by it he forfeits his natural Knowledge and has no supernatural Knowledge in the room of it For how can a man know and understand that which is contrary to all the natural Knowledge and Understanding he has There may be some revealed Principles of Knowledge super-added to natural Principles and these things we may know to be so though we have no natural Notion of them and this perfects because it enlarges our Knowledge as the Knowledge of three Divine Persons super-added to the natural Belief of one Supreme God which does not overthrow the belief of one God but only acquaints us that there are three Divine Persons in the Unity of the Godhead which whatever difficulty there may be in apprehending it yet overthrows no natural Notion this is an improvement of Knowledge because we know all we did before and we know something more that as there is one God so there are three Persons who are this one God and though we have no natural Notion of this how three Persons are one God because we know no distinction between Person and Essence in Finite Beings yet we have no natural Notion that there cannot be more Persons than one in an Infinite Essence and therefore this may be known by Revelation because there is no natural Notion against it But now I can never know that which is contrary to all the Principles of Knowledge I have such men may believe it who think it a Vertue to believe against Knowledge Who can believe that to be true which they know to be false For whatever is contrary to the plain and necessary Principles of Reason which all Mankind agree in I know must be false if my Faculties be true and if my Faculties be not true then I can know nothing at all neither by Reason nor Revelation because I have no true Faculties to know with Revelation is a Principle of Knowledge as well as Faith when it does not contradict our natural Knowledge of things for God may teach us that which Nature does not teach and thus Revelation improves enlarges and perfects Knowledge in such cases Faith serves instead of natural Knowledge the Authority of the Revelation instead of the natural Notions and Idea's of our Minds but I can never know that by Revelation which contradicts my natural Knowledge which would be not only to know that which I have no natural Knowledge of which is the Knowledge of Faith but to know that by Revelation which by Reason and Nature I know cannot be which is to know that which I know cannot be known because I know it cannot be So that Transubstantiation which contradicts all the evidence of Sence and Reason is not the Object of any humane Knowledge and therefore cannot be a gospel-Gospel-Revelation which is to improve and perfect not to destroy humane Knowledge I can never know it because it contradicts all the Notions of my Mind and I can never believe it without denying the truth of my Faculties and no Revelation can prove my Faculties to be false for I can never be so certain of the truth of any Revelation as I am that my Faculties are true and could I be perswaded that my Faculties are not true but deceive me in such things as I judge most certain and evident then I can no more believe them as to any Revelation then I can as to their natural Reasonings for the same Faculties must judge of both and if the Faculty be false I can trust its judgment in neither 3ly The Doctrine of Transubstantiation destroys all possible certainty what the true sence and interpretation of Scripture is and thereby overthrows all supernatural Knowledge The Scripture we know is Expounded to very different and contrary Sences and made to countenance the most monstrous and absurd Doctrines Witness all the ancient Heresies which have been Fathered on the Scriptures Now what way have we to confute these Heresies but to shew either that the words of Scripture will not bare such a Sence or at least do not necessarily require it that such an Interpretation is contrary to Sence to Reason to the natural Notions we have of God and therefore is in itself absurd and impossible But if Transubstantiation be a Gospel-Doctrine I desire any Papist among all the ancient Heresies to pick out any Doctrine more absurd and impossible more contrary to Sence and Reason than the Doctrine of Transubstantiation is and then it is no Argument against any Doctrine or any Exposition of Scripture that it is absurd and impossible contrary to Sence and Reason for so Transubstantiation is and if we may believe one absurd Doctrine we may believe five hundred how absurd soever they be And then what defence has any man against the most monstrous Corruptions of the Christian Faith Is this the way to improve Knowledge to destroy all the certain Marks and Characters of Truth and Error and to leave no Rule to judge by If the design of the Gospel was to improve our Minds by a knowing and understanding Faith Transubstantiation which overthrows the certainty both of natural and revealed Knowledge can be no Gospel-Doctrine 3. The Authority of an infallible Judge whom we must believe in every thing without examining the reasons of what he affirms nay though he teaches such Doctrines as appear to us most expresly contrary to Sence and Reason and Scripture is no Gospel-Doctrine because it is not the way to make men wise and understanding Christians which is the great design of the Gospel for to suspend the exercise of Reason and Judgment is not the way to improve mens Knowledge an infallible Teacher and an infallible Rule do indeed mightily contribute to the improvement of Knowledge but such an infallible Judge as the Church of Rome boasts of can only make men ignorant and stupid Believers For there is a vast difference between an infallible Teacher and an infallible Judge which few men observe at least have not well explained for an infallible Teacher is onely an external Proponent and while men only teach and instruct how infallible soever they are every man is at liberty to use his own Reason and Judgment for though the Teacher be infallible he that learns must use his own Reason and Judgment unless a man can learn without it But now an infallible Judge is not contented to teach and instruct which is an appeal to the Reason of Mankind but he usurps the office of every mans private Reason and Judgment and will needs judge for all Mankind as if he were an Vniversal Soul an Vniversal Reason and Judgment that no man had any Soul any Reason or Judgment but himself for if every man has a private Reason and Judgment of his own surely every man must have a right to the private exercise of it that is to judge for himself and then there can be no such universal Judge who must be that to every man which in other cases his own private Reason and Judgment is
