of the Body and Bloud of our Saviour in the Sacrament . 4. And let us be so civil to them as at least for the present to yield , that understanding it in a due sense , we do acknowledge the Real Presence . But it does not at all follow from thence that we must hold that that very Body of Christ that hung upon the Cross , and whose Bloud was there shed , is really present in the Sacrament , but that our Church speaking conformably to Christ's Discourse on this Matter in the sixth of Iohn , and to the ancient primitive Fathers , whose expressions do plainly allude to that Discourse of our Saviour's in the sixth of S. Iohn , doth assert both a Real Presence of the Body and Bloud of Christ to be received by the faithful in the Eucharist , and also a Real Absence of that Body and Bloud that was crucified and shed on the Cross. And this seems to be the express Doctrine of our Saviour in the above mentioned Chapter of S. Iohn , where the Eternal Word incarnate speaks thus — John 6. v. 51. I am the living Bread which came down from Heaven , ( viz. the Manna which the Psalmist calls the Food of Angels also ) if any eat of this Bread he shall live for ever ( viz. of this true Manna , of which the Manna in the Wilderness was but a Type ) and the Bread that I will give is my flesh ( which therefore still is that immortalizing Manna , the true Bread from Heaven ) which I will give for the life of the World , that the whole Intellectual Creation may live thereby , it being their vivifick Food . For as you may gather by vers . 62 , 63. he does not understand his flesh that hung on the Cross. And it was the ignorance of the Iews that they thought he did : and therefore they cryed out on him , saying , v. 52. How can this man give us his flesh to eat ? And that is because they took him to be a mere man , or an ordinary man , not the incarnate Logos . Which Logos Clemens Alexandrinus calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , the impassible man ; and Trismegistus , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , that one man the Son of God born of him , which he says is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , the Author of Regeneration , as having the Life in him , the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , Iohn 1. v. 4. and this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Life the Divine or Spiritual Body , one necessary Element of Regeneration , which mystery we cannot here insist upon . But in the mean time let us observe our Saviour's Answer to this Scruple of the Iews , he is so far from receding from what he said , that he with all earnestness and vehemency asserts the same again . Then Iesus said unto them , Verily , verily , I say unto you , except you eat the flesh of the Son of man ( that is of the Messias , or the Word Incarnate ) and drink his bloud , you have no life in you . Whoso eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud hath Eternal Life , and I will raise him up at the last day . For my flesh is meat indeed , and my bloud is drink indeed . He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud dwelleth in me and I in him . As the living Father hath sent me and I live by the Father , so he that eateth me ( viz. that eateth his flesh and drinketh his bloud ) even he shall live by me . This is that bread that came down from Heaven , not as your Fathers did eat Manna and are dead ; he that eateth of this Bread shall live for ever . 5. This is that earnest , lofty and sublime discourse of our Saviour touching his real Flesh and Blood , that the scandal given to the Jews could not drive him off from , and persisting in it he gave also offence to his Disciples , that muttered and said , This is an hard saying , who can hear it ? Wherefore I must confess ingenuously , that it seems to me incredible , that under so lofty mysterious a Style , and earnest asseveration of what he affirms , though to the scandal of both the Iews and his own Disciples , there should not be couched some most weighty and profound Truth concerning some real Flesh and Blood of his , touching which this vehement and sublime Discourse is framed , which is a piece of that part of the Christian Philosophy ( as some of the Antients call Christianity ) which Origen terms 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . The Object of this eating and drinking is the Flesh and Blood of Christ : But to rectifie the errour of his Disciples , he plainly affirms , that he doth not mean what he said of the Flesh and Blood he then bore about with him . In v. 61 , 62 , 63. Does this offend you ( saith he to them ) what and if you shall see the Son of Man ascend up where he was before ( then my particular natural Body will be far enough removed from you , and your selves then from so gross a conceit as to think I understand this of my natural , particular Body or Flesh ) . No says he , the flesh profiteth nothing , it is the spirit that quickens ; the words that I speak unto you , they are spirit and they are life , that is to say , they are concerning that spiritual Body and Life or Spirit that accompanies it ( That which is born of the flesh is flesh , and that which is born of the spirit is spirit ) the both seed and nourishment of those that are Regenerate ; the Principles of their Regeneration , and the Divine Food for their Nutrition , whereby they grow up to their due stature in Christ. 6. And where , or where so fully is this Divine Food to be had , as in that most solemn and most devotional approaching God in the Celebration of the Communion of the Body and Blood of Christ , where we both testifie and advance thereby our spiritual union with him , according as he has declared in Iohn ch . 6. He that eateth my flesh , and drinketh my blood , dwelleth in me , and I in him . Upon which our Communion-Service thus glosses : That if with a true penitent heart and lively faith we receive this Holy Sacrament , we then spiritually eat the Flesh of Christ and drink his Blood , we dwell in Christ and Christ in us , we are one with Christ and Christ with us . And whereas the Adversaries of our Church object , We cannot eat the Flesh of Christ and drink his Blood , in the Celebration of the Lords Supper , unless his Flesh and Blood be really present ; we do acknowledge that that Flesh and Blood which our Saviour discourses of in S t Iohn , and which our Liturgie alludes to , as also those notable sayings of the Fathers above-cited out of the Homily , touching the worthy receiving the Lord's Supper , is really present in the Eucharist . And that there is that which Christ calls his Flesh and Blood distinct from that which he then bore about with him , and was Crucified on the Cross , he does most manifestly declare in that discourse in S t Iohn , as I have already proved . So manifest is it that the Real Presence does not imply any Transubstantiation of the Bread and Wine into the Body and Blood of Christ. CHAP. II. 1. The Bishop of Meaux his establishing Transubstantiation upon the literal sense of [ This is my Body ] . 2. That according to the literal sense , the Bread that Christ blessed was both Bread and the Body of Christ at once , and that the avoiding that absurdity cast them upon Transubstantiation . 3. That Transubstantiation exceeds that avoided Absurdity as contradicting the Senses as well as Reason , and labouring under the same Absurdity it self . 4. Further Reasons why the Road of the literal sense is to be left , and that we are to strike into the Figurative , the former contradicting the Principles of Physicks . 5. Of Metaphysicks . 6. Of Mathematicks . 7. And of Logick . 8. That Transubstantiation implies the same thing is and is not at the same time . 9. A number of Absurdities plainly resulting from Transubstantiation . 1. AND therefore to prop up this great mistake of Transubstantiation , they are fain to recur and stick to a literal sense of those words of our Saviour [ This is my Body ] which I finding no where more handsomely done than by the Right Reverend Bishop of Meaux , I shall produce the Passage in his own words ( that is the translation of them ) in his Exposition of the Doctrine of the Catholick Church , Sect. 10. The Real Presence , says he , of the Body and Blood of our Saviour is solidly established by the words of the Institution ( This is my Body ) which we understand literally ; and there is no more reason to ask us why we fix our selves to the proper and literal sense , than there is to ask a Traveller why he follows the high Road. It is their parts who have recourse to the Figurative sense and who take by-paths , to give a reason for what they do . As for us , since we find nothing in the words which Jesus Christ makes use of for the Institution of this Mystery obliging us to take them in a Figurative sense , we think that to be a sufficient Reason to determine us to the literal . 2. In answer to this , I shall , if it be not too great a Presumption , first accompany this venerable Person in this high Road of the literal sence of the words of Institution ( This is my Body ) and then shew how this Road , as fairly as it looks , is here a mere Angiportus that hath no exitus or Passage , so that we must be forced to divert out of it , or go abck again . First then , let us take this supposed high Road , and say the words ( This is my Body ) are to be understood literally . Wherefore let us produce the whole Text and follow this kind of Gloss , Luke 22. 19. And he took bread , and gave thanks , and brake it , and gave unto them , saying , This is my Body , which is given for you , This do in remembrance of me . Likewise also the cup after supper , saying , This cup is the New Testament in my blood , which is shed for you . Now if we keep to the mere literal sense , This Cup ( as well as this Bread is the Body of Christ ) must be really the New Testament in Christ's Bloud , which is a thing unavoidable if we tye our selves to the literal sense of the words . But why is not the Cup the Bloud or Covenant in Christ's Bloud ? But that a Cup and Bloud are Disparata , or in general , Opposita , which to affirm one of another is a Contradiction ; as if one should say a Bear is a Horse , and therefore we are constrained to leave the literal sense , and to recur to a figurative . But precisely to keep to the institution of that part of the Sacrament that respects Christ's Body ; It is plain that what he took he gave thanks for , what he gave thanks for he brake , what he brake he gave to his Disciples , saying , This ( which he took , gave thanks for , brake , and gave to his Disciples , viz. the above-mentioned Bread ) is my Body . Wherefore the literal sense must necessarily be , This Bread ( as before it was this Cup ) is my body . Insomuch that according to this literal sense it is both really Bread still , and really the Body of Christ at once . Which , I believe , there is no Romanist but will be ashamed to admit . But why cannot he admit this but that Bread and the Body of Christ are Opposita , and therefore the one cannot be said to be the other without a perfect repugnancy or contradiction to humane Reason ; as absurd as if one should say a Bear is a Horse , or a Rose a Black-bird , whence , by the bye , we may note the necessary use of Reason in Matters of Religion , and that what is a plain Contradiction to humane Reason , such as a Triangle is a Circle , or a Cow an Horse , are not to be admitted for Articles of the Christian Faith. And for this Reason , I suppose the Church of Rome fell into the opinion of Transubstantiation , ( from this literal way of expounding these words [ This is my Body ] ) rather than according to the genuine leading of that way , they would admit that what Christ gave his Disciples , was both real Bread and the real Body of Christ at once . 3. But see the infelicity of this Doctrine of Transubstantiation , which does not only contradict the inviolable Principles of Reason in humane Souls , but also all the outward senses , upon which account it is more intolerable than that opinion which they seem so much to abhor , as to prefer Transubstantiation before it , though it contradict only Reason , not the outward Senses , which rightly circumstantiated are fit Judges touching sensible Objects , whether they be this or that , Fish or Fowl , Bread or Flesh. Nay I may add that these Transubstantiators have fallen over and above that contradiction to the rightly circumstantiated senses , into that very absurdity , that they seemed so much to abhor from , that is the confounding two opposite Species into one Individual Substance , viz. that one and the same Individual Substance should be really both Bread and Christ's Body at once . But by their transubstantiating the Individual Substance of the Bread into the Individual Substance of Christ's Body , they run into this very Repugnancy which they seemed before so cautiously to avoid ; two Individual Substances ( as species infimae ) being Opposita , and therefore uncapable of being said to be the same , or to be pronounced one of the other without a Contradiction . It is impossible that the Soul of Socrates , for example , should be so Transubstantiated into the Soul of Plato , that it should become his Soul , insomuch that it may be said of Socrates his Soul , that it is the Soul of Plato ; and there is the same Reason of Transubstantiating the Substance of the Bread into the Substance of the Body of Christ. So that the Substance of the Bread may be said to be the Body of Christ , or the Substance of his Body , which it must either be , or be annihilated , and then it is not the Transubstantiation of the Substance of the Bread , but the Annihilation of it , into the Body of Christ. 4. And having rid in this fair promising Road of the literal sense , but thus far , I conceive , I have made it manifest , that it is not passable , but that we have discovered such difficulties as may very well move me to strike out of it , or return back . And further , to shew I do it not rashly , I shall add several other Reasons , as this venerable Person ( that thinks fittest to keep in it still ) doth but rightfully require ; as declaring , It is their parts who have recourse to the Figurative sense , and who take by-paths to give a reason why they do so . Wherefore besides what I have produced already , I add these transcribed out of a Treatise of mine writ many years ago . Besides then the Repugnancy of this Doctrine of Transubstantiation to the common sense of all men , according to which it cannot but be judged to be Bread still , I shall now shew how it contradicts the Principles of all Arts and Sciences ( which if we may not make use of in Theology , to what great purpose are all the Universities in Christendom ? ) the Principles , I say , of Physicks , of Metaphysicks , of Mathematicks , and of Logick . It is a Principle in Physicks , That that Internal space or place that a body occupies , is equal to the body that occupies it . Now let us suppose that one and the same body occupies two such internal places or spaces at once . This body therefore is equal to two spaces which are double to one single space ; wherefore the body is double to that body in one single space , and therefore one and the same Body double to it self , which is an enormous Contradiction . 5. Again in Metaphysicks , the body of Christ is acknowledged one , and that as much as any one body else in the World. Now the Metaphysical Notion of [ one ] is to be indivisum à se ( both quoad partes and quoad totum ) as well as divisum à quolibet alio ; but the body of Christ being both in Heaven , and without any continuance of that body here upon Earth also , the whole body is divided from the whole body , and therefore is entirely both unum and multa , which is a perfect contradiction . 6. Thirdly , In the Mathematicks ( Concil . Trident. Sess. 13. ) the Council of Trent saying , that in the separation of the parts of the species ( that which bears the outward show of Bread and Wine ) that from this division there is a parting of the whole , divided into so many entire bodies of Christ , the body of Christ being always at the same time equal to it self . It follows , that a part of the division is equal to the whole that is divided , against that common Notion in Euclid , That the whole is bigger than the part . 7. And lastly , In Logick , it is a Maxim , That the parts agree indeed with the whole , but disagree one with another ; but in the above said division of the Host or Sacrament , the parts do so well agree , that they are intirely the same individual thing . And whereas any Division , whether Logical or Physical , is the Division of some one into many , this is but the Division of one into one and it self , which is a perfect contradiction . 8. To all which you may add , That the Transubstantiation of the Bread and Wine into the Body and Blood of Christ implys , that the same thing both is and is not at the same time ( which is against that Fundamental Principle in Logick and Metaphysicks , that both parts of a contradiction cannot be true ) which I prove thus . For that Individual thing that can be made , or is to be made of any thing , is not ; the progress in this case being à privatione ad habitum , as the Schools speak , and the terms of Generation or of being made , viz. à quo and ad quem being Non esse and Esse , or Non-existent and Existent , so that that passing , is from Non-existent to Existent . Now the individual body of Christ is to be made of the Wafer consecrated , for it is turned into his Individual Body . But his Individual Body was before this Consecration ; wherefore it both was and was not at the same time . For in the making thereof there was a passing from the terminus à quo , which is the Non-existency of the thing to be made , to the terminus ad quem , to the Existency of it , which yet was in Being before . 