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
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
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
key of knowledge and shutting the Kingdom of Heaven against Men That is doing what in them lies to render it impossible for men to be saved For this he denounceth a terrible Woe against the Teachers of the Jewish Church Though they did not proceed so far as to deprive men of the use of the H. Scriptures but only of the right knowledge and understanding of them This alone is a horrible impiety to lead men into a false sense and interpretation of Scripture but much greater to forbid them the reading of it This is to stop knowledge at the very Fountain-head and not only to lead men into Errour but to take away from them all possibility of rectifying their mistakes And can there be a greater sacrilege than to rob men of the word of God the best means in the world of acquainting them with the will of God and their duty and the way to eternal happiness To keep the people in Ignorance of that which is necessary to save them is to judge them unworthy of eternal life and to declare it do's not belong to them and maliciously to contrive the eternal ruine and destruction of their Souls To lock up the Scriptures and the service of God from the people in an unknown tongue what is this but in effect to forbid men to know God and to serve him to render them incapable of knowing what is the good and acceptable will of God of joyning in his worship or performing any part of it or receiving any benefit or edification from it And what is if this be not to shut the Kingdom of Heaven against men This is so outragious a cruelty to the souls of men that it is not to be excused upon any pretence whatsoever This is to take the surest and most effectual way in the world to destroy those for whom Christ dyed and directly to thwart the great design of God our Saviour who would have all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth Men may misâ—â—â—ry with their knowledge but they are sure to perish for want of it The best things in the world have their inconveniences aâ—â—â—ding them and are liable to be aâ—used but surely men are not to be ruâ—â—â—d and damned for fear of abusing their knowledge or for the prevention of any other inconvenience whatsoever Besides this is to cross the very end of the Scriptures and the design of God in inspiring men to write them Can any man think that God should send this great light of his Word into the world for the Priests to hide it under a bushel and not rather that it should be set up to the greatest advantage for the enlightening of the world St. Paul tells us Rom. 15. 4. That whatsoever things were written were written for our learning that we through patience and comfort of the Scriptures might have hope And 2 Tim. 3.16 That all Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is prositable for doctrine for reproof for correction for instruction in righteousness And if the Scriptures were written for these ends can any man have the face to pretend that they do not concern the people as well as their teachers Nay St. Paul expresly tells the Churâ—â— of Rome that they were written for their learning however it happens that they are not now permitted to make use of them Are the Scriptures so usefull and profitable for doctrine for reproof for instruction in righteousness and why may they not be used by the people for those ends for which they were given 'T is true indeed they are fit for the most knowing and learned and sufficient to make the man of God perfect and throughly furnished to every good work as the Apostle there tells us But do's this exclude their being profitable also to the people who may reasonably be presumed to stand much more in need of all means and helps of instruction than their Teachers And though there be many difficulties and obscurities in the Scriptures enough to exercise the skill and wit of the learned yet are they not therefore either useless or dangerous to the People The ancient Fathers of the Church were of another mind St. Chrysostome tells us that Whatever things are necessary are manifest in the Scriptures And St. Austin that all things are plain in the Scripture which concern faith and a good life and that those things which are necessary to the Salvation of men are not so hard to be come at but that as to those things which the Scripture plainly contains it speaks without disguise like a familiar friend to the heart of the learned and unlearned And upon these and such like considerations the Fathers did every where in their Orations Homilies charge and exhort the people to be conversant in the holy Scriptures to reade them daily and diligently and attentively And I challenge our Adversaries to shew me where any of the ancient Fathers do discourage the people from reading the Scriptures much less forbid them so to do So that they who do it now have no Cloak for their sin And they who pretend so confidently to Antiquity in other cases are by the evidence of truth forced to acknowledge that it is against them in this Though they have ten thousand Schoolmen on their side yet have they not one Father not the least pretence of Scripture or rag of antiquity to cover their nakedness in this point With great reason then does our Saviour denounce so heavy a Woe againd such teachers Of old in the like case God by his Prophet severely threatens the Priests of the Jewish Church for not instructing the people in the knowledge of God Hosea 4.6 