his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Life or Spirit as I have noted in my Analytical account of the fore-part of the first Chapter of St. Iohn's Gospel See my Scholia at the end of my Enchiridium Ethicum 3. And it is marvellously applicable to our purpose what Philo says on that Passage of Deuteronomy Chap. 32. v. 5. He made him to suck honey out of the Rock and Oyl out of the flinty Rock in his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where he says the Rock signifies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The solid steady and infrangible Wisdom of God implying the Immutableness and Unalterableness of the Natures Properties and Respects of the Ideas of things in the Divine Intellect The 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not to be changed or violated for any superstitious purposes whatsoever as I have intimated before Wherefore as S t Paul calls Christ who is the Eternal Logos a Rock so does Philo by saying that Rock Moses mentions in his Song is the steady solid and infrangible Wisdom of God Which therefore is that Essential Wisdom the same that the Divine Logos or second Hypostasis of the Trinity And not many lines after in the same Treatise the Lawgiver says he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 calls this Rock Manna the Divine Logos that was before all beings and without whom nothing was made that was made as S t Iohn testifies And in his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 speaking of Israel which he would have signifie one that sees God He says he lifting up his Eyes to Heaven sees and thence receives 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Manna the Divine Logos the Heavenly incorruptible food of the Soul devoted to Holy Speculation Which Passages I could not forbear to produce they having so great an Affinity with that which our Saviour professes of himself that he is this Bread from Heaven the true Manna and incorruptible Food of the Soul whereby she is nourished to Eternal Life Iohn 6. Out of all which may be more easily understood how the Fathers did all eat the same Spiritual Meat and drink the same Spiritual Drink which cannot well be conceived but of such a Divine Body and Bloud of Christ as is universal not restrained to his particular humane Nature but belonging to him as he is the Eternal Logos in whom is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Life or Spirit which goeth along with the Divine Body of this Life or Spirit of Christ and consequently is rightly called his Body Which being the necessary Principles of Regeneration for ex eisdem nutrimur ex quibus constamus and there being no Salvation without Regeneration and no Regeneration continued and advanced without congenerous Food we must necessarily conclude with S t Paul that The Fathers all ate the same Spiritual Meat and drank all the same Spiritual Drink Water Honey Oyl out of the same Rock Christ the Eternal Word or Logos And certainly that Body and Blood of Christ out of which the Fathers were Regenerate and by which they were fed cannot be the very Body and Bloud of Christ which hung on the Cross and whose Bloud was there let out by the Lance of the Souldier that pierced his side and therefore there was a Body and Bloud of Christ before he was incarnate for the Regenerate Souls of the antient People of the Iews to feed upon belonging to him as he is the Eternal Logos in whom is the Life and that Spirit of which it is said That which is born of the flesh is flesh and that which is born of the Spirit is Spirit Which things are more fully treated of in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or a Philosophical Hypothesis touching the great Mystery of Regeneration 4. Wherefore there is all the Reason in the World if not plain Necessity to admit what we cited out of Gratian that famous Canonist of the Church of Rome That we are to understand that there is a two-fold Flesh and Bloud of Christ either that Spiritual and Divine Flesh of which he himself says My Flesh is Meat indeed and my Bloud is Drink indeed and Unless you eat my Flesh and drink my Bloud ye shall not have Everlasting Life Or that Flesh which was crucified and that Bloud that was let out of his side by the Lance of the Souldier which we shall now endeavour briefly to demonstrate out of that Discourse of our Saviour in the sixth of S t Iohn 5. First then That the Flesh of Christ that hung once on the Cross and into which the Bread of the Romanists is supposed to be Transubstantiated in the Sacrament of our Lord's Supper is not the Flesh here meant is plain from what is said thereof in this sixth Chapter of S t Iohn v. 54. Whoso eateth my Flesh and drinketh my Bloud hath Eternal Life But every one that eateth the Bread transubstantiated into the Body of Christ that once hung upon the Cross in the Roman Communion has not Eternal Life in him Nay if that Souldier that pierced our Saviour's side and let out his Bloud with his Lance had drunk also thereof and cut some piece of his flesh from his Body and eaten it is any one so fond as to think that he thereby