Graces and Virtues which concern our duty towards one another That it is the sum and abridgement the accomplishment and fulfilling of the whole Law That without this whatever we pretend to in Christianity we are nothing and our Religion is vain That this is the greatest of all Graces and Virtues greater than Faith and Hope and of perpetual use and duration Charity never fails And therefore they exhort us above all things to endeavour after it as the Crown of all other Virtues Above all things have fervent charity among your selves saith St. Peter And St. Paul having enumerated most other Christian Virtues exhorts us above all to strive after this And above all these things put on charity which is the bond of perfection This St. John makes one of the most certain signs of our love to God and the want of it an undeniable argument of the contrary If a man say I love God and hateth his brother he is a lyar for he who loveth not his brother whom he hath seen how can he love God whom he hath not seen This he declares to be one of the best evidences that we are in a state of Grace and Salvation Hereby we know that we are passed from death to life because we love the brethren So that well might our blessed Saviour chuse this for the badge of his Disciples and make it the great Precept of the best and most perfect Institution Other things might have served better for pomp and ostentation and have more gratified the Curiosity or Enthusiasm or Superstition of mankind but there is no quality in the World which upon a sober and impartial consideration is of a more solid and intrinsick value And in the first Ages of Christianity the Christians were very eminent for this Vertue and particularly noted for it Nobis notam inurit apud quosdam it is a mark and brand set upan us by some saith Tertullian and he tells us that it was proverbially said among the Heathen Behold how these Christians love one another Lucian that great scoffer at all Religion acknowledgeth in behalf of Christians that this was the great Principle which their Master had instill'd into them And Julian the bitterest Enemy that Christianity ever had could not forbear to propound to the Heathen for an example the charity of the Galileans for so by way of reproach he calls the Christians who says he gave up themselves to humanity and kindness which he acknowledgeth to have been very much to the advantage and reputation of our Religion And in the same Letter to Arsacius the Heathen High Priest of Galatia he gives this memorable Testimony of the Christians that their Charity was not limited and confin'd onely to themselves but extended even to their Enemies which could not be said either of the Jews or Heathens His words are these It is a shame that when the Jews suffer none of theirs to beg and the impious Galileans relieve not onely their own but those also of our Religion that we onely should be defective in so necessary a Duty By all which it is evident that Love and Charity is not onely the great Precept of our Saviour but was in those first and best Times the general practice of his Disciples and acknowledged by the Heathens as a very peculiar and remarkable quality in them The application I shall make of this Discourse shall be threefold 1. With relation to the Church of Rome 2. With regard to our selves who profess the Protestant Reform'd Religion 3. With a more particular respect to the occasion of this Meeting First With relation to the Church of Rome Which we cannot chuse but think of whenever we speak of Charity and loving one another especially having had so late a discovery of their affection to us and so considerable a testimony of the kindness and charity which they design'd towards us such as may justly make the ears of all that hear it to tingle and render Popery execrable and infamous a frightful and a hateful thing to the end of the World It is now but too visible how grosly this great Commandment of our Saviour is contradicted not onely by the Practices of those in that Communion from the Pope down to the meanest Fryar but by the very Doctrines and Principles by the Genius and Spirit of that Religion which is wholly calculated for cruelty and persecution Where now is that mark of a Disciple so much insisted upon by our Lord and Master to be found in that Church And yet what is the Christian Church but the Society and Community of Christs Disciples Surely in all reason that which our Lord made the distinctive Mark and Character of his Disciples should be the principal mark of a true Church Bellarmine reckons up no less than fifteen marks of the rrue Church all which the Church of Rome arrogates to her self alone But he wisely forgot that which is worth all the rest and which our Saviour insists upon as the chief of all other A sincere Love and Charity to all Christians This he knew would by no means agree to his own Church But for all that it is very reasonable that Churches as well as particular Christians should be judged by their Charity The Church of Rome would engross all Faith to her self Faith in its utmost perfection to the degree and pitch of Infallibility And they allow no body in the world besides themselves no though they believe all the Articles of the Apostles Creed to have one grain of true Faith because they do not believe upon the Authority of their Church which they pretend to be the onely foundation of true Faith This is a most arrogant and vain pretence but admit it were true yet in the Judgement of St. Paul Though they had all Faith if they have not Charity they are nothing The greatest wonder of all is this that they who hate and persecute Christians most do all this while the most confidently of all others pretend to be the Disciples of Christ and will allow none to be so but themselves That Church which excommunicates all other Christian Churches in the world and if she could would extirpate them out of the world will yet needs assume to her self to be the only Christian Church As if our Saviour had said Hereby shall all men know that ye are my Disciples if ye hate and excommunicate and kill one another What shall he done unto thee thou false tongue thou empty and impudent pretence of Christianity Secondly With relation to our seves who profess the Protestant Reformed Religion How is this great Precept of our Saviour not onely shamefully neglected but plainly violated by us And that not only by private hatred and ill-will quarrels and contentions in our civil conversation and entercourse with one another but by most unchristian divisions and animosities in that common relation wherein we stand to one another as Brethren as Christians as Protestants Have we not all one
pretended Demonstration of Reason against plain Experience and matter of Fact This is just Zenoe's Demonstration of the impossibility of motion against Diogenes walking before his Eyes For this is to undertake to prove that impossible to have been which most certainly was Just thus the Servants in the Parable might have demonstrated that the tares were wheat because they were sure none but good seed was sown at first and no man could give any account of the punctual time when any tares were sown or by whom and if an Enemy had come to do it he must needs have met with great resistance and opposition but no such resistance was made and therefore there could be no tares in the field but that which they call'd tares was certainly good wheat At the same rate a man might demonstrate that our King his Majesty of great Britain is not return'd into England nor restor'd to his Crown because there being so great and powerfull an Army possess'd of his Lands and therefore obliged by interest to keep him out it was impossible he should ever come in without a great deal of fighting and bloudshed but there was no such thing therefore he is not return'd and restor'd to his Crown And by the like kind of Demonstration one might prove that the Turk did not invade Christendom last year and besiege Vienna because if he had the most Christian King who had the greatest Army in Christendom in a readiness would certainly have employed it against him but Monsieur Arnauld certainly knows no such thing was done And therefore according to his way of Demonstration the matter of fact so commonly reported and believed concerning the Turks Invasion of Christendom and besieging Vienna last year was a perfect mistake But a man may demonstrate till his head and heart ake before he shall ever be able to prove that which certainly is or was never to have been For of all sorts of impossibles nothing is more evidently so than to make that which hath been not to have been All the reason in the world is too weak to cope with so tough and obstinate a difficulty And I have often wonder'd how a man of Monsieur Arnauld's great wit and sharp Judgment could prevail with himself to engage in so bad and baffled a Cause or could think to defend it with so wooden a Dagger as his Demonstration of Reason against certain Experience and matter of Fact A thing if it be possible of equal absurdity with what he pretends to demonstrate Transubstantiation it self I proceed to the Third pretended Ground of this Doctrine of Transubstantiation and that is The Infallible Authority of the present Church to make and declare new Articles of Faith And this in truth is the ground into which the most of the learned men of their Church did heretofore and many do still resolve their belief of this Doctrine And as I have already shewn do plainly say that they see no sufficient reason either from Scripture or Tradition for the belief of it And that they should have believed the contrary had not the determination of the Church obliged them otherwise But if this Doctrine be obtruded upon the world merely by virtue of the Authority of the Roman Church and the Declaration of the Council under Pope Gregory the VII th or of the Lateran Council under Innocent the III. then it is a plain Innovation in the Christian Doctrine and a new Article of Faith impos'd upon the Christian world And if any Church hath this power the Christian Faith may be enlarged and changed as often as men please and that which is no part of our Saviour's Doctrine nay any thing though never so absurd and unreasonable may become an Article of Faith obliging all Christians to the belief of it whenever the Church of Rome shall think fit to stamp her Authority upon it which would make Christianity a most uncertain and endless thing The Fourth pretended ground of this Doctrine is the necessity of such a change as this in the Sacrament to the comfort and benefit of those who receive it But there is no colour for this if the thing be rightly consider'd Because the comfort and benefit of the Sacrament depends upon the blessing annexed to the Institution And as Water in Baptism without any substantial change made in that Element may by the Divine blessing accompanying the Institution be effectual to the washing away of Sin and Spiritual Regeneration So there can no reason in the world be given why the Elements of Bread and Wine in the Lord's Supper may not by the same Divide blessing accompanying this Institution make the worthy receivers partakers of all the Spiritual comfort and benefit designed to us thereby without any substantial change made in those Elements since our Lord hath told us that verily the flesh profiteth nothing So that if we could do so odd and strange a thing as to eat the very natural flesh and drink the bloud of our Lord I do not see of what greater advantage it would be to us than what we may have by