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
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
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