9. These difficulties are sufficient to show that this high Road of the literal sense taken to establish Transubstantiation is not passable , so that there is a necessity of diverting or going back . Nor will it be much needful to hint briefly these or other like absurdities more intelligible to the vulgar capacity , such as , That the same Body at the same time is greater and lesser than it self ; Is but a foot distant from me or less , and yet many thousand miles distant from me : That one and the same Person may be intirely present with himself , and some hundred thousand miles absent from himself at once : That he may sit still on the Grass , and yet journey and walk at the same time : That an organized body that hath head , feet , hands , &c. is intirely in every part of it self , the comely parts in the more uncomely : That the same Body now in Heaven may really present it self on Earth without passing any space either directly or circuitously : That our Saviour Christ communicating with his Disciples in the last Supper , swallowed down his whole intire Body , limbs , back , belly , head and mouth and all into his stomach , which might amuze and puzzle one to conceive how it was possible for his Disciples not to miss the sight of his hands and head , though his cloaths were still visible as not being swallowed down into his stomach . Or , whether our Saviour swallowed down his own Body into his stomach or no , this puzzle will still remain , how his Disciples could swallow him down without his cloaths , he being still in his cloaths ; or how they could swallow him down in his cloaths , the bread being not transubstantiated into his cloaths , but into his body only . These and several such Absurdities it were easie to enumerate . But I hope I have produced so much already that I may , and any one else , be thought to have very good cause to leave this high Road of the literal sense , and betake our selves to that more safe path of the Figurative , whereby Transubstantiation with all its Absurdities is avoided . CHAP. III. 1. An evasion of the Incredibility of Transubstantiation drawn from the Omnipotency of God. 2. Ans. That it is no derogation to God's Omnipotency not to be able to do what it implies a contradiction to be done . 3. If this Transubstantiation had been fecible , yet it had been repugnant to the Goodness and Wisdom of Christ to have effected it . 4. A marvelous witty device of taking away all the Absurdities of Transubstantiation , by giving to Christ's Body a supernatural manner of existence . 5. That the neat Artifice of this Sophistry lies in putting the smooth term of supernatural for counter-essential or asystatal . 6. That it is an Asystatal manner of Existence , proved from the Author's description thereof in several particulars . Arguments from the multiplication of Christ's Body , and difference of time of its production . 7. From Non-extension of parts . 8. From Independency of place . 9. To make a body independent of Place as unconceivable as to make it independent of Time. 10. The Argument from being whole in every part of the Symbols . 1. OUT of which Absurdities the most witty evasion offered to our consideration that I have met with , is in that ingenious and artfully composed Treatise , entitled , A Papist mis-represented and represented . In his Chapter of the Eucharist toward the end , it is well worth the transcribing that I may offer some brief Answers to the things there comprized . The Papist represented , saith he ( pag. 11. lin . 22. ) not at all hearkning to his Senses in a matter where God speaks ; he unfeignedly confesses , that he that made the World of nothing by his sole Word , That cured Diseases by his Word , That raised the Dead by his Word , that expelled Devils , That commanded the Winds and Seas , That multiplied Bread , That changed Water into Wine by his Word , and Sinners into Just men , cannot want Power to change Bread and Wine into his own Body and Bloud by his sole Word . 2. It is an invidious thing to dispute the Power of the Eternal Logos or Word Incarnate , who is God of God , very God of very God , and therefore Omnipotent , and can do all things that imply no Contradiction to be done , as most certainly none of these things there specifi'd do imply it . But things repugnant to be done we may , and that with due reverence , declare God cannot do . As the Apostle does not stick to say , God cannot lye , Hebr. 6. 18. And why is it impossible for God to lye , but that it is repugnant to the Perfection of his Nature , and particularly that Attribute of his Veracity . Nor will any adventure to affirm that he can make a Globe or Cylinder which shall be equidistant from , or touch a Plane though but in half of their Spherical or Cylindrical Superficies : or a Circle from whose Center the lines drawn shall be unequal , or a Rectangle Triangle , the Power of whose Hypotenusa shall not be equal to both the Powers of the Basis and Cathetus . And in fine , there are sixt and immutable Ideas of things , and such necessary and inseparable respects and properties of them , that to imagine them mutable , or that God can change them , is to disorder and change the Eternal and Immutable Intellect of God himself . Of which those indeleble and necessary Notions , which the minds of all mankind are conscious to themselves of , if they be but awakned into free attention thereto , is but a compendious Transcript . And therefore God his being not able to do any thing that is a Contradiction to those Eternal Ideas and Habitudes of them in his own mind , is no lessening of his Omnipotency , but to imagine otherwise , is to dissolve the Eternal Frame of the Divine Intellect , and under a pretence of amplifying his Omnipotency , to enable God to destroy himself , or to make him so weak or impotent as to be capable of being destroyed by himself , which is a thing impossible . 3. But suppose the Eternal Word Incarnate could have turned the Bread and Wine into his own Individual Body and Bloud , and the thing it self were fecible , though it seems so palpably contradictious to us : yet there would be this difficulty still remaining , that it is repugnant to his Wisdom and Goodness so to do ( as the Apostle says , it is impossible for God to lye ) in that manner he is supposed to have done it , that is , in declaring , a thing is done that is repugnant so apparently to our Intellectual Faculties , and leaves so palpable an assurance to all our Senses , though never so rightly circumstantiated , that it is not done , but that it is still Bread ; and yet that these species of Bread and Wine should be supported by a Miracle , to obfirm or harden us in our unbelief of this Mystery of Transubstantiation . How does this sute with either the Wisdom of God , if he would in good earnest have us to believe this Mystery , or with his Goodness , to give this Scandal to the World , for whom Christ died , and to occasion so bloudy Persecutions of innumerable innocent Souls , that could not believe a thing so contrary to all Sense and Reason , and indeed to Passages of Scripture it self , whose Penmen he did inspire ? Wherefore this is a plain Evincement that our Saviour meant figuratively when he said [ This is my Body ] and that his Disciples understood him so ( there being nothing more usual in the Jewish Language than to call the Sign by the Name of the thing signified ) and that this literal Gloss has been introduced by After-ages without any fault of our Saviour . But in defence of the literal sense which he would have to infer Transubstantiation , our Author holds on thus , viz. 4. That this may be done without danger of multiplying his Body , and making as many Christs as Altars , or leaving the right hand of his Father , but only by giving to his Body a Supernatural manner of Existence , by which being left without Extension of Parts , and rendred independent of Place , it may be one and the same in many places at once , and whole in every part of the Symbols , and not obnoxious to any Corporeal Contingencies . And this kind of Existence is no more than what in a manner he bestows upon every glorified Body , than what his own Body had when born without the least violation of his Mother's Virginal Integrity , when he rose from the Dead out of the Sepulcher without removing the stone ; when he entered amongst his Disciples , the Doors being shut . 5. This is , as I said , a witty contrived evasion to elude the above-mentioned Repugnancies I have noted , and exquisitely well fitted for the amusing and confounding of more vulgar and weak minds , or such as have not leisure to consider things to the bottom , and for the captivating them into a profession of what they have no determinate or distinct apprehension of , by distinctions and exemplifications that give no real support to the cause they are brought in for to maintain . For first , to pretend that by a supernatural manner of Existence a body may be in more places than one at once , at the right hand of God the Father in Heaven , and on the Altar at the same time , &c. The Artifice of the Sophistry lies in this , that he has put a more tolerable and soft expression in lieu of one that ( according to his explication of the matter ) would sound more harsh , but is more true and proper in this case . For this manner of Existence of a Body which he describes is not simply supernatural , which implies it is a Body still , as a Mill-stone by a supernatural power held up in the air is a Mill-stone still , though it be in that supernatural condition . But the condition he describes is such as is not only supernatural but counter-essential or Asystatal , that is , Repugnant to the very Being of a Body , or of any finite substance in the Universe . It is as if the Mill-stone were not only supernaturally supported in the Air , but were as transparent , as soft and fluid , and of as undetermined a shape as the Air it self , or as if a right-angled Triangle were declared to be so still , though the Hypotenusa were not of equal power with the Basis and Cathetus , which is a thing impossible ; but if instead of a supernatural manner of existence , it had been said an Asystatal manner of existence , that is , an existence repugnant to the very Being of a Body or any finite substance else , it would have been discovered to be a contradiction at the very first sight , and therefore such as ought to be rejected , as well as the affirming that what Christ gave was really Bread and really his Body at once . 6. And now , notwithstanding this soft and smooth term of [ supernatural ] that it is an Asystatal manner of existence , that is here given to the Body of Christ , may appear from our Author's description thereof . For in vertue , he saith , of this supernatural manner of existence , there may be a Transubstantiation without danger of multiplying Christ's Body , and making as many Christs as Altars . But it is impossible this Absurdity should be avoided , supposing Transubstantiation . For there is not a more certain and infallible sign of two bodily Persons being two bodily Persons , and not the same Person , that distance of place , wherein they are separate one from another , and consequently two not one body , and this is the very case in Transubstantiation , which manifestly implies , that the body of Christ is in many thousand distant places at once . Which imagined condition in it is not supernatural but Asystatal , and contradictious to the very Being of any finite substance whatever , as has been intimated and firmly proved before , Chap. 2. And as distance of place necessarily infers difference of Bodies or Persons , so does also difference of time of their Production . That which was produced , suppose sixteen hundred Years ago and remains so produced cannot be produced suppose but yesterday , or at this present moment , and so be sixteen hundred Years older or younger than it self . This is not only supernatural but Asystatal , and implies a perfect contradiction ; but yet this is the very case in Transubstantiation . The Body of Christ born suppose sixteen hundred Years ago , is yet produced out of the Transubstantiated Bread but now or yesterday , and so the same body is sixteen hundred Years older or younger than it self , which is a perfect Contradiction . 7. Secondly , The Papist represented declares , That the Body of Christ by vertue of this supernatural manner of Existence , is left without Extension of parts , which is a perfect contradiction to the very nature and essence of a Body , whose universally acknowledged Definition is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , implying a Trinal inpenetrable dimension or extension . Besides , did Christ's Body at his last Supper so soon as he had Transubstantiated the Bread into it , lose all extension of parts ? What then filled out his cloaths as he sat with his Disciples at Table ? or how could the Jews lay hold on Christ's Body to Crucifie it , if he had no extension of parts to be laid hold on ? How could there be hands and feet and organization of parts , either at the Table or on the Cross , if there were no extension of parts to be organized ? And lastly , being the Transubstantiated Bread is the very Individual Body of Christ , if they would have this being left without extension of parts , to be understood of it , how can the very same Individual Body of Christ have Extension of Parts and have no Extension of Parts , have Organization of Parts and have no Organization of Parts at once : so that the condition of Christ's Body here supposed is plainly Asystatal , not as is smoothly expressed only Supernatural . 8. Thirdly , Whereas the Papist Represented declares , that this Supernatural Manner of Existence of Christ's Body renders it Independent of Place , what can the meaning of that be , but that by vertue of this priviledge it might exist without any Place or Ubi , which Bodies in their natural condition cannot ? But this clashes with the very Story of our Saviour Christ , who was certainly in the Room in which he ate the Passover with his Disciples , after he had transubstantiated the Bread into his Individual Body , and therefore it did not exist Independently of Place , in virtue of any such Supernatural Manner of Existence as is imagined . And as this does not agree with matter of Fact , so it is a perfect contradiction to the Essence of any Body or finite Substance to be exempted from all connexion with Place or Ubi , but a finite Substance must be in a definite Ubi , and while it is in such a definite Ubi , it is impossible to conceive that it is in another Place or Ubi , whether intra or extra moenia Mundi . He that closely and precisely considers the point , he will not fail , I think , to discern the thing to be impossible . And what contradiction it implies I have demonstrated above . So that we see there can be no such Supernatural Manner of Existence conferred on a Body in making it independent of Place or Ubiety , as to capacitate it to be one and the same Body in diverse places at once , but that this supposed Supernatural Manner is truly an Asystatal Manner , and such as is repugnant to the very Being of a Body , or any finite Substance whatsoever . 9. To make a body in this sense independent of Place or Ubiety , is as unconceivable as to make it independent of Time , which yet would so compleat this impossible Hypothesis , that under this pretence when a thing has such a Supernatural Existence as exempts it from all connexion with or relation to Time , but supposes it utterly independent thereof , as was explained before touching Place , we may suppose what we will of a Body , that it may be Bread and not Bread at the same time , that it may be at Thebes and at Athens at the same time , as we ordinary mortals would phrase it , sith it is lifted up above all Relation and Connexion with Time , nor hath any thing to do with any Time. But yet this assuredly is not a mere Supernatural Manner of Existence , but plainly Asystatal , and such as if God could cause , there would be no Eternal and Immutable Truths , but under a Pretext of exalting the Omnipotence of God , they would imply him able to destroy his own Nature , which would argue an Impotency in him , and to extinguish and confound the Inviolable Ideas of the Divine Intellect , as I intimated above . 10. And fourthly and lastly , That in vertue of this Supernatural manner of Existence , the Body of Christ should be whole in every part of the Symbols , and thereby become not obnoxious to any corporeal Contingencies ; ( which is said , I suppose , to avoid the Absurdity of grinding a pieces the Body of Christ with our Teeth when we chew the supposed Species ) thus to exist whole in every part , is not a mere Supernatural Manner of existing , but Asystatal , and implies either that the least part of Christ's Body is as big as the whole , or that the whole Body is God knows how many thousand times bigger than it self . For certainly the whole Body comprized under the whole Bread or Species of Bread , is many thousand times bigger than one particle thereof no bigger than a Pins point . Besides that this making the Body of Christ whole in every part , takes away all possibility of distinct Organization of his Body , unless you will have every Pins point of it to have Head , Feet , Hands , Arms , and the rest of the Parts of an humane Body , or have the same Individual Body organized and unorganized at the same time , which are as palpable Contradictions as any can occur to the understanding of a man. And thus much I thought fit to intimate touching this Witty Distinction of a Natural and Supernatural Manner of Existence of a Body , and to shew that this pretended Supernatural Manner of the Existence of Christ's Body , arising from the Bread transubstantiated , as the Papist Represented describes it , is indeed an Asystatal Manner of Existence , and inconsistent with the Being of any Body , or finite Substance whatsoever . CHAP. IV. 1. The Supernatural Manner of the Existence of a Body consisting in Non-extension of Parts , Independency of Place , and being whole in every Part. 2. The first exemplification of such a Manner of Existence in Glorified Bodies , not to reach the Case . 3. Nor the second , in Christ's Body born without the least Violation of his Mothers Virginal Integrity . 