consecrated Wafer into two viz. A. and B. this A. and B. are the same intire Individual Body of Christ according to this Doctrine which contradicts the seventh Common Notion Seventhly If the said Doctrine be true one and the same Body may be a Cube and a Globe at once have the figure of an Humane Body and of a Pyramid and Cylinder at the same time according as they shall mould the Consecrated Bread which is repugnant to the eighth Common Notion Eighthly Transubstantiation if it be any truth at all it is a Revealed Truth but no Revelation the Revealing whereof or the manner of Revealing is repugnant to the Divine Attributes can be from God by Common Notion the ninth but if this Doctrine of Transubstantiation were a Truth it seems not to sute with the Wisdom of God to reveal a Truth that seems so palpably to overthrow and thwart all the innate Principles of humane Understanding and the assurance of the rightly circumstantiated Senses to both which Christ himself appeals and without which we have no certainty of the Miracles of Christ and his Apostles And he hence exposes his Church to be befool'd by all the lucriferous fictions of a fallacious Priesthood And besides this the circumstances or manner of its first Revelation at the Lord's Supper as they would have it shows it cannot be for the Consecrated Bread retaining still the shape and all other sensible qualities of Bread without any change and that by a miraculous supporting them now not inherent in their proper subject Bread which is transubstantiated into that very Body that holds it in his hands or seems so to do I say as I have also intimated before to be thus at the expence of so vast a Miracle here at his last Supper and to repeat the same Miracle upon all the Consecrations of the Bread by the Priest which is the most effectual means to make all men Infidels as to the belief of Transubstantiation and to occasion thence such cruel and bloody Persecutions is apparently contrary to the Divine Wisdom and Goodness and therefore neither pretended Tradition nor fresh Interpretation of the inspired Text can make so gross a falshood true by the tenth and eleventh Common Notions Ninthly If Transubstantiation be true one and the same Body may be many thousand times bigger or less than it self at the same time forasmuch as the least Atom or particle of his Body or Transubstantiated Bread is his whole Body as well as the bigger lump according to this Doctrine which contradicts the twelfth Common Notion Tenthly If this Doctrine be true The same Individual Body still existing and having existed many Years may notwithstanding be made whiles it already exists which contradicts the thirteenth Common Notion Eleventhly If Transubstantiation be true one and the same Body may be present with it self and many thousands of miles absent from it self at once be shut up in a Box and free to walk in the Field and to ascend into Heaven at the same time contrary to the fourteenth and fifteenth Common Notions And lastly If this Doctrine be true a man may swallow his own Body whole Head Feet Back Belly Arms and Thighs and Stomach it self through his Mouth down his Throat into his Stomach that is to say every whit of himself into one knows not what of himself less than a Mathematical Point or nothing This Christ might have done and actually did if he did eat the Consecrated Bread with his Disciples which contradicts the sixteenth Common Notion Wherefore since in vertue of one single Maxim Monsieur Maimbourg supposing the Protestants as well as the Paepists agreeing therein though in that as I have show'd he is mistaken would draw in the Protestants to imbrace the Doctrine of Transubstantiation and other Ertors of the Roman Church I appeal to him how much more reasonable it is that he and as many as are of his perswasion should relinquish that Doctrine it contradicting so many Common Notions which not only all Papists and Protestants but indeed all the whole World are agreed in And hence clearly discerning the Infallibility of the Roman Church upon which this and other erroneous Doctrines are built such as Invocation of Saints Worshiping of Images and the like plainly to fail that they should bethink themselves what need there is to reform their Church from such gross errours and to pray to God to put it into the mind of their Governours so to do which would be a peaceable method indeed for the reuniting Protestants and Catholicks in matters of Faith and principally in the subject of the Holy Eucharist as the Title of his Method has it But to require an Union things standing as they are is to expect of us that we cease to be men to become Christians of a novel Mode unknown to the Primitive Church and under pretence of Faith to abjure the indeleble Principles of sound Reason those immutable Common Notions which the Eternal Logos has essentially ingrafted in our Souls and without which neither Certainty of Faith can consist nor any assured sense of either the Holy Scriptures or any Writing else be found out or understood Soli Deo Gloria
Belief of in our Creed And for the latter it can be nothing else but a separation from the Catholick Church or from any Church that is part thereof even then when she approves her self to be Catholick that is to say even then when she is Apostolick or though she be Apostolick and offers no opinions or usages but such as are conformable to the usages and Doctrines of Christ and his Apostles or have no repugnancy thereto To separate from the Church in such circumstances as these certainly is that great Crime of Schism but to separate from that part of the Church which imposes opinions and practices plainly repugnant to the Precepts of Christ and his Apostles this is no Schism but Union with the truly antient Catholick and Apostolick Church And the declaring it Schism does not nor can make it so by Common Notion the first And if it were Schism to separate from such a Church as propounds things repugnant to the Precepts of Christ and his Apostles the guilt of this Schism is not upon them that thus separate but upon those that impose such Anti-Apostolical matters 11. The fifth Prop That these decisive Synods or Assemblies are to decide according