My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge because thou hast rejected knowledge I will also reject thee thou shalt be no more a Priest to me seeing thou hast forgotten the Law of thy God I will also forget thy Children God you see lays the ruine of so many Souls at their doors and will require their blood at their hands So many as perish for want of knowledge and eternally miscarry by being deprived of the necessary means of Salvation their destruction shall be charged upon those who have taken away the key of knowledge and shut the kingdom of heaven against men And it is just with God to punish such persons not only as the occasion but as the Authours of their ruine For who can judge otherwise but that they who deprive men of the necessary means to any end do purposely design to hinder them of attaining that end And whatever may be pretended in this case to deprive men of the holy Scriptures and to keep them ignorant of the service of God and yet while they do so to make a shew of an earnest desire of their Salvation is just such a mockery as if one of you that is a master should tell his prentice how much you desire he should thrive in the world and be a rich
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
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
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
end of an oath is hereby likewise defeated which is to ascertain the truth of what we say But if a man reserve something in his mind which alters the truth of what he says the thing is still as doubtfull and uncertain as it was before Besides if this be a good reason a man may swear with reservation in all cases because the reason equally extends to all cases for if the truth of the proposition as made up of what is express'd in words and reserv'd in the mind will excuse a man from Perjury then no man can be perjur'd that swears with reservation But this the Casuists of the Roman Church do not allow but only in some particular cases as before an incompetent Judge or the like for they see well enough that if this were allow'd in all cases it would destroy all Faith among men And therefore since the reason extends alike to all cases it is plain that it is to be allow'd in none 4thly He is guilty of Perjury after the act who having a real intention when he swears to perform what he promiseth yet afterwards neglects to do it Not for want of Power for so long as that continues the obligation ceaseth but for want of Will and due regard to his oath Now that Perjury is a most heinous Sin is evident because it is contrary to so plain and great a Law of God one of the ten Words or Precepts of the Moral Law thou shalt not take the Name of the Lord thy God in vain thou shalt not bring or apply the name of God to a falshood Or as Josephus renders it Thou shalt not adjure God to a false thing Which our Saviour renders yet more plainly Matth. 5.33 Thou shalt not forswear thy self For he seems to refer to the third Commandment when he says Ye have heard that it was said to them of old time thou shalt not forswear thy self as he had done before to the 6th and 7th when he says It was said to them of old time thou shalt not kill thou shalt not commit adultery So that the primary if not the sole intention of this Law Thou shalt not take the Name of the Lord thy God in vain is to forbid the great sin of Perjury And I do not remember that in Scripture the phrase of taking God's name in vain is used in any other sense And thus it is certainly used Prov. 30.9 Lest I be poor and steal and take the name of the Lord my God in vain i. e. lest Poverty should tempt me to steal and stealth should engage me in Perjury For among the Jews an oath was tendered to him that was suspected of theft as appears from Levit. 6.2 where it is said If any one be guilty of theft and lyeth concerning it or sweareth falsly he shall restore all that about which he hath sworn falsly Lest I steal and take the name of the Lord my God in vain that is be perjured being examined upon oath concerning a thing stoln And for this reason the thief and the perjured person are put together Zech. 5.4 where it is said that a curse shall enter into the house of the thief and of him that sweareth falsly by the name of God From all which it is very probable that the whole intention of the 3d. Commandment is to forbid this great sin of Perjury To deter men from which a severe threatning is there added for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain that is he will most severely punish such a one And 't is very observable that there is no threatning added to any other Commandment but to this and the second Intimating to us that next to Idolatry and the worship of a false God Perjury is one of the greatest affronts that can be offered to the divine Majesty This is one of those sins that cries so loud to Heaven and quickens the pace of God's judgments Mal. 3.9 I will come near to you in judgement and be a swift witness against the swearer For this God threatens utter destruction to the man and his house Zech. 5.4 speaking of the curse that goeth over the face of the whole earth God says he will bring it forth and it shall enter into the house of him that sweareth falsly by the name of God and shall remain in the midst of his house and shall consume it with the timber thereof and the stones thereof It shall remain in the midst of his house and shall consume it This sin by the secret judgment of God undermines Estates and Families to the utter mine of them And among the Heathen it was always