4. Nor the third in Christ's rising out of the Sepuloher without the removing of the stone . 5. Nor the fourth , in Christ's entring amongst his Disciples the doors being shut . 6. Transubstantiation implying a number of contradictions as harsh as that of the same body being both Christ ' s Body and Bread at once , and there being no salvo for them but this device of a supernatural manner of Existence , and this so plainly failing , it is impossible that Transubstantiation should be the true mode of the Real Presence . 1. IT remains now that we only touch upon lightly the exemplifications of this supernatural manner of Existence of a Body , consisting in these peculiarities , Non-extension of parts , Independency of Place , and being whole in every part , and to note how none of these instances reach the present case . 2. As first that of a glorified Body . What Scripture , Reason or Authority ever suggested to us that the glorified Body of Christ himself , much less every glorified Body , is without extension of parts , has no relation to or connexion with Place , or is whole in every part . For without extension of Parts it cannot be so much as a Body . And were not Moses and Elias together with Christ at his Transfiguration on Mount Tabor , at least lively Figures of the state of a glorified Body , but it is evident by the description that they had extension of parts , else what should shining Garments do upon what is unextended , and what glory can issue from a single Mathematical point as I may so call it ? And in that they were on Mount Tabor together , it is manifest they had a connexion with or dependency on Place , nor did exist without being in some ubi . And that the glorified Body of Christ is in Heaven not on Earth , is plain from Act. 3. 21. and touching his Body he rose in , and therefore was his Resurrection-Body , Matt. 28. 6. The Angel says , He is not here , for he is risen ; which had been a mere Non sequitur , if his Body could have been in more places than one at once , which property the Papist represented gives it upon account of Transubstantiation . And for as much as the Transubstantiated Bread and the Body of Christ is one and the same Individual Body , and that this that is once Christ's Body never perishes , it is evident , that the Body he rose in , being one and the same Body with the Transubstantiated Bread , must have the capacity by this supernatural manner of Existence above described , to be in more places than one at once , which is a perfect contradiction to the Angels reasoning : He is not here , for he is risen , and gone hence . For according to this supernatural manner of Existence , which they suppose in Christ's Body upon the account of Transubstantiation , he might be both there and gone thence at once . 3. The second Instance of this supernatural manner of existence of a Body , is Christ's Body born without the least violation of his Mothers Virginal Integrity , which is such a secret as the Scripture has not revealed , nor any sufficient Authority assured us of : The Mother of Christ still continuing a Virgin , because she had nothing to do with any man , though that which was conceived in her by the overshadowing of the Holy Ghost came out of her Womb in the same circumstances there , that other humane Births do . But suppose the Body of Christ pass'd the wicket of the Womb without opening it , as the Sun-beams pass through a Crystal or Glass , does this import that his Body is either Independent of Place , or is devoid of Extension , or whole in every Part ? surely no , no more than that light that passes through the pores of the Crystal : so that there is nothing repugnant to the nature of a Body in all this . No Non-extension , no Independency of Place , no penetration of corporeal Dimensions , nor any being whole in every part . 4. The third Instance is Christ's rising out of the Sepulcher without removing the Stone . But this Instance may very justly be rejected , it disagreeing with the very History of the Resurrection , which tells us the Stone was removed , Matt. 28. 2. And behold there was a great Earthquake , for the Angel descended from Heaven , and rolled back the Stone from the door , and sate upon it . Wherefore we see the Stone was removed . Nor can I imagine why this should make a third Instance , viz. Christ's Body passing out of the Sepulcher , the Stone unremoved from the door thereof , unless from an heedless reflection on the fore-going verse ( where Mary Magdalen and the other Mary are said to go to see the Sepulcher ) and connecting it to an ill grounded sense with what follows in the second verse , And behold there was a great Earthquake ; as if it were implyed that the Earthquake and the rolling away the Stone were at that very time that these two Women went to see the Sepulcher , and Christ having risen before , that it would follow that he rose before the Stone of the Sepulcher was removed ; but this is a mistake . For agreeably to Vatablus his Gloss ( who for erat [ & ecce erat terrae motus magnus ] puts fuerat , and for descendit , descenderat , and for devolvit lapidem , devolverat ) which implies the thing done before these Women came to the Sepulcher ; it is manifest out of the other Evangelists that the matter was altogether so ; for Mark 16. 2. it is said of the two above said parties , That very early in the morning , the first day of the Week they came unto the Sepulcher at the rising of the Sun , and they said among themselves , Who shall roll us away the Stone from the door of the Sepulcher , and when they looked they saw the Stone was rolled away , &c. And it is expresly said in Luke , That they found the Stone rolled away from the Sepulcher . And the like is recorded in St. John , ch . 20. so that it is a plain case the Stone was rolled away before their going to the Sepulcher . What time therefore can we imagine more likely of this rolling away the Stone and terrible Earthquake , than at the very Resurrection of Christ , who rose in this awful terrour to the Keepers , the Earth quaking , and the too Glorious Angels officiously opening the stony door of the Sepulcher , that the King of Glory might pass out , without any further needless or useless Miracle , such as he ever declined in his life time , before his Death and Resurrection ? Wherefore this third Instance , it is plain , cannot with any shew be accommodated to the present case , it being raised out of a mere mistake of the Story . 5. The fourth and last Instance is , Christ's entring amongst his Disciples , the doors being shut , recorded John 20. 19 , and 26. there the Disciples are said to be gathered together privately or secretly for fear of the Jews , for which cause they lockt or bolted the doors with-inside , that no man might suddenly come upon them . But while they were in this privacy or closeness , Christ , notwithstanding , suddenly presented himself in the midst of them , for all this closeness or secrecy , and not without a Miracle , supposing himself or some ministring Angel to unlock or unbolt the door suddenly , and softly , sine strepitu , which upon this account would be more likely , in that if he had come in , the doors being still shut , that might have seemed as great an Argument to Thomas that he was a Spirit , as the feeling his Hands and Side that he was no Spirit . Wherefore , I conceive , it is no sufficiently firm Hypothesis , that Christ entred among his Disciples , the doors in the mean time , at his very entrance , remaining shut . But suppose they were so , this will not prove his Body devoid of Extension , to be independent of Place , and whole in every part , more than his passing the wicket of the Womb , like light through Crystal , did argue the same in the second Instance But the truth of the business will then be this , That he being then in his Resurrection-body ( even that wherewith he was to ascend into Heaven , which yet he kept in its Terrestrial Modification , and Organization , for those services it was to do amongst his Disciples while he conversed with them after his Resurrection upon Earth ; as he made use of it in a particular manner to S t Thomas ) he had a Power to modifie it into what Consistencies he pleased , Aerial , Aetherial , or Coelestial , it remaining still that Individual Body , that was crucified . This therefore might easily pass through the very Pores of the door , and much more easily betwixt the door and the side-posts there , without any inconvenience more than to other Spiritual Bodies . For the Resurrection-body is an Heavenly and Spiritual Body , as S t Paul himself expresly declares . But yet as truly a Body as any body else ; that is , it hath impenetrable Trinal Dimension , is not without Place or Ubiety , nor whole in every part . This very Story demonstrates all this , That his Body is not without Place . For it stood in the midst of the Room amongst his Disciples . Nor the whole in every part ; For here is distinct mention of Christ's Hand and his Side , as elsewhere of his Flesh and Bones , Luke 24. 26. which would be all confounded , if every part were in every part . And if there be these distinct parts , then certainly his Body hath Extension , and this ingeniously excogitated Distinction of the Natural and Supernatural Manner of Existence of a body , can by no means cover the gross Repugnancies , which are necessarily imply'd in the Doctrine of Transubstantiation . 6. A Doctrine raised from the literal sense of those Words [ This is my Body ] which literal sense if we were tyed to , it would also follow that that which Christ gave to his Disciples was as well Real Bread as his Real Body : [ This ] plainly referring to what he took , what he blessed , and what he gave , which was Bread , and of this he says , This is my Body . Wherefore adhering to the literal sense , it would be both Real Bread and the Real Body of Christ at once . But this , as being a Repugnancy , as was noted above , and Contradiction to the known inviolable and immutable Laws of Logick and humane Reason , is justly rejected by the Church of Rome , for this very Reason , that it implies a Contradiction , that one and the same Body should be Bread and the Real Body of Christ at once . Wherefore Transubstantiation containing , as has been proved , so many of such Contradictions , every jot as repugnant to the inviolable and immutable Laws of Logick , or humane Reason ( that unextinguishable Lamp of the Lord in the Soul of man ) as this of the same body being Real Bread and the Real Body of Christ at once : And there being no Salvo for these harsh Contradictions , but the pretence of a Supernatural Manner of Existence of a Body , which God is supposed to give to the Bread transubstantiated into the Body of Christ , that is , into the very Individual Body of Christ , they being supposed by Transubstantiation to become one and the same Body . I say this neat distinction of a Supernatural Manner of Existing being plainly demonstrated ( so as it is by the Papist Represented , explained ) not to be a mere Supernatural Manner of Existence , with which the being of a Body would yet consist , but a Counter-essential , Asystatal , and Repugnant manner of Existence , inconsistent with the being of a Body ; and none of the Instances that are produced as Pledges of the truth of the Notion or Assertion at all reaching the present case , it is manifest that though there be a Real Presence of Christ's Body and Bloud in the Celebration of the Holy Eucharist , acknowledged as well by the Reformed as the Pontifician Party , that it is impossible that Transubstantiation , which the Papist represented here declares , should be the true mode thereof . CHAP. V. 1. The Author's excuse for his civility to the Papist Represented , that he shews him that the Road he is in is not the way of Truth touching the mode of the Real Presence . 2. That the Bishop of Meaux makes the Real Presence the common Doctrine of all the Churches as well Reformed as Un-reformed , and that it is acknowledged to be the Doctrine of the Church of England , though she is so wise and so modest as not to define the mode thereof . 3. The sincere Piety of our Predecessors in believing the Real Presence , and their unfortunateness afterwards in determining the mode by Transubstantiation or Consubstantiation . 1. AND therefore the Papist Represented , being in so palpable a mistake , and by keeping to the literal sense having so apparently wandred from the path of Truth , I hope my thus industriously and carefully advertizing him thereof for his own good , will be no otherwise interpreted than an Act of Humanity or common Civility , if not of indispensable Christianity , thus of my own accord , though not Roganti , yet Erranti comiter monstrare viam , or at least to assure him that this of Transubstantiation is not the right Road to the due understanding of the manner or mode of the Real Presence of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Celebration of the Holy Eucharist . 2. Which opinion of the Real Presence the Bishop of Meaux declares to be the Doctrine of all the Churches as well Reformed as Un-reformed ; as I must confess I have been of that perswasion ( ever since I writ my Mystery of Godliness ) that it is the Doctrine of the Church of England , and that the Doctrine is true . And this I remember I heard from a near Relation of mine when I was a Youth , a Reverend Dignitary of the Church of England , and that often , viz. That our Church was for the Real Presence , but for the manner thereof , if asked , he would answer , Rem scimus , Modum nescimus , We know the thing , but the mode or manner thereof we know not . And the assurance we have of the thing is from the common suffrage of the ancient Fathers , such as the above-cited place of our Homilies glances at , and from the Scripture it self , which impressed that Notion on the minds of our Pious Predecessors in the Church of God. 3. For I do verily believe that out of mere Devotion and sincere Piety , and out of a Reverend esteem they had of the solemnity of the Eucharist , they embraced this Doctrine as well as broached it at the first . And if they had kept to the profession of it in general , without running into Transubstantiation or Consubstantiation , and had defined no further than the plain Scriptural Text in the sixth of St. Iohn and the suffrages of the Primitive Fathers had warranted them , viz. That there was a twofold Body and Blood of Christ , the one Natural , the other Spiritual or Divine , which we do really receive in the Holy Communion ( within which limits I shall confine my self here without venturing into any farther curiosities ) it had been more for the Peace and Honour of the Christian Church , and it might have prevented much scandal to them without , and much Cruelty and Persecution amongst our selves : The History of which is very horrid even to think of . But though there have been these Mistakes in declaring the Mode , yet the thing it self is not therefore to be abandoned , it being so great a Motive for a Reverend approaching the Lord's Table , and duly celebrating the solemnity of the Holy Eucharist . Nor can we , as I humbly conceive , relinquish this Doctrine of the Real Presence of the Body and Blood of Christ , without the declining the most easie and natural sense of the Holy Scripture , as it stands written in the sixth Chapter of St. Iohn . CHAP. VI. 1. Gratian his distinction of the Flesh and Blood of Christ into Spiritual or Divine , and into that Flesh that hung on the Cross , and that Bloud let out by the Lance of the Souldier . 2. The same confirmed out of S. Austin , who makes the Body and Bloud of Christ to be partaken of in Baptism , and also from S. Paul and Philo. 3. Other Citations out of Philo touching the Divine Logos agreeable with what Christ says of himself in his Discourse John 6. And out of which it further appears that the Antient Fathers ate the same Food that we , the Divine Body of Christ , but not that which hung on the Cross. 4. A strong Confirmation out of what has been produced , that Gratian his distinction is true . 5. The first Argument from our Saviour's Discourse , That he meant not his Flesh that hung on the Cross , because he says , that he that eats it has Eternal Life in him . 6. The second , because his Flesh and Bloud is the Object of his Discourse , not the Manner of eating and drinking them . 7. The third , because of his answer to his murmuring Disciples , which removes his Natural Body far from them , and plainly tells them , The Flesh profiteth nothing . 8. Gratian's distinction no novel Doctrine . 1. OUT of which sixth Chapter of S. Iohn , that is manifest which a Member of the Roman Church her self , has declared , an eminent Canonist of theirs , Gratian , In [ Canon dupliciter ] as it is cited by Philippus Mornaeus , lib. 4. De Eucharistiâ , Cap. 8. Dupliciter intelligitur Caro Christi & Sanguis : vel Spiritualis illa atque Divina de quâ ipse dicit , Caro mea verè est Cibus , & Sanguis meus verè est Potus , & nisi manducaveritis Carnem meam , & biberitis Sanguinem meum , non habebitis Vitam Aeternam ; vel caro quae Crucifixa est , & sanguis qui militis effusus est lanceâ . I the rather take notice of this Passage , because he makes use of the very Phrases which I used without consulting him in my Philosophical Hypothesis of the great Mystery of Regeneration , calling that Body or Flesh which Christ so copiously discourses of , Iohn 6. Spiritual or Divine , which he plainly distinguishes , as Christ himself there does , from that Body that hung on the Cross , and that Blood that was let out by the lance of the Souldier . 