would have been made Partaker of Eternal Life But if Christ meant that Body or Flesh of his and not some other that is rightly also called his Flesh or Body it would follow that that Souldier by doing that savage and inhumane act would have obtained Everlasting Life Wherefore it is plain from hence that there is another Body or Flesh of Christ and another Blood distinct from that Blood that was shed on the Cross and from that Body that hung there which our Saviour aims at in his Discourse 6. Secondly It is plain that our Saviour's Discourse in that Chapter he passing from that temporal Food which he had lately procured for the multitude to a Spiritual and Eternal has for its Object or Subject not the Manner or Way of receiving his Body and Blood as if it were meant of that very Flesh and Blood on the Cross but that it was to be received in a Spiritual Manner which Interpreters several of them drive at but the Object of his Discourse is his very Flesh and Blood it self to be taken as the Fish and Loaves were wherewith he lately fed them or it is himself in reference to this Flesh and Blood which belongs to him as he is the Eternal Word and in this sense he says He is the Bread of God that cometh down from Heaven and giveth Life to the World v. 33. And v. 48. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I am the Bread of Life and speaking of the Manna he presently adds Your Fathers ate Manna and yet died viz. the natural Death the natural Manna being no Preservative against the natural Death And v. 51. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as before he called himself 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For in him is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Iohn 1. or Life
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
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
and Spirit and this Spirit or Life in the Divine Body I am the living Bread coming down from Heaven as the Manna is said to do and to which Philo compares the Divine Logos if any one eat of this Bread he shall live for ever He speaks not of the manner of eating of it but of the Bread it self to be eaten and yet immediately thereupon he calls this Bread his Flesh which he says he will give for the Life of the World that is to the end that they may be enlivened thereby he thus communicating to them his Divine Body and Spirit together And then presently upon the Iews striving amongst themselves and saying How can this man give us his flesh to eat the reason whereof was because they took him to be a meer man and thought that Christ himself understood it of his humane Flesh he affirms with greater earnestness and vehemency Verily verily I say unto you unless ye eat the Flesh of the Son of Man viz. of the Messias who is the Logos incarnate and drink his Bloud ye have no Life in you Whoso eateth my Flesh and drinketh my Bloud hath Eternal Life and I will raise him up at the last day For my Flesh is meat indeed and my Bloud is drink indeed And so all along to the very end of his Discourse he speaks of a really eating his Flesh and drinking his Blood not of the Manner of eating as if it never came nigh them but only they thought of Flesh and Blood God knows how far distant from them and so ate the humane Flesh of Christ by meer thinking of it and drank his Bloud after the same imaginary Manner which would I think be a very dilute and frigid sense of such high and fervid Asseverations of our Saviour if the Mystery reached no farther than so 7. But thirdly and lastly That it does reach further than so is exceeding evident from what our Saviour utters upon his Disciples being scandalized at this strange Discourse of his v. 61. When Iesus knew in himself that his Disciples murmured at it He said unto them Does this offend you What if you shall see the Son of man ascending where he was before which he must needs understand of his particular visible Body which he bore about with him and which his humane Soul did actuate and which was appropriated to his humane nature which is finite and circumscribed It is an Elliptical speech of his but thus naturally to be supplyed as I have also noted above as if he suppressed by an Aposiopesis this objurgatory sense insinuated thereby Will you then imagine so grosly as if I understood it of this very Flesh I bear about with me when as this particular body of mine after my Ascension into Heaven will be removed at a vast distance from you I tell you this Flesh of mine as to this purpose I have all this time driven at profiteth nothing you cannot feed of it at such a distance if it were to be fed on The Text runs thus v. 63. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is that quickening spirit I aim at in my discourse that Divine or Spiritual Body of mine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that Flesh which you understand and are so scandalized at the eating thereof profiteth nothing as to this purpose nor the Blood taken in your sense has any thing to do here The words that I speak unto you they are spirit and they are life The Object of those words spoken is my Spiritual Body and Blood not as I am a Man but the Eternal Word the Divine Logos which contains in it the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Spirit and my Divine Body universal that belongs to that my Life or Spirit This is the true Mystery of the Matter for by these two things asserted by our Saviour 1. That we are to eat his Flesh and drink his Blood as we hope ever to have Eternal Life 2. And his declaring his Flesh profiteth nothing it is manifest that that distinction of Gratian is true which he seems to have taken out of St. Hierom or some other ancient Father who tells us the Flesh and Blood of Christ is twofold the one natural and which he bore about with him and hung once on the Cross the other Spiritual and Divine which we may really eat and drink that is really receive and draw in at the Celebrating the Holy Eucharist by a sincere fervid and devotional Faith And consequently there is a Real Presence of the Body and Blood of Christ in partaking of the Lord's Supper whereby our Souls are nourished to Eternal Life And in that he says his natural Flesh profiteth nothing to this purpose for it cannot be said that it profiteth nothing at all since in vertue of the Crucifixion of that Flesh and Effusion of that Blood on the Cross we have the remission of our Sins Christ plainly infers that he has which cannot be well understood but as he is the Eternal Logos another Flesh viz. that Spiritual and Divine Flesh which is mainly profitable for this purpose for the maintaining perfecting and renewing the inward man that he may attain to his due growth in Christ. And lastly How can Christ say his Flesh that was Crucified on the Cross profiteth nothing when by being meditated upon at the solemnity of the Holy Eucharist and also at other times it may serve to kindle and inflame our Love and Devotion towards him and so urge us to greater degrees of Repentance and Mortification and serious Holiness it therefore being useful and profitable for all this I say why does he then affirm it profiteth nothing but that he does on purpose advertise us that it profiteth nothing as to the present case he has spoke to all this while viz. to be the real meat and food of the inward man and to be really received into him to maintain and increase those Divine Principles in him out of which he is regenerated This his particular Flesh and Blood that hung on the Cross cannot be profitable for nor can be come at at such a distance to be taken in and received which therefore plainly implies those other which were mentioned above out of Gratian the Divine or Spiritual Flesh and Blood of Christ only to be properly useful to this purpose 8. And for this Divine and Spiritual Flesh and Blood of our Saviour distinguished from his natural besides St. Hierome you have also the suffrage of Clemens Alexandrinus in his Paedagogus lib. 2. cap. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Blood of our Lord is twofold the one carnal by which we are redeemed from corruption the other Spiritual wherewith we are anointed and by vertue of drinking thereof we attain to incorruption 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And as he makes the Blood of our Lord twofold so we may be sure he makes his Body or Flesh because his Mystical Body and Blood go together According to that which M r Pelling in his Pious and
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
Mysteries as pledges of his Love and for a continual remembrance of his Death And in the Prayer of Consecration the Celebration of the Eucharist is again said to be a continued or perpetuated Commemoration of Christ's precious Death till his coming again But now for our receiving the Spiritual and Divine Body and Blood of Christ such passages as these seem to intimate it In the Exhortation to the Communicants it is there said if with a true penitent heart and lively faith we receive this Holy Sacrament then we spiritually eat the flesh of Christ and drink his blood then we dwell in Christ and Christ in us we are one with Christ and Christ with us This passage plainly points to our Saviour's Discourse Iohn 5. v. 56. where he says He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood dwelleth in me and I in him And he thus dwelling in us he enlivens us we becoming one with Christ in a manner as the Soul and Body makes one as it followeth in the next verse As the living father has sent me and I live by the father so he that eateth me shall live by me and so we become one with Christ and Christ with us we living by Christ as he by his Father that is to say as Christ lives by his Father so we live by the Spirit of Christ dwelling in us Rom. 8. 11. which Spirit or Life of Christ always implies the Divine Body As he that is joined unto the Lord in this Body is one Spirit 1 Cor. 6. 