reckoned one of the greatest of Crimes and which they did believe God did not only punish upon the guilty person himself but upon his family and posterity and many times upon whole Nations as the Prophet also tells us that because of Oaths the Land mourns I need not use many words to aggravate this sin it is certainly a Crime of the highest nature Deliberate Perjury being directly against a man's knowledge so that no man can commit it without staring his Conscience in the face which is one of the greatest aggravations of any Crime And it is equally a sin against both Tables being the highest affront to God and of most injurious consequence to men It is an horrible abuse of the name of God an open contempt of his Judgment and an insolent defiance of his Vengeance And in respect of men it is not only a wrong to this or that particular person who suffers by it but Treason against humane Society subverting at once the foundations of publick Peace and Justice and the private security of every man's life and fortune It is a defeating of the best and last way that the wisdom of men could devise for the decision of doubtfull matters Solomon very fully and elegantly expresseth the destructive nature of this sin Prov. 25.18 A false witness against his neighbour is a maul and a sword and a sharp arrow Intimating that amongst all the instruments of ruine and mischief that have been devised by mankind none is of more pernicious consequence to humane Society than Perjury and breach of Faith It is a pestilence that usually walketh in darkness and a secret stab and blow against which many times there is no possibility of defence And therefore it highly concerns those who upon these and the like occasions are called upon their Oath whether as Jurors or Witnesses to set God before their eyes and to have his fear in their hearts whenever they come to take an oath And to govern and discharge their consciences in this matter by known and approved Rules and by the Resolutions of pious and wise men and not by tht loose Reasonings and Resolutions of Pamphlets sent abroad to serve the turns of unpeaceable and ill-minded men whether Atheists or Papists or others on purpose to debauch the Consciences of men by teaching them to
(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
Sacram. l. 1. Alger de Sacram. l. 1. c. 19. that the bread and wine which are set upon the Altar after the consecration are not onely the Sacrament but the true body and bloud of our Lord Jesus Christ and are sensibly not onely in the Sacrament but in truth handled and broken by the hands of the Priest and ground or bruised by the teeth of the faithfull But it seems the Pope and his Council were not then skilfull enough to express themselves rightly in this matter for the Gloss upon the Canon Law says expresly †Gloss Decret de consecrat dist 2. in cap. Ego Berengarius that unless we understand these words of BERENGARIVS that is in truth of the Pope and his Council in a sound sense we shall fall into a greater Heresie than that of BERENGARIVS for we do not make parts of the body of Christ The meaning of which Gloss I cannot imagine unless it be this that the Body of Christ though it be in truth broken yet it is not broken into parts for we do not make parts of the bods of Christ but into wholes Now this new way of breaking a Body not into parts but into wholes which in good earnest is the Doctrine of the Church of Rome though to them that are able to believe Transubstantiation it may for any thing I know appear to be sound sense yet to us that cannot believe so it appears to be solid non-sense About XX years after in the year MLXXIX Pope Gregory the VII th began to be sensible of this absurdity and therefore in another Council at Rome made Berengarius to recant in another Form viz. * Waldens Tom. 2. c. 13. that the bread and wine which are placed upon the Altar are substantially changed into the true and proper and quickning flesh and bloud of our Lord Jesus Christ and after consecration are the true body of Christ which was born of the Virgin and which being offered for the Salvation of the World did hang upon the Cross and sits on the right hand of the Father So that from the first starting of this Doctrine in the second Council of Nice in the year DCCLXXXVII till the Council under Pope Gregory the VII th in the year MLXXIX it was almost three hundred years that this Doctrine was contested and before this mishapen Monster of Transubstantiation could be lick'd into that Form in which it is now setled and establish'd in the Church of Rome Here then is a plain account of the first rise of this Doctrine and of the several steps whereby it was advanced by the Church of Rome into an Article of Faith I come now in the Third place to answer the great pretended Demonstration of the impossibility that this Doctrine if it had been new should ever have come in in any Age and been received in the Church and consequently it must of necessity have been the perpetual belief of the Church in all Ages For if it had not always been the Doctrine of the Church whenever it had attempted first to come in there would have been a great stir and bustle about it and the whole Christian World would have rose up in opposition to it But we can shew no such time when first it came in and when any such opposition was made to it and therefore it was always the Doctrine of the Church This Demonstration Monsieur Arnauld a very learned Man in France pretends to be unanswerable whether it be so or not I shall briefly examine And First we do assign