2. For we cannot be Regenerate out of these in Baptism , and yet in the same place S. Augustine says , We are partakers of the Body and Blood of Christ in Baptism ; and therefore as Terrestrial Animals are not fed ( as they say the Chamaeleon is ) of the Air , but by food of a Terrestrial Consistency , so our Regeneration being out of spiritual Principles , our inward man is also nourished by that Food that is Spiritual or Divine . And that is a marvellous passage of St. Paul , 1 Cor. 10. where he says , The Fathers did all eat the same spiritual meat , and did all drink the same spiritual drink , for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them , and that Rock was Christ , where St. Austin , Anselm , Thomas Aquinas , and others , as you may see in Iacobus Capellus , avouch , That the ancient Patriarchs ate the same Spiritual Food that we , which therefore must be the Flesh and Blood of Christ , in that sense Christ understands it in , Iohn 6. And that passage of Philo ( that Grotius notes on the same place ) is worth our taking notice of , and that in two several Treatises of his he interprets the Manna of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , the Divine Logos , which agrees hugely well with our supposing that the Flesh and Blood of which our Saviour saith , it is meat indeed and drink indeed , he speaks this as he is the Eternal Logos , to whom appertains the universal Divine Body , as being the Body of his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , Life or Spirit , as I have noted in my Analytical account of the fore-part of the first Chapter of St. Iohn's Gospel . See my Scholia at the end of my Enchiridium Ethicum . 3. And it is marvellously applicable to our purpose what Philo says on that Passage of Deuteronomy , Chap. 32. v. 5. He made him to suck honey out of the Rock , and Oyl out of the flinty Rock ( in his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ) where he says the Rock signifies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . The solid , steady and infrangible Wisdom of God ; implying the Immutableness and Unalterableness of the Natures , Properties , and Respects of the Ideas of things in the Divine Intellect , The 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , not to be changed or violated for any superstitious purposes whatsoever , as I have intimated before . Wherefore as S t Paul calls Christ , who is the Eternal Logos , a Rock , so does Philo , by saying , that Rock Moses mentions in his Song is the steady , solid and infrangible Wisdom of God. Which therefore is that Essential Wisdom , the same that the Divine Logos , or second Hypostasis of the Trinity . And not many lines after in the same Treatise , the Lawgiver , says he , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , calls this Rock Manna the Divine Logos that was before all beings , and without whom nothing was made that was made , as S t Iohn testifies . And in his [ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ] speaking of Israel , which he would have signifie one that sees God : He , says he , lifting up his Eyes to Heaven sees , and thence receives , ( 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ) the Manna , the Divine Logos , the Heavenly incorruptible food of the Soul devoted to Holy Speculation . Which Passages I could not forbear to produce , they having so great an Affinity with that which our Saviour professes of himself , that he is this Bread from Heaven , the true Manna , and incorruptible Food of the Soul , whereby she is nourished to Eternal Life , Iohn 6. Out of all which may be more easily understood how the Fathers did all eat the same Spiritual Meat , and drink the same Spiritual Drink , which cannot well be conceived but of such a Divine Body and Bloud of Christ , as is universal , not restrained to his particular humane Nature , but belonging to him as he is the Eternal Logos , in whom is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Life or Spirit , which goeth along with the Divine Body of this Life or Spirit of Christ , and consequently is rightly called his Body . Which being the necessary Principles of Regeneration ( for ex eisdem nutrimur ex quibus constamus ) and there being no Salvation without Regeneration , and no Regeneration continued and advanced without congenerous Food ; we must necessarily conclude with S t Paul , that , The Fathers all ate the same Spiritual Meat , and drank all the same Spiritual Drink , Water , Honey , Oyl out of the same Rock , Christ , the Eternal Word or Logos . And certainly that Body and Blood of Christ out of which the Fathers were Regenerate , and by which they were fed , cannot be the very Body and Bloud of Christ which hung on the Cross , and whose Bloud was there let out by the Lance of the Souldier that pierced his side : and therefore there was a Body and Bloud of Christ before he was incarnate , for the Regenerate Souls of the antient People of the Iews to feed upon , belonging to him as he is the Eternal Logos ; in whom is the Life and that Spirit of which it is said , That which is born of the flesh is flesh , and that which is born of the Spirit is Spirit . Which things are more fully treated of in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , or a Philosophical Hypothesis touching the great Mystery of Regeneration . 4. Wherefore there is all the Reason in the World , if not plain Necessity to admit , what we cited out of Gratian that famous Canonist of the Church of Rome . That we are to understand that there is a two-fold Flesh and Bloud of Christ , either that Spiritual and Divine Flesh , of which he himself says , My Flesh is Meat indeed , and my Bloud is Drink indeed , and , Unless you eat my Flesh and drink my Bloud , ye shall not have Everlasting Life . Or that Flesh which was crucified , and that Bloud that was let out of his side by the Lance of the Souldier , which we shall now endeavour briefly to demonstrate out of that Discourse of our Saviour in the sixth of S t Iohn . 5. First then , That the Flesh of Christ that hung once on the Cross , and into which the Bread of the Romanists is supposed to be Transubstantiated in the Sacrament of our Lord's Supper , is not the Flesh here meant is plain from what is said thereof in this sixth Chapter of S t Iohn v. 54. Whoso eateth my Flesh and drinketh my Bloud hath Eternal Life . But every one that eateth the Bread transubstantiated into the Body of Christ , that once hung upon the Cross , in the Roman Communion , has not Eternal Life in him . Nay if that Souldier that pierced our Saviour's side and let out his Bloud with his Lance had drunk also thereof , and cut some piece of his flesh from his Body and eaten it , is any one so fond as to think , that he thereby would have been made Partaker of Eternal Life ? But if Christ meant that Body or Flesh of his and not some other that is rightly also called his Flesh or Body , it would follow that that Souldier by doing that savage and inhumane act , would have obtained Everlasting Life . Wherefore it is plain from hence , that there is another Body or Flesh of Christ and another Blood , distinct from that Blood that was shed on the Cross , and from that Body that hung there , which our Saviour aims at in his Discourse . 6. Secondly , It is plain that our Saviour's Discourse in that Chapter ( he passing from that temporal Food which he had lately procured for the multitude , to a Spiritual and Eternal ) has for its Object or Subject not the Manner or Way of receiving his Body and Blood , as if it were meant of that very Flesh and Blood on the Cross , but that it was to be received in a Spiritual Manner , which Interpreters , several of them , drive at ; but the Object of his Discourse is his very Flesh and Blood it self , to be taken ( as the Fish and Loaves were wherewith he lately fed them ) or it is himself in reference to this Flesh and Blood which belongs to him as he is the Eternal Word , and in this sense he says , He is the Bread of God that cometh down from Heaven and giveth Life to the World , v. 33. And v. 48. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , I am the Bread of Life , and speaking of the Manna he presently adds , Your Fathers ate Manna , and yet died , viz. the natural Death , the natural Manna being no Preservative against the natural Death . And v. 51. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , as before he called himself 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . For in him is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ( Iohn 1. ) or Life and Spirit , and this Spirit or Life in the Divine Body . I am the living Bread coming down from Heaven ( as the Manna is said to do , and to which Philo compares the Divine Logos ) if any one eat of this Bread he shall live for ever . He speaks not of the manner of eating of it , but of the Bread it self to be eaten , and yet immediately thereupon he calls this Bread his Flesh , which he says , he will give for the Life of the World , that is to the end that they may be enlivened thereby , he thus communicating to them his Divine Body and Spirit together . And then presently upon the Iews striving amongst themselves and saying , How can this man give us his flesh to eat ? ( the reason whereof was because they took him to be a meer man , and thought that Christ himself understood it of his humane Flesh ) he affirms with greater earnestness and vehemency , Verily , verily , I say unto you , unless ye eat the Flesh of the Son of Man ( viz. of the Messias , who is the Logos incarnate ) and drink his Bloud , ye have no Life in you . Whoso eateth my Flesh , and drinketh my Bloud hath Eternal Life , and I will raise him up at the last day . For my Flesh is meat indeed , and my Bloud is drink indeed . And so all along to the very end of his Discourse , he speaks of a really eating his Flesh , and drinking his Blood , not of the Manner of eating , as if it never came nigh them , but only they thought of Flesh and Blood God knows how far distant from them , and so ate the humane Flesh of Christ by meer thinking of it , and drank his Bloud after the same imaginary Manner , which would , I think , be a very dilute and frigid sense of such high and fervid Asseverations of our Saviour , if the Mystery reached no farther than so . 7. But thirdly and lastly , That it does reach further than so , is exceeding evident from what our Saviour utters upon his Disciples being scandalized at this strange Discourse of his , v. 61. When Iesus knew in himself , that his Disciples murmured at it , He said unto them , Does this offend you ? What if you shall see the Son of man ascending where he was before , which he must needs understand of his particular visible Body which he bore about with him , and which his humane Soul did actuate , and which was appropriated to his humane nature , which is finite and circumscribed . It is an Elliptical speech of his , but thus naturally to be supplyed as I have also noted above , as if he suppressed by an Aposiopesis this objurgatory sense insinuated thereby . Will you then imagine so grosly as if I understood it of this very Flesh I bear about with me , when as this particular body of mine after my Ascension into Heaven will be removed at a vast distance from you . I tell you this Flesh of mine , as to this purpose I have all this time driven at , profiteth nothing , you cannot feed of it at such a distance if it were to be fed on . The Text runs thus , v. 63. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , it is that quickening spirit I aim at in my discourse , that Divine or Spiritual Body of mine . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , that Flesh , which you understand and are so scandalized at the eating thereof , profiteth nothing as to this purpose , nor the Blood taken in your sense has any thing to do here . The words that I speak unto you they are spirit and they are life . The Object of those words spoken is my Spiritual Body and Blood , not as I am a Man , but the Eternal Word , the Divine Logos , which contains in it the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Spirit , and my Divine Body universal , that belongs to that my Life or Spirit . This is the true Mystery of the Matter , for by these two things asserted by our Saviour , 1. That we are to eat his Flesh and drink his Blood as we hope ever to have Eternal Life . 2. And his declaring his Flesh profiteth nothing , it is manifest that that distinction of Gratian is true , which he seems to have taken out of St. Hierom , or some other ancient Father , who tells us the Flesh and Blood of Christ is twofold , the one natural and which he bore about with him and hung once on the Cross , the other Spiritual and Divine , which we may really eat and drink , that is really receive and draw in at the Celebrating the Holy Eucharist by a sincere , fervid and devotional Faith. And consequently there is a Real Presence of the Body and Blood of Christ in partaking of the Lord's Supper , whereby our Souls are nourished to Eternal , Life . And in that , he says , his natural Flesh profiteth nothing to this purpose ( for it cannot be said that it profiteth nothing at all , since in vertue of the Crucifixion of that Flesh , and Effusion of that Blood on the Cross , we have the remission of our Sins ) Christ plainly infers that he has ( which cannot be well understood but as he is the Eternal Logos ) another Flesh , viz. that Spiritual and Divine Flesh , which is mainly profitable for this purpose , for the maintaining , perfecting and renewing the inward man , that he may attain to his due growth in Christ. And lastly , How can Christ say his Flesh that was Crucified on the Cross profiteth nothing , when by being meditated upon at the solemnity of the Holy Eucharist , and also at other times , it may serve to kindle and inflame our Love and Devotion towards him , and so urge us to greater degrees of Repentance and Mortification , and serious Holiness ; it therefore being useful and profitable for all this , I say , why does he then affirm it profiteth nothing , but that he does on purpose advertise us that it profiteth nothing as to the present case he has spoke to all this while , viz. to be the real meat and food of the inward man , and to be really received into him , to maintain and increase those Divine Principles in him out of which he is regenerated . This his particular Flesh and Blood , that hung on the Cross , cannot be profitable for , nor can be come at , at such a distance , to be taken in and received ; which therefore plainly implies those other , which were mentioned above out of Gratian ( the Divine or Spiritual Flesh and Blood of Christ only ) to be properly useful to this purpose . 8. And for this Divine and Spiritual Flesh and Blood of our Saviour distinguished from his natural ; besides St. Hierome you have also the suffrage of Clemens Alexandrinus , in his Paedagogus , lib. 2. cap. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . The Blood of our Lord is twofold , the one carnal , by which we are redeemed from corruption ; the other Spiritual , wherewith we are anointed , and by vertue of drinking thereof we attain to incorruption . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . And as he makes the Blood of our Lord twofold , so we may be sure he makes his Body or Flesh , because his Mystical Body and Blood go together . According to that which M r Pelling in his Pious and Learned Discourse of the Sacrament , quotes out of S t Ambrose , who , says he , speaking of that Body which is received in the Eucharist , calls it the spiritual Body of Christ , the Body of a Divine Spirit ; and he does confidently affirm of all the Antients who have either purposely interpreted , or occasionally quoted the Words of Christ , in the sixth of S t Iohn , touching the eating his Flesh and drinking his Blood , that they all understand him to speak of a Spiritual Flesh and Blood , distinct not only from the Substance of the Holy Elements , but also from that natural Body of Christ which he took of the Substance of the Holy Virgin , pag. 233. So little Novelty is there in this distinction of the Body and Blood of Christ into natural , and Spiritual or Divine . CHAP. VII . 1. An Apology for being thus operose and copious in inculcating the present point from the usefulness thereof . 2. The first usefulness in that it defeats Monsieur de Meaux his Stratagem to reduce us to Transubstantiation , as if no Real Presence without it . 3. The second usefulness , for the rectifying the Notion of Consubstantiation . 4. The third for more fully understanding the Mystery of the Eucharist , with Applications of it to several Passages in our Communion-Service . 5. The fourth for a very easie and natural Interpretation of certain Passages in our Church-Catechism . 6. The priviledge of the faithful Receiver , and of what great noment the Celebration of the Eucharist is . 7. The last usefulness in solidly reconciling the Rubrick at the end of the Communion-Service , with that noted Passage in our Church-Catechism . 1. THE Reader may haply think I have been over operose and copious in inculcating this Distinction of Gratian's , touching the Body and Blood of Christ in the Holy Eucharist . But the great usefulness thereof , I hope , may apologize for this my extraordinary diligence and industry . For the Notion being both true and unexceptionable , and not at all clashing , so far as I can discern , with either the Holy Scripture , or right Reason and solid Philosophy , to say nothing of the Suffrage of the Primitive Fathers , but rather very agreeable and consentaneous to them all ; and also having , as I said , its weighty usefulness , it was a point , I thought , that was worth my so seriously insisting upon ; and as I have hitherto endeavoured faithfully to set out the Truth thereof , I shall now , though more briefly , intimate its Usefulness . 2. And the first Usefulness is this , Whereas that Reverend Prelate the Bishop of Meaux tugs so hard to pull back again the Reformed Churches to the Communion of the Church of Rome , by this Concession , or rather Profession of theirs , that there is a Real Presence of the Body and Blood of Christ at the Celebration of the Eucharist , to be received by the faithful , and that therefore they must return to the Doctrine of Transubstantiation , as if there were no other Mode of a Real Presence to be conceived but it : the force of this Inference is plainly taken away , by this Distinction that Gratian , one of their own Church , hath luckily hit upon , or rather taken out of some antient Father , and is more fully made out in this Discourse , that there is a Spiritual and Divine Body of Christ , distinct from that particular Body of his that hung on the Cross , which the faithful partake of in the Lord's Supper . Whence it is plain there is no need of Transubstantiation , which is incumbred with such abundance of Impossibilities and Contradictions . 