partaking of the Symbols of his body and bloud as he hath appointed in remembrance of him For the Spiritual efficacy of the Sacrament doth not depend upon the nature of the thing received supposing we receive what our Lord appointed and receive it with a right preparation and disposition of mind but upon the supernatural blessing that goes along with it and makes it effectual to those spiritual ends for which it was appointed The Fifth and last pretended ground of this Doctrine is to magnifie the power of the Priest in being able to work so great a Miracle And this with great pride and pomp is often urg'd by them as a transcendent instance of the Divine wisedom to find out so admirable a way to raise the power and reverence of the Priest that he should be able every day and as often as he pleases by repeating a few words to work so miraculous a change and as they love most absurdly and blasphemously to speak to make God himself But this is to pretend to a power above that of God himself for he did not nor cannot make himself nor do any thing that implies a contradiction as Transubstantiation evidently does in their pretending to make God For to make that which already is and to make that now which always was is not onely vain and trifling if it could be done but impossible because it implies a contradiction And what if after all Transubstantiation if it were possible and actually wrought by the Priest would yet be no Miracle For there are two things necessary to a Miracle that there be a supernatural effect wrought and that this effect be evident to sense So that though a supernatural effect be wrought yet if it be not evident to sense it is to all the ends and purposes of a Miracle as if it were not and can be no testimony or proof of any
all the brevity and clearness I can And I doubt not to make it appear that as to the point of Vniversality though that be no-wise necessary to justifie the truth of any Religion ours is not inferior to theirs if we take in the Christians of all Ages and of all parts of the World And as to the point of Antiquity that our Faith and the Doctrines of our Religion have clearly the advantage of theirs all our Faith being unquestionably ancient their 's not so 1. As to the Point of Vniversality Which they of the Church of Rome I know not for what reason will needs make an inseparable property and mark of the true Church And they never slout at the Protestant Religion with so good a grace among the ignorant People as when they are bragging of their Numbers and despising poor Protestancy because embraced by so few This pestilent Northern Heresie as of late they scornfully call it entertained it seems only in this cold and cloudy Corner of the World by a company of dull stupid People that can neither penetrate into the proofs nor the possibility of Transubstantiation whereas to the more refined Southern Wits all these difficult and obscure Points are as clear as their Sun at Noon-day But to speak to the thing it self If Number be necessary to prove the truth and goodness of any Religion ours upon enquiry will be found not so inconsiderable as our Adversaries would make it Those of the Reformed Religion according to the most exact calculations that have been made by learned men being esteemed not much unequal in number to those of the Romish persuasion But then if we take in the ancient Christian Church whose Faith was the same with ours and other Christian Churches at this day which all together are vastly greater and more numerous than the Roman Church and which agree with us several of them in very considerable Doctrines and Practices in dispute between us and the Church of Rome and all of them in disclaiming that fundamental point of the Roman Religion and Summ of Christianity as Bellarmine calls it I mean the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome over all Christians and Churches in the World then the Number on our side will be much greater than on theirs But we will not stand upon this advantage with them Suppose we were by much the sewer So hath the true Church of God often been without any the least prejudice to the truth of their Religion What think we of the Church in Abraham's time which for ought we know was confined to one Family and one small Kingdom that of Melchisedec King of Salem What think we of it in Moses his time when it was confined to one People wandering in a Wilderness What of it in Elijah's time when besides the two Tribes that worshipped at Jerusalem there were in the other ten but seven thousand that had not bowed their knee to Baal What in our Saviour's time when the whole Christian Church consisted of twelve Apostles and seventy Disciples and some few Followers beside How would Bellarmine have despised this little Flock because it wanted one or two of his goodliest marks of the true Church Vniversality and Splendor And what think we of the Christian Church in the height of Arianism and Pelagianism when a great part of Christendom was over-run with these Errors and the number of the Orthodox was inconsiderable in comparison of the Hereticks But what need I to urge these Instances As if the Truth of a Religion were to be estimated and carried by the major Vote which as it can be an Argument to none but Fools so I dare say no honest and wise man ever made use of it for a solid proof of the truth and goodness of any Church or Religion If multitude be an Argument that men are in the right in vain then hath the Scripture said Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil For if this Argument be of any force the greater Number never go wrong 2. As to the Point of Antiquity This is not always a certain Mark of the true Religion For surely there was a time when Christianity began and was a new Profession and then both Judaism and Paganism had certainly the advantage of it in Point of Antiquity But the proper Question in this Case is Which is the true Ancient Christian Faith that of the Church of Rome or Ours And to make this matter plain it is to be considered that a great part of the Roman Faith is the same with Ours as namely the Articles of the Apostles Creed as explained by the first four General Councils And these make up our whole Faith so far as concerns matters of meer and simple Belief that are of absolute necessity to Salvation And in this Faith of Ours there is nothing wanting that can be shewn in any ancient Creed of the Christian Church And thus far Our Faith and theirs of the Roman Church are undoubtedly of equal Antiquity that is as ancient as Christianity it self All the Question is as to the matters in difference between us The principal whereof are the twelve new Articles of the Creed of Pope Pius the IV concerning the Sacrifice of the Mass Transubstantiation the Communion in one kind only Purgatory c. not one of which is to be found in any ancient Creed or Confession of Faith generally allowed in the Christian Church The Antiquity of these we deny and affirm them to be Innovations and have particularly proved them to be so not only to the answering but almost to the silencing of our Adversaries And as for the negative Articles of the Protestant Religion in opposition to the Errors and Corruptions of the Romish Faith these are by accident become a part of our Faith and Religion occasioned by their Errors as the renouncing of the Doctrines of Arianism became part of the Catholick Religion after the rise of that Heresie So that the Case is plainly this We believe and teach all that is contained in the Creeds of the ancient Christian Church and was by them esteemed necessary to Salvation and this is Our Religion But now the Church of Rome hath innovated in the Christian Religion and made several Additions to it and greatly corrupted it both in the Doctrines and Practices of it And these Additions and Corruptions are their Religion as it is distinct from ours and both because they are Corruptions and Novelties we have rejected them And our rejection of these is our Reformation And our Reformation we grant if this will do them any good not to be so ancient as their Corruptions All Reformation necessarily supposing Corruptions and Errors to have been before it And now we are at a little better leisure to answer that captious Question of theirs Where was your Religion before Luther Where-ever Christianity was in some places more pure in others more corrupted but especially in these Western parts of Christendom overgrown for several Ages with
manifold Errors and Corruptions which the Reformation hath happily cut off and cast away So that though our Reformation was as late as Luther our Religion is as ancient as Christianity it self For when the Additions which the Church of Rome hath made to the ancient Christian Faith and their Innovations in practice are pared off that which remains of their Religion is ours and this they canot deny to be every tittle of it the ancient Christianity And what other Answer than this could the Jews have given to the like Question if it had been put to them by the ancient Idolaters of the World Where was your Religion before Abraham but the very same in substance which we now give to the Church of Rome That for many Ages the Worship of the one true God had been corrupted and the Worship of Idols had prevailed in a great part of the World that Abraham was raised up by God to reform Religion and to reduce the Worship of God to its first Institution in the doing whereof he necessarily separated Himself and his Family from the Communion of those Idolaters So that though the Reformation which Abraham began was new yet his Religion was truly ancient as old as that of Noah and Enoch and Adam Which is the same in substance that we say and with the same and equal reason And if they will still complain of the Newness of our Reformation so do we too and are heartily sorry it began no sooner but however better late than never Besides it ought to be considered that this Objection of Novelty lies against all Reformation whatsoever though never so necessary and though things be never so much amiss And it is in effect to say that if things be once bad they must never be better but must always remain as they are for they cannot be better without being reformed and a Reformation must begin sometime and whenever it begins it is certainly new So that if a real Reformation be made the thing justifies it self and no Objection of Novelty ought to take place against that which upon all accounts was so fit and necessary to be done And if they of the Church of Rome would but speak their mind out in this matter they are not so much displeased at the Reformation which we have made because it is new as because it is a Reformation It was the humour of Babylon of old as the Prophet tells us that she woud not be healed Jer. 51.9 and this is still the temper of the Church of Rome they hate to he reformed and rather than acknowledge themselves to have been once in an Error they will continue in it for ever And this is that which at first made and still continues the breach and Separation between us of which we are no-wise guilty who have onely reformed what was amiss but they who obstinately persist in their errors and will needs impose them upon us and will not let us be of their Communion unless we will say they are no Errors II. The other Prejudice against the true Religion is the contrariety of it to the vicious inclinations and practices of Men. It is too heavy a yoke and lays too great a restraint upon humane Nature And this is that which in truth lies at the bottom of all Objections