a punctual and very likely time of the first rise of this Doctrine about the beginning of the ninth Age though it did not take firm root nor was fully setled and establish'd till towards the end of the eleventh And this was the most likely time of all other from the beginning of Christianity for so gross an Error to appear it being by the confession and consent of their own Historians the most dark and dismal time that ever happened to the Christian Church both for Ignorance and Superstition and Vice It came in together with Idolatry and was made use of to support it A fit prop and companion for it And indeed what tares might not the Enemy have sown in so dark and long a Night when so considerable a part of the Christian World was lull'd asleep in profound Ignorance and Superstition And this agrees very well with the account which our Saviour himself gives in the Parable of the Tares of the springing up of Errours and Corruptions in the Field of the Church * Matth. 13.24 While the men slept the Enemy did his work in the Night so that when they were awake they wondered how and whence the tares came but being sure they were there and that they were not sown at first they concluded the Enemy had done it Secondly I have shewn likewise that there was considerable opposition made to this Errour at its first coming in The general Ignorance and gross Superstition of that Age rendered the generality of people more quiet and secure and disposed them to receive any thing that came under a pretence of mystery in Religion and of greater reverence and devotion to the Sacrament and that seemed any way to countenance the worship of Images for which at that time they were zealously concern'd But notwithstanding the security and passive temper of the People the men most eminent for piety and learning in that Time made great resistance against it I have already named Rabanus Arch Bishop of Mentz who oppos'd it as an Errour lately sprung up and which had then gained but upon some few persons To whom I may add Heribaldus Bishop of Auxerres in France Io. Scotus Erigena and Ratramnus commonly known by the name of Bertram who at the same time were employed by the Emperour Charles the Bald to oppose this growing Errour and wrote learnedly against it And these were the eminent men for learning in that time And because Monsieur Arnauld will not be satisfied unless there were some stir and bustle about it Bertram in his Preface to his Book tells us that they who according to their several opinions talked differently about the mystery of Christ's body and bloud were divided by no small Schism Thirdly Though for a more clear and satisfactory answer to this pretended Demonstration I have been contented to untie this knot yet I could without all these pains have cut it For suppose this Doctrine had silently come in and without opposition so that we could not assign the particular time and occasion of its first Rise yet if it be evident from the Records of former Ages for above D. years together that this was not the ancient belief of the Church and plain also that this Doctrine was afterwards received in the Roman Church though we could not tell how and when it came in yet it would be the wildest and most extravagant thing in the world to set up a
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
doubted whether that kind of confirmation which God hath given to the Christian Religion would be strong enough to prove it supposing Transubstantiation to be a part of it Because every man hath as great evidence that Transubstantiation is false as he hath that the Christian Religion is true Suppose then Transubstantiation to be part of the Christian Doctrine it must have the same confirmation with the whole and that is Miracles But of all Doctrines in the world it is peculiarly incapable of being proved by a Miracle For if a Miracle were wrought for the proof of it the very same assurance which any man hath of the truth of the Miracle he hath of the falshood of the Doctrine that is the clear evidence of his Senses For that there is a Miracle wrought to prove that what he sees in the Sacrament is not bread but the body of Christ there is onely the evidence of sense and there is the very same evidence to prove that what he sees in the Sacrament is not the body of Christ but bread So that here would arise a new Controversie whether a man should rather believe his Senses giving testimony against the Doctrine of Transubstantiation or bearing witness to a Miracle wrought to confirm that Doctrine there being the very same evidence against the truth of the Doctrine which there is for the truth of the Miracle And then the Argument for Transubstantiation and the Objection against it would just ballance one another and consequently Transubstantiation is not to be proved by a Miracle because that would be to prove to a man by some thing that he sees that he doth not see what he sees And if there were no other evidence that Transubstantiation is no part of the Christian Doctrine this would be sufficient that what proves the one doth as much overthrow the other and that Miracles which are certainly the best and highest external proof of Christianity are the worst proof in the world of Transubstantiation unless a man can renounce his senses at the same time that he relies upon them For a man cannot believe a Miracle without relying upon sense nor Transubstantiation without renouncing it So that never were any two things so ill coupled together as the Doctrine of Christianity and that of Transubstantiation