to the Rule of the Word of God the strength of this Prop he endeavours more fully to display pag. 34. and he calls upon the Brethren of the Reformed Churches to reflect seriously upon these two Propositions he sets down The first is That as the Word of God is infallible in it self so certainly the judgment of him who truly judges according to this Rule is also infallible And consequently they are obliged to believe That the Church when she judges according to this Rule or the Word of God does not only not err but that she also cannot err The second That they the Reformed are bound as well as we the Romanists to believe that the Church of God deciding Controversies of Faith does judge according to the true sense of the word of God Because upon the matter it is concerning this very sense that she gives judgment betwixt the Parties who give it a different sense and who are obliged in Conscience to submit to her judgment under pain of being Schismaticks and Hereticks as their Synod of Dort has positively declared 12. The first of these Propositions may pass for firm and sound provided that the meaning of her judging according to this rule is the giving the right and genuine sense thereof Of which she can neither assure her self nor any one else but by being assured of that Holiness Integrity and singleness of Heart in those of the Synod that makes them capable of the Assistance of the Holy Ghost and also that their Decision clashes not with those indeleble Notions in the Humane Soul that are previous Requisites for the understanding the meaning of not only the Holy Scriptures but of any writing whatever And unto which if they find any thing in the letter of the Sacred Writ repugnant they may be sure it is a Symbolical or Figurative Speech but in other writings that it is either a Figurative Speech or Nonsense He that has not this previous furniture or makes no use of it it is impossible he should prove a safe judgeof the sense of Scripture And if he runs Counter to what is certainly true it is evident his Interpretation is false by the second Common Notion and that he is not inspired by Common Notion the eleventh Touching the second Proposition I demand how any can be bound to stand to the judgment of any Synod if they decline the previous Requisites without which it is impossible to understand the right meaning of any writing whatsoever and whether their pretending to judge according to a Rule does not imply that there are some Common Principles in which all Parties are agreed in according to which though they cannot discern that the Synod has certainly defined right yet if the Synod run Counter to them they may be sure they have defined wrong touching the very sense controverted between the Parties Their professing they judge according to the Rule implies the Rule is in some measure known to all that are concerned Nor does it at all follow because the Object of their decision is the very sense controverted between the Parties that the Synod may give what judgment she will break all Laws of Grammar and Syntax in the expounding the Text much less contradict those Rules which are infinitely more Sacred and inviolable the Common Notions which God has imprinted essentially on the Humane Understanding If such a violence be used by any Interpreters of Scripture neither the Synod of Dort nor any Reformed Church has or will declare That under pain of being Schismaticks and Hereticks they are obliged in Conscience to submit to their determination CHAP. IX 1. The examination of the sixth Prop by demanding whether the Maxime Monsieur Maimbourg proproses is to be understood in the full sense without any Appeal to any common agreed on Principles of Grammar Rhetorick Logick and Morality 2. Instances of enormous Results from thence with a demand whether the Protestant Churches would allow of such absurd Synodical Decisions 3. That the Citations of History touching the Synod of Dort prove not that all Synodical Decisions pass into proper Articles of Faith with the Authors free judgment touching the Carriage of that Synod and of the Parties condemned thereby 4. His judgment countenanced from what is observed by Historians to be the sentiments of King James in the Conference at Hampton Court 1. AND yet the sixth and last Prop of the general Maxime implies as much which affirms That both the Protestants and Papists are agreed in all the five foregoing Supposals or to speak more compendiously in that his general Maxime That that Church in which are found the two Parties concerned has ever had the power to determine all differences and to declare that as matter of Faith which before there was no obligation to believe and that we are bound to aquiesce in their decisions under the penalty of being Schismaticks But I demand here of Monsieur Maimbourg whether he will have his Maxime understood in a full latitude of sense and that immediately without recourse to any Principles in which the Synod and the Parties are agreed and Counter to which if any determination be made it is null such as Grammatical Syntax and Lexicographical sense of Words and which are Laws infinitely more sacred and inviolable the Common Notions as I said before essentially imprinted on the Soul of man either of Truth or Morality whether without being bounded by these the Protestant Churches as well as the Pontifician are agreed that we are to stand to the Determination of a Synod under the penalty of being Schismaticks 2. As for example If a Synod should interpret Drink ye all of this of the Clergy only and declare it does not reach the Laity though the Apostles and Primitive Church understood it did If