against Religion Men love darkness rather than light because their deeds are evil But this Argument will require a Discourse by it self and therefore I shall not now enter upon it onely crave your patience a little longer whilst I make some Reflections upon what hath been already delivered You see what are the Exceptions which Idolatry and Superstition have always made and do at this day still make against the true Religion and how slight and insignificant they are But do we then charge the Church of Rome with Idolatry Our Church most certainly does so and hath always done it from the beginning of the Reformation in her Homilies and Liturgy and Canons and in the Writings of her best and ablest Champions And though I have as impartially as I could consider'd what hath been said on both sides in this Controversy yet I must confess I could never yet see any tolerable defence made by them against this heavy charge And they themselves acknowledge themselves to be greatly under the suspicion of it by saying as Cardinal Perron and others do that the Primitive Christians for some Ages did neither worship Images nor pray to Saints for fear of being thought to approach too near the Heathen Idolatry And which is yet more divers of their most learned men do confess that if Transubstantiation be not true they are as gross Idolaters as any in the World And I hope they do not expect it from us that in complement to them and to acquit them from the charge of Idolatry we should presently deny our senses and believe Transubstantiation and if we do not believe this they grant we have Reason to charge them with Idolatry But we own them to be a true Church which they cannot be if they be guilty of Idolatry This they often urge us withall and there seems at first sight to be something in it And for that reason I shall endeavour to give so clear and satisfactory an answer to it as that we may never more be troubled with it The truth is we would fain hope because they still retain the Essentials of Christianity and profess to believe all the Articles of the Christian Faith that notwithstanding their Corruptions they may still retain the true Essence of a Church as a man may be truly and really a man though he have the plague upon him and for that reason be fit to be avoided by all that wish well to themselves But if this will not do we cannot help it Therefore to push the matter home Are they sure that this is a firm and good consequence That if they be Idolaters they cannot be a true Church Then let them look to it It is they I take it that are concerned to prove themselves a true Church and not we to prove it for them And if they will not understand it of themselves it is fit they should be told that there is a great difference between Concessions of Charity and of Necessity and that a very different use ought to be made of them We are willing to think the best of them but if they dislike our Charity in this point nothing against the hair 〈◊〉 they will forgive us this Injury we will not offend them any more But rather than have any farther difference with them about this matter we will for quietness sake compound it thus That till they can clearly acquit themselves from being Idolaters they shall never more against their wills be esteemed a true Church And now to draw to a Conclusion If it seem evil unto you to serve the Lord and to worship him only to pray to him alone and that only in the name
nothing How much righter apprehensions had the Heathen of the Divine Nature which they looked upon as so benign and beneficial to mankind that as Tully admirably says Dii immortales ad usum hominum fabrefacti penè videantur The nature of the immortal Gods may almost seem to be exactly framed for the benefit and advantage of men And as for Religion they always spake of it as the great band of humane Society and the foundation of truth and fidelity and justice among men But when Religion once comes to supplant moral Righteousness and to teach men the absurdest things in the world to lye for the truth and to kill men for God's sake when it serves to no other purpose but to be a bond of conspiracy to inflame the tempers of men to a greater fierceness and to set a keener edge upon their spirits and to make them ten times more the children of wrath and Cruelty than they were by nature then surely it loses its nature and ceases to be Religion For let any man say worse of Atheism and Infidelity if he can And for God's sake what is Religion good for but to reform the manners and dispositions of men to restrain humane nature from violence and cruelty from falshood and treachery from Sedition and Rebellion Better it were there were no revealed Religion and that humane nature were left to the conduct of its own principles and inclinations which are much more mild and merciful much more for the peace and happiness of humane Society than to be acted by a Religion that inspires men with so wild a fury and prompts them to commit such outrages and is continually supplanting Government and undermining the welfare of mankind in short such a Religion as teaches men to propagate and advance it self by means so evidently contrary to the very nature and end of all Religion And this if it be well considered will appear to be a very convincing way of reasoning by shewing the last result and consequence of such Principles and of such a Train of Propositions to be a most gross and palpable absurdity For example We will at present admit Popery to be the true Religion and their Doctrines of extirpating Hereticks of the lawfulness of deposing Kings and subverting Government by all the cruel and wicked ways that can be thought of to be as in truth they are the Doctrines of this Religion In this Case I would not trouble my self to debate particulars but if in the gross and upon the whole matter it be evident that such a Religion as this is as bad or worse than Infidelity and no Religion this is conviction enough to a wise man and as good as a Demonstration that this is not the true Religion and that it cannot be from God How much better Teachers of Religion were the old Heathen Philosophers In all whose Books and Writings there is not one Principle to be found of Treachery or Rebellion nothing that gives the least countenance to an Association or a Massacre to the betraying of ones Native Country or the cutting of his Neighbours throat for difference in opinion I speak it with grief and shame because the credit of our common Christianity is somewhat concerned in it that Panaetius and Antipater and Diogenes the Stoick Tully and Plutarch and Seneca were much honester and more Christian Casuists than the Jesuits are or the generality of the Casuists of any other Order that I know of in the Church of Rome I come now in the Third and last place to make some Application of this Discourse 1. Let not Religion suffer for those faults and miscarriages which really proceed from the ignorance of Religion and from the want of it That under colour and pretence of Religion very bad things are done is no argument that Religion it self is not good Because the best things are liable to be perverted and abused to very ill purposes nay the corruption of them is commonly the worst as they say the richest and noblest Wines make the sharpest Vinegar If the light that is in you saith our Saviour be darkness how great is that darkness 2. Let us beware of that Church which countenanceth this unchristian spirit here condemned by our Saviour and which teaches such Doctrines and warrants such Practices as are consonant thereto You all know without my saying so that I mean the Church of Rome in which are taught such Doctrines as these That Hereticks that is all who differ from them in matters of Faith are to be extirpated by fire and sword which was decreed in the third and fourth Lateran Councils where all Christians are strictly charged to endeavour this to the uttermost of their power Sicut reputari cupiunt haberi fideles as they desire to be esteemed and accounted Christians Next their Doctrines of deposing Kings and of absolving their subjects from obedience to them which were not only universally believed but practised by the Popes and Roman Church for several Ages Indeed this Doctrine hath not been at all times alike frankly and openly avowed but it is undoubtedly theirs and hath frequently been put in execution though they have not thought it so convenient at all turns to make profession of it It is a certain kind of Engine which is to be screw'd up or let down as occasion serves and is commonly kept like Goliah's Sword in the Sanctuary behind the Ephod but yet so that the High-Priest can lend it out upon an extraordinary occasion And for Practices consonant to these Doctrines I shall go no further than the horrid and bloody Design of this Day Such a Mystery of Iniquity as had been hid from ages and generations Such a Master-piece of Villany as eye had not seen nor ear heard nor ever before entred into the heart of man So prodigiously Barbarous both in the substance and circumstances of it as is not to be parallell'd in all the voluminous Records of Time from the foundation of the World Of late years our Adversaries for so they have made themselves without any provocation of ours have almost had the impudence to deny so plain a matter of fact but I wish they have not taken an effectual course by fresh Conspiracies of equal or greater horror to confirm the belief of it with a witness But I shall not anticipate what will be more proper for another Day but confine my self to the present Occasion I will not trouble you with the particular Narrative of this dark Conspiracy nor the obscure manner of its discovery which Bellarmin himself acknowledges not to have been without a Miracle Let us thank God that it was so happily discovered and disappointed as I hope their present design will be by the same wonderful and merciful providence of God towards a most unworthy People And may the lameness and halting of Ignatius Loyola the Founder of the Jesuits never depart from that Order but be a Fate continually attending all their villanous Plots and Contrivances