The Second Part OF THE Preservative AGAINST POPERY Shewing how Contrary POPERY is to the True Ends OF THE Christian Religion Fitted for the INSTRUCTION OF Vnlearned PROTESTANTS By WILLIAM SHERLOCK D. D. Master of the Temple The Second Edition LONDON Printed for William Rogers at the Sun over against St. Dunstan's Church in Fleet-street M DC LXXXVIII THE Second Part OF THE PRESERVATIVE AGAINST POPERY Imprimatur Liber cui Titulus The Second Part of the Preservative against Popery May 3. 1688. Guil. Needham R. R. in Christo P. ac D. D. Wilhelmo Archiepisc Cant. Ã Sacr. Domest The Second Part OF THE PRESERVATIVE AGAINST POPERY CHAP. IV. Some Directions relating to particular Controversies THose who would understand the particular Disputes between Us and the Church of Rome must of necessity read such Books as give the true State of the Controversie between us and fairly represent the Arguments on both sides and where such Books are to be met with he may learn from a late Letter Entituled The Present State of the Controversie between the Church of England and the Church of Rome Or an Account of Books written on both sides But my present Design is of another nature to give some plain and easie Marks and Characters of true Gospel-Doctrines whereby a man who has any relish of the true Spirit of Christianity may as certainly know Truth from Error in many cases as the Palate can distinguish Tasts There are some things so proper to the Gospel and so primarily intended in it that they may fitly serve for distinguishing marks of true Evangelical Doctrine I shall name some of the chief and examine some Popish Doctrines by them SECT I. Concerning IDOLATRY 1. ONe principal intention of the Gospel was more perfectly to extirpate all Idolatry 1 John 3.8 For this purpose the Son of God was manifested to destroy the works of the devil That is not only all Sin and Wickedness but the very Kingdom of Darkness that Kingdom the Devil had erected in the World the very Foundation of which was laid in Idolatrous Worship To this purpose Christ has expresly taught us that there is but one God and has more perfectly instructed us in the nature of God 1. Joh. 18. For no man hath seen God at any time but the only begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father he hath declared him Ignorance was the Mother of Pagan Idolatry because they did not know the true God they Worshipped any thing every thing for a God and therefore the most effectual course to cure Idolatry was to make known the true God to the World for those men are inexcusable who know the true God and Worship any thing else Tho' indeed according to some mens Divinity the knowledge of the true God cures Idolatry not by rooting out Idolatrous Worship but by excusing it by making that to be no Idolatry in a Christian who knows God which was Idolatry in a Heathen who did not know him for if as some say none can be guilty of Idolatry who acknowledge one Supreme Being then the Heathens when once they were instructed in the knowledge of the one true God might have Worshipped all their Country Gods which they did before without being guilty of Idolatry which is as if I should say that man is a Rebel who through mistake and ignorance owns any man for his Prince who is not his Prince but he is no Rebel who knows his lawful Prince and pays Homage to another whom he knows not to be his Prince And therefore our Saviour confines all Religious Worship to God alone Mat. 10. Thou shalt worship the Lord thy GOD and him only shalt thou serve It is his Answer to the Devil when he tempted him to fall down and worship him but he gives such an Answer as excludes all Creatures not only bad but good Spirits from any share in Religious Worship Our Saviour does not deny to worship him meerly because he was the Devil tho' that a man may do without the guilt of Idolatry who knows him to be the Devil if those men are in the right who allow nothing to be Idolatry but to worship some Being for the Supreme God who is not Supreme for then you may worship the Devil without the guilt of Idolatry if you do not believe him to be the Supreme God but our Saviour's reason for not worshipping him was because we must worship none but God. Which is as good a reason against the worship of the most glorious Angel as of the Devil himself Nay our Saviour denies to worship him though the Devil made no terms with him about the kind or degrees of Worship He does not require him to offer Sacrifice to him which is the only Act of Worship the Church of Rome appropriates to the Supreme God but only to bow down before him as an expression of Religious Devotion he did not demand that degree of Worship which the Church of Rome calls Latria and appropriates to the Supreme God nay he confesses that he was not the Supreme God for he does not pretend to dispose of the Kingdoms of the World in his own right but says they were given to him and he had power to give them to whom he pleased in which he acknowledges that he had a Superiour and therefore could not in the same breath desire to be owned and worshipped as the Supreme But our Saviour denies to give him this inferiour degree of Worship and thereby teaches us that no degree of Religious Worship must be given to any Being but the Supreme God. And because Mankind were very apt to worship inferiour Daemons as believing them to have the care of this lower World and that it was in their power to do great good to them to answer their Prayers and to mediate for them with the Superiour Deities or with the Supreme God if they believed one Supreme which appears to be a received Notion among them to prevent this kind of Idolatry God advances his own Son to be the universal Mediator and the Supreme and Soveraign Lord of the World that all Mankind should make their Addresses and Applications to him and offer up their Prayers only in his Name that in him they should find acceptance and in no other Name Which was the most effectual way to put an end to the Worship of all inferiour Deities and Creature-Patrons and Advocates for when we are assured that no other Being can mediate for us with effect and power but only Christ it is natural to Worship no other Mediator but him who being the eternal Son of God may be worshipped without danger of Idolatry Thus St. Paul tells us That tho' the Heathen World had Gods many and Lords many 1 Cor. 8.5 6. yet to us there is but one God the Father and one Lord Jesus Christ One Supreme and Soveraign Deity and one Mediator between God and Men. Now this being so apparently one end of Christ's coming
