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
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
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
were the great Doctors among the Jews the Teachers and Interpreters of the Law of God And because many of them were of the Sect of the Pharisees which above all others pretended to skill and knowledge in the Law therefore it is that our blessed Saviour do's so often put the Scribes and Pharisees together And these were the men of chief Authority in the Jewish Church who equalled their own unwritten word and traditions with the Law of God Nay our Saviour tells us they made the Commandments of God of none effect by their traditions They did in effect assume to themselves infallibility and all that opposed and contradicted them they branded with the odious name of Hereticks Against these our Saviour denounced this Woe here in the Text Woe unto you Scribes and Pharisees Hypocrites for ye shut up the Kingdom of Heaven against Men c. All the difficulty in the words is what is here meant by shutting up the Kingdom of Heaven against Men St. Luke expresseth it more plainly ye have taken away the key of knowledge ye entred not in your selves and them that were entring in ye hindered By putting these two expressions together we shall the more easily come at the meaning of the Text. Ye have taken away the key of knowledge and have shut up the Kingdom of Heaven against Men. This Metaphor of the key of knowledge is undoubtedly an allusion to that known custome among the Jews in the admission of their Doctors For to whomsoever they gave Authority to interpret the Law and the Prophets they were solemnly admitted into that office by delivering to them a Key and a Table-book So that by the key of knowledge is here meant the interpretation and understanding of the Scriptures and by taking away the key of knowledge not onely that they arrogated to themselves alone the understanding of the Scriptures but likewise that they had conveyed away this key of knowledge and as it were hid it out of the way neither using it themselves as they ought nor suffering others to make use of it And thus they shut the Kingdom of Heaven against men which is very fitly said of those who have locked the door against them that were going in and have taken away the key By all which it appears that the plain meaning of our Saviour in these Metaphorical expressions is that the Scribes and Teachers of the Law under a pretence of interpreting the Scriptures had perverted them and kept the true knowledge of them from the People Especially those Prophecies of the Old Testament which concerned the Messias And by this means the Kingdom of Heaven was shut against men And they not only rejected the truth themselves but by keeping men in ignorance of the true meaning of the Scriptures they hindered many from embracing our Saviour's Doctrine and entering into the Kingdom of Heaven who were otherwise well enough disposed for it Having thus explained the words I shall from the main scope and design of them observe to you these two things 1. The Necessity of the knowledge of the holy Scriptures in order to our eternal Salvation It is called by our Saviour the key of knowledge that which lets men into the Kingdom of Heaven 2. The great and inexcusable fault of those who deprive the People of the knowledge of the holy Scriptures They hut the kingdom of heaven against men and do what in them lies to hinder their eternal Salvation and therefore our Saviour denounceth so heavy a woe against them I shall speak briefly to these two Observations and then apply them to those who are principally concerned in them I. First I observe hence the Necessity of the knowledge of the holy Scriptures in order to our eternal Salvation This is by our Saviour called the key of knowledge that which lets men into the Kingdom of Heaven Knowledge is necessary to Religion It is necessary to the Being of it and necessary to the life and practice of it Without Faith says the Apostle it is impossible to please God Because Faith is an act of the understanding and do's necessarily suppose some knowledge and apprehension of what we believe To all acts of Religion there is necessarily required some act of the Understanding so that without knowledge there can be no devotion in the service of God no obedience to his Laws Religion begins in the Understanding and from thence descends upon the heart and life If ye know these things says our Saviour happy are ye if ye do them We must first know God before we can worship him and understand what is his will before we can do it This is so very evident that one would think there needed no discourse about it And yet there are some in the World that cry up Ignorance as the Mother of Devotion And to shew that we do not wrong them in this matter Mr. Rushworth in his Dialogues a Book in great vogue among the Papists here in England does expresly reckon up Ignorance among the Parents of Religion And can any thing be said more absurdly and more to the disparagement of Religion than to derive the pedegree of the most excellent thing in the world from so obscure and ignoble an Original and to make that which the Scripture calls the beginning of wisdom and the excellency of knowledge to be the Off-spring of Ignorance and a Child of darkness Ignorance indeed may be the cause of wonder and admiration and the mother of folly and superstition But surely Religion is of a nobler Extraction and is the issue and result of the best wisdom and knowledge and descends from above from the giver of every good and perfect gift even the father of lights And as knowledge in general is necessary to Religion so more particularly the knowledge of the holy Scriptures is necessary to our eternal Salvation Because these are the great and standing Revelation of God to mankind wherein the Nature of God and his Will concerning our duty and the terms and conditions of our eternal happiness in another World are fully and plainly declared to us The Scriptures are the Word of God and from whence can we learn the will of God so well as from his own mouth They are the great instrument of our Salvation and should not every man be acquainted with that which alone can perfectly instruct him what he must believe and what he must do that he may be saved This is the testimony which the Scripture gives of it self that it is able to make men wise unto salvation And is it not very fit that every man should have this wisdom and in order thereunto the free use of that Book from whence this wisdom is to be learned II. Secondly I observe the great and inexcusable fault of those who keep men in Ignorance of Religion and take away from them so excellent and necessary a means of divine knowledge as the H. Scriptures are This our Saviour calls taking away the