every wind of Doctrine by the sleight of men and cunning craftiness of those who lie in wait to deceive And if we were thus affected on all hands we might yet be a happy Church and Nation if we would govern our selves by these Rules and walk according to them peace would be upon us and mercy and on the Israel of God Thirdly I shall conclude all with a few words in relation to the occasion of this present meeting I have all this while been recommending to you from the Authority and Example of our Blessed Saviour and from the nature and reason of the thing it self this most exellent Grace and Virtue of Charity in the most proper Acts and Instances of it But besides particular Acts of Charity to be exercised upon emergent occasions there are likewise charitable Customs which are highly commendable because they are more certain and constant of a larger extent and of a longer continuance As the Meeting of the Sons of the Clergy which is now form'd and establish'd into a charitable Corporation And the Anniversary Meetings of those of the several Counties of England who reside or happen to be in London for two of the best and noblest ends that can be the maintaining of Friendship and the promoting of Charity These and others of the like kind I call charitable customs which of late years have very much obtained in this great and famous City And it cannot but be a great pleasure and satisfaction to all good men to see so generous so humane so Christian a disposition to prevail and reign so much amongst us The strange overflowing of vice and wickedness in our Land and the prodigious increase and impudence of infidelity and impiety hath of late years boaded very ill to us and brought terrible Judgments upon this City and Nation and seems still to threaten us with more and greater And the greatest comfort I have had under these sad apprehensions of Gods displeasure hath been this that though bad men were perhaps never worse in any Age yet the good who I hope are not a few were never more truly and substantially good I do verily believe there never were in any Time greater and more real effects of Charity not from a blind superstition and an ignorant zeal and a mercenary and arrogant and presumptuous principle of Merit but from a sound knowledg and a sincere love and obedience to God or as the Apostle expresses it out of a pure heart and of a good conscience and of faith unfeigned And who that loves God and Religion can chuse but take great contentment to see so general and forward an inclination in People this way Which hath been very much cherished of late years by this sort of Meetings and that to very good purpose and effect in many charitable contributions disposed in the best and wisest ways and which likewise hath tended very much to the reconciling of the minds of men and the allaying of those fierce heats and animosities which have ben caused by our Civil confusions and Religious distractions For there is nothing many times wanting to take away prejudice and to extinguish hatred and ill-will but an opportunity for men to see and understand one another by which they will quickly perceive that they are not such Monsters as they have been represented one to another at a distance We are I think one of the last Counties of England that have entred into this friendly and charitable kind of Society Let us make amends for our late setting out by quickning our pace that so we may overtake and outstrip those who are gone before us Let not our Charity partake of the coldness of our Climate but let us endeavour that it may be equal to the extent of our Country and as we are incomparably the greatest County of England let it appear that we are so by the largeness and extent of our Charity O Lord who hast taught us that all our doings without Charity are nothing send thy Holy Ghost and pour into our hearts that most excellent gift of Charity the very bond of Peace and of all Vertues Without which whosover liveth is counted dead before thee Grant this for thy only Son Jesus Christ's sake Now the God of Peace who brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus Christ the great Shepherd of the Sheep through the blood of the everlasting Covenant make you perfect in every good work to do his will working in you that which is well pleasing in his sight through Jesus Christ to whom be glory for ever and ever Amen A SERMON Preached at WHITE-HALL April 4th 1679. 1 JOHN IV. 1. Beloved believe not every spirit but try the spirits whether they are of God because many false Prophets are gone out into the World THIS caution and counsel was given upon occasion of the false Prophets and Teachers that were risen up in the beginning of the Christian Church who endeavoured to seduce men from the true Doctrine of the Gospel delivered by the Apostles of our Lord and Saviour And these teaching contrary things could not both be from God and therefore St. John calls upon Christians to examine the Doctrines and Pretences of those new Teachers whether they were from God or not Believe not every Spirit â—hat is not every one that takes upon him to be inspired and to be a Teacher come from God But try the Spirits that is examine those that make this pretence whether it be real or not and examine the Doctrines which they bring because there are many Impostors abroad in the World This is the plain sense of the Words In which there are contained these four Propositions First That men may and often do falsly pretend to Inspiration And this is the reason upon which the Apostle grounds this Exhortation Because many false Prophets are gone out into the world therefore we should try who are true and who are false Secondly We are not to believe every one that pretends to be inspired and to teach a Divine Doctrine This follows upon the former because men may falsly pretend to Inspiration therefore we are not to believe every one that makes this pretence For any man that hath but confidence enough and conscience little enough may pretend to come from God And if we admit all pretences of this kind we lie at the mercy of every crafty and confident man to be led by him into what delusions he pleaseth Thirdly Neither are we to reject all that pretend to come from God This is sufficiently implied in the Text for when the Apostle says believe not every Spirit he supposeth we are to believe some and when he saith try the Spirits whether they be of God he supposeth some to be of God and that those which are so are to be believed These three Observations are so plain that I need only to name them to make way for the Fourth Which I principally designed to insist upon from these Words And
Virtue is Vice and Vice Virtue he would hereby take away the very foundation of Religion and how can I look upon him any longer as a Judg in matters of Religion when there can be no such thing as Religion if he have judged and determined right Secondly The Scripture plainly allows this liberty to particular and private Persons to judg for themselves And for this I need go no farther than my Text which bids men try the Spirits whether they be of God I do not think this is spoken only to the Pope or a General Council but to Christians in general for to these the Apostle writes Now if St. John had believed that God had constituted an infallible Judge in his Church to whose Sentence and Determination all Christians are bound to submit he ought in all reason to have referred Christians to him for the trial of Spirits and not have left it to every man's private judgment to examine and to determine these things But it seems St. Paul was likewise of the same mind and though he was guided by an infallible Spirit yet he did not expect that men should blindly submit to his Doctrine Nay so far is he from that that he commends the Bereans for that very thing for which I dare say the Church of Rome would have check'd them most severely namely for searching the Scriptures to see whether those things which the Apostles delivered were so or not This liberty St. Paul allowed and though he was inspired by God yet he treated those whom he taught like men And indeed it were a hard case that a necessity of believing Divine Revelations and rejecting Impostures should be imposed upon Christians and yet the liberty of judging whether a Doctrine be from God or not should be taken away from them Thirdly Our Adversaries themselves are forced to grant that which in effect is as much as we contend for For though they deny a liberty of judging in particular points of Religion yet they are forced to grant men a liberty of judging upon the whole When they of the Church of Rome would perswade a Jew or a Heathen to become a Christian or a Heretick as they are pleased to call us to come over to the Communion of their Church and offer Arguments to induce them thereto they do by this very thing whether they will or no make that man Judge which is the true Church and the true Religion Because it would be ridiculous to perswade a man to turn to their Religion and to urge him with Reasons to do so and yet to deny him the use of his own judgement whether their Reasons be sufficient to move him to make such a change Now as the Apostle reasons in another case If men be fit to judge for themselves in so great and important a matter as the choice of their Religion why should they be thought unworthy to judge in lesser matters They tell us indeed that a man may use his judgement in the choice of his Religion but when he hath once chosen he is then for ever to resign up his judgment to their Church But what tolerable reason can any man give why a man should be fit to judge upon the whole and yet unfit to judge upon particular Points especially if it be considered that no man can make a discreet judgment of any Religion before he hath examined the particular Doctrines of it and made a judgment concerning them Is it credible that God should give a man judgment in the most fundamental and important matter of all viz. To discern the true Religion and the true Church from the false for no other end but to enable him to chuse once for all to whom he should resign and inslave his judgment for ever which is just as reasonable as if one should say That God hath given a man eyes for no other end but to look out once for all and to pitch upon a discreet person to lead him about blindfold all the days of his life I come now to the III. Thing I propounded which is To Answer the main Objection of our Adversaries against this Principle and likewise to shew that there is no such Reason and necessity for an universal Insallible Judge as they pretend Now their great Objection is this If every man may judge for himself there will be nothing but confusion in Religion there will be no end of Controversies so that an universal infallible Judge is necessary and without this God had not made sufficient provision for the assurance of men's Faith and for the Peace and unity of his Church Or as it is expressed in the Canon Law aliter Dominus non videretur fuisse discretus otherwise our Lord had not seem'd to be discreet How plausible soever this Objection may appear I do not despair but if men will lay aside prejudice and impartially consider things to make it abundantly evident that this ground is not sufficient to found an Infallible Judge upon And therefore in answer to it I desire these following particulars may be considered Firft That this which they say rather proves what God should have done according to their fancy than what he hath really and actually done My Text expresly bids Christians to try the Spirits which to any man's sense does imply that they may judge of these matters But the Church of Rome says they may not because if this liberty were permitted God had not ordered things wisely and for the best for the peace and unity of his Church But as the Apostle says in another case What art thou O man that objectest against God Secondly If this reasoning be good we may as well conclude that there is an universal infallible Judge set over the whole world in all Temporal matters to whose Authority all mankind is bound to submit Because this is as necessary to the peace of the World as the other is to the peace of the Church And men surely are every whit as apt to be obstinate and perverse about matters of Temporal Right as about matters of Faith But it is evident in fact and experience that there is no such universal Judge appointed by God over the whole World to decide all Cases of temporal Right and for want of him the World is fain to shift as well as it can But now a very acute and scholastical man that would argue that God must needs have done whatever he fancies convenient for the World should be done might by the very same way of Reasoning conclude the necessity of an universal infallible Judge in Civil matters as well as in matters of Religion And their aliter Dominus non videretur fuisse discretus otherwise God had not seem'd to be discreet is every whit as cogent and as civil in the one Case as the other Thirdly There is no need of such a Judge to assure men in matters of Religion Because men be sufficiently certain without him I hope it may be certain