because they draw several ways and are ready to strangle one another For the main evidence of the Christian Doctrine which is Miracles is resolved into the certainty of sense but this evidence is clear and point-blank against Transubstantiation 4. And Lastly I would ask what we are to think of the Argument which our Saviour used to convince his Disciples after his Resurrection that his Body was really risen and that they were not deluded by a Ghost or Apparition Is it a necessary and conclusive Argument or not * Luk. 24.38 39. And he said unto them why are ye troubled and why do thoughts arise in your hearts Behold my hands and my feet that it is I my self for a Spirit hath not flesh and bones as ye see me have But now if we suppose with the Church of Rome the Doctrine of Transubstantiation to be true and that he had instructed his Disciples in it just before his death strange thoughts might justly have risen in their hearts and they might have said to him Lord it is but a few days ago since thou didst teach us not to believe our senses but directly contrary to what we saw viz. that the bread which thou gavest us in the Sacrament though we saw it and handled it and tasted it to be bread yet was not bread but thine own natural body and now thou appealed to our senses to prove that this is thy body which we now see If seeing and handling be an unquestionable evidence that things are what they appear to our senses then we were deceived before in the Sacrament and if they be not then we are not sure now that this is thy body which we now see and handle but it may be perhaps bread under the appearance of flesh and bones just as in the Sacrament that which we saw and handled and tasted to be bread was thy flesh and bones under the form and appearance of bread Now upon this supposition it would have been a hard matter to have quieted the thoughts of the Disciples For if the Argument which our Saviour used did certainly prove to them that what they saw and handled was his body his very natural flesh and bones because they saw and handled them which it were impious to deny it would as strongly prove that what they saw and received before in the Sacrament was not the natural body and bloud of Christ but real bread and wine And consequently that according to our Saviour's arguing after his Resurrection they had no reason to believe Transubstantiation before For that very Argument by which our Saviour proves the reality of his body after his Resurrection doth as strongly prove the reality of bread and wine after Consecration But our Saviour's Argument was most infallibly good and true and therefore the Doctrine of Transubstantiation is undoubtedly false Upon the whole matter I shall onely say this that some other Points between us and the Church of Rome are managed with some kind of wit and subtilty but this of Transubstantiation is carried out by mere dint of impudence and facing down of Mankind And of this the more discerning persons of that Church are of late grown so sensible that they would now be glad to be rid of this odious and ridiculous Doctrine But the Council of Trent hath rivetted it so fast into their Religion and made it so necessary and essential a Point of their belief that they cannot now part with it if they would it is like a Mill-stone hung about the neck of Popery which will sink it at the last And though some of their greatest Wits as Cardinal Perron and of late Monsieur Arnauld have undertaken the defence of it in great Volumes yet it is an absurdity of that monstrous and massy weight that no humane authority or wit are able to support it It will make the very Pillars of St. Peter's crack and requires more Volumes to make it good than would fill the Vatican And now I would apply my self to the poor deluded People of that Church if they were either permitted by their Priests or durst venture without their leave to look into their Religion and to examine the Doctrines of it Consider and shew your selves men Do not suffer your selves any longer to be led blindfold and by an implicit Faith in your Priests into the belief of nonsense and contradiction Think it enough and too much to let them rook you of your money for pretended Pardons and counterfeit Reliques but let not the Authority of any Priest or Church persuade you out of your Senses Credulity is certainly a fault as well as Infidelity and he who said blessed are they that have
not seen and yet have believed hath no where said blessed are they that have seen and yet have not believed much less blessed are they that believe directly contrary to what they see To conclude this Discourse By what hath been said upon this Argument it will appear with how little truth and reason and regard to the interest of our common Christianity it is so often said by our Adversaries that there are as good arguments for the belief of Transubstantiation as of the Doctrine of the Trinity When they themselves do acknowledge with us that the Doctrine of the Trinity is grounded upon the Scriptures and that according to the interpretation of them by the consent of the ancient Fathers But their Doctrine of Transubstantiation I have plainly shewn to have no such ground and that this is acknowledged by very many learned men of their own Church And this Doctrine of theirs being first plainly proved by us to be destitute of all Divine Warrant and Authority our Objections against it from the manifold contradictions of it to Reason and Sense are so many Demonstrations of the falshood of it Against all which they have nothing