Cherubims were so far from being the most solemn and sacred part of the Jewish Religion that they were no part at all of it if by Religion he means Worship for there was no regard at all had to the Cherubims in the Jewish Worship and it is so far from being remarkable in the Old Testament that there is not the least footstep or intimation of any honour at all done to the Cherubims There is nothing in Scripture concerning them but the command to make them and place them at the two ends of the Mercy-seat and that God is said to dwell between the Cherubims and to give forth his Oracles and Responses from that place but I desire to learn where the Jews are commanded to direct their Worship to or towards the Cherubims where the High-Priest is commanded to adore the Cherubims once a year or what Protestant grants he did so as this Author insinuates He supposes the Cherubims to have been the Symbols of God's presence and his representations P. 130. and that the Jews directed their Worship to them as such and that is to worship God by Images or to give the same Signs of Reverence to his Representations as to himself but how does it appear that the Cherubims were the Symbols of God's Presence God indeed is said to sit between the Cherubims and he promised Moses to commune with him from between the Cherubims but the Cherubims were no Symbols of God's presence much less a representation of him if any thing was the Symbolical presence of God it was the Mercy-seat which was a kind of Figurative Throne or Chair of State but the Cherubims were only Symbolical representations of those Angels who attend and encompass God's Throne in Heaven and were no more representations of God or Symbols of his presence than some great Ministers of State are of the King as this Author himself acknowledges when he makes the four beasts in the Revelations Rev. 4.6 Pag. 127. 7. which stood round about the Throne to be an allusion to the representation of the immediate Divine Presence in the Ark by the Cherubims if he had said to the Cherubims covering the Mercy-seat which was his Figurative Throne and where he was invisibly present without any visible Figures or Symbols of his presence he had said right for the Cherubims which covered the Mercy-seat were no more Symbols of God's Presence than the four Beasts which stood before the Throne are the presence of God or than some great Courtiers or Ministers of State who attend the King are the presence of the King They attend the King where-ever he is and so may be some sign of his presence but are not a symbolical presence as a Chair of State is But it seems our Author imagined that the Cherubims were such Symbols of God's presence and such representations of him as Images were of the Pagan Gods and therefore might be worshipped with the same signs of reverence as God himself was according to Thomas Aquinas's Rule that the Image must be worshipped with the same Worship which is due to the Proto-type or that Being whose Image it is which is such old Popery as Monsieur De Meaux and the Representer cry shame of well But how does he prove that any Worship was directed to these Cherubims I can find no proof he offers for it but David's Exhortation as he calls it to the People Pag. 130. to honour the Ark he should have said worship 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 how down to or worship his Footstool for it or he is holy Now suppose this did relate to the Ark what is that to the Cherubims When but four Pages before he tells us that the Ark is called God's Footstool and the Cherubims his Throne How then does David's Exhortation to worship the Ark which is God's Footstool prove that all their Worship must be directed to the Cherubims which are his Throne It is pity that great Wits have but short Memories And yet I fancy our Author would have been much troubled to prove the Ark to be meant by God's Footstool for the Ark was in the Holy of Holies which was a Figure of Heaven and neither the Heaven nor any thing in it but the Earth is in Scripture called God's Footstool and the Psalmist expresly applies it to Zion and to the Holy Hill which I will not prove 99 Psalm 2 9. was not the Ark. And this I suppose is a sufficient confutation of his Exposition of the words To bow down to or worship his footstool for I believe he did not think that Mount Zion or the Holy Hill was the object of Worship or the symbol of God's presence but there God was present and that was reason enough to worship at his footstool and at his holy hill as our English Translation reads it But now suppose the Jews were to direct their Worship towards the Mercy-seat which was covered with the Cherubims where God had promised to be present how are the Cherubims concerned in this Worship The Worship was paid only to God though directed to God as peculiarly present at that place which is no more than to lift up our Eyes and Hands to Heaven where the Throne of God is when we pray to him I grant that bowing to and bowing towards any thing as the Object of Worship is the very same as this Author observes and therefore had the Jews either bowed to or towards the Cherubims as the Objects of their Worship as the Papists bow to or towards their Images they had been equally guilty of Idolatry and the breach of the second Commandment but when bowing To signifies bowing to an Object of Worship and bowing towards signifies bowing to this Object of Worship only towards such a place where he is peculiarly present this makes a great difference and this was all the Jews did at most if they did that they bowed to God towards the Mercy-seat where he dwelt without any regard to the Cherubims or Mercy-seat as the Object of Worship which was as invisible to the Jews then as the Throne of God and the Angels in Heaven are now to us and we may as well say that those who lift up their eyes and their hands to Heaven when they pray to God worship the Angels who incircle his Throne because they know not the Angels are there as say that the Jews worshipped their invisible Cherubims because they knew that the Cherubims were there For is there any necessity that the Jews must worship whatever they knew was in the Holy of Holies because they worshipped God towards that place any more than there is that we must worship whatever we know to be in Heaven when we direct our Worship to God in Heaven Men I grant may worship an unseen Object for so we all worship God whom we do not and cannot see but is a good Argument still that the Cherubims were not intended by God for the Objects of Worship because they were