and clear enough That there is a God and That his Providence governs the World and That there is another Life after this though neither Pope nor Council had ever declared any thing about these matters And for Revealed Doctrines we may be certain enough of all that is necessary if it be true which the Fathers tell us That all things necessary are plainly revealed in the Holy Scriptures Fourthly An infallible Judge if there were one is no certain way to end Controversies and to preserve the unity of the Church unless it were likewise infallibly certain That there is such a Judge and Who he is For till men were sure of both these there would still be a Controversy whether there be an infallible Judge and who he is And if it be true which they tell us That without an infallible Judge Controversies cannot be ended then a Controversie concerning an infallible Judge can never be ended And there are two Controversies actually on foot about an infallible Judge One Whether there be an infallible Judge or not which is a Controversie between Us and the Church of Rome and the other Who this infallible Judge is which is a Controversie among themselves which could never yet be decided And yet till it be decided Infallibility if they had it would be of no use to them for the ending of Controversies Fifthly There is no such absolute need as is pretended of determining all Controversies in Religion If men would devest themselves of prejudice and interest as they ought in matters of Religion the necessary things of Religion are plain enough and men would generally agree well enough about them But if men will suffer themselves to be by assed by these they would not hearken to an infallible Judge if there were one or they would find out some way or other to call his Infallibility into question And as for doubtful and lesser matters in Religion charity and mutual forbearance among Christians would make the Church as peaceable and happy as perhaps it was ever design'd to be in this World without absolute unity in Opinion Sixthly and Lastly Whatever may be the inconveniences of mens judging for themselves in Religion yet taking this Principle with the Cautions I have given I doubt not to make it appear that the inconveniences are far the least on that side The present condition of humane Nature doth not admit of any constitution of things whether in Religion or Civil matters which is free from all kind of exception and inconvenience That is the best state of things which is liable to the least and fewest If men be modest and humble and willing to learn God hath done that which is sufficient for the assurance of our Faith and for the peace of his Church without an infallible Judge And if men will not be so I cannot tell what would be sufficient I am sure there were Heresies and Schisms in the Apostles Times when Those who governed the Church were certainly guided by an infallible Spirit God hath appointed Guides and Teachers for us in matters of Religion and if we will be contented to be instructed by them in those necessary Articles and Duties of Religion which are plainly contained in Scripture and to be counselled and directed by them in things that are more doubtful and difficult I do not see why we might hot do well enough without any infallible Judge or Guide But still it will be said Who shall judge what things are plain and what doubtful The answer to this in my opinion is not difficult For if there be any thing plain in Religion every man that hath been duly instructed in the Principles of Religtion can judge of it or else it is not plain But there are some things in Religion so very plain that no Guide or Judge can in reason claim that Authority over men as to oblige them to believe or do the contrary no though he pretend to Infallibility no though he were an Apostle though he were an Angel from heaven S. Paul puts the case so high Gal. 1.8 Though we or an Angel from heaven preach any other Gospel unto you than what you have received let him be accursed which plainly supposeth that Christians may and can judge when Doctrines are contrary to the Gospel What not believe an Apostle nor an Angel from heaven if he should teach any thing evidently contrary to the plain Doctrine of the Gospel If he should determine Vertue to be Vice and Vice to be Vertue No not an Apostle nor an Angel because such a Doctrine as this would confound and overturn all things in Religion And yet Bellarmin puts this very Case and says If the Pope should so determine we were bound to believe him unless we would sin against Conscience I will conclude this Discourse by putting a very plain and familiar Case by which it will appear what credit and authority is fit to be given to a Guide and what not Suppose I came a Stranger into England and landing at Dover took a Guide there to conduct me in my way to York which I knew before by the Mapp to lie North of Dover having committed my self to him if he lead me for two or three days together out of any plain Road and many times over hedge and ditch I cannot but think it strange that in a civil and well inhabited Country there should be no High-ways from one part of it to another Yet thus far I submit to him though not without some regret and impatience But then if after this for two or three days more he lead me directly South and with my face full upon the Sun at noon day and at last bring me back again to Dover Pere and still bids me follow him Then certainly no modesty do's oblige a man not to dispute with his Guide and to tell him surely that can be no way because it is Sea Now though he set never so bold a face upon the matter and tell me with all the gravity and authority in the world That it is not the Sea but dry Land under the species and appearance of Water and that whatever my eyes tell me having once committed my self to his guidance I must not trust my own senses in the case it being one of the most dangerous sorts of Infidelity for a man to believe his own eyes rather than his faithful and infallible Guide All this moves me not but I begin to expostulate roundly with him and to let him understand that if I must not believe what I see he is like to be of no farther use to me because I shall not be able at this rate to know whether I have a Guide and whether I follow him or not In short I tell him plainly that when I took him for my Guide I did not take him to tell me the difference between North and South between a Hedge and a High-way between Sea and dry Land all this I knew before as well as he
so false a Doctrine and to lay open the monstrous absurdity of it And in the handling of this Argument I shall proceed in this plain method I. I shall consider the pretended grounds and reasons of the Church of Rome for this Doctrine II. I shall produce our Objections against it And if I can shew that there is no tolerable ground for it and that there are invincible Objections against it then every man is not onely in reason excused from believing this Doctrine but hath great cause to believe the contrary FIRST I will consider the pretended grounds and reasons of the Church of Rome for this Doctrine Which must be one or more of these five Either 1 st The Authority of Scripture Or 2 ly The perpetual belief of this Doctrine in the Christian Church as an evidence that they always understood and interpreted our Saviour's words This is my body in this sense Or 3 ly The Authority of the present Church to make and declare new Articles of Faith Or 4 ly The absolute necessity of such a change as this in the Sacrament to the comfort and benefit of those who receive this Sacrament Or 5 ly To magnifie the power of the Priest in being able to work so great a Miracle 1st They pretend for this Doctrine the Authority of Scripture in those words of our Saviour This is my body Now to shew the insufficiency of this pretence I shall endeavour to make good these two things 1. That there is no necessity of understanding those words of our Saviour in the sense of Transubstantiation 2. That there is a great deal of reason nay that it is very absurd and unreasonable to understand them otherwise First That there is no necessity to understand those words of our Saviour in the sense of Transubstantiation If there be any it must be from one of these two reasons Either because there are no figurative expressions in Scripture which I think no man ever yet said or else because a Sacrament admits of no figures which would be very absurd for any man to say since it is of the very nature of a Sacrament to represent and exhibit some invisible grace and benefit by an outward sign and figure And especially since it cannot be denied but that in the institution of this very Sacrament our Saviour useth figurative expressions and several words which cannot be taken strictly and literally When he gave the Cup he said This Cup is the new Testament in my bloud which is shed for you and for many for the remission of Sins Where first the Cup is put for the Wine contained in the Cup or else if the words be literally taken so as to signifie a substantial change it is not of the Wine but of the Cup and that not into the bloud of Christ but into the new Testament or new Covenant in his bloud Besides that his bloud is said then to be shied and his body to be broken which was not till his Passion which followed the institution and first celebration of this Sacrament But that there is no necessity to understand our Saviour's words in the sense of Transubstantiation I will take the plain concession of a great number of the most learned Writers of the Church of Rome in this Controversie (a) de Euch. l. 3. c. 23. Bellarmine (b) in 3. dis 49. Qu. 75. Sect. 2. Suarez and (c) in 3. part disp 180. Qu. 75. art 2. c. 15. Vasquez do acknowledge Scotus the great Schoolman to have said that this Doctrine cannot be evidently proved from Scripture And Bellarmine grants this not to be improbable and Suarez and Vasquez acknowledge (d) in Sent. l. 4. dist 11. Qu. 1. n. 15. Durandus to have said as much (e) in 4. Sent. Q 5. Quodl 4. Q. 3. Ocham another famous Schoolman says expresly that the Doctrine which holds the substance of the Bread and Wine to remain after consecration is neither repugnant to Reason nor to Scripture (f) in 4. Sent. Q. 6. art 2. Petrus ab Alliaco Cardinal of Cambray says plainly that the Doctrine of the Substance of Bread and Wine remaining after Consecration is more easie and free from absurdity more rational and no ways repugnant to the authority of Scripture nay more that for the other Doctrine viz. of Transubstantiation there is no evidence in Scripture (g) in canon Miss Lect. 40. Gabriel Biel another great Schoolman and Divine of their Church freely declares that as to any thing express'd in the Canon of the Scriptures a wan may believe that the substance of Bread and Wine doth remain after Consecration and therefore he resolves the belief of Transubstantiation into some other Revelation besides Scripture which he supposeth the Church had about it Cardinal (h) in Aquin 3. part Qu. 75. art 1. Cajetan confesseth that the Gospel doth no where express that the Bread is changed into the Body of Christ that we have this from the authority of the Church nay he goes farther that there is nothing in the Gospel which enforceth any man to understand these words of Christ this is my body in a proper and not in a metaphorical sense but the Church having understood them in a proper sense they are to be so explained Which words in the Roman Edition of Cajetan are expunged by order of Pope (i) Aegid Conink de Sacram Q. 75. art 1. n. 13. Pius V. Cardinal (k) de Sacram l. 2. c. 3. Contarenus and (l) Loc. Theolog. l. 3. c. 3. Melchior Canus one of the best and most judicious Writers that Church ever had reckon this Doctrine among those which are not so expresly found in Scripture I will add but one more of great authority in the Church and a reputed Martyr (m) contra captiv Babylon c. 10. n. 2. Fisher Bishop of Rochester who ingenuously confesseth that in the words of the Institution there is not one word from whence the true presence of the flesh and bloud of Christ in our Mass can be proved So that we need not much contend that this Doctrine hath no certain foundation in Scripture when this is so fully and frankly acknowledged by our Adversaries themselves Secondly If there be no necessity of understanding our Saviour's words in the sense of Transubstantiation I am sure there is a great deal of reason to understand them otherwise Whether we consider the like expressions in Scripture as where our Saviour says he is the door and the true Vine which the Church of Rome would mightily have triumph'd in had it been said this is my true body And so likewise where the Church is said to be Christ's body and the Rock which followed the Israelites to be Christ 1 Cor. 10.4 They drank of that Rock which followed them and that rock was Christ All which and innumerable more like expressions in Scripture every man understands in a figurative and not in a strictly literal
