false if there be any incontestable Principles of Reason or True Maximes of Philosophy For to omit at present that 't is Repugnant to Metaphysical and Physical Axioms that Accidents should exist without a subject or that there should be Whiteness and nothing white Sweetness and nothing sweet that one Body should be penetrated by another when we find every Material substance irresistibly to defend its self from coexistence in the same place with another that is Corporeal that one the same Being should be entirely at one and the same time in distant places which is to be distant from it self yea that it should be there with contradictory adjuncts that the Sign and thing signified or Relate and Correlate should be the same I say to pass these by as having been a thousand times urged against the Papists and nothing replyed but what renders their Folly and Extravagance the greater and more remarkable I shall only say that Transubstantiation is inconsistent with the first Principles of Logick 1. No Enunciation is true but upon the account of Congruity to its Object and the previous existence of the Object according to what is affirmed of or denyed concerning it is that which grounds the verity of the Enunciation If therefore the Sacramental Elements be not the Body and Blood of Christ antecedently to the words of Consecration the Enunciation by which the Priest affirms the one to be the other must necessarily be false 2. Every Enunciation supposeth a previous Act and judgment of the Mind of which it is Manifestative for the End of words is to indicate Conceptions Unless therefore previously to consecration the Bread be judged to be the real Flesh of Christ no one can truly assert that it is so 3. In every true Enunciation the subject may by Conversion become the predicate as is evident by an induction of all propositions in the World while therefore the Body of Christ cannot in a proper and Physical sense be said to be Bread no more can Bread in a proper sense be said to be the Body of Christ. 4. No Disparate can be truly affirmed in casu recto of another that interfering with the Nature of opposites Bread and the Body of Christ therefore being Disparates the one cannot in a proper sense be predicated of the other 5. No real positive Attribute or predicate can be affirmed of a subject which is not for non entis nulla sunt attributa And therefore if the Bread be annihilated as indeed it must be unless instead of allowing Christ to have only one Body and that formed of the substance of the Virgin we should hold that he hath many Bodies and those formed of Material Particles distinct from what he was fram'd of in the Womb of the Virgin Our Saviour spake very illogically in asserting concerning that which it is not at all that it is his Body I shall wave what might be further added to this purpose only conclude it with this brief remarque That if Principles of Reason obtain so far in Things purely Supernatural as that there can be no repugnance betwixt the one and the other they ought more especially to have so much place in those things which Grace borrows and transports from Nature for its Use. Secondly When we say that there is nothing in Religion which is truly repugnant to Principles of Reason we do not by Principles of Reason understand all that this or that sort of men vote and receive for such The Universal Reason of Man-kind is of great Moment but mistaken Philosophy and false Notions of things which this and that Man admit for theorem's of Reason are of very small importance Men being mislead by their Senses Affections Interests and Imaginations do many times mingle errours and false conceits with the Genuine Dictates of their Minds and then appeal to them as the Principles of Truth and Reason when they are indeed nothâ—ng else but the vain Images of our fancies and the conclusions of Ignorance and mistake Though Reason in the Abstract and those inbâ—ed notices implanted in our Souls which upon the first exercise of our Faculties command an Assent be all consistent wâ—th the Mysteries of Faith yet Reason in the Concrete and as it exists in this and that man being weak maim'd imperfect and extremely remote from a full and just comprehension of things we do accordingly find many Articles of Revelation to have been little befriended by Axioms and principles of vulgar Philosophy But this proceeds from the Corruption of Reason its being vitiated by Lusts byassed by Interests perverted by Education darkned by Passions enthralled by Prejudice rather than from Reason it self and is to be ascribed not to the Light of Reason but to the Darkness that envelop's it It hath been usual for men according to the School they have been bred in to expound and judg of Religion in Analogy to the principles they have suckt in from thence By this means hath Religion been embased through mens subjecting the Examen and conduct of it to mistaken Philosophy He that would examine an Article of Faith by a Proposition of Reason must be careful that his Measure be just and true and not deceitful and fallacious No man