concealed from the Peoples sight for I believe the World never heard before of worshipping invisible Images The original intention of Images is to have a visible Object of Worship for an invisible Image can affect us no more than an invisible God and if our Author had consulted all the Patrons of Image Worship whether Pagan or Popish he would have found most of the Reasons they alledge for this Worship to depend on sight and therefore whatever he thought are all lost when a man shuts his eyes A man who directs his Worship to an Image may be an Idolater in the dark and with his eyes shut but as blind as Idolaters are there never had been any Image-Worship had their Images been as invisible as their Gods and therefore sight has more to do in this matter than our Author was aware of But it seems the High-Priest once a year did see these Cherubims and adore and worship them But this is another mistake for the Jews did believe that the High-Priest never saw the Cherubims or Mercy-seat even when he went once a Year into the Holy of Holies and they have great reason for what they say since God expresly commanded That when he went into the Holy of Holies he should take a censer full of burning coals of fire from off the altar before the Lord and his hands full of sweet incense beaten small and bring it within the veil And he shall put the incense upon the fire before the Lord that the cloud of the incense may cover the mercy-seat that is upon the testimony that he die not 16 Lev. 12 13. which shews that the Cherubims and Mercy-seat were to be covered with a Cloud of Incense and to become as invisible to the High-Priest within the Veil as to the People without it But suppose the High-Priest did see the Cherubims when he entred within the Veil I have one plain Argument to prove that he did not worship them not only because no act of Worship was commanded him when he went into the Holy Place but because as the Holy of Holies was the figure of Heaven and the Cherubims the types of Angels who stand about the Throne of God so the High-Priest entring into the Holy of Holies was the type of Christ ascending into Heaven with his own Bloud and therefore the High-Priest must do nothing in the Holy of Holies but what was a proper figure and type of what Christ does in Heaven and then he must no more worship the Cherubims which covered the Mercy-seat or the Typical Throne of God than Christ himself when he ascended to Heaven was to worship the Angels who stand about the Throne So that notwithstanding God's command to make two Cherubims and to place them at the two ends of the Mercy-seat in the Holy of Holies all Image-Worship was strictly forbid by the Law of Moses and God has provided the most effectual remedy against it by the Incarnation of his Son Mankind have been always fond of some visible Deity and because God cannot be seen they have gratified their Superstition by making some visible Images and Representations of an invisible God now to take them off from mean corporeal Images and Representations which are both a dishonour to the Divine Nature and debase the minds of men God has given us a visible Image of Himself has cloathed his own eternal Son with Humane Nature who is the brightness of his Father's glory and the express image of his person 1. Hebr. 3. And therefore St. John tells us That the word was made flesh and dwelt among us and we beheld his glory the glory as of the only begotten of the Father full of grace and truth 1 John 14. And for this reason when Philip was desirous to see the Father Shew us the Father and it sufficeth Christ tells him that the Father is to be seen onely in the Son who is his visible Image and Glory Jesus saith unto him Have I been so long time with you and yet hast thou not seen me Philip He that hath seen me hath seen the Father and how sayest thou then Shew us the Father 14 John 8 9. This was one end of Christ's Incarnation that we might have a visible Deity a God Incarnate to represent the Father to us who is the living and visible Image of God and there could not be a more effectual way to make men despise all dead material Representations of God than to have God visibly represented to us in our own Nature It is true Christ is not visible to us now on Earth but he is visible in Heaven and we know he is the only visible Image of God and that is enough to teach us that we must make and adore no other He is as visible to us in Heaven as the Mercy-Seat in the Holy of Holies was to the Jews and is that true Propitiatory of which the Mercy-Seat was a Type and Figure 3 Rom. 25. Him hath God set forth to be a propitiation through Faith in his blood 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Mercy-seat as that word is used 9 Heb. 5. He is the natural Image of God and his Mercy-Seat or Presence and Throne of Grace he is his visible Image tho' he cannot be seen by us for the Typical Mercy-Seat in the Holy of Holies did prefigure that his residence should be in Heaven and therefore invisible to us on earth but there we may see him by Faith and there he will receive our Prayers and present them to his Father Now then to sum up this Argument since it was one main design of Christ's appearance to root all the remains of Idolatrous Worship out of the World is it credible that the. Worship of Saints and Angels and the Virgin Mary the Worship of Images and Reliques as it is practised in the Church of Rome should be any part of Christian-Worship or allowed by the Gospel of our Saviour If Creature Worship and Image Worship were so offensive to God here is the Worship of Creatures and Images still and therefore all the visible Idolatry that ever was practised in the world before All that they can pretend is that they have better Notions of the Worship of Saints and Angels and Images than the Heathens had but whether they have or no will be hard to prove The Pagan Philosophers made the same Apologies for their Worship of Angels and Daemons and Images which the Learned Papists now make and whether unlearned Papists have not as gross Notions about their Worship of Saints and Images as the unlearned Heathens had is very doubtful and has been very much suspected by learned Romanists themselves But suppose there were some difference upon this account can we think that Christ who came to root out all Idolatrous Worship intended to set up a new kind of Creature-Worship and Image-Worship in greater pomp and glory than ever and only to rectifie mens Opinions about it Suppose the Idolatry of Creature-Worship and