heinous wickedness or crime or to forbid that which is profitable and beneficial to others it is figurative For example Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his bloud ye have no life in you This seems to command a heinous wickedness and crime therefore it is a figure commanding us to communicate of the passion of our Lord and with delight and advantage to lay up in our memory that his flesh was crucified and wounded for us So that according to St. Austin's best skill in interpreting Scripture the literal eating of the flesh of Christ and drinking his bloud would have been a great impiety and therefore the expression is to be understood figuratively not as Cardinal Perron would have it onely in opposition to the eating of his flesh and bloud in the gross appearance of flesh and bloud but to the real eating of his natural body and bloud under any appearance whatsoever For St. Austin doth not say this is a Figurative speech wherein we are commanded really to feed upon the natural body and bloud of Christ under the species of bread and wine as the Cardinal would understand him for then the speech would be literal and not figurative But he says this is a figurative speech wherein we are commanded Spiritually to feed upon the remembrance of his Passion To these I will add but three or four Testimonies more in the two following Ages The first shall be of Theodoret who speaking of that * Gen. 49.11 Prophecy of Jacob concerning our Saviour he washed his garments in Wine and his clothes in the bloud of grapes hath these words †Dialog 1. as we call the mystical fruit of the Vine that is the Wine in the Sacrament after consecration the bloud of the Lord so he viz. Jacob calls the bloud of the true Vine viz. of Christ the bloud of the grape but the bloud of Christ is not liberally and properly but onely figuratively the bloud of the grape in the same sense as he is said to be the true Vine and therefore the Wine in the Sacrament after consecration is in like manner not literally and properly but figuratively the bloud of Christ And he explains this afterwards saying that our Saviour changed the names and gave to his Body the name of the Symbol or Sign and to the Symbol or Sign the name of his Body thus when he had call'd himself the Vine he call'd the Symbol or Sign his bloud so that in the same sense that he call'd himself the Vine he call'd the Wine which is the Symbol of his his bloud his bloud For says he he would have those who partake of the divine mysteries not to attend to the nature of the things which are seen but by the change of names to believe the change which is made by grace for he who call'd that which by nature is body wheat and bread and again likewise call'd himself the Vine he honour'd the Symbols with the name of his body and bloud not changing nature but adding grace to nature Where you see he syas expresly that when he call'd the Symbols or Elements of the Sacrament viz. Bread and Wine his Body and Bloud he made no change in the nature of the things onely added grace to nature that is by the Divine grace and blessing he raised them to a Spiritual and Supernatural virtue and efficacy The Second is of the same Theodoret in his second Dialogue between a Catholique under the name of Orthodoxus and an Heretique under the name of Eranistes who maintaining that the Humanity of Christ was chang'd into the substance of the Divinity which was the Heresie of Eutychees he illustrates the matter by this Similitude As says he the Symbols of the Lord's body and bloud are one thing before the invocation of the Priest but after the invocation are changed and become another thing So the body of our Lord after his ascension is changed into the divine substance But what says the Catholique Orthodoxus to this why he talks just like one of Cardinal Perron's Heretiques Thou art says he caught in thy own net because the mystical Symbols after consecration do not pass out of their own nature for they remain in their former substance figure and appearance and may be seen and handled even as before He does not onely deny the outward figure and appearance of the Symbols to be chang'd but the nature and substance of them even in the proper and strictest sense of the word substance and it was necessary so to do otherwise he had not given a pertinent answer to the similitude urg'd against him The next is one of their own Popes Gelasius who brings the same Instance against the Eutychians * Biblioth Patr. Tom. surely says he the Sacraments which we receive of the body and bloud of our Lord are a divine thing so that by them we are made partakers of a divine nature and yet it ceaseth not to be the substance or nature of Bread and Wine and certainly the image and resemblance of Christ's body and bloud are celebrated in the action of the mysteries that is in the Sacrament To make this Instance of any force against the Eutychians who held that the body of Christ upon his ascension ceas'd and was chang'd into the substance of his Divinity it was necessary to deny that there was any substantial change in the Sacrament of the bread and wine into the body and bloud of Christ So that here is an infallible authority one of their own Popes expresly against Transubsantiation The last Testimony I shall produce is of Facundus an African Bishop who lived in the 6th Century Upon occasion of justifying an expression of one who had said that Christ also received the adoption of Sons he reasons thus * Facund p. 144. edit Paris 1676. Christ vouchsafed to receive the Sacrament of adoption both when he was circumcised and baptized And the Sacrament of Adoption may be called adoption as the Sacrament of bis body and bloud which is in the consecrated bread and cup is by us called his body and bloud not that the bread says he is properly his body and the cup his bloud but because they contain in them the mysteries of his body and bloud hence also our Lord himself called the blessed bread and cup which he gave to his Disciples his body and bloud Can any man after this believe that it was then and had ever been the universal and received Doctrine of the Christian Church that the bread and wine in the Sacrament are substantially changed into the proper and natural body and bloud of Christ By these plain Testimonies which I have produced and I might have brought a great many more to the same purpose it is I think evident beyond all denial that Transubstantiation hath not been the perpetual belief of the Christian Church And this likewise is acknowledged by many great and learned men of the Roman Church
(a) In Sent. l. 4. Dist 11. Q 3. Scotus acknowledgeth that this Doctrine was not always thought necessary to be believed but that the necessity of believing it was consequent to that Declaration of the Church made in the Council of Lateran under Pope Innocent the III. And (b) In Sent. l. 4. dist 11. q. 1. n. 15. Durandus freely discovers his inclination to have believed the contrary if the Church had not by that determination obliged men to believe it (c) de Euchar l. 1. p. 146. Tonstal Bishop of Durham also yields that before the Lateran Council men were at liberty as to the manner of Christ's presence in the Sacrament And (d) In 1 Epist ad Corinth c. 7. citante etiam Salmerone Tom. 9. Tract 16. p. 108. Erasmus who lived and died in the communion of the Roman Church and than whom no man was better read in the ancient Fathers doth confess that it was late before the Church defined Transubstantiation unknown to the Ancients both name and thing And (e) De Haeres l. 8. Alphonsus a Castro says plainly that concerning the Transubstantiation of the bread into the body of Christ there is seldom any mention in the ancient Writers And who can imagine that these learned men would have granted the ancient Church and Fathers to have been so much Strangers to this Doctrine had they thought it to have been the perpetual belief of the Church I shall now in the Second place give an account of the particular time and occasion of the coming in of this Doctrine and by what steps and degrees it grew up and was advanced into an Article of Faith in the Romish Church The Doctrine of the corporal presence of Christ was first started upon occasion of the Dispute about the Worship of Images in opposition whereto the Synod of Constantinople about the year DCCL did argue thus That our Lord having left us no other image of himself but the Sacrament in which the substance of bread is the image of his body we ought to make no other image of our Lord. In answer to this Argument the second Council of Nice in the year DCCLXXXVII did declare that the Sacrament after Consecration is not the image and antitype of Christ's body and bloud but is properly his body and bloud So that the corporal presence of the body of Christ in the Sacrament was first brought in to support the stupid Worship of Images And indeed it could never have come in upon a more proper occasion not have been applied to a fitter purpose And here I cannot but take notice how well this agrees with * De Eucharist l. 1. c. 1. Bellarmine's Observation that none of the Ancients who wrote of Heresies hath put this errour viz of denying Transubstantiation in his Caralogue nor did any of the Ancients dispute against this errour for the first 600 years Which is very true because there could be no occasion then to dispute against those who demed Transubstantiation since as I have shewn this Doctrine was not in being unless among the Eutychian Heretiques for the first 600 years and more But †Ibid. Bellarmine goes on and tells us that the first who call'd in question the truth of the body of the Lord in the Eucharist were the ICONOMACHI the opposers of Images after the year DCC in the Council of Constantinople for these said there was one image of Christ instituted by Christ himself viz. the bread and wine in the Eucharist which represents the body and bloud of Christ Wherefore from