to put in the opposite Scale but the Infallibility of their Church for which there is even less colour of proof from Scripture than for Transubstantiation it self But so fond are they of their own Innovations and Errours that rather than the Dictates of their Church how groundless and absurd soever should be call'd in question rather than not have their will of us in imposing upon us what they please they will overthrow any Article of the Christian Faith and shake the very foundations of our common Religion A clear evidence that the Church of Rome is not the true Mother since she can be so well contented that Christianity should be destroyed rather than the Point in question should be decided against her THE Protestant Religion Vindicated from the Charge of Singularity and Novelty IN A SERMON Preached before the KING At WHITE-HALL April the 2d 1680. JOSHUA XXIV 15. If it seem evil unto you to serve the Lord chuse you this day whom you will serve THese are the words of Joshua who after he had brought the People of Israel thorough many difficulties and hazards into the quiet possession of the promised land like a good Prince and Father of his Country was very sollicitous before his death to lay the firmest foundation he could devise of the future happiness and prosperity of that People in whose present settlement he had by the blessing of God been so succesfull an instrument And because he knew no means so effectual to this end as to confirm them in the Religion and Worship of the true God who had by so remarkable and miraculous a Providence planted them in that good Land he summons the people together and represents to them all those considerations that might engage them and their posterity for ever to continue in the true Religion He tells them what God had already done for them and what he had promised to do more if they would be faithfull to him And on the other hand what fearfull calamities he had threatned and would certainly bring upon them in case they should transgress his Covenant and go and serve other Gods And after many Arguments to this purpose he concludes with this earnest Exhortation at the 14th verse Now therefore fear the Lord and serve him in sincerity and in truth and put away the Gods which your father served on the other side of the flood and in Egypt and serve ye the Lord. And to give the greater weight and force to this Exhortation he do's by a very eloquent kind of insinuation as it were once more set them at liberty and leave them to their own election It being the nature of man to stick more stedfastly to that which is not violently imposed but is our own free and deliberate choice And if it seem evil unto you to serve the Lord chuse you this day whom you will serve Which words offer to our consideration these following Observations 1. It is here supposed that a Nation must be of some Religion or other Joshua do's not put this to their choice but takes it for granted 2. That though Religion be a matter of choice yet it is neither a thing indifferent in it self nor to a good Governour what Religion his people are of Joshua do's not put it to them as if it were an indifferent matter whether they served God or Idols he had sufficiently declared before which of these was to be preferred 3. The true Religion may have several prejudices and objections against it If it seem evil unto you to serve the Lord intimating that upon some accounts and to some persons it may appear so 4. That the true Religion hath those real advantages on its side that it may safely be referr'd to any considerate mans choice And this seems to be the true Reason why Joshua refers it to them Not that he thought the thing indifferent but because he was fully satisfied that the truth and goodness of the one above the other was so evident that there was no danger that any prudent man should make a wrong choice If it seem evil unto you to serve the Lord chuse you this day whom you will serve intimating that the plain difference of the things in competition would direct them what to chuse 5. The Example of Princes and Governours hath a very great influence upon the people in matters of Religion This I collect from the Context And Joshua was sensible of it and therefore though he firmly believed the true Religion to have those advantages that would certainly recommend it to every impartial mans judgment yet knowing that the multitude are easily imposed upon and led into error he thought fit to encline and determine them by his own example and by declaring his own peremptory resolution in the case Chuse you this day whom you will serve as for me I and my house will serve the Lord. Laws are a good security to Religion but the Example of Governours is a living Law which secretly overrules the minds of men and bends them to a compliance with it Non sic inflectere sensus Humanos edicta valent ut vita Regentis The Lives and Actions of Princes have usually a greater sway upon the minds of the People than their Laws All these Observations are I think very natural and very considerable I shall not be able to speak to them all but shall proceed so far as the time and your patience will give me leave First It is here supposed that a Nation must be of some Religion or other Joshua do's not put it to their choice whether they would worship any Deity at all That had been too wild and extravagant a supposition and which it is likely in those days had never entered into any mans mind But he takes it for granted that all people will
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