ANother principal end and intention of the Gospel was to cure the Degeneracy of Mankind and to advance Humane Nature to its utmost Perfection for as Man fell from his original Happiness by falling from the purity and integrity of his Nature so there was no restoring him to his lost Happiness much less no advancing him to a more perfect state of Happiness not to an earthly but to an heavenly Paradise without changing and transforming his Nature and renewing him after the Image of God. And therefore our very entrance into Christianity is a new Birth Except a man be born of water 3 Joh. 5 6. and of the spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God That which is born of the flesh is flesh and that which is born of the spirit is spirit And such a man is called a new Creature and a Christian Life is a newness of Life and living after the Spirit 8 Rom. 1. and walking after the Spirit and this new Nature is the Divine Nature the Image of God the new man 4 Eph. 24. 3 Col. 10. which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness which is renewed in knowledge after the Image of him that created him So that there are two things wherein this new Nature consists Knowledge and Righteousness or true Holiness and I doubt it will appear that the Church of Rome is no great Friend to either I. Knowledge Now I suppose neither the Church of Rome nor any one for her will pretend that she is any great Friend to Knowledge She is so horribly afraid of Heresie that she endeavours to nurse men up in Ignorance of their Religion for fear they should prove Hereticks and indeed she has some reason for it for the Church of Rome was never so Triumphant as in the most ignorant and barbarous Ages but as Knowledge broke in upon the World so men turned Hereticks apace If there be any knowing Papists and it would be very hard if there should be none they are not beholding to their Church for it which deprives them of all the means of Knowledge for she will not allow them to believe their Senses which is one way of knowing things and the most certain we have and yet she commands us to believe Transubstantiation which no man can do who believes his Senses and if I must not believe my Senses in so plain a matter as what is Bread and Wine I know no reason I have to believe them in any thing and then there is an end of all Knowledge that depends on Sence as the proof of the Christian Religion itself does for Miracles are a sensible proof and if I must not trust my Senses I cannot rely on Miracles because I cannot know whether there be any such thing as a real Miracle The Church of Rome also forbids men the use of Reason in matters of Religion will not allow men to judge for themselves nor to examine the Reasons of their Faith and what knowledge any man can have without exercising his Reason and Understanding I cannot guess for to know without understanding sounds to me like a contradiction She also denies Christians the use of the Bible which is the only means to know the revealed Will of God and when men must neither believe their Senses nor trust their Reason nor read the Scripture it is easie to guess what knowing and understanding Christians they must needs be But it may be said that notwithstanding this the Church of Rome does Instruct her Children in the true Catholick Faith though she will not venture them to judge for themselves nor to read the Scriptures which is the effect of her great care of them to keep them Orthodox for when men trust to their own fallible Reasons and private Interpretations of Scripture it is a great hazard that they do not fall into one Heresie or other but when men are taught the pure Catholick Faith without any danger of Error and Heresie is not this much better than to suffer them to reason and judge for themselves when it is great odds but they will judge wrong Now this would be something indeed did the Church of Rome take care to Instruct them in all necessary Doctrines and to teach nothing but what is true and could such men who thus tamely receive the dictates of the Church be said to know and to understand their Religion How far the Church of Rome is from doing the first all Christians in the world are sensible but themselves but that is not our present dispute for though the Church of Rome did instruct her people into the true Christian Faith yet such men cannot be said to know and understand their Religion and to secure the Faith by destroying knowledge is a direct contradiction to the design of the Gospel which is to make men wise and understanding Christians For no man understands his Religion who does not in some measure know the reasons of his Faith and judge whether they be sufficient or not who knows not how to distinguish between Truth and Error who has no Rule to go by but must take all upon trust and the credit of his Teachers who believes whatever he is told and learns his Creed as School boys do their Grammar without understanding it This is not an active but a kind of passive knowledge such men receive the impression that is made on them as wax does and understand no more of the matter now will any one call this the knowledge and understanding of a man or the Discipline of a Child But suppose there were some men so dull and stupid that they could never rise higher that they are not capable of inquiring into the reasons of things but must take up their Religion upon trust yet will any man say that this is the utmost perfection of knowledge that any Christian must aim at is this the meaning of the word of God dwelling in us richly in all wisdom 3 Col. 16. is this the way to give an answer to any one who asks a reason of the hope that is in us the perfection of Christian knowledge is a great and glorious attainment to understand the secrets of God's Laws those depths and mysteries of wisdom and goodness in the oeconomy of Mans Salvation to see the Analogy between the Law and the Gospel how the Legal Types and ancient Prophecies received their accomplishment in Christ how far the Gospel has advanced us above the state of Nature and the Law of Moses what an admirable design it was to redeem the world by the Incarnation and Death and Sufferings and Intercession of the Son of God what mysteries of Wisdom and Goodness the Gospel contains the knowledge of which is not only the perfection of our Understandings but raises and ennobles our Minds and transforms us into the Divine Image These things were revealed that they might be known not that they should be concealed from the World or neglected and