ought to distrust an Article of Religion for its being against a proposition which we take to be true only because we were taught it The Prejudice done to Religion by mistaken Philosophy ought not to be dissembled and I shall therefore crave a little liberty here to unfold it And not to insist on the ill Influence that the Phenician and Chaldaick Philosophy had on the Judaick Theology though it be of easie proof that their Planetary Deities and their Teraphims sprung from thence Nor to do any more but mention that the chief Errours of the Pharisees Sadduces and Esseans took their rise from the Grecian Philosophy their Dogm's being a mixture of Pythagorean Platonick Stoick and Epicurean Notions I shall rather observe that the chiefest Errours that have infested the Christian Church arose from a mingling Gentile Philosophy with the Doctrine of the Gospel Both Irenaeus and Tertullian affirm the Errors of the Gnosticks to have sprung from the Platonick Ideas Though I think it not improbable but that their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 took their birth from Pythagoreanism The Aeons of the Valentinians if we will believe Tertullian were also â—orrowed from the Idea's of Plato but if any shall judge that they were rather derived from Hesiod I shall not contend seeing the Ancient Poets were not only the Ethnick Theologues but their chief Philosophers Epiphanius tells us that the Heresies of the Marcionites came out of the School of Plato Theodoret inform's us that Sabellius became a Heretick by his obstinacy in Plato's Doctrine Tatian being deeply tinctur'd with Platonism became thereupon Head of the Eucratists if you will give Credit to Baronius Holstenius hath shown us how the Manichean principles were fram'd from
can any one else understand it that I know of only I wonder why then it is imputed to us as a Crime That we are not satisfied that Christ and Believers are United unless their Persons be United too But as Mr. Sherlocks Book is pregnant with Contradictions so perhaps he hath found out an Art of justifying the Truth of Repugnant Propositions And though hereby he subvert the Foundations of Science and thwart the Universal Reason of Mankind yet I will not say that he is herein singular For besides those mentioned by Aristotle who maintain'd that one and the same thing might at the same time be and not be and besides that Burgersdicius Schulerus and some others have fancied a Medium betwixt Ens and Non ens There is a certain Carmelite stiled Franciscus Bonae Spei who will have both the parts of a contradiction if it be only in reference to matters of Faith to be susceptive of Truth And indeed if our Author be not acquainted with him 't is pitty but that he should as well upon the account already mentioned as divers others I could suggest particularly because he will find him a man of confidence hugely addicted to novelty one who loves to be invalidating the Evidences which the prime Articles of Faith are built upon § 7. Having established this General viz. that 't is the Person of Christ to which we are United the next enquiry is concerning the Nature quality and manner of the Union of Christians to him And it being here as in most cases which relate not simply to the Existence of things but to the Modes how they exist easier to refute false notions than to establish true I shall therefore observe the Method of declaring First what it is not wherein if I prove successfull I shall either obtain further light to the defining what it is or else manifest the unnecessariness of determining positively about it First then it consists not meerly in Christ's assuming our Nature A specifical oneness there is betwixt Him and us upon that account but all Mankind being equally thus related to him it cannot import the whole of that special Oneness which intercedes between him sincere Christians Now when I say that Christ did partake of our Nature I do not mean that he possessed the Individual Nature of this or that Man much less that he assumed any Universal Nature that is Identically the same in all and every Man for that as Damascenus says would not have been assumptio but fictio but what I aim at is this that as man consists of two essential constituent parts a Rational Soul and a Body thus and thus Organized so the son of God assumed both a Reasonable Soul and a true Organical Body fram'd and made of the substance of the Virgin who was lineally sprung from Adam the first and common original of all Mankind So that there is an oneness of Similitude which is all that intervenes amongst men between Christ and us but as for an Oneness of Identity it imply's a contradiction and should any assert it they are to be reckoned for obtruders of repugnancies under the pretence of sacred Mysteries upon the Faith of Mankind The Son of God through the designation and Authoritative disposal of the Father by the Immediate Efficiency of the Holy Ghost having assumed our intire Nature into Union with his Divine Person became thereby related to us in a cognation and alliance which he is not