that time the Greek Writers often admonish us that the Eucharist is not the figure or image of the body of the Lord but his true body as appears from the VII Synod which agrees most exactly with the account which I have given of the first rise of this Doctrine which began with the corporal presence of Christ in the Sacrament and afterwards proceeded to Transubstantiation And as this was the first occasion of introducing this Doctrine among the Greeks so in the Latin or Roman Church Paschasius Radbertus first a Monk and afterwards Abbot of Corbey was the first broacher of it in the year DCCCXVIII And for this besides the Evidence of History we have the acknowledgment of two very Eminent Persons in the Church of Rome Bellarmine and Sirmondus who do in effect confess that this Paschasius was the first who wrote to purpose upon this Argument * De Scriptor Eccles Bellarmine in these words This Authour was the first who hath seriously and copiously written concerning the truth of Christ's body and bloud in the Eucharist And †In vita Paschasii Sirmondus in these he so first explained the genuine sense of the Catholique Church that he opened the way to the rest who afterwards in great numbers wrote upon the same Argument But though Sirmondus is pleased to say that he onely first explain'd the sense of the Catholique Church in this Point yet it is very plain from the Records of that Age which are left to us that this was the first time that this Doctrine was broached in the Latin Church and it met with great opposition in that Age as I shall have occasion hereafter to shew For Rabanus Maurus Arch-Bishop of Mentz about the year DCCCXLVII reciting the very words of Paschasius wherein he had deliver'd this Doctrine hath this remarkable passage concerning the novelty of it ‖ Epist ad Heribaldum c. 33. Some says he of late not having a right opinion concerning the Sacrament of the body and bloud of our Lord have said that this is the body and bloud of our Lord which was born of the Virgin Mary and in which our Lord suffered upon the Cross and rose from the dead which errour says he we have oppos'd with all our might From whence it is plain by the Testimony of one of the greatest and most learned Bishops of that Age and of eminent reputation for Piety that what is now the very Doctrine of the Church of Rome concerning the Sacrament was then esteem'd an Errour broach'd by some particular Persons but was far from being the generally receiv'd Doctrine of that Age. Can any one think it possible that so eminent a Person in the Church both for piety and learning could have condemn'd this Doctrine as an Errour and a Novelty had it been the general Doctrine of the Christian Church not onely in that but in all former Ages and no censure pass'd upon him for that which is now the great burning Article in the Church of Rome and esteemed by them one of the greatest and most pernicious Heresies Afterwards in the year MLIX when Berengarius in France and Germany had rais'd a fresh opposition against this Doctrine he was compell'd to recant it by Pope Nicholas and the Council at Rome in these words * Gratian. de consecrat distinct 2. Lanfranc de corp sing Domini c. 5. Guitmund de
thing because it self stands in need of another Miracle to give testimony to it and to prove that it was wrought And neither in Scripture nor in profane Authours nor in common use of speech is any thing call'd a Miracle but what falls under the notice of our senses A Miracle being nothing else but a supernatural effect evident to sense the great end and design whereof is to be a sensible proof and conviction to us of something that we do not see And for want of this Condition Transubstantiation if it were true would be no Miracle It would indeed be very supernatural but for all that it would not be a Sign or Miracle For a Sign or Miracle is always a thing sensible otherwise it could be no Sign Now that such a change as is pretended in Transubstantiation should really be wrought and yet there should be no sign and appearance of it is a thing very wonderfull but not to sense for our senses perceive no change the Bread and Wine in the Sacrament to all our senses remaining just as they were before And that a thing should remain to all appearance just as it was hath nothing at all of wonder in it we wonder indeed when we see a strange thing done but no man wonders when he sees nothing done So that Transubstantiation if they will needs have it a Miracle is such a Miracle as any man may work that hath but the confidence to face men down that he works it and the fortune to be believed And though the Church of Rome may magnify their Priests upon account of this Miracle which they say they can work every day and every hour yet I cannot understand the reason of it for when this great work as they call it is done there is nothing more appears to be done than if there were no Miracle Now such a Miracle as to all appearance is no Miracle I see no reason why a Protestant Minister as well as a Popish Priest may not work as often as he pleases or if he can but have the patience to let it alone it will work it self For surely nothing in the world is easier than to let a thing be as it is and by speaking a few words over it to make it just what it was before Every man every day may work ten thousand such Miracles And thus I have dispathc'd the First part of my Discourse which was to consider the pretended grounds and Reasons of the Church of Rome for this Doctrine and to shew the weakness and insufficiency of them I come in the SECOND place to produce our Objections against it Which will be of so much the greater force because I have already shewn this Doctrine to be destitute of all Divine warrant and authority and of any other sort of Ground sufficient in reason to justify it So that I do not now object against a Doctrine which hath a fair probability of Divine Revelation on its side for that would weigh down all objections which did not plainly overthrow the probability and credit of its Divine Revelation But I object against a Doctrine by the mere will and Tyranny of men impos'd upon the belief of Christians without any evidence of Scripture and against all the evidence of Reason and Sense The Objection I shall reduce to these two Heads First The infinite scandal of this Doctrine to the Christian Religion And Secondly The monstrous and insupportable absurdity of it First The infinite scandal of this Doctrine to the Christian Religion And that upon these four accounts 1. Of the stupidity of this Doctrine 2. The real barbarousness of this Sacrament and Rite of our Religion upon supposition of the truth of this Doctrine 3. Of the cruel and bloudy consequences of it 4. Of the danger of Idolatry which they are certainly guilty of if this Doctrine be not true 1. Upon account of the stupidity of this Doctrine I remember that Tully who was a man of very good sense instanceth in the conceit of eating God as the extremity of madness and so stupid an apprehension as he thought no man was ever guilty of * De Nat. Deorum l. 3. When we call says he the fruits of the earth Ceres and wine Bacchus we use but the common language but do you think any man so mad as to believe that which he eats to be God It seems he could not believe that so extravagant a folly had ever entred into the mind of man It is a very severe saying of Averroes the Arabian Philosopher who lived after this Doctrine was entertained among Christians and ought to make the Church or Rome blush * Dionys Carthus in 4. dist 10. art 1. if she can I have travell'd says he over the world and have found divers Sects but so sottish a Sect or Law I never found as is the Sect of the Christians because with their own teeth they devour their God whom they worship It was great stupidity in the People of Israel to say Come let us make us Gods but it was civilly said of them Let us make us Gods that may go before us in comparison of the Church of Rome who say Let us make a God that we may eat him So that upon the whole matter I cannot but wonder that they should chuse thus to expose Faith to the contempt of all that are endued with Reason And to speak the plain truth the Christian Religion was never so horribly exposed to the scorn of Atheists and Infidels as it hath been by this most absurd and senseless Doctrine But thus it was foretold that †2 Thess 2.10 the Man of Sin should come with Power and Signs and Lying Miracles and with all deceiveableness of unrighteousness with all the Legerdemain and jugling tricks of falshood and imposture amongst which this of Transubstantiation which they call a Miracle and we a Cheat is one of the chief And in all probability those common jugling words of hocus pocus are nothing else but a corruption of hoc est corpus by way of ridiculous imitation of the Priests of the Church of Rome in their trick of Transubstantiation Into such contempt by this foolish Doctrine and pretended Miracle of theirs have they brought the most sacred and venerable Mystery of our Religion 2. It is very scandalous likewise upon account of the real barbarousness of this Sacrament and Rite of our Religion upon supposition of the truth of this Doctrine Literally to eat the flesh of the Son of man and to drink his bloud St. Austin as I have shewed before declares to be a great Impiety And the impiety and barbarousness of the thing is not in truth extenuated but onely the appearance of it by its being done under the Species of Bread and Wine For the thing they acknowledge is really done and they believe that they verily eat and drink the natural flesh and bloud of Christ And what can any man do more unworthily towards his
of gross Hypocrisie who pretend a further obligation of Conscience in this matter I shall give this plain Demonstration which relies upon Concessions generally made on all hands and by all Parties No Protestant that I know of holds himself obliged to go and Preach up his Religion and make Converts in Spain or Italy Nor do either the Protestant Ministers or Popish Priests think themselves bound in conscience to Preach the Gospel in Turky and to confute the Alcheran to convert the Mahometans And what is the Reason because of the severity of the Inquisition in Popish Countreys and of the Laws in Turky But doth the danger then alter the obligation of Conscience No certainly but it makes men throw off the false pretence and disguise of it But where there is a real obligation of Conscience danger should not deter men from their Duty as it did not the Apostles which shews their case to be different from ours and that probably this matter was stated right at first So that whatever is pretended this is certain that the Priests and Jesuites of the Church of Rome have in truth no more obligation of conscience to make Converts here in England than in Sueden or Turky where it seems the evident danger of the attempt hath for these many years given them a perfect discharge from their duty in this particular I shall joyn the Third and Fourth Observations together That though the true Religion may have several prejudices and objections against it yet upon examination there will be found those real advantages on its side that it may safely be referred to any considerate mans choice If it seem evil unto you to serve the Lord chuse you this day whom you will serve If it seem evil unto you Intimating that to some persons and upon some accounts it may appear so But when the matter is truly represented the choice is not difficult nor requires any long deliberation Chuse you this day whom you will