3. Secondly , This Notion of ours is hugely serviceable for the rectifying of the Doctrine of Consubstantiation in the Lutheran Church , who are for an Ubiquity of the particular Body of Christ that hung on the Cross , which assuredly is a grand Mistake . But I believe in the Authors thereof there was a kind of Parturiency , and more confused Divination of that Truth , which we have so much insisted upon , and their Mistake consists only in this , that they attributed to the particular Body of Christ , which belongs to his restrained and circumscribed humane Nature , that which truly and only belongs to his Divine Body , as he is the Eternal Logos , in whom is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , the Life or Spirit of the Logos , to which Spirit of his this Body belongs , and therefore is rightly called his Body , as appertaining to his Spirit . For this Body , this Divine and Spiritual Flesh , as Gratian calls it , is every where present , though not to be received as the Food of the Inward man , but only by the Faithful and Regenerate , so that according to this Notion there may be a Consubstantiation rightly interpreted , that is a Compresentiation , or rather Compresentiality of both the Real Bread and Wine , and the Real Body and Blood of Christ at once ; so that they both may be really and indeed received by all true Believers . And Lutheranism in this point thus candidly interpreted , will prove a sound and unexceptionable Doctrine . And I charitably believe the first Authors of it , if they had fully understood their own meaning , meant no more than so . And I wish I had as much reason to believe that the Pontificians meant no more by their Transubstantiation , but a firm and fast hold of the Real Presence . I hope the most ingenuous of them at this time of the day mean no more than so , viz. That they are as well assured of the Real Presence of the Body and Blood of Christ to be received in the Celebration of the Eucharist ; as if the very Bread was turned into his Body , and the Wine into his Blood by a miraculous Transubstantiation . 4. Thirdly , It is from this Notion or Distinction of the antient Fathers , as I hinted above , of the Body and Blood of Christ into Natural and Spiritual or Divine , that we have ever been well appointed to give a more full and distinct account of the nature of the Solemnity of the Eucharist as it is celebrated in our Church , it plainly comprizing these two things . The first the Commemoration of the Death of Christ , of the breaking his Body or Flesh , viz. the wounding thereof with Nails and Spears . The other , The partaking of the Divine Body and Blood of Christ , by which our Inward Man is nourished to Eternal Life : which our eating the Bread and drinking the Wine are Symbols of . Both which in our Communion-Service are plainly pointed at . The first fully , in the Exhortation to Communicants , where it is said , And above all things you must give most humble and hearty thanks to God the Father , the Son , and the Holy Ghost , for the Redemption of the World by the Death and Passion of our Saviour Christ , both God and Man , who did humble himself even to the Death upon the Cross for us miseable sinners — And to the end we should always remember the exceeding great love of our Master and only Saviour Jesus Christ thus dying for us , and the innumerable benefits , which by his precious Blood-shedding , he hath obtained to us , he has instituted and ordained Holy Mysteries as pledges of his Love , and for a continual remembrance of his Death . And in the Prayer of Consecration , the Celebration of the Eucharist is again said to be a continued or perpetuated Commemoration of Christ's precious Death till his coming again . But now for our receiving the Spiritual and Divine Body and Blood of Christ , such passages as these seem to intimate it . In the Exhortation to the Communicants , it is there said , if with a true penitent heart and lively faith we receive this Holy Sacrament , then we spiritually eat the flesh of Christ and drink his blood , then we dwell in Christ and Christ in us , we are one with Christ and Christ with us . This passage plainly points to our Saviour's Discourse , Iohn 5. v. 56. where he says , He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood , dwelleth in me and I in him . And he thus dwelling in us , he enlivens us , we becoming one with Christ in a manner as the Soul and Body makes one , as it followeth in the next verse , As the living father has sent me , and I live by the father , so he that eateth me shall live by me , and so we become one with Christ and Christ with us , we living by Christ as he by his Father ; that is to say , as Christ ▪ lives by his Father , so we live by the Spirit of Christ dwelling in us , Rom. 8. 11. which Spirit or Life of Christ always implies the Divine Body . As he that is joined unto the Lord in this Body is one Spirit , 1 Cor. 6. 17. Now this Exhortation so plainly alluding to this passage of our Saviour's Discourse , which speaks not of his particular natural Flesh , but of that which is his Spiritual or Divine Flesh , it is plain that the genuine sense of the Exhortation in this place is , that we really though spiritually ( that is by a fervent and devotional Faith ) eat or receive the real Body and Blood of Christ , viz. that Divine and Spiritual Body and Blood of his above-mentioned . And this passage of our Saviour's Discourse is again alluded to in the Prayer immediately before the Prayer of Consecration in these words , Grant us therefore , Gracious Lord , so to eat the Flesh of thy Dear Son Jesus Christ , and to drink his Blood that our sinful Bodies may be made clean by his Body , and our Souls washed through his most precious Blood , and that we may evermore dwell in him and he in us , John 6. 56. And these two places so plainly alluding to our Saviour's Discourse in the sixth of S t Iohn , it is very easie and natural to conceive that what occurs in the Thanksgiving after our receiving the Sacrament does sound to the same purpose . Almighty and everlasting God , we most heartily thank thee for that thou dost vouchsafe to feed us who have duly received these Holy Mysteries , with the Spiritual Food of the most Precious Body and Blood of thy Son and our Saviour Jesus Christ — The words even of themselves do very naturally point at a real though spiritual partaking or receiving into us the Body and Blood of Christ , namely , of that Flesh and Blood which our Saviour discourses of , Iohn 6. And therefore we may be much more assured that they do so , if we take notice , the sense is so back'd and strengthned by the other two Passages which do plainly relate to the Body , or Flesh and Blood Christ discourses of , in the sixth of S t Iohn's Gospel . I will only add one Consideration more , and that is from the Title of our Communion-Service . Can there be any more likely reason why the Lord's Supper is called THE HOLY COMMUNION , than that it refers to that of S t Paul , 1 Cor. 10. 16. The Cup of Blessing which we bless , is it not the Communion of the Blood of Christ ? The Bread which we break , is it not the Communion of the Body of Christ ? Because there is one Bread , we being many are one Body . For we are all partakers of that one Bread. Which is that Bread from Heaven , which our Saviour discourses of in the sixth of S t Iohn . But the Words I have chiefly my Eye upon are those : The Cup being called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , the Communion of the Blood , and the Bread , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , the Communion of the Body of Christ ; and the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , in all likely hood , having the same sense that it had , 2 Pet. 1. 4. in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , where we are said to be called to the Participation of the Divine Nature , Communion here in S t Paul's Epistle to the Corinthians must naturally imply our real receiving or partaking of the Body and Blood of Christ in the celebrating of this Holy Communion , and that by thus partaking of that one Divine Body and Blood of his , signified by the eating and drinking the Bread and Wine , we , though many , become one Body : not in a Political Sense only , but , if I may so speak , Divinely natural , we being made all Members of that one Universal Divine Body of Christ , as he is the Eternal Logos , and so becoming 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , 2 Pet. 1. 4. Wherefore , That Passage in S t Paul's Epistle to the Corinthians , does marvelous-fully set out the Nature of that part of the Lord's Supper , that is distinguished from the Commemoration of his Death ; and gives the most genuine Reason of its being called the Holy Communion , it implying the real Communication of that one Divine Body of Christ to the faithful , and their real Union thereby with Christ and with one another , which is a full and perfect Holy Communion indeed . 5. Fourthly , This Notion of the Fathers touching the Spiritual or Divine Body and Blood of Christ , affords us a very easie and natural Interpretation of that Passage in our Church-Catechism , touching the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper , where to the Question , What is the inward part , or thing signified ? It is answered , The Body and Blood of Christ which are verily and indeed taken and received by the faithful in the Lord's Supper . In the Answer to a former Question , Why was the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper ordained ? it is answered , For a continual Remembrance of the Sacrifice of the Death of Christ , and the Benefits received thereby . One eminent benefit whereof is the Remission of our sins through the Bloud of Christ shed on the Cross , for without blood there is no Remission ; the other is the feeding of the Regenerate Soul , or Inward man , by the Real , but Spiritual or Divine Body and Blood of Christ , which contains in it our through Sanctification , which is also a fruit or benefit of the Sacrifice of the Death of Christ , forasmuch as we had not been capable of Regeneration and of growth and degrees of Sanctification by the feeding on and really receiving the Spiritual and Divine Body of Christ , without our Reconciliation by his Blood shed on the Cross , which our Church here calls the Sacrifice of the Death of Christ. Now as in this Answer there is contained that great Benefit of the Remission of our Sins in the Blood of Christ , and thereby of our Reconciliation to God ; so in the Answer mentioned before is contained that singular Benefit of perfecting our Sanctification by the nourishing and corroborating our inward man by eating or partaking of the Spiritual or Divine Body and Blood of our Saviour , which are verily and indeed taken and received by the faithful in the Lord's Supper . [ Verily ] that is to say , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , truly , in counterdistinction to Typically , or Symbolically , the Bread and Wine being but Types or Symbols of this . Touching which in the Answer to the Question , What are the Benefits whereof we are made partakers thereby ? it is said , The strengthening and refreshing our Souls by the Body and Blood of Christ , as our Bodies are by the Bread and Wine , viz. which are but Types of the true , spiritual or Divine Body and Blood of Christ , but they have a very handsome Analogy the one to the other . But we proceed to the following words , [ And indeed ] that is to say , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , reverâ , or really , not as one scoptically would make us to profess , that this real participation of the Body and Blood of Christ , has no reality any where but in our phancy , which we call Faith. To which sense the Translator of the peaceable method for the re-uniting Protestants and Catholicks , speaks in his Preface to his Translation . To which exception , this Notion of the Primitive Fathers , according to which our Communion-Service is framed , and our Homilies allude to , and we so much insist upon , is not lyable . [ By the Faithful ] and that only by them , which Body and Blood the Faithful do not receive by champing it with their Teeth , and swallowing it down their Throat . But by a fervid and living devotional Faith more than ordinarily kindled at the Celebrating the Holy Eucharist , they draw this Divine and Celestial Food ( the true Manna from Heaven ) into their Hearts , whereby their inward Man is fed and strengthened , and nourished up to Eternal Life , and so the New Birth getting growth daily , arrives at last to the due measure of the stature of Christ. 6. This is the Priviledge of the faithful Receiver . But for those that are devoid of this true and living Faith , though the Divine Body and Blood of Christ is every where present to the faithful , yet they who are unregenerate , and consequently devoid of the Divine Life , are capable of no union therewith , nor of any growth or strength therefrom . But it is like the light shining into a dead man's eye , of which there is no vital effect . But for those who are regenerate , and consequently have a real hunger and thirst after the Righteousness of God , though the great Feast upon this Heavenly Food is more especially and copiosely injoyed in the Celebration of the Holy Eucharist , yet they may in some good measure draw it in day by day by Faith and Devotion , as without the Presence of the Bread and Wine we may at any time devotionally think of the Sacrifice of the Death of our Saviour . But certainly this solemn Institution of Celebrating his last Supper , being particularly and earnestly injoyn'd us by Christ , if we conscientiously observe the same , it will have a more than ordinary efficacy in us for the ends it was appointed . 7. Sixthly and lastly , as those words of the Catechism [ the Body and Blood of Christ which are verily and indeed taken and received , &c. ] have , considered in themselves , a very easie and natural sense so explained , as we have according to the Analogy of the Doctrine of the Primitive Fathers and our Church's Homilies that allude to them , explained them ; so do they not at all clash with those words of the Rubrick affixed at the end of the Communion-Service , where it is affirmed , That the Sacramental Bread and Wine remains still in their very natural substances , and therefore may not be adored ( for that were Idolatry to be abhorred of all faithful Christians ) and the natural Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ are in Heaven , and not here , it being against the truth of Christ's Natural Body to be at one time in more places than one . There is I say , in this , no contradiction to what occcurs in the Catechism , which affirms that there is a Real Presence of the Body and Blood of Christ , which are verily and indeed taken and received by the Faithful in the Lord's Supper , though here a Real Presence is denyed of the natural Body of Christ. But it is to be considered that this Affirmation and Negation is not of the same Body of Christ , and therefore can be no contradiction , and further to be observed , how the very Rubrick suggests to us this distinction of the Natural Body of Christ ( which is appropriated to his particular Soul , and which hung on the Cross and was Crucified ) and his Divine or Spiritual Body , the Body of the Essential Life or Spirit of the Eternal Logos , and therefore rightly termed the Body of the Logos incarnate , or of Christ. And therefore when passages of the Ancient Fathers in the Primitive Times before the degeneracy of the Church came in , may some of them favour a Real Absence , other a Real Presence of the Body and Blood of Christ according as different places of the Scripture might occur to their minds touching this matter , the controversy might well be composed by distinguishing betwixt the Natural Body of Christ and his Divine or Spiritual Body . According to the former whereof is the Real Absence , according to the latter the Real Presence of Christ's Body and Blood , to be received by the Faithful in the Celebration of the Holy Eucharist . CHAP. VIII . 1. Monsieur Maimbourg so cunning and cautious as not to attempt to bring the Protestants to Transubstantiation by their common consent in the Real Presence , but by a more general Maxime , which , he says , we are all agreed in . 2. The aforesaid Maxime with the Explication thereof . 3. Six Supposals surmiz'd for the strengthening this Engine for the pulling the Protestants into the belief of Transubstantiation . 4. A Counter-Engine consisting of sixteen common Notions , in which , not only the Romanists and we , but all mankind are agreed in . 5. An Examination of the strength of Monsieur Maimbourg's Engine , by recurring upon occasion to these Common Notions ; The first Prop examined , viz. the Churches Infallibility by assistance of the Spirit , and discovered to be weak from the Dissention of Churches in matters of Faith in his sense . 6. From the promise of the Spirit being conditional . 7. And from the Predictions in the Prophetical Writings of a general Degeneracy of the Church . 8. The Examination of the second Prop , that would have Transubstantiation believed upon the Synodical decision of a fallible Church . 9. The Examination of the third Prop , that would have the Synodical decision pass into an Article of Faith. 10. The fourth Prop examined by defining truly what Heresy and Schism is . 11. The fifth Prop further explained by Mounsieur Maimbourg , in two Propositions . 12. An Answer to the two Propositions . 