despised but this is a knowledge which cannot be attained without diligent and laborious inquiries without using all the reason and understanding we have in searching the Scriptures and all other helps which God has afforded us Now if Christian Knowledge be something more than to be able to repeat our Creed and to believe it upon the authority of our Teachers if the Gospel of our Saviour was intended to advance us to a true manly Knowledge Christ and the Church of Rome seem to have two very different designs our Lord in causing the Gospel to be wrote and publisht to the World the other in concealing it as much as she can and suffering no body to read it without her leave as a dangerous Book which is apt to make men Hereticks for it is hard to conceive that the Gospel was written that it might not be read and then one would guess that He by whose Authority and Inspiration the Gospel was written and those by whose Authority it is forbid to be read are not of a mind in this matter 1. This I think in the first place is an evident proof that to forbid Christian People to read and study and meditate on the Word of God is no Gospel-Doctrine unless not to read the Bible be a better way to improve in all true Christian Knowledge and Wisdom than to read it for that is the Duty of Christians to grow in Grace and in the Knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ this was one great end of publishing the Gospel to the World to enlighten and improve mens Understandings as well as to govern their Lives and though we grant Men may be taught the Principles of Christian Religion as Children are without reading the Bible yet if they will but grant that studying and meditating on the Holy Scriptures is the best and onely way to improve in all true Christian knowledge this shews how contrary this prohibition of reading the Scriptures is to the great design of the Gospel to perfect our knowledge in the mysteries of Christ 2ly This is a mighty presumption also against Transubstantiation that it is no Gospel-Doctrine because it overthrows the very Fundamental Principles of Knowledge which is a direct contradiction to the design of the Gospel to advance Divine Knowledge to the utmost perfection it can attain in this World. Whoever has his eyes in his head must confess that the Doctrine of Transubstantiation is contrary to Sence for were our Senses to be Judges of this matter they would pronounce the Bread and Wine after Consecration to be Bread and Wine still and therefore what-ever Reason there may be to believe it not to be Bread and Wine but Flesh and Blood yet it must be confessed that our Faith in this matter contradicts our Sence for even Roman Catholick Eyes and Noses and Hands can see and feel and smell nothing but Bread and Wine and if to our Senses it appears to be nothing but Bread and Wine those who believe it to be the Natural Body and Blood of Christ believe contrary to what they see Thus there is nothing more contrary to the natural notions we have of things than the Doctrine of Transubstantiation for if this Doctrine be true then the same individual body of Christ is in Heaven at the right hand of God and on ten thousand Altars at a great distance from each other on earth at the same time Then a humane Body is contracted into the compass of a Wafer or rather subsists without any dimensions without extension of parts and independant on place Now not to dispute whether this be true or false my only inquiry at present is whether this do not contradict those natural notions all men have of the properties of a humane Body let a man search his own mind and try whether he find any such notion of a Body as can be present at more places than one at the same time a Body that is without Extension nay that has parts without Extension and therefore without any distinction too for the parts of an Organical Body must be distinguished by place and scituation which cannot be if they have no Extension a Body which is present without occupying a place or being in a place if we have no such natural notion of a Body as I am sure I have not and I believe no man else has then let Transubstantiation be true or false it is contrary to the natural notions of our minds which is all I am at present concerned for Thus let any man try if he have any notion of an accident subsisting without any substance of a white and soft and nard nothing of the same body which is extended and not extended which is in a place and not in a place at the same time for in Heaven I suppose they will grant the Body of Christ fills a place and has the just dimensions and proportions of a Humane Body and at the same time in the Host the very same body is present without any extension and independent on place that is the same body at the same time is extended and not extended fills a place and fills no place which I suppose they mean by being Independent on place now is and is not is a contradiction to natural Reason and I have no other natural notion of it but as of a contradiction both parts of which cannot be true Let us then briefly examine whether it be likely that Transubstantiation which contradicts the evidence of sense and the natural notions of our Minds should be a Gospel Doctrine considering the Gospel as the most Divine and excellent Knowledge and most perfective of Humane understandings For 1. This Doctrine of Transubstantiation is so far from perfecting our Knowledge that it destroys the very Principles of all Humane Knowledge All natural knowledge is owing either to Sense or Reason and Transubstantiation contradicts both and whoever believes it must believe contrary to his Senses and Reason which if it be to believe like a Catholick I am sure is not to believe like a man if the perfection of knowledge consist in contradicting our own Faculties Transubstantiation is the most perfect knowledge in the world but however I suppose no man will say that this is the natural perfection of knowledge which overthrows the most natural notions we have of things and yet 2. All supernatural Knowledge must of necessity be grafted upon that which is natural for we are capable of revealed and supernatural Knowledge only as we are by nature reasonable Creatures and destroy Reason and Beasts are as fit to be preached too as Men And yet to contradict the plain and most natural notions of our minds is to destroy Humane Reason and to leave Mankind no Rule or Principle to know and judge by No man can know any thing which contradicts the Principles of Natural Knowledge because he has only these natural Principles to know by and therefore however his Faith may be improved
