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
Prophet who teacheth any thing contrary to that natural Notion which men have That there is but one God who only ought to be worshipped 5. Nothing ought to he received as a Divine Doctrine and Revelation without good evidence that it is so that is without some Argument sufficient to satisfie a prudent and considerate man Now supposing there be nothing in the matter of the Revelation that is evidently contrary to the Principles of Natural Religion nor to any former Revelation which hath already received a greater and more solemn attestation from God Miracles are owned by all Mankind to be a sufficient Testimony to any Person or Doctrine that are from God This was the Testimony which God gave to Moses to satisfie the people of Israel that he had sent him Exed 4.1 2. Moses said They will not believe me nor hearken unto my voice for they will say The Lord hath not appeared unto thee Upon this God endues him with a power of Miracles to be an evidence to them That they may believe that the God of their Fathers Abraham Isaac and Jacob hath appeared unto thee And all along in the Old Testament when God sent his Prophets to make a new Revelation or upon any strange and extraordinary message he always gave credit to them by some Sign or Wonder which they foretold or wrought And when he sent his Son into the World he gave Testimony to him by innumerable great and unquestionable Miracles more and grearer than Moses and all the Prophets had wrought And there was great reason for this because our Saviour came not only to publish a new Religion to the World but to put an end to that Religion which God had instituted before And now that the Gospel hath had the confirmation of such Miracles as never were wrought upon any other occasion no Evidence inferiour to this can in reason controul this Revelation or give credit to any thing contrary to it And therefore though the false Prophets and Antichrists foretold by our Saviour did really work Miracles yet they were so inconsiderable in comparison of our Saviour's that they deserve no credit in opposition to that Revelation which had so clear a Testimony given to it from Heaven by Miracles besides all other concurring Arguments to confirm it 6. And Lastly No Argument is sufficient to prove a Doctrine or Revelation to be from God which is not clearer and stronger than the Difficulties and Objections against it Because all assent is grounded upon Evidence and the strongest and clearest evidence always carries it But where the evidence is equal on both sides that can produce nothing but a suspense and doubt in the mind whether the thing be true or not If Moses had not confuted Pharaoh's Magicians by working Miracles which they could not work they might reasonably have disputed it with him who had been the true Prophet But when he did works plainly above the power of their Magick and the Devil to do then they submitted and acknowledged that there was the Finger of God So likewise though a person work a Miracle which ordinarily is a good evidence that he is sent by God yet if the Doctrine he brings be plainly contrary to those natural Notions which we have of God this is a better objection against the truth of this Doctrine than the other is a proof of it as is plain in the case which Moses puts Deut. 13. which I mentioned before Upon the same account no man can reasonably believe the Doctrine of Transubstantiation to be revealed by God because every man hath as great evidence that Transubstantiation is false as any man can pretend to have that God hath revealed any such thing Suppose 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 a 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 both For that there is a Miracle wrought to prove that what he sees in the Sacrament is not bread but the body of Christ he hath onely the evidence of his senses and he hath the very same evidence to prove that what he sees in the Sacrament is not the body of Christ but bread So that here ariseth a new controversie whether a man should believe his senses giving testimony against the Doctrine of Transubstantiation or bearing testimony to the Miracle which is wrought to confirm that Doctrine For there is just the same evidence against the truth of the Doctrine which there is for the truth of the Miracle So that the Argument for Transubstantiation and the Objection against it do just ballance one another and where the weights in Both Scales are equal it is impossible that the one should weigh down the other and consequently Transubstantiation is not to be proved by a Miracle for that would be to prove to a man by something that he sees that he does not see what he sees And thus I have endeavoured as briefly and clearly as I could to give satisfaction to the first Enquiry I propounded viz. How we may discern between true and counterfeit Revelations and Doctrines I proceed now to the II To whom this judgement of Discerning does appertain Whether to Christians in general or to some particular Person or Persons authorised by God to judge for the rest of mankind by whose judgment all men are concluded and bound up And this is an enquiry of no small Importance because it is one of the most fundamental Points in difference between Us and the Church of Rome And however in many particular Controversies as concerning Transubstantiation the Communion in one kind the Service of God in an unknown Tongue the business of Indulgences the Invocation of Saints the Worship of Images they are not able to offer any thing that is fit to move a reasonable and considerate man yet in this Controversie concerning the Judge of Controversies they are not destitute of some specious appearance of Reason which deserves to be weighed and considered Therefore that we may examine this matter to the bottom I shall do these three things 1. Lay down some Cautions and Limitations whereby we may understand how far the generality of Christians are allowed to judge in matters of Religion 2. I shall represent the grounds of this Principle 3. Endeavour to satisfie the main Objection of our Adversaries against it And likewise to shew that there is no such reason and necessity for an universal infallible Judge as they pretend I. I shall lay down some Cautions and Limitations by which we may understand how far the generality of Christians are allowed to judge in matters of Religion First Private Persons are onely to judge for themselves
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