1. I HAVE , I hope by this time , sufficiently proposed and confirmed both the Truth and Usefulness of the distinction of the Body and Blood of Christ ( which occurs in the Primitive Fathers ) into Natural , and Spiritual or Divine . From whence it may plainly appear to any pious and uprejudiced Reader , that the Inference of a Transubstantiation of the Bread and Wine into the Real Body and Blood of Christ , from a Real Presence of them in the Lord's Supper , is very weak and invalid . Which Monsieur Maimbourg ( as well as the Bishop of Meaux , formerly Bishop of Condom ) though he take special notice of in his Peaceable Method , viz. that this Real Presence of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Lord's Supper , is generally acknowledged by the Protestants , Chap. 3. whom he will have to hold , That the Sacrament is not a Figure or empty Sign without Efficacy , but they do maintain , saith he , that it does communicate unto us in a most real and effectual Manner , the Body of Jesus Christ to be the Food of our Souls ; And he will have Monsieur Claud himself acknowledge , that before this Novelty of Transubstantiation was introduced , every one believed that Iesus Christ is present in the Sacrament , that his Body and Blood are there truly received by the faithful ; yet he is so wise and cautious as not to trust to the strength of this Engine for the pulling us back into a belief and profession of that incredible Hypothesis , but according to the Fineness of his wit , has spread a more large Net to catch us in and carry us captive , not only into this gross Errour of Transubstantiation , but into all other Errours which the Church of Rome has broached , or may hereafter broach and propose as Articles of Faith. And therefore it is a point worth our closest consideration . 2. His general Maxim is this , That that Church in which are found two Parties concerned , has ever had the power to determine all differences , and to declare that as matter of Faith , which before there was no obligation to believe , and that we are bound to acquiesce in her Decisions , under Penalty of being Schismaticks . By the Church her declaring as matter of Faith ( which seems to sound so harshly ) he does not mean , That the Church has Authority to frame New Articles of Faith , ( pag. 17. ) but that She is to act according to a Rule , which is Holy Scripture , and Tradition truly and purely Apostolical , from which we have also received the Holy Scripture it self . And ( page 18. ) The Church never did make , and undoubtedly never will make any New Articles of Faith , since it is not in her power to define any thing but according to the Word of God , which she is always to consult with , as with her Oracle , and the Rule she is bound to follow . His meaning therefore must be this , That besides those plain and Universally known Articles of the Christian Faith , and acknowledged from the very beginning of Christianity , such as are comprised in the Apostles Creed , there have been , and may be other Articles of Faith more obscurely and uncertainly delivered in Scripture , which , until the Church in a lawful Synod or Council has determined the sense of those places of Scripture that appertain to the Controversie , men have no obligation to believe , but go for the present , for but uncertain and indifferent Opinions . But when once the true Church , in which the Parties differing in Opinion are , and her lawful Representative assisted by the Holy Ghost , ( as is affirmed Chap. 2. pag. 28. ) a Canonical Assembly , which alone has full Power and Sovereign Authority to say juridically ( Chap. 4. pag. 27. ) It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us , has given definitive Sentence touching the Controversie , that which before was but an indifferent Opinion , becomes now Matter of Faith , and is to be received as an Article of Faith by the Dissenting Party , upon penalty of being Schismaticks and Hereticks . This I conceive to be his precise meaning . But the great Artifice of all is , That he will have this meaning of his to be the general Opinion also of the Protestant Churches . Who can , says he , ( page 27. ) question , but the Protestant Churches of England , France , Germany , and Switzerland and the Low Countries do hold as a Fundamental Maxim , that in such Controversies as do arise concerning Doctrine in Matters of Religion , the true Church of which the Dissenting Parties are Members , has full and sovereign power to declare according to the Word of God , what is of Faith , and that there is an Obligation of standing to her Decrees , under pain of being Schismaticks . And ( page 35. ) I demand , saith he , nothing more for the present : I will content my self with what themselves do grant ; That that Church of which the Parties contesting are Members , ( be she fallible or infallible ) has full power to decide Differences , and her Decrees do oblige under the Penalty of being Schismaticks . 3. Now from this general Maxim granted , as he conceives , on both sides , and which he does chiefly endeavour to prove from the carriage of the Synod of Dort , toward the Arminians ( all which things to repeat here would be too moliminous and inconsistent with the Brevity I intend , a full Answer to Monsieur Maimbourg's Method requiring some more able Pen ) he declining , I say , all dispute touching the Merit of the Cause , the point of Transubstantiation , he would hence draw us in , to the imbracing that Doctrine merely because we were once of that Church that has Synodically determined for it , and consequently reconcile us to all the rest of the Errours of the Church of Rome . But that we may not so easily be taken in this Net , or pulled in by this Engine , we will first examine the Supposals that support the strength of it , or of which it does consist . The first and chiefest whereof is , That such Synods to whose definitive sentence he would have us stand , are assisted by the Holy Ghost . The second , That whether they be or be not , we are to stand to their determination . The third , Whatever Matters of Opinion ( as they are for the present but such ) are decided by such a Synod , pass into Articles of Faith The fourth , That those that will not close with these Decisions be they what they will , they are guilty of Schism , as being bound to assent . The fifth , That these decisive Synods or Assemblies , are to decide according to the Rule of the Word of God. The sixth and last , That both the Protestants and Papists are agreed in all these . 4. Now before I examine these Particulars , these Supposals , Parts or Props of his general Maxim , by which he would draw the Protestants again into the Church of Rome , and make them embrace Transubstantiation , and all other Superstitions and Errours which they have Synodically decided for matters of Faith : I will , following the very method of this shrewd Writer , propose not only one Maxime , but several Maximes , wherein both the Romanists and We , and indeed all mankind are agreed in , and which therefore I will instead of Maximes call Common Notions , in allusion to those of Euclid . And the first shall be this , I. That which in it self is false , no declaring or saying it is true can make it true . II. Whatever is plainly repugnant to what is true is certainly false . III. Whatever is false can be no due Article of a true Faith or Religion . IV. The senses rightly circumstantiated are true Judges of their Object , whether such an Object be Earth , Air , Fire , or Water , Body or Spirit , and the like . Besides that this is a Common Notion with all mankind , the Incarnate Wisdom himself has given his suffrage for it , in his arguing with S t Thomas , Iohn 20. v. 27. Then saith he to Thomas , Reach hither thy finger , and behold my hands , and reach hither thy hand and thrust it into my side , and be not faithless but believing . What is this but the appealing to the truth of sense by our Saviour himself ? And Luke 24. v. 29. Behold my hands and my feet that it is I my self , handle me and see , for a spirit has not flesh and bones as ye see I have . Here is an appeal both to Sense and Reason at once , and that about the very Body of Christ , touching which the great Controversie is raised . V. An Essence or Being that is one , so long as it remains so , as it is distinct from others , so it is undividable or inseparable from it self . VI. The whole is bigger than the part , and the part less than the whole . VII . In every Division , though the parts agree with the whole , yet they disagree amongst themselves . So that the part A. is not the very part B. nor the part B. the very part C. nor can each part be truly and adequately the whole by the foregoing common Notion . VIII . The same Body cannot be actually a Cube and a Globe at once , and there is the same reason of any other different Figures of a Body . IX . No Revelation , the Revealing whereof , or the manner of the Revealing whereof is repugnant to the Divine Attributes , can be from God. X. No Tradition of any such Revelation can be true , for as much as the Revelation it self is impossible . XI . No interpretation of any Divine Revelation that is repugnant to rightly circumstantiated Sense and pure and unprejudiced Reason , whether it be from a private or publick hand , can be any Inspiration from God. XII . No Body can be bigger and less than it self at once . XIII . That Individual Body that is already , nor ceaseth to be , cannot be made while it is already existing . XIV . One and the same Body cannot be both present with it self and many thousand miles absent from it self at once . XV. One and the same Body cannot be shut up in a Box , and free to walk and run in the Fields , and to ascend into the very Heavens at the same time . XVI . And lastly ( to omit many other such self-evident Truths or Common Notions ) it is impossible , that a man should swallow his whole Body , Head , Feet , Back , Belly , Arms , and Thighs , and Stomach it self , through his Mouth , down his Throat into his Stomach , that is , every whit of himself into one knows not what of himself , less than a Mathematical point or nothing . For if all be swallowed , what is there left of the man for it to be swallowed into , but a mere point or rather nothing ? 5. Certainly all the World as well Papists as Protestants , as soon as they do but conceive the meaning of the Terms , will assent to the Truth of these Propositions at the very first sight ; which therefore has made me call them Common Notions . Let us now apply our selves to the use of them in the examining the strength of Monsieur Maimbourg's general Maxime , wherein he will have the Papists and Protestants agreed . The first Prop thereof is , That the true Church is infallible by the promise made to her of being assisted by the Holy Ghost . But here I demand whether this promise be made to the Universal Church or any Particular Church or Churches throughout all Ages . That it is not made to the Universal Church throughout all Ages , is plain , in that the parts thereof have been and are still divided in several matters of Faith. That no such promise is made to any Particular Church or Churches , is plain from hence , that these Churches are not named in any part of the Scripture ; which omission is incredible if there had been any such entailment of Infallibility upon any Particular Church or Churches . But of all Churches , I humbly conceive , it is impossible it should be the Church of Rome , unless it be possible that all those Common Notions which I have set down , and in which all the World , even the Church of Rome her self , if they will speak their Consciences , are agreed in , be false , which they must be if Transubstantiation be true . And therefore let any man judge whether is themore likely , viz. That Transubstantiation should be false or those Common Notions not true . 6. Again , How does it appear that this promise of the assistance of the Holy Ghost is not conditional ? Indeed Christ says , Iohn 16. 13. When the spirit of truth is come he will guide you into all truth , viz. the same spirit that is promised , chap. 14. v. 15 , 16 , 17. But the words of this pretended Charter of Infallibility are there set down more fully : If you love me keep my commandments ; And I will pray the father and he shall give you another comforter that he may abide with you for ever , even the spirit of truth whom the world cannot receive — The promise of the assistance of the Holy Ghost for the infallibly concluding what is true , even from the words of this pretended Charter of Infallibility , is conditional , that is to say , if they so love Christ as to keep his commandments , and become not worldly and carnal ( for the World cannot receive this spirit of truth ) then this spirit which leadeth into all truth shall assist them . Wherefore as many as Christ sends this infallible spirit to , he first fits them for it by mortifying the spirit of the World in them , and making them members of his truly Holy Church ; for the calling themselves Holy Church , makes them never a jot the more Holy , if they really be not so , by the first common Notion . And besides , If the Words of this Charter of Infallibility had not been so express , yet in common sense and reason this condition would necessarily have been understood . Forasmuch as nothing can be more absurd than to imagine the Assistance of the Holy Ghost to be so cheap and trivial a thing , as to be procured for the concluding Controversies arising or set on foot in the Church , which are needless and frivolous , or more for satisfying Curiosity than Edification , and which tend to Division , and tearing the Church violently into parts , which was one before and in a salvable condition without this Decision , as Monsieur Maimbourg confesses himself : Or that the Holy Ghost will assist such Assemblies as are worldly and carnally minded , and are called to conclude for the worldly Advantage and Interest of a worldly Polity , who for the upholding and increasing their Temporal Empire ( whereby they Lord it over the World , and ride on the necks of Kings and Princes ) call themselves Spiritual . Certainly when all Christian Truth tends to real and indispensable Holiness , if mankind were not left to the liberty of their own Will , but Christ would have them so infallibly wise , he would all along have prepared them for it , by making them unexceptionably Holy , that they might become wise in his own Way and Method 7. And lastly , There being Predictions in Daniel and the Apocalpyse of an Antichristian State in the Church to come ( in which there will be such a general Apostasie from the Apostolick Purity ) even according to their own Interpreters , I demand what assurance we have that these Times came not ( in a very great measure ) upon the Church , some hundreds of Years before Transubstantiation was concluded on by the Roman Church , which therefore must much invalidate the pretence of the Infallibility of any such Councils . And our Church of England , as all know , in her Homilies , whether by inspiration or by mere solid Reason and Judgement refers the vision of the seventeenth Chapter of the Apocalypse , to the Church of Rome . And , I hope , to any unprejudiced Reader , that has leisure to examine things , I have even demonstratively made out that truth in my Exposition of the Apocalypse , and most punctually and distinctly of all in my Ioint-Exposition of the thirteenth and seventeenth Chapters thereof , Synops. Prophet . Book 1. Chap. 11 , 12 , 13 , &c. with the preparatory Chapters thereto . Let any one read them that please , and in the due fear of God consider them . Wherefore , to conclude , touching this first Prop of his general Maxim , whereby he would insinuate that Synods , to whose definitive Sentence he would have us to stand , are assisted by the Holy Ghost , it does not only not underprop , but undermine his grand Maxim. Forasmuch as we have no assurance that those Roman Councils which have concluded for Transubstantiation were assisted by the Holy Ghost , but rather quite contrary . 8. The second Prop is , That whether a Synod be or be not assisted by the Holy Ghost , we are to stand to their determination . If the Synod be not assisted by the Holy Ghost then they are fallible , and may be in the wrong : so that the sense is , whether the Synod determine right or wrong , yet we are to stand to their determination . Which as odly as it sounds , yet in some sober sense , I must confess ingenuously , for ought I know , may be true , that is , in such things as are really disputable , and which for no sinister base design , but merely for the peace of the Church and Her Edification , it has been thought fit to make a Synodical Decision of the Controversie . But is this colour enough for the Church of Rome's Determination to be stood to ? Of making the Bread in the Sacrament to be transubstantiated into the very Body of Christ that hung on the Cross at Ierusalem ( and has ever since his Ascension been in Heaven ) by the Priest's saying over it , This is my Body , the Bread still remaining Bread to all outward appearance , as before , so that Christ is fain to be at the expence of a perpetual Miracle to make the transubstantiated Bread look like Bread still , though it be really the Body of Christ that hung on the Cross at Ierusalem . Which , as I have noted above , is against his Wisdom and Goodness , in that , if Transubstantiation be a true Article of the Christian Faith , this is the most effectual way imaginable to make men , if left to their own free thought , to mis-believe it , however force and cruelty might constrain them to profess it : And so it is against his Goodness , to expose so great a part of his Church to such bloody Persecutions as this Article has occasioned in the Christian World. That Christ should do a perpetual Miracle not that will confirm mens Faith , but subvert it , not to edifie his Church but distract it , and lay all in confusion and blood ! Let any one consider how likely this is to be . This therefore could never be a point , bonâ fide , disputable , but to such as were horribly hoodwinkt with prejudice , and blinded with a desire of having a thing concluded by the Church which was of such unspeakable advantage , as they then thought , for the magnifying the Priest-hood , though I believe nothing will turn more to their Disrepute and shame in the conclusion . Now I dare appeal to Monsieur Maimbourg himself , whether we are to stand to the Determination of a fallible Synod in a Point , that , besides what I have already hinted , contradicts all those Common Notions , which I have above recited , and in which all mankind are agreed . And such is this point of Transubstantiation . 