which is to un-Soul all Mankind in matters of Religion And therefore though there have been a great many infallible Teachers as Moses and the Prophets Christ and his Apostles yet none ever pretended to be infallible Judges but the Church of Rome that is none ever pretended to deny People a liberty of judging for themselves or ever exacted from them an universal submission to their infallible Judgment without exercising any act of Reason and Judgment themselves I am sure Christ and his Apostles left People to the exercise of their own Reason and Judgment and require it of them they were infallible Teachers but they did not judge for all Mankind but left every man to judge for himself as every man must and ought and as every man will do who has any Reason and Judgment of his own but an infallible Judge who pretends to judge for all men treats Mankind like Bruits who have no reasonable Souls of their own But you 'll say this distinction between an infallible Teacher and an infallible Judge is very nice and curious but seems to have nothing in it for does not he who teaches infallibly judge infallibly too And must I not submit my private Judgment which all men allow to be fallible to a publick infallible Judgment which I know to be infallible If I know that I may be deceived and that such a man cannot be deceived is it not reasonable for me to be governed by his Judgment rather than my own I answer All this is certainly true as any demonstration but then it is to be considered that I cannot be so certain of any man's Infallibility as to make him my Infallible Judge in whose Judgment I must acquiesce without exercising any Reason or Judgment of my own and the reason is plain because I cannot know that any man teaches infallibly unless I am sure that he teaches nothing that is contrary to any natural or revealed Law. Whoever does so is so far from being Infallible that he actually errs and whether he does so I cannot know unless I may judge of his Doctrine by the Light of Nature and by Revelation and therefore though there may be an Infallible Teacher there never can be any Infallible Judge to whom I must submit my own Reason and Judgment because I must judge of his Doctrine my self before I can know that he is Infallible As for instance when Moses appeared as a Prophet and a Law-giver to the Children of Israel there was no written Law but only the Law of Nature and therefore those great Miracles he wrought gave authority to his Laws because he contradicted no necessary Law of Nature but had any other person at that time wrought as many Miracles as Moses did and withal taught the Worship of many Gods either such as the Aegyptians or any other Nations worshipped at that time this had been reason enough to have rejected him as a false Prophet because it is contrary to the natural Worship of one Supream God which the Light of Nature teaches When Christ appeared there was a written Law the Writings of Moses and the Prophets and all the Miracles he wrought could not have proved him a true Prophet had he contradicted the Scriptures of the Old Testament and therefore his Doctrine was to be examined by them and accordingly he appeals to Moses and the Prophets to bear testimony to his Person and Doctrine and exhorts them to search the Scriptures which gave testimony to him and how the Miracles he wrought gave authority to any new Revelations he made of God's Will to the World since he did not contradict the old The Law of Nature and the Laws of Moses were the Laws of God and God cannot contradict himself and therefore the Doctrine of all new Prophets even of Christ himself was to be examined and is to be examined to this day by the Law and the Prophets and therefore though he was certainly an Infallible Teacher yet men were to judge of his Doctrine before they believed him and he did not require them to lay aside their Reason and Judgment and submit to his Infallible Authority without Examination So that all this while there could be no Infallible Judge to whom all men were bound to submit their own private Reason and Judgment and to receive all their Dictates as divine Oracles without Examination because they could not know them to be such Infallible Teachers till they had examined their Doctrine by the Light of Nature and the Law of Moses and we cannot to this day know that Moses and Christ were true Prophets but in the same way Since the writing of the New Testament there is a farther Test of an Infallible Teacher if there be any such in the world that he neither contradicts the Light of Nature nor the true intent of the Law of Moses nor alter or add to the Gospel of Christ and therefore there can be no Infallible Judge because be he never so Infallible we can never know that he is so but by the agreement of his Doctrine with the Principles of Reason with the Law and the Prophets and with the Gospel of Christ and therefore must examine his Doctrine by these Rules and therefore must judge for our selves and not suffer any man to judge for us upon a pretence of his Infallibility Could I know that any man were Infallible without judging of his Doctrine then indeed there were some reason to believe all that he says without any inquiry or examination but this never was never can be and therefore though there may be an Infallible Teacher there can be no Infallible Judge to whom I must submit my own Reason and Judgment without asking any Questions Which by the way shews how ridiculous that Sophism is The Church has not erred because she is Infallible when it is impossible for me to know she is Infallible till by examining her Doctrine by an Infallible Rule I know that she has not erred And the truth is it is well there can be no Infallible Judge for if there were it would suspend and silence the Reason and Judgment of all Mankind and what a knowing Creature would Man be in matters of Religion when he must not reason and must not judge just as knowing as a man can be without exercising any Reason and Judgment And therefore not only the reason and nature of the thing proves that there can be no Infallible Judge but the design of Christ to advance humane Nature to the utmost perfection of Reason and Understanding in this World proves that he never intended there should be any for to take away the exercise of Reason and private Judgment is not the way to make men wise and knowing Christians and if Christ allows us to judge for our selves there can be no Infallible Judge whose Office it shall be to judge for us all 4ly To pretend the Scripture to be an obscure or imperfect Rule is a direct contradiction to the
