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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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