9. Now for the third Prop , That whatever Matters of Opinion ( as they are for the present but such ) are decided by such a Synod , pass into Articles of Faith ; this Prop is also really a puller down of this general Maxim. For by an Article of Faith , must be meant such an Article as after the synodical Decision , is necessary to be believed by all Parties upon pain of Damnation But to this I answer , first , No Falshood can be an Article of Faith , nor can what is in it self false , by all the declaring in the World that it is true , become true , by the first Common Notion . And secondly , Since the whole Church before , in which arose the Controversie , were in a salvable Condition , how Unchristian an act must this be , to put so many thousand Souls in the State of Damnation , by so unnecessary , nay mischievous a synodical Decision ! And therefore what pretence can there be to the Assistance of the Holy Ghost , which Christ has promised his Church , when they machinate that , which so manifestly tends , according as the Synod acknowledges , to the Damnation of such a multitude of Souls , which before the Decision were in a salvable Condition , and also to most barbarous Persecutions of their Persons , as it is notoriously known in History , touching Transubstantiation . 10. The fourth Prop charges those with the guilt of Schism and Heresie that will not close with the above-said Synodical Decisions , be they what they will. In which matter we cannot judge whether the charge be right , unless we first understand what is truly and properly Heresie and Schism . The former whereof I demand what it can be , but a dissent from the Catholick Church even in those things in it , that are Apostolical . For whatever National Church is found to have all and nothing else in it but what is Apostolical , or not inconsistent with the Apostolical Doctrine and Practice , is most assuredly one part of that one Catholick and Apostolick Church , which we profess our Belief of in our Creed . And for the latter it can be nothing else but a separation from the Catholick Church , or from any Church that is part thereof , even then , when she approves her self to be Catholick , that is to say even then , when she is Apostolick , or , though she be Apostolick , and offers no opinions or usages but such as are conformable to the usages and Doctrines of Christ and his Apostles , or have no repugnancy thereto . To separate from the Church in such circumstances as these , certainly is that great Crime of Schism ; but to separate from that part of the Church which imposes opinions and practices plainly repugnant to the Precepts of Christ and his Apostles , this is no Schism but Union with the truly antient Catholick and Apostolick Church . And the declaring it Schism does not , nor can make it so , by Common Notion the first .. And if it were Schism to separate from such a Church as propounds things repugnant to the Precepts of Christ and his Apostles , the guilt of this Schism is not upon them that thus separate , but upon those that impose such Anti-Apostolical matters . 11. The fifth Prop , That these decisive Synods or Assemblies are to decide according to the Rule of the Word of God , the strength of this Prop he endeavours more fully to display pag. 34. and he calls upon the Brethren of the Reformed Churches to reflect seriously upon these two Propositions he sets down . The first is , That as the Word of God is infallible in it self , so certainly the judgment of him who truly judges according to this Rule is also infallible : And consequently they are obliged to believe , That the Church when she judges according to this Rule or the Word of God , does not only not err , but that she also cannot err . The second , That they [ the Reformed ] are bound [ as well as we the Romanists ] to believe that the Church of God deciding Controversies of Faith , does judge according to the true sense of the word of God : Because upon the matter it is concerning this very sense that she gives judgment betwixt the Parties , who give it a different sense , and who are obliged in Conscience to submit to her judgment , under pain of being Schismaticks and Hereticks , as their Synod of Dort has positively declared . 12. The first of these Propositions may pass for firm and sound , provided that the meaning of her judging according to this rule is the giving the right and genuine sense thereof : Of which she can neither assure her self nor any one else , but by being assured of that Holiness , Integrity , and singleness of Heart , in those of the Synod , that makes them capable of the Assistance of the Holy Ghost ; and also that their Decision clashes not with those indeleble Notions in the Humane Soul , that are previous Requisites for the understanding the meaning of not only the Holy Scriptures , but of any writing whatever . And unto which if they find any thing in the letter of the Sacred Writ repugnant , they may be sure it is a Symbolical or Figurative Speech , but in other writings , that it is either a Figurative Speech or Nonsense . He that has not this previous furniture , or makes no use of it , it is impossible he should prove a safe judgeof the sense of Scripture . And if he runs Counter to what is certainly true , it is evident his Interpretation is false by the second Common Notion , and that he is not inspired by Common Notion the eleventh . Touching the second Proposition , I demand how any can be bound to stand to the judgment of any Synod , if they decline the previous Requisites , without which it is impossible to understand the right meaning of any writing whatsoever ; and whether their pretending to judge according to a Rule , does not imply , that there are some Common Principles , in which all Parties are agreed in , according to which , though they cannot discern that the Synod has certainly defined right , yet if the Synod run Counter to them , they may be sure they have defined wrong , touching the very sense controverted between the Parties . Their professing they judge according to the Rule , implies the Rule is in some measure known to all that are concerned . Nor does it at all follow , because the Object of their decision is the very sense controverted between the Parties , that the Synod may give what judgment she will , break all Laws of Grammar and Syntax in the expounding the Text , much less contradict those Rules which are infinitely more Sacred , and inviolable , the Common Notions which God has imprinted essentially on the Humane Understanding . If such a violence be used by any Interpreters of Scripture , neither the Synod of Dort , nor any Reformed Church , has or will declare , That under pain of being Schismaticks and Hereticks , they are obliged in Conscience to submit to their determination . CHAP. IX . 1. The examination of the sixth Prop , by demanding whether the Maxime Monsieur Maimbourg proproses is to be understood in the full sense , without any Appeal to any common agreed on Principles of Grammar , Rhetorick , Logick and Morality . 2. Instances of enormous Results from thence , with a demand whether the Protestant Churches would allow of such absurd Synodical Decisions . 3. That the Citations of History , touching the Synod of Dort , prove not , that all Synodical Decisions pass into proper Articles of Faith , with the Authors free judgment touching the Carriage of that Synod , and of the Parties condemned thereby . 4. His judgment countenanced from what is observed by Historians to be the sentiments of King James in the Conference at Hampton Court. 1. AND yet the sixth and last Prop of the general Maxime implies as much , which affirms , That both the Protestants and Papists are agreed in all the five foregoing Supposals , or to speak more compendiously in that his general Maxime . That that Church in which are found the two Parties concerned , has ever had the power to determine all differences , and to declare that as matter of Faith , which before there was no obligation to believe , and that we are bound to aquiesce in their decisions under the penalty of being Schismaticks . But I demand here of Monsieur Maimbourg , whether he will have his Maxime understood in a full latitude of sense , and that immediately without recourse to any Principles in which the Synod and the Parties are agreed , and Counter to which , if any determination be made it is null , such as Grammatical Syntax and Lexicographical sense of Words ; and ( which are Laws infinitely more sacred and inviolable ) the Common Notions ( as I said before ) essentially imprinted on the Soul of man , either of Truth or Morality , whether without being bounded by these , the Protestant Churches as well as the Pontifician are agreed , that we are to stand to the Determination of a Synod , under the penalty of being Schismaticks . 2. As for example , If a Synod should interpret , Drink ye all of this , of the Clergy only , and declare it does not reach the Laity , though the Apostles and Primitive Church understood it did : If notwithstanding S t Paul's long Exhortation against Religibus Exercise in an unknown Tongue , 1 Cor. 14. they should by some distinction or evasion conclude it lawful . If when as it is said , Thou shalt not make to thy self any graven Image to worship and fall down before it , they should distinguish and restrain it only to the graven Images of the Heathen Gods. If when as it is said , Thou shalt have no other Gods but me , they should distinguish Gods into Supream and Subordinate , and declare , we may have many Subordinate Gods , but only One Supream . If when as it said , Honour thy Father and thy Mother , they should restrain it to a Father or Mother of the same Religion with our selves , whether Political Father or Natural , otherwise we are free from this Command , and may despise both our Natural Parents and our Prince , if they be not of the same perswasion with our selves . And whereas it is said , Thou shalt not commit Adultery , if they should understand it only of such an Adultery as is committed for the mere pleasure of the Flesh , not for the health of the Body , or assisting the Conjugal Impotency of his Neighbour . If the Commandment against Murther , or Killing an Innocent Person , they should restrain to Murther that is accompanied with delight in Cruelty , not that which is committed to raise a livelyhood , or secure an Interest the Murtherer has espoused . If the Commandment against Stealing , they should restrain to such Theft as is against Men of our Religion and Perswasion , but that we may rob and steal from others without sin . And according to the same tenour they should interpret , Thou shall not bear false witness against thy Neighbour , &c. I demand , I say , whether Monsieur Maimbourg does conceive , that the Protestants , nay , or his own Party , are agreed that all such determinations are to be submitted to upon penalty of being Schismaticks . Let him ask the Reformed Churches if they be thus agreed , or rather let him ask his own Conscience , if he think they are . Wherefore it is plain , that what he produces out of the History of the Synod of Dort , reaches not the point that he drives at , that is to say , That it is acknowledged by them , that after a Synod has decided the Controversie , or given the sense of places of Scripture controverted , be it what it will be , the Decision is to be stood to , under penalty of being Schismaticks , and that there are not some commonly known Truths , common Notions of Reason and Morality , with which if the determination of a Synod does clash , it is ipso facto null , and a demonstration that the Spirit of God did not assist . 3. I observe farther , That all the Citations that are produced either by Monsieur Maimbourg himself , or his Translator , in his Preface and Appendix , will not amount to the Protestants professing that every Controversie or controverted Opinion , after the Decision of the Synod , passes into an Article of Faith , which properly signifies such a Doctrine , as without the Belief of which , when it is proposed , he that mis-believes it forfeits his Salvation ; for hereby the Synod of Dort had damned all the Lutheran Churches . For my own part I must confess , that in points that are so obscure , intricate , and abstruse , and which , as touching the main part of them , have exercised and much baffled humane understanding through all Ages , it had been a great piece of Christian Prudence for that Synod to have made Decrees against all bitterness of speech of the disagreeing Parties one against another , and to have admonished them that they were bound , notwithstanding their difference of Opinion , to live in mutual Love one to another , which is the true Badge of Christ's genuine Disciples , rather than to have exasperated one Party against another , by making that Doctrine Authentick , which is really in it self from places of Scripture , and Reason so intricate and disputable . But it seems to have been the sleight of Satan for the weakning the Reformed Churches that drove them to it . But I must say , on the other side , that when the Synod had determined , they who were determined against , ought to have submitted to her determination in a thing so really disputable , and by this Christian Policy to have conserved the peace of the Church , and out-witted the Devil . For if they had had any modesty in them , they might very well in such abstruse , dark and disputable points have compromised with the Synod , and preferred the peace and safety of the Reformed Churches , before the satisfaction of their own Opinionativeness . 4. And that wise Prince , King Iames the first of Blessed Memory , seems to come near to what I have said , in the words delivered by his Embassadour at the Synod of Dort , as they are cited by Monsieur Maimbourg himself in his Peaceable Method , pag. 23. That for the allaying those troubles , There was but that one only means which the Church had ever made use of , a National Synod , which was to be judge in the case , and to decide which of the two Opinions was more conformable to the Word of God : or at least how and in what manner the one or the other might be tolerated in the Church of God. Which latter part is cunningly left out by the Translator , in his Preface , pag. 3. But in those latter words , King Iames plainly intimates his moderate Sentiments touching the Controversy , and that he would not have the Decision made too rigidly and pinchingly on either side . And sutably to this excellent judgment of his , in the Conference at Hampton-Court , when the Puritans would have had the nine Lambeth Articles , which are more full and express against the points of Arminianism , to be embodyed into the Articles of our Church , concluded on in the Convocation holden at London , in the Year 1562. the King earnestly refused it . And in his Instructions to his Divines he sent over to the Synod of Dort , this remarkable one was amongst the rest , That they would advise the Churches that the Ministers do not deliver in Pulpit to the People those things for ordinary Doctrines , which are the highest points of the Schools , and not fit for vulgar Capacities , but disputable on both sides . And we may be sure when he was so careful in this for the foreign Churches , he would not neglect to infuse the same good Principles into his own . And that he could not easily believe that upon the Decision of the Synod of Dort , that passed into an Article of Faith , without which there is no Salvation , which yet he would have hid from the knowledge of the People . CHAP. X. 1. What Synodical Decisions are capable of passing into proper Articles of Faith , and what not . 2. The necessity of distinguishing the doctrinal Decisions of Synods into Articles of Faith , properly so called , and Articles of Communion . 3. The meaning of the King's Answer to Mr. Knewstub , in the Conference at Hampton-Court : And that Synods have unlimited Power to put what sense they please on places of Scripture , and make them pass into Articles of Faith , not proved to be the Opinion of the Protestant Churches . 4. That our English Church is against it , largely proved out of her Articles . 5. No Article of Faith pre-existent in Scripture that cannot be fetched thence but by interpreting against the Proleptick Principles of rightly circumstantiated Sense and Common Notions ingrafted essentially in the Humane Understanding . 6. Of Decision of points necessary to Salvation , and to the justifying the Christian Worship , and those that are less necessary , and less clear , and lastly , those that have an Insuperable Difficulty on both sides . 7. Monsieur Maimbourg's general Maxime , that it is not agreed in by the Protestant Churches , abundantly demonstrated , with a Note of the Subtilty of the Romanists in declining the Dispute of the particular merits of their Cause , and making it their business to perswade , first , that their Church is Infallible . 8. A Meeting with Monsieur Maimbourg once more in his own Method , and thereby demonstrating that Transubstantiation is grosly false , and consequently the Church of Rome fallible , with an hint of a true peaceable Method of reconciling Papists and Protestants . 