design of the Gospel to improve and perfect Knowledge for if the Scripture be so obscure in the essential matters of Faith and Christian knowledge that we cannot have any certainty what the true sence and interpretation of it is without an Infallible Judge then the Scriptures cannot improve our knowledge because we cannot know what they are we cannot understand their meaning and therefore can learn nothing from them Yes you 'll say we may know their meaning when they are expounded to us by an Infallible Judge though the Scriptures are so obscure that we cannot understand them without an Infallible Judge yet we may certainly learn what the sence of Scripture is from such a Judge Now in answer to this I observe that though such an Infallible Judge should determine the sense of all obscure Texts of Scripture which neither the Pope nor Church of Rome have ever done yet this would not be to understand the Scriptures or to learn from the Scriptures but only to rely on this Infallible Judge for the sense of Scripture To understand the Scriptures is to be able to give a reason why I expound Scripture to such a sense as that the words signifie so that the circumstances of the place and the context and coherence of the words require it that the analogy of Faith and the reason and nature of things will either justifie such an interpretation or admit no other and an Expositor who can thus open our Understandings and not only tell us what the sense of Scripture is but make us see that this is the true sense and interpretation of it does indeed make us understand the Scripture Thus Christ himself did when he was risen from the dead He opened their understandings that they might understand the Scriptures 24 Luke 45. But to be told that this is the true sence of Scripture and that we must believe this is the sense though we can see no reason why it should be thus expounded nay though all the Reason we have tells us that it ought not to be thus expounded no man will say that this is to understand the Scriptures but to believe the Judge No man can learn any thing from a Book which he does not and cannot understand and if men neither do nor can understand the Scriptures it is certain they can learn nothing from them an Infallible Judge would teach as well without the Scriptures as with them and indeed somewhat better because then no man could have a pretence to contradict him and therefore if this be true the holy Scripture deserves all those contemptible Characters which the Romanists have given it for it is so far from improving and perfecting our knowledge that it self cannot be known and therefore is good for nothing So that the obscurity of the Scripture makes it wholly useless to the great ends and purposes of the Christian Religion viz. to improve and perfect the knowledge of Mankind in the necessary and essential Doctrines of Faith and therefore this can be no Gospel-Doctrine because it makes the Gospel it self considered as written of no use Thus if the Scripture be an imperfect Rule as the Romanists affirm that it does not teach us the whole mind and will of God but that we must learn even some necessary Doctrines of Faith from unwritten Traditions which no body has the keeping of but the Church of Rome This I say contradicts the great design of the Gospel which is to improve and perfect knowledge for an imperfect Rule of Faith is I think as bad as no Rule at all because we can never trust it If you say that though the Scripture in it self be an imperfect Rule yet we have a perfect Rule because the defects of the Scripture are supplied by unwritten Traditions and therefore we have the whole Gospel and all the Christian knowledge delivered down to us either in the written or unwritten Rule I answer 1. If the Scriptures be an imperfect Rule then all Christians have not a perfect Rule because they have not the keeping of unwritten Traditions and know not what they are and never can know what they are till the Church is pleased to tell them and it seems it was a very great while before the Church thought fit to do it For suppose that all the new Articles of the Council of Trent which are not contained in Scripture were unwritten Traditions fifteen hundred years was somewhat of the longest to have so considerable a part of the Rule of Faith concealed from the World and who knows how much of it is concealed still for the Church has not told us that she has published all her unwritten Traditions there may be a Nest-egg left still which in time may add twelve new Articles to the Trent-Creed as that has done to the Apostles Creed So that if the Scripture be an imperfect Rule of Faith the Church never had a perfect Rule till the Council of Trent for a Rule which is not known is none at all and no body can tell whether our Rule be perfect yet whether some more unwritten Traditions may not start up in the next Age to make our Faith more perfect than the Council of Trent it self has made it Now if the design of the Gospel was to instruct men in all divine knowlèdge can we think that our Saviour has given us such an imperfect Rule as needs to be supplied by unwritten Traditions in every Age especially when we consider that some of the greatest Mysteries and most useful Doctrines of the Christian Religion if the Church of Rome be in the right were not written or so obscurely that no body could find them in the Scriptures till they were discovered by the help of unwritten Traditions such as the Supremacy of the Pope the Infallibility of Popes and General Councils the Worship of Images the Invocation of Saints and the great Glory and Prerogatives of the Virgin Mary the Doctrine of Purgatory Indulgences the Sacrament of Penance c. as necessary Doctrines as any that are recorded in Scripture and the denial of which makes us all Hereticks and Schismaticks as the Church of Rome says Though thanks be to God as far as appears we are no greater Hereticks and Schismaticks than the Apostles were unless they are excused for not knowing these necessary Articles of Faith and we are Hereticks for denying them since the Church of Rome in the Council of Tyent has decreed and published them 2. These unwritten Traditions cannot supply the defects of a written Rule because they are of uncertain Authority and therefore not the Objects much less the Rule of a certain Faith and Knowledge What is not written but said to be delivered down from Age to Age by oral Tradition and kept so privately that the Church of God never heard of it for several hundred years can never be proved but by Miracles and they must be more credible Miracles too than the School of the Eucharist and the Legends