17. Now this Exhortation so plainly alluding to this passage of our Saviour's Discourse which speaks not of his particular natural Flesh but of that which is his Spiritual or Divine Flesh it is plain that the genuine sense of the Exhortation in this place is that we really though spiritually that is by a fervent and devotional Faith eat or receive the real Body and Blood of Christ viz. that Divine and Spiritual Body and Blood of his above-mentioned And this passage of our Saviour's Discourse is again alluded to in the Prayer immediately before the Prayer of Consecration in these words Grant us therefore Gracious Lord so to eat the Flesh of thy Dear Son Jesus Christ and to drink his Blood that our sinful Bodies may be made clean by his Body and our Souls washed through his most precious Blood and that we may evermore dwell in him and he in us John 6. 56. And these two places so plainly alluding to our Saviour's Discourse in the sixth of S t Iohn it is very easie and natural to conceive that what occurs in the Thanksgiving after our receiving the Sacrament does sound to the same purpose Almighty and everlasting God we most heartily thank thee for that thou dost vouchsafe to feed us who have duly received these Holy Mysteries with the Spiritual Food of the most Precious Body and Blood of thy Son and our Saviour Jesus Christ The words even of themselves do very naturally point at a real though spiritual partaking or receiving into us the Body and Blood of Christ namely of that Flesh and Blood which our Saviour discourses of Iohn 6. And therefore we may be much more assured that they do so if we take notice the sense is so back'd and strengthned by the other two Passages which do plainly relate to the Body or Flesh and Blood Christ discourses of in the sixth of S t Iohn's Gospel I will only add one Consideration more and that is from the Title of our Communion-Service Can there be any more likely reason why the Lord's Supper is called THE HOLY COMMUNION than that it refers to that of S t Paul 1 Cor. 10. 16. The Cup of Blessing which we bless is it not the Communion of the Blood of Christ The Bread which we break is it not the Communion of the Body of Christ Because there is one Bread we being many are one Body For we are all partakers of that one Bread Which is that Bread from Heaven which our Saviour discourses of in the sixth of S t Iohn But the Words I have chiefly my Eye upon are those The Cup being called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Communion of the Blood and the Bread 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Communion of the Body of Christ and the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in all likely hood having the same sense that it had 2 Pet. 1. 4. in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where we are said to be called to the Participation of the Divine Nature Communion here in S t Paul's Epistle to the Corinthians must naturally imply our real receiving or partaking of the Body and Blood of Christ in the celebrating of this Holy Communion and that by thus partaking of that one Divine Body and Blood of his signified by the eating and drinking the Bread and Wine we though many become one Body not in a Political Sense only but if I may so speak Divinely natural we being made all Members of that one Universal Divine Body of Christ as he is the Eternal Logos and so becoming 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2 Pet. 1. 4. Wherefore That Passage in S t Paul's Epistle to the Corinthians does marvelous-fully set out the Nature of that part of the Lord's Supper that is distinguished from the Commemoration of his Death and gives the most genuine Reason of its being called the Holy Communion it implying the real Communication of that one Divine Body of Christ to the faithful and their real Union thereby with Christ and with one another which is a full and perfect Holy Communion indeed 5. Fourthly This Notion of the Fathers touching the Spiritual or Divine Body and Blood of Christ affords us a very easie and natural Interpretation of that Passage in our Church-Catechism touching the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper where to the Question What is the inward part or thing signified It is answered The Body and Blood of Christ which are verily and indeed taken and received by the faithful in the Lord's Supper In the Answer to a former Question Why was the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper ordained it is answered For a continual Remembrance of the Sacrifice of the Death of Christ and the Benefits received thereby One eminent benefit whereof is the Remission of our sins through the Bloud of Christ shed on the Cross for without blood there is no Remission the other is the feeding of the Regenerate Soul or Inward man by the Real but Spiritual or Divine Body and Blood of Christ which contains in it our through Sanctification which is also a fruit or benefit of the Sacrifice of the Death of Christ forasmuch as we had not been capable of Regeneration and of growth and degrees of Sanctification by the feeding on and really receiving the Spiritual and Divine Body of Christ without our Reconciliation by his Blood shed on the Cross which our Church here calls the Sacrifice of the Death of Christ. Now as in this Answer there is contained
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