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
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
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
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
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
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
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