to the Angels And upon this affinity doth the whole of his Mediatory Interposure and our Interest in what he hath done and suffered bear God in order to the reconciling Man to himself by the obedience and Sacrifice of a Mediatour did first espouse our Nature to the Person of his So that was to be so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Greg. Nyss. i. contra Eun. Hereby he became adapted to his Office and qualified for his Work Without this conjunction by the espousing our Nature he could neither have been a Priest ordained for men Heb. 5.1 Nor have atoned God by the Oblation of himself as an expiatory Sacrifice Heb. 8.3 Heb. 10.5 6 7 8 9 10. He behoved to partake of the Humane Nature in common with men before he could either be capable of the Sacerdotal Office wherein he was to act for men with and towards God or before he could be provided of a Sacrifice to offer His agreement with us in one common Nature is the basis of all his fitness to undertake on our behalf of the equity of the accruement of the benefits derived to us thereby 'T is this cognation alliance and propinquity of Nature that qualified Christ to be our Surrogate and to have our sins imputed to Him and which gives us our first capacity of having the Obedience of his Life and Sacrifice of his death either formally or in the effects of them imputed to us Precluding this God could not in consistency with his Wisedom Holiness Justice and Truth have exalted the glory of his Mercy in our Justification and Forgiveness nor could the Son of God have been Inaugurated unto the Mediatory Kingdome or had a right to those Dignities Priviledges and Honours which emerge and result from thence Now although upon the assuming our Nature into Union with the Person of the Son of God the Essences Properties and Operations of both Natures be preserved distinct and entire being united as the Ancients speak 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without confusion conversion division or separation Yet through that conjunction which they are brought into Christ becomes as it were a Compositum of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Humane Nature And accordingly the Ancients style the Person of Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 say the Fathers of the Second Constantinopolitan Council Maximus the Martyr doth not scruple the calling the Divine and Humane Natures parts of which Christ consists 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And as our Nature is highly dignified and exalted by its being taken into Union with the Second Person of the Trinity so a certain Relation of Oneness results thereupon between Christ and us The Apostle himself Heb. 2.11 say's that we are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of one i. e. as I suppose 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of one Blood or partakers of the same common Nature which is the foundation of that Alliance of Brother-hood he speaks of in the next Words And so the 14. v. which seems to be exegetical of this plainly carrie's it forasmuch then as the Children are partakers of flesh and Blood he also himself likewise took part of the same The Ancients as well as Moderns style this a Natural Union And indeed Christ thus is so far one with us as the participating of the same com-Nature amounts to He is both 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of one and the same Mass of Humane Nature with us and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of one and the same Blood being sprung from one and the same
only a sign but something signified and consequently the Elements of Bread and Wine being the signs tendred us they must be really exhibitive of something else that hath an Analogy to them and this can be nothing but the Body and Blood of Christ which are as really exhibited to be spiritually fed upon as the sensible Elements are to be Carnally This the words of Institution also demonstrate for when Christ saith take eat this is my Body there must either be an Exhibition of his Body to us in some sense or other or we must impeach Christ of uttering a false proposition in offering that to be eaten which according to these Gentlemen in no sense is so Yea were the Lord's Supper nothing but a Commemoration of Christ's death and the benefits purchased thereby it were no more to the Worthy Receiver than to the Unworthy nor any more to the Receiver than to the bare Spectator both which are in themselves the grossest of absurdities and withal lye in a direct repugnancy to the Gospel It is not a Real presence as the Papists slander us but a Corporeal that we disclaim But should we grant Christ to be locally and bodily present in the Supper though it be Contradictious to Reason Sense Scripture the Nature of a Sacrament the very words of Institution and the belief of the Ancient Church yet it would no ways serve the End for which it is pretended namely its being the means of our Union with Christ. For not to urge that were he Bodily present in the Sacrament or were nothing really and substantially