serve Let but the Cause be fully and impartially heard and a wise man may determine himself upon the spot and give his Verdict without ever going from the Bar. The true Religion hath always layen under some prejudices with partial and inconsiderate men which commonly spring from one of these two Causes either the Prepossessions of a contrary Religion or the contrariety of the true Religion to the vicious inclinations and practices of men which usually lyes at the bottom of all prejudice against Religion Religion is an enemy to mens beloved lusts and therefore they are enemies to Religion I begin with the first which is as much as I shall be able to compass at this time I. The Prepossessions of a false Religion which commonly pretends two advantages on its side Antiquity and Vniversality and is wont to object to the true Religion Novelty and Singularity And both these are intimated both before and after the Text Put away the gods which your Father served on the other side of the flood and in Egypt And chuse you this day whom you will serve whether the gods which your Fathers served on the other side of the flood or the gods of the Amorites in whose land ye dwell Idolatry was the Religion of their Fathers and had spread it self over the greatest and most ancient Nations of the world and the most famous for Learning and Arts the Chaldeans and Egyptians and was the Religion of the Amorites and the Nations round about them So that Joshua represents the Heathen Religion with all its strength and advantage and do's not dissemble its confident pretence to Antiquity and Vniversality whereby they would also insinuate the Novelty and Singularity of the worship of the God of Israel And it is very well worthy our observation that one or both of these have always been the Exceptions of false Religions especially of Idolatry and Superstition against the true Religion The ancient Idolaters of the World pretended their Religion to be ancient and universal that their Fathers served these Gods and that the worship of the God of Israel was a plain Innovation upon the Ancient and Catholick Religion of the world and that the very first rise and original of it was within the memory of their Fathers and no doubt they were almost perpetually upon the Jews with that pert question Where was your Religion before Abraham and telling them that it was the Religion of a very small part and corner of the world confined within a little Territory But the great Nations of the world the Egyptians and Chaldeans famous for all kind of knowledge and wisedom and indeed all the Nations round about them worshipped other Gods And therefore it was an intolerable arrogance and singularity in them to condemn their Fathers and all the world to be of a Religion different from all other Nations and hereby to separate themselves and make a Schism from the rest of mankind And when the Gospel appeared in the world which the Apostle to the Hebrews to prevent the scandal of that word calls the time of Reformation the Jews and Heathen still renewed the same Objections against Christianity The Jews urged against it not the ancient Scriptures and the true word of God but that which they pretended to be of much greater Authority the unwritten Word the ancient and constant Traditions of their Church and branded this new Religion with the name of Heresie After the way saith St. Paul that you call Heresie so worship I the God of my Fathers believing all things that are written in the Law and in the Prophets By which we see that they of the Church of Rome were not the first who called it Heresie to reject humane Traditions and to make the Scriptures the Rule of Faith This was done long before by their reverend Predecessors the Scribes and and Pharisees And the Gentiles they pretended against it both Antiquity and Vniversality the constant belief and practice of all Ages and almost all Places of the World Sequimur majores nostros qui feliciter secuti sunt suos says Symmachus We follow our Fore-fathers who happily followed theirs But you bring in a new Religion never known nor heard of in the World before And when the Christian Religion was most miserably depraved and corrupted in that dismal night of Ignorance which overspread these Western parts of the World about the Ninth and Tenth Centùries and many pernicious Doctrines and Superstitious Practices were introduced to the wofull defacing of the Christian Religion and making it quite another thing from what our Saviour had left it and these Corruptions and Abuses had continued for several Ages No sooner was a Reformation attempted but the Church of Rome make the same outcry of Novelty and Singularity And though we have substantially answered it a thousand times yet we cannot obtain of them to forbear that threadbare Question Where was your Religion before Luther I shall therefore apply my self to answer these two Exceptions with
were the great Doctors among the Jews the Teachers and Interpreters of the Law of God And because many of them were of the Sect of the Pharisees which above all others pretended to skill and knowledge in the Law therefore it is that our blessed Saviour do's so often put the Scribes and Pharisees together And these were the men of chief Authority in the Jewish Church who equalled their own unwritten word and traditions with the Law of God Nay our Saviour tells us they made the Commandments of God of none effect by their traditions They did in effect assume to themselves infallibility and all that opposed and contradicted them they branded with the odious name of Hereticks Against these our Saviour denounced this Woe here in the Text Woe unto you Scribes and Pharisees Hypocrites for ye shut up the Kingdom of Heaven against Men c. All the difficulty in the words is what is here meant by shutting up the Kingdom of Heaven against Men St. Luke expresseth it more plainly ye have taken away the key of knowledge ye entred not in your selves and them that were entring in ye hindered By putting these two expressions together we shall the more easily come at the meaning of the Text. Ye have taken away the key of knowledge and have shut up the Kingdom of Heaven against Men. This Metaphor of the key of knowledge is undoubtedly an allusion to that known custome among the Jews in the admission of their Doctors For to whomsoever they gave Authority to interpret the Law and the Prophets they were solemnly admitted into that office by delivering to them a Key and a Table-book So that by the key of knowledge is here meant the interpretation and understanding of the Scriptures and by taking away the key of knowledge not onely that they arrogated to themselves alone the understanding of the Scriptures but likewise that they had conveyed away this key of knowledge and as it were hid it out of the way neither using it themselves as they ought nor suffering others to make use of it And thus they shut the Kingdom of Heaven against men which is very fitly said of those who have locked the door against them that were going in and have taken away the key By all which it appears that the plain meaning of our Saviour in these Metaphorical expressions is that the Scribes and Teachers of the Law under a pretence of interpreting the Scriptures had perverted them and kept the true knowledge of them from the People Especially those Prophecies of the Old Testament which concerned the Messias And by this means the Kingdom of Heaven was shut against men And they not only rejected the truth themselves but by keeping men in ignorance of the true meaning of the Scriptures they hindered many from embracing our Saviour's Doctrine and entering into the Kingdom of Heaven who were otherwise well enough disposed for it Having thus explained the words I shall from the main scope and design of them observe to you these two things 1. The Necessity of the knowledge of the holy Scriptures in order to our eternal Salvation It is called by our Saviour the key of knowledge that which lets men into the Kingdom of Heaven 2. The great and inexcusable fault of those who deprive the People of the knowledge of the holy Scriptures They hut the kingdom of heaven against men and do what in them lies to hinder their eternal Salvation and therefore our Saviour denounceth so heavy a woe against them I shall speak briefly to these two Observations and then apply them to those who are principally concerned in them I. First I observe hence the Necessity of the knowledge of the holy Scriptures in order to our eternal Salvation This is by our Saviour called the key of knowledge that which lets men into the Kingdom of Heaven Knowledge is necessary to Religion It is necessary to the Being of it and necessary to the life and practice of it Without Faith says the Apostle it is impossible to please God Because Faith is an act of the understanding and do's necessarily suppose some knowledge and apprehension of what we believe To all acts of Religion there is necessarily required some act of the Understanding so that without knowledge there can be no devotion in the service of God no obedience to his Laws Religion begins in the Understanding and from thence descends upon the heart and life If ye know these things says our Saviour happy are ye if ye do them We must first know God before we can worship him and understand what is his will before we can do it This is so very evident that one would think there needed no discourse about it And yet there are some in the World that cry up Ignorance as the Mother of Devotion And to shew that we do not wrong them in this matter Mr. Rushworth in his Dialogues a Book in great vogue among the Papists here in England does expresly reckon up Ignorance among the Parents of Religion And can any thing be said more absurdly and more to the disparagement of Religion than to derive the pedegree of the most excellent thing in the world from so obscure and ignoble an Original and to make that which the Scripture calls the beginning of wisdom and the excellency of knowledge to be the Off-spring of Ignorance and a Child of darkness Ignorance indeed may be the cause of wonder and admiration and the mother of folly and superstition But surely Religion is of a nobler Extraction and is the issue and result of the best wisdom and knowledge and descends from above from the giver of every good and perfect gift even the father of lights And as knowledge in general is necessary to Religion so more particularly the knowledge of the holy Scriptures is necessary to our eternal Salvation Because these are the great and standing Revelation of God to mankind wherein the Nature of God and his Will concerning our duty and the terms and conditions of our eternal happiness in another World are fully and plainly declared to us The Scriptures are the Word of God and from whence can we learn the will of God so well as from his own mouth They are the great instrument of our Salvation and should not every man be acquainted with that which alone can perfectly instruct him what he must believe and what he must do that he may be saved This is the testimony which the Scripture gives of it self that it is able to make men wise unto salvation And is it not very fit that every man should have this wisdom and in order thereunto the free use of that Book from whence this wisdom is to be learned II. Secondly I observe the great and inexcusable fault of those who keep men in Ignorance of Religion and take away from them so excellent and necessary a means of divine knowledge as the H. Scriptures are This our Saviour calls taking away the