1. WHerefore it seems needful to take notice of this distinction of the Doctrinal Decisions of Synods , that some pass into , or rather are of the nature of the Articles of Faith , the knowledge of them being necessary to keep us from Sin and Damnation . And such were the Doctrinal Decisions of those ancient Primitive Councils , who out of Scripture plainly declared , the truth of the Divinity of Christ and Triunity of the God-head , without which the Church would be involved in gross Idolatry . And therefore the Decisions of the Controversies did naturally pass into professed Articles of the Christian Faith , and such as our Salvation depended on . But to imagine that every Doctrinal Decision of a Synod passes into a proper Article of Faith , without which there is no Salvation , and that a Synod has power to make that an Article of Faith , before which men were safe and sinless as to that point , is to put it into the power of a Synod to damn God knows how many Myriads of men which Christ dyed for , and had it not been for these curious , or rather mischievous Decisions , might have been saved ; than which what can be more prodigious ? 2. Whence we see plainly it is most necessary to make this distinction in Doctrinal Decisions of Synods , that some may be Articles of Faith , others only Articles of Communion , that if any oppose or disparage the said Articles , whether they be of the Clergy or Laity , they make themselves obnoxious to Excommunication ; and if a Clergy-man does not subscribe to them , he makes himself uncapable of Ecclesiastical Imployment . This is all that Monsieur Maimbourg can squeeze out of all his Citations out of the story of the Synod of Dort , so far as I can perceive , or his Translator in his Preface and Appendix , out of those he produces touching the Church of England . 3. And that which his Translator in his Preface would make such a great business of , viz , This wise Kings answer to M r Knewstubs , at the Conference at Hampton Court , when he was asked , How far an Ordinance of the Church was to bind men without impeachment of their Christian Liberty : to which he said , he would not argue that point with him , but answer therein as Kings are wont to speak in Parliament , Le Roy s'avisera . And therefore I charge you never speak more to that point how far you are bound to obey when the Church has once ordained it . I say nothing more can be collected out of this answer , but that he modestly intimated his Opinion , that he meant not that all Synodical Decisions passed into Articles of Faith , but may be only Articles of Communion in the sense I have already explained . And what I have already said , if seriously and considerately applyed to what he produces in his Appendix , will easily discover that they prove nothing more touching the Church of England , than what we have already allowed to be her Doctrine touching the Authority of Synods . But that a Synod without any limitation or appeal to certain Principles in which both the Synod and Parties contesting are all agreed in , may by her bare immediate Authority , give what sense she pleases on places of Scripture , alledged in the Controversy , and that her Decision passes into an Artiticle of Faith , which the Parties cast are bound to assent to , under the pain of becoming Hereticks and Schismaticks . Nothing can be more contrary than this to the Declarations of the Church of England . So far is it from truth , That all the Protestant Churches are agreed in his grand Maxime above mentioned . 4. Let the Church of England speak for her self , Artic. 19. As the Church of Jerusalem , Alexandria , and Antioch , so also the Church of Rome has erred , not only in their Living and Ceremonies , but also in Matters of Faith. And Article 21. General Councils may not be gathered together without the Commandment and Will of Princes . And when they be gathered together ( forasmuch as they be an Assembly of men , whereof all be not governed with the Spirit and Word of God ) they may err , and sometimes have erred even in things appertaining to God , wherefore things ordained by them , as necessary to Salvation , have neither Strength nor Authority , unless it may be declared that they be taken out of the Holy Scriptures . Here our Church plainly declares , that forasmuch as a Council or Synod consists of fallible Persons , they can determine nothing necessary to Salvation , but what they can make out that it is clearly , to any unprejudiced Eye , contained in the Scripture , not fetched out by weak and precarious Consequences , or phanciful Surmises , much less by a distorted Interpretation , and repugnant to Common Sense and Reason , which are necessarily supposed in the understanding of any Scripture or Writing whatsoever , as I have intimated above . And even that Article ( 20. ) which the Translator produces in his Preface , in the behalf of Monsieur Maimbourg's grand Maxime , do but produce the whole Article and it is plainly against it . For the words are these : The Church has power to decree Rites and Ceremonies and Autority in Controversies of Faith ; and yet it is not lawful for the Church to ordain any thing that is contrary to God's Word written , neither may it so expound one place of Scripture that it be repugnant to another . Wherefore although the Church be a Witness and Keeper of Holy Writ , yet as it ought not to decree any thing against the same , so beside the same , ought it not to inforce any thing to be believed for Necessity of Salvation . It is true , the Church is here said to have Authority in Controversies of Faith. As certainly if any should raise new Stirs in any National Church , touching such points as the Antient Primitive Synods have concluded for , in the behalf of the Divinity of Christ , and Triunity of the God-head , pretending they have clearer demonstrations than ever yet were proposed against those Decisions or any of like nature , which may concern the Iustifiableness of our Christian Worship , and indispensable way of Salvation , the Church has Authority as she ever had , in such Controversies , to ratifie such Articles of Faith , but she is not said to have Authority to make every Synodical Decision an Article of Faith , whether the nature thereof will bear it or no. Nay her Authority is excluded from inforcing any thing besides what is clearly enough contained in the Scripture ( as assuredly those points are above mentioned , though with weak or cavilling men they have been made questionable ) to be believed for Necessity of Salvation . Which is the proper Character of an Article of Faith , according as the Preface to the Athanasian Creed intimates . And Monsieur Maimbourg himself is so sensible of this main Truth , that in the Explication of his general Maxime , he acknowledges that the Church has no Autority to coin any New Articles of Faith , but only to declare she has discovered them existent before in the Scriptures , but not so clearly espi'd or discerned as by an assembled Synod . 5. But certainly no Article of Faith , that is to say , no Truth necessary to Salvation can be said to be pre existent in the Scriptures , and having lain hid to be discovered afterwards , that is not discovered but by such forced Interpretations of the Text , that are repugnant to Common Sense and Reason . Is not this a Reproach to the Wisdom of God , that he should inspire the Holy Penmen to set down Truth necessary to Salvation so obscurely , that the meaning cannot be reached without doing violence to Common Sense and Reason , and running counter to those previous Principles , without which it is impossible to make sense of any writing whatever ? Or without interpreting one place of Scripture repugnantly to the plain sense of another . Which this Article expresly forbids as unlawful . So plain is it that our Church limits the Authority of a Synod to certain Rules agreed of on all hands , against which they have no Authority to define any thing : And plain places of Scripture is one Rule , contrary to which it is not lawful to interpret any either pretendedly or really obscure place . Nor can any place at all be plain without the admittance of those Proleptick Principles of rightly circumstantiated sense and common undeniable Notions essentially ingrafted in the mind of man , whether they relate to Reason or Morality . These , both Synod and Contesters , are supposed to be agreed on , and therefore no Synodical Decision repugnant to these according to our Church in interpreting of Scripture ( if I rightly understand her ) ought to have Autority with it . 6. But as for doctrinal Decisions , such as concern the Justifiableness of the Christian Worship , and are of Necessity to Salvation , and such as , although either weak or willful cavilling men may make questionable , yet are clearly enough delivered in Scripture , these , questionless , a Synod has Autority to determine as Articles of Faith. And such as have not the like Clearness nor Necessity , as also innocent and indifferent Rites and Ceremonies , when the one and the other seem advantagious to the Church , such Synodical Decisions may pass into Articles of Communion , in that sense I have above explained . And lastly , As in that case of the Synod of Dort , when the points controverted have on both sides that invincible Obscurity and Intricacy , and there seems to be forcible Arguments for either conclusion . What , I humbly conceive , is to be done in that case , I have fully enough expressed already , and therefore think it needless again to repeat . 7. In the mean time , I hope , I have made it manifoldly apparent that Monsieur Maimbourg's general Maxime , viz. That the Church , in which are found the two Parties concerned , has ever had the Power to determine all differences , and to declare that as Matter of Faith , which before there was no Obligation to believe ; And that we are bound to acquiesce in her Decisions under the penalty of being Schismaticks , is not , ( especially as he would have his Maxime understood ) agreed on by all Churches , as well Protestant as Pontifician . And that therefore this Snare or Net , wherewith he would catch and carry Captive the Protestants into a Profession of the Infallibility of the Church in Synodical Decisions ; so that the Church must be first allow'd Infallible , that we may glibly swallow down whatsoever she decides , even Transubstantiation it self , with all other Errours of the Church of Rome ; this Net or Snare , I hope , I have sufficiently broken . And I will only note by the bye , how the subtilest Romanists declining the Merits of the Cause , labour Tooth and Nail to establish the absolute Infallibility of their Church . But our Saviour tells us , By the fruit you shall know them . Wherefore any man or Company of men that profess themselves infallible , their Infallibility must be examined by their Doctrines , which if they be plainly any one of them false , their boast of Infallibility most certainly is not true . 8. But forasmuch as an Appeal to a Maxime pretended to be agreed upon by both sides , both Papists and Protestants , is made use of with so much Wit and Artifice , to ingage the Protestants to imbrace Transubstantiation and the rest of the Romish Errours : I hope Monsieur Maimbourg will not take it amiss , if I civilly meet him again in his own Way , and show him by an Appeal , not only to one Maxime but above a dozen at least of Common Notions , which I did above recite , and in which both Papists and Protestants , and all mankind are agreed , that it may demonstratively be made evident that the Doctrine of Transubstantiation is grosly false . For that which in it self is false , no declaring or saying it is true , though by the vote of an entire Synod , can make it true , by the first of the Common Notions above-mentioned , Chap. 8. Sect. 4. Secondly , Whatever is plainly repugnant to what is true , is certainly false , and consequently can be no due Article of a true Faith or Religion , by the second and third Common Notions . And therefore Transubstantiation cannot pass into an Article of Faith by the Authority of any Synod whatever . Thirdly , Now that the Doctrine of Transubstantiation is false , is manifest from the assurance of our Senses rightly circumstantiated . To which our Saviour Christ appeals , who is wiser than all the Synods that ever were or will be , as was observed in Common Notion the fourth . But our Senses assure us it is Bread still , not the Body of Christ. Fourthly , If Transubstantiation be true , an Essence or Being that is one remaining still one , may be divided or separated from it self , which is repugnant to the fifth Common Notion . Fifthly , If Transubstantiation be true , the whole is not bigger than the part , nor the part less than the whole , which contradicts the sixth Common Notion . Sixthly , If Transubstantiation be true , the parts in a Division do not only agree with the whole , but agree one with another , and are indeed absolutely the same ; for divide a consecrated Wafer into two , viz. A. and B. this A. and B. are the same intire Individual Body of Christ according to this Doctrine , which contradicts the seventh Common Notion . Seventhly , If the said Doctrine be true , one and the same Body may be a Cube and a Globe at once , have the figure of an Humane Body and of a Pyramid and Cylinder at the same time , according as they shall mould the Consecrated Bread , which is repugnant to the eighth Common Notion . Eighthly , Transubstantiation , if it be any truth at all , it is a Revealed Truth ; but no Revelation the Revealing whereof , or the manner of Revealing is repugnant to the Divine Attributes , can be from God , by Common Notion the ninth : but if this Doctrine of Transubstantiation were a Truth , it seems not to sute with the Wisdom of God to reveal a Truth that seems so palpably to overthrow and thwart all the innate Principles of humane Understanding , and the assurance of the rightly circumstantiated Senses , to both which Christ himself appeals , and without which we have no certainty of the Miracles of Christ and his Apostles . And he hence exposes his Church to be befool'd by all the lucriferous fictions of a fallacious Priesthood . And besides this , the circumstances or manner of its first Revelation at the Lord's Supper as they would have it , shows it cannot be ; for the Consecrated Bread retaining still the shape and all other sensible qualities of Bread without any change , and that by a miraculous supporting them , now not inherent in their proper subject Bread , which is transubstantiated into that very Body that holds it in his hands , or seems so to do . I say , as I have also intimated before , to be thus at the expence of so vast a Miracle here at his last Supper , and to repeat the same Miracle upon all the Consecrations of the Bread by the Priest , which is the most effectual means to make all men Infidels , as to the belief of Transubstantiation , and to occasion thence such cruel and bloody Persecutions , is apparently contrary to the Divine Wisdom and Goodness ; and therefore neither pretended Tradition nor fresh Interpretation of the inspired Text , can make so gross a falshood true , by the tenth and eleventh Common Notions . Ninthly , If Transubstantiation be true , one and the same Body may be many thousand times bigger or less than it self at the same time , forasmuch as the least Atom or particle of his Body or Transubstantiated Bread is his whole Body as well as the bigger lump according to this Doctrine , which contradicts the twelfth Common Notion . Tenthly , If this Doctrine be true , The same Individual Body still existing and having existed many Years , may notwithstanding be made whiles it already exists , which contradicts the thirteenth Common Notion . Eleventhly , If Transubstantiation be true , one and the same Body may be present with it self and many thousands of miles absent from it self at once , be shut up in a Box and free to walk in the Field , and to ascend into Heaven at the same time , contrary to the fourteenth and fifteenth Common Notions . And lastly , If this Doctrine be true , a man may swallow his own Body whole , Head , Feet , Back , Belly , Arms , and Thighs , and Stomach it self through his Mouth , down his Throat into his Stomach , that is to say , every whit of himself into one knows not what of himself , less than a Mathematical Point or nothing . This Christ might have done , and actually did if he did eat the Consecrated Bread with his Disciples , which contradicts the sixteenth Common Notion . Wherefore since in vertue of one single Maxim , Monsieur Maimbourg supposing the Protestants as well as the Paepists agreeing therein ( though in that , as I have show'd , he is mistaken ) would draw in the Protestants to imbrace the Doctrine of Transubstantiation , and other Ertors of the Roman Church , I appeal to him how much more reasonable it is , that he and as many as are of his perswasion should relinquish that Doctrine , it contradicting so many Common Notions , which not only all Papists and Protestants , but indeed all the whole World are agreed in . And hence clearly discerning the Infallibility of the Roman Church , upon which this and other erroneous Doctrines are built ( such as Invocation of Saints , Worshiping of Images , and the like ) plainly to fail , that they should bethink themselves what need there is to reform their Church from such gross errours , and to pray to God to put it into the mind of their Governours so to do ; which would be a peaceable method indeed for the reuniting Protestants and Catholicks in matters of Faith , and principally in the subject of the Holy Eucharist , as the Title of his Method has it . But to require an Union , things standing as they are , is to expect of us that we cease to be men to become Christians of a novel Mode unknown to the Primitive Church , and under pretence of Faith to abjure the indeleble Principles of sound Reason , those immutable Common Notions which the Eternal Logos has essentially ingrafted in our Souls , and without which neither Certainty of Faith can consist , nor any assured sense of either the Holy Scriptures or any Writing else be found out or understood . Soli Deo Gloria .