there but the very Body and Blood of Christ as the Papists affirm it were yet the most abominable thing that ever men were guilty of to eat Him For though some have pawn'd sold and let out their Gods to Farm as Tertullian upbraids the Heathen yet as Cicero say's of all the Religions that have been in the World there were never any of such a Religion as to eat their God There are some instances among the salvage Nations of such as have eat the Flesh and drunk the Blood of their Enemies and of such as have sold their friends to the Anthropophagi when they were either useless through Age or in their apprehension irrecoverably sick but no Nation hath been so barbarous as to feast themselves with the flesh of their God's or to quaff their Blood The Egyptians would not eat with the Jews Gen. 46.3 because as Onkelos tells us the one did eat what the others worshipped 'T is known who said if the Christians eat what they adore anima mea cum Philosophis God by distributing the Brute creatures into clean which might be eaten and unclean which might not be eaten did thereby saith Theodoret provide against the accounting or worshipping any of them as a God Fo who will be so unreasonable as to esteem that a God which is Unclean or so Mad as to adore that which he eats Whatever pittifull beings men have chosen for Gods and how useful soever in their own Nature to have been turned into Cates Viands yet they who worshipped them have been so far from making them their repast themselves that the seeing others who made not such account of them nor payed them any veneration do it hath been enough to excite their Rage An instance we have of this Exod. 8.26 where Moses being permitted by Pharaoh to sacrifice in the land oâ— Egypt return's this as a Reason why he could not Lo we shall sacrifice the abomination of the Egyptians before their eyes and will they not stone us They who had most degraded themselves in the choice of their Gods had yet more respect for them than the Papists who make their God a victim have for theirs As if it were not disgrace enough to their God to pawn and fell him and that sometimes to very ill intents and purposes all this they have don with their consecrated Host they place the most glorious part of their Religion in the Sacrificing him and eating his flesh when they have done Now the only Text to sustain the weight of the Bodily presence of Christ in the Eucharist and to justify this Cyclopian eating of Him is Math. 26.26 Take Eat this is my Body c. Than which I know not one place in the whole Bible that yields us more infallible Arguments to subvert their whole Hypothesis every word being pregnant with a demonstration against them But all I shall say is this that whereas they upbraid us for the admission of one Trope in the paraphrase of the words they are forced themselves to substitute a great many before they can serve their design of them Had it been the purpose of the Holy-Ghost to declare our sense and oppose theirs I know no plainer expressions that could have been chosen to accomplish either the one or the other The Words are all as plain as the Subject-Matter to which they ought to be adapted will admit nor can the Wit of Man invent any that are more proper to manifest the Conceptions of the Speaker suppose him to have intended the sense that that we contend for The Substantive verb est is in which many of our Divines acknowledg a Figure is as remote from needing such a concession and as capable of a proper acceptation as any one in the whole Enunciation 'T is a Transcendental Term and signifies as properly a Similitudinary Being as an essential and only the quality of the Subject of the Proposition can determine whether it import Being Substantial or Being Intentional Forasmuch therefore as it is here a note of Affirmation interveening between a Sign as a Relate and as a thing signified as a Correlate I affirm that the only proper Sense which it hath or can have is to intimate the one to be vicarious for and representative of the other To imagine that est as 't is the note of affirmation between Signâ—m and Signatum can have any other sense than to signify is a fancy that will never be entertained in the minds of such who understand what they say In a word 't is a Sacramental Enunciation where it occurs 't is the note by which the Relation of the sign to the thing signified is affirmed and therefore the whole Relation between a Sign and the Thing signified being meerly to represent it is impossible that it should have any other import save to denote that the one is signified by the other But to wave any further opposing the Bodily presence in the Sacrament though the Popish notion of our Union with Christ cannot consist without it I say that supposing all which the Romanists say in the Matter of the Elements being Transubstantiated into the Body and Blood of Christ our feeding on Him in a Carnal manner were true yet this cannot be the bond of the Union which is so magnificently represented For â— were this the basis of our Union with Christ and the Nexus by which