that for our greater assurance and comfort God hath confirmed his promises to us by an Oath condescending herein to deal with us after the manner of men who when they would give credit to a doubtful matter confirm what they say by an Oath And generally when any doubt or controversie ariseth between Parties concerning a matter of fact one side affirming and the other denying an end is put to this contest by an Oath An Oath for confirmation being to them an end of all strife An Oath for confirmation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the greater assurance and establishment of a thing Not that an Oath is always a certain and infallible decision of things according to truth and right but that this is the utmost credit that we can give to any thing and the last resort of truth and confidence among men After this we can go no farther for if the Religion of an Oath will not oblige men to speak truth nothing will This is the utmost secutity that men can give and must therefore be the final decision of all contests An Oath for confirmation is to them an end of all strife Now from this assertion of the Apostle concerning the great use and end of Oaths among men I shall take occasion 1. To consider the nature of an Oath and the kinds of it 2. To shew the great use and even necessity of Oaths in many cases 3. To vindicate the lawfulness of them where they are necessary 4. To shew the sacred obligation of an Oath I shall be as brief in these as the just handling of them will bear I. For the nature of an Oath and the kinds of it An Oath is an invocation of God or an appeal to him as a witness of the truth of what we say So that an Oath is a sacred thing as being an act of Religion and an invocation of the Name of God And this whether the Name of God be expresly mentioned in it or not If a man only say I swear or I take my Oath that a thing is or is not so or so or that I will or will not do such a thing Or if a man answer upon his Oath being adjured and required so to do Or if a man swear by Heaven or by Earth or by any other thing that hath relation to God in all these cases a man doth virtually call God to witness and in so doing he doth by consequence invoke him as a Judge and an Avenger in case what he swears be not true And if this be exprest the Oath is a formal Imprecation but whether it be or not a curse upon our selves is always implied in case of perjury There are two sorts of Oaths Assertory and Promissory An assertory Oath is when a man affirms or denies upon oath a matter of fact past or present When he swears that a thing was or is so or not so A promissory Oath is a promise confirmed by an Oath which always respects something that is future And if the promise be made directly and immediately to God then it is called a Vow if to men an Oath I proceed to the II. Thing which is to shew the great use and even necessity of Oaths in many cases Which is so great that humane Society can very hardly if at all subsist long without them Government would many times be very insecure and for the faithful discharge of Offices of great trust in which the welfare of the Publick is nearly concerned it is not possible to find any security equal to that of an Oath because the obligation of that reacheth to the most secret and hidden practices of men and takes hold of them in many cases where the penalty of no humane Law can have any awe or force upon them And especially it is as the Civil Law expresseth it maximum expediendarum litium remedium the best means of ending controversies And where mens estates or lives are concerned no evidence but what is assured by an Oath will be thought sufficient to decide the matter so as to give full and general satisfaction to mankind For in matters of so great concernment when men have all the assurance that can be had and not till then they are contented to sit down and rest satisfied with it And among all Nations an Oath hath always been thought the only peremptory and satisfactory way of deciding such controversies III. The third thing I proposed was to vindicate the lawfulness of Oaths where they are necessary And it is a very strong inducement to believe the lawfulness of them that the unavoidable condition of humane affairs hath made them so necessary The Apostle takes it for granted that an Oath is not only of great use in humane affairs but in many cases of great necessity to confirm a doubtful thing and to put an end to controversies which cannot otherwise be decided to the satisfaction of the Parties contending An oath for confirmation is to them an end of all strife And indeed it is hardly imaginable that God should not have left that lawful which is so evidently necessary to the peace and security of Mankind But because there is a Sect sprung up in our memory which hath called in question the lawfulness of all Oaths to the great mischief and disturbance of humane Society I shall endeavour to search this matter to the bottom and to manifest how unreasonable and groundless this Opinion is And to this end I shall First Prove the lawfulness of Oaths from the authority of this Text and from the reasons plainly contained or strongly implied in it Secondly I shall shew the weakness and insufficiency of the grounds of the contrary Opinion whether from Reason or from Scripture which last they principally rely upon and if it could be made out from thence would determine the case 1. I shall prove the lawfulness of Oaths from the authority of this Text and the reasons plainly contained or strongly implied in it Because the Apostle doth not only speak of the use of Oaths among men without any manner of censure and reproof but as a commendable custom and practice and in many cases necessary for the confirmation of doubtful matters and in order to the final decision of Controversies and Differences among men For First He speaks of it as the general practice of Mankind to confirm things by an oath in order to the ending of differences And indeed there is nothing that hath more universally obtained in all Ages and Nations of the World than which there is not a more certain indication that a thing is agreeable to the Law of Nature and the best Reason of Mankind And that this was no degenerate practice of Mankind like that of Idolatry is from hence evident that when God separated a People to himself it was practised among them by the holy Patriarchs Abraham Isaac and Jacob and was afterwards not only allowed but in many Cases commanded by the Law of Moses which had it
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