notwithstanding S t Paul's long Exhortation against Religibus Exercise in an unknown Tongue 1 Cor. 14. they should by some distinction or evasion conclude it lawful If when as it is said Thou shalt not make to thy self any graven Image to worship and fall down before it they should distinguish and restrain it only to the graven Images of the Heathen Gods If when as it is said Thou shalt have no other Gods but me they should distinguish Gods into Supream and Subordinate and declare we may have many Subordinate Gods but only One Supream If when as it said Honour thy Father and thy Mother they should restrain it to a Father or Mother of the same Religion with our selves whether Political Father or Natural otherwise we are free from this Command and may despise both our Natural Parents and our Prince if they be not of the same perswasion with our selves And whereas it is said Thou shalt not commit Adultery if they should understand it only of such an Adultery as is committed for the mere pleasure of the Flesh not for the health of the Body or assisting the Conjugal Impotency of his Neighbour If the Commandment against Murther or Killing an Innocent Person they should restrain to Murther that is accompanied with delight in Cruelty not that which is committed to raise a livelyhood or secure an Interest the Murtherer has espoused If the Commandment against Stealing they should restrain to such Theft as is against Men of our Religion and Perswasion but that we may rob and steal from others without sin And according to the same tenour they should interpret Thou shall not bear false witness against thy Neighbour c. I demand I say whether Monsieur Maimbourg does conceive that the Protestants nay or his own Party are agreed that all such determinations are to be submitted to upon penalty of being Schismaticks Let him ask the Reformed Churches if they be thus agreed or rather let him ask his own Conscience if he think they are Wherefore it is plain that what he produces out of the History of the Synod of Dort reaches not the point that he drives at that is to say That it is acknowledged by them that after a Synod has decided the Controversie or given the sense of places of Scripture controverted be it what it will be the Decision is to be stood to under penalty of being Schismaticks and that there are not some commonly known Truths common Notions of Reason and Morality with which if the determination of a Synod does clash it is ipso facto null and a demonstration that the Spirit of God did not assist 3. I observe farther That all the Citations that are produced either by Monsieur Maimbourg himself or his Translator in his Preface and Appendix will not amount to the Protestants professing that every Controversie or controverted Opinion after the Decision of the Synod passes into an Article of Faith which properly signifies such a Doctrine as without the Belief of which when it is proposed he that mis-believes it forfeits his Salvation for hereby the Synod of Dort had damned all the Lutheran Churches For my own part I must confess that in points that are so obscure intricate and abstruse and which as touching the main part of them have exercised and much baffled humane understanding through all Ages it had been a great piece of Christian Prudence for that Synod to have made Decrees against all bitterness of speech of the disagreeing Parties one against another and to have admonished them that they were bound notwithstanding their difference of Opinion to live in mutual Love one to another which is the true Badge of Christ's genuine Disciples rather than to have exasperated one Party against another by making that Doctrine Authentick which is really in it self from places of Scripture and Reason so intricate and disputable But it seems to have been the sleight of Satan for the weakning the Reformed Churches that drove them to it But I must say on the other side that when the Synod had determined they who were determined against ought to have submitted to her determination in a thing so really disputable and by this Christian Policy to have conserved the peace of the Church and out-witted the Devil For if they had had any modesty in them they might very well in such abstruse dark and disputable points have compromised with the Synod and preferred the peace and safety of the Reformed Churches before the satisfaction of their own Opinionativeness 4. And that wise Prince King Iames the first of Blessed Memory seems to come near to what I have said in the words delivered by his Embassadour at the Synod of Dort as they are cited by Monsieur Maimbourg himself in his Peaceable Method pag. 23. That for the allaying those troubles There was but that one only means which the Church had ever made use of a National Synod which was to be judge in the case and to decide which of the two Opinions was more conformable to the Word of God or at least how and in what manner the one or the other might be tolerated in the Church of God Which latter part is cunningly left out by the Translator in his Preface pag. 3. But in those latter words King Iames plainly intimates his moderate Sentiments touching the Controversy and that he would not have the Decision made too rigidly and pinchingly on either side And sutably to this excellent judgment of his in the Conference at Hampton-Court when the Puritans would have had the nine Lambeth Articles which are more full and express against the points of Arminianism to be embodyed into the Articles of our Church concluded on in the Convocation holden at London in the Year 1562. the King earnestly refused it And in his Instructions to his Divines he sent over to the Synod of Dort this remarkable one was amongst the rest That they would advise the Churches that the Ministers do not deliver in Pulpit to the People those things for ordinary Doctrines which are the highest points of the Schools and not fit for vulgar Capacities but disputable on both sides And we may be sure when he was so careful in this for the foreign Churches he would not neglect to infuse the same good Principles into his own And that he could not easily believe that upon the Decision of the Synod of Dort that passed into an Article of Faith without which there is no Salvation which yet he would have hid from the knowledge of the People CHAP. X. 1. What Synodical Decisions are capable of passing into proper Articles of Faith and what not 2. The necessity of distinguishing the doctrinal Decisions of Synods into Articles of Faith properly so called and Articles of Communion 3. The meaning of the King's Answer to Mr. Knewstub in the Conference at Hampton-Court And that Synods have unlimited Power to put what sense they please on places of Scripture and make them pass into