that is this That there is some way to discern mere pretenders to Inspiration from those who are truly and Divinely inspired And this is necessarily implied in the Apostles bidding us to try the Spirits whether they are of God For it were in vain to make any trial if there be no way to discern between pretended and real Inspirations Now the handling of this will give occasion to two very material Enquiries and useful to be resolved I. How we may discern between true and counterfeit Doctrines those which really are from God and those which only pretend to be so II. To whom this judgement of discerning doth appertain I. How we may discern between true and counterfeit Doctrines and Revelations for the clearing of this I shall lay down these following Propositions I. That Reason is the faculty whereby Revelations are to be discerned or to use the phrase in the text it is that whereby we are to judge what Spirits are of God and what not For all Revelation from God supposeth us to be men and to be indued with Reason and therefore it does not create new Faculties in us but propounds new Objects to that Faculty which was in us before Whatever Doctrines God reveals to men are propounded to their Understandings and by this Faculty we are to examine all Doctrines which pretend to be from God and upon on examination to judge whether there be reason to receive them as Divine or to reject them as Impostures 2. All supernatural Revelation supposeth the truth of the Principles of Natural Religion We must first be assured that there is a God before we can know that he hath made any Revelation of himself and we must know that his Words are true otherwise there were no sufficient reason to believe the Revelations which he makes to us and we must believe his Authority over us and that he will reward our obedience to his Laws and punish our breach of them otherwise there would neither be sufficient obligation nor encouragement to Obedience These and many other things are supposed to be true and naturally known to us antecedently to all supernatural Revelation otherwise the Revelations of God would signifie nothing to us nor be of any force with us 3. All Reasonings about Divine Revelations must necessarily be governed by the Principles of Natural Religion that is by those apprehensions which men naturally have of the Divine perfections and by the clear Notions of good and evil which are imprinted upon our Natures Because we have no other way to judge what is worthy of God and credible to be revealed by him and what not but by the natural notions which we have of God and of his essential perfections which because we know him to be immutable we have reason to believe he will never contradict And by these Principles likewise we are to interpret what God hath revealed and when any doubt ariseth concerning the meaning of any divine Revelation as that of the Holy Scriptures we are to govern our selves in the interpretation of it by what is most agreeable to those natural Notions which we have of God and we have all the reason in the World to reject that sense which is contrary thereto For instance when God is represented in Scripture as having a humane shape eyes ears and hands the Notions which men naturally have of the Divine Nature and Perfections do sufficiently direct us to interptet these expressions in a sense worthy of God and agreeable to his Perfection And therefore it is reasonable to understand them as rather spoken to our capacity and in a Figure than to be literally intended And this will proportionably hold in many other cases 4. Nothing ought to be received as a Revelation from God which plainly contradicts the Principles of Natural Religion or overthrows the certainty of them For instance it were in vain to pretend a Revelation from God That there is no God because this is a contradiction in terms So likewise to pretend a command from God That we are to hate and despise him because it is not credible that God should require any thing of Reasonable Creatures so unsuitable to their Natures and to their Obligations to him Besides that such a Law as this does tacitly involve a contradiction because upon such a supposition to despise God would be to obey him and yet to obey him is certainly to honour him So that in this case to honour God and to despise him would be the same thing and equal contempts of him In like manner it would be vain to pretend any Revelation from God That there is no life after this nor rewards and punishments in another World because this is contrary to those natural apprehensions which have generally possest mankind and would take away the main force and sanction of the divine Laws The like may be said concerning any pretended Revelation from God which evidently contradicts those natural Notions which men have of good and evil as That God should command or allow Sedition and Rebellion Perfidiousness and Perjury because the practise of these would be apparently destructive of the peace and happiness of Mankind and would naturally bring confusion into the World But God is not the God of Confusion but of Order which St. Paul appeals to as a Principle naturally knowu Upon the same account nothing ought to be entertained as a Divine Revelation which overthrows the certainty of the Principles of natural Religion because that would take away the certainty of Divine Revelation it self which supposeth the truth of those Principles For instance whoever pretends any Revelation that brings the Providence of God into question does by that very thing make such a Revelation questionable For if God take no care of the World have no concernment for humane affairs why should we believe that he makes any Revelation of his Will to men And by this Principle Moses will have false Prophets to be tried Deut. 13.1 If there arise among you a Prophet and giveth thee a sign or wonder and the signor the wonder come to pass whereof he spake unto thee saying Let us go after other Gods and let us serve them thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that Prophet And he gives the reason of this ver 5. Because he hath spoken unto you to turn you away from the Lord your God which brought you out of the Land of Egypt Here is a case wherein a false Prophet is supposed to work a true Miracle to give credit to his Doctrine which in other cases the Scripture makes the sign of a true Prophet but yet in this case he is to be rejected as an Impostor Because the Doctrine he teacheth would draw men off from the worship of the true God who is naturally known and had manifested himself to the people of Israel in so miraculous a manner by bringing them out of the Land of Egypt So that a Miracle is not enough to give credit to a
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