where the Scripture fails they fly to unwritten Traditions which they make of equal authority with the Scriptures themselves which they would never do were they not convinced that the Scriptures are not so plain on their side as to satisfie any man who has not already given himself up to the Church of Rome with an implicite Faith. And therefore before you enter into any debate about the sence of any particular Texts of Scripture and their way of proving their particular Doctrines from Scripture ask them two Questions without a plain Answer to which it is to no purpose to dispute with them out of Scripture Ask 1. Whether they will allow the Holy Scriptures to be a complete and perfect Rule of Faith that no Christian ought to receive any Doctrine for an Article of Faith which cannot be proved from Scripture This to be sure they must not allow unless they will reject the Council of Trent which gives as venerable an Authority to Tradition as to Scripture it self Since then they have two Rules Scripture and Tradition when they pretend to dispute from Scripture it is reasonable to know of them whether they will stand to Scripture and reject such a Doctrine if it cannot be plainly proved out of Scripture For if they will not stand to this they give up their Cause and there is no need to dispute with them For why should I dispute with any man from Scripture who will not stand to the determination of Scripture We Protestants indeed do own the Authority of Scripture and what we see plainly proved out of Scripture we must abide by which is reason enough for us to examine the Scripture-proofs which are produced by our Adversaries But it is sufficient to make them blush if they had any modesty to pretend to prove their Doctrines from Scripture when they themselves do not believe them meerly upon the Authority of Scripture and dare not put their Cause upon that issue which gives a just suspicion that they are conscious to themselves that their Scripture-proofs are not good and should make Protestants very careful how they are imposed on by them To dispute upon such Principles as are not owned on both sides can establish nothing tho' it may blunder and confound an Adversary it is onely a tryal of Wit where the subtilest Disputant will have the Victory and it is not worth the while for any man to dispute upon these terms This is not to reject the Authority of Scriptures because the Papists reject it which no Protestant can or will do but it is an effectual way for men who are not skilled in Disputations to deliver themselves from the troublesome Importunities of Popish Priests when learned men who can detect their Fallacies are out of the way Let them but ask them Whether all the peculiar Doctrines of the Church of Rome can be proved by plain Scripture-evidence If they say they can then they must reject the necessity of unwritten Traditions and acknowledge the Scripture to be a complete and perfect Rule of Faith. A point which I believe no understanding Priest will yeild If they say they cannot ask them With what confidence they pretend to prove that from Scripture which they confess is not in it Why they go about to impose upon you and to perswade you to believe that upon the Authority of Scripture which they themselves confess is not at least not plainly contained in Scripture 2. Ask such Disputants who alledge the Authority of Scripture to prove their Popish Doctrines How they themselves know what the sence of Scripture is and how you shall know it For it is a ridiculous undertaking to prove any thing by Scripture unless there be a certain way of finding out the sence of Scripture Now there can be but three ways of doing this either by an infallible Interpreter or by the unanimous consent of Primitive Fathers or by such Humane means as are used to find out the sence of other Books I. If they say we must learn the sence of Scripture from an infallible Interpreter Tell them this is not to dispute but to beg the Cause They are to prove from Scripture the Doctrines of the Church of Rome and to do this they would have us take the Church of Rome's Exposition of Scripture And then we had as good take her word for all without disputing But yet 1. They know that we reject the pretences of an infallible Interpreter We own no such infallible Judge of the sence of Scripture And therefore at least if they will dispute with us and prove their Doctrines by Scripture they must fetch their Proofs from the Scriptures themselves and not appeal to an infallible Interpreter whom we disown Which is like appealing to a Judge in Civil matters whom one of the contending Parties tlhinks incompetent and to whose Judgment they will not stand which is never likely to end any Controversie and yet they cannot quit an infallible Interpreter without granting that we may understand the Scriptures without such an Interpreter which is to give up the Cause of Infallibility 2. One principal Dispute between us and the Church of Rome is about this infallible Interpreter and they know that we will not own such an Interpreter unless they can prove from Scripture that there is such an one and who he is The inquiry then is How we shall learn from Scripture that there is such an infallible Interpreter that is who shall Expound those Scriptures to us which must prove that there is an infallible Interpreter if without an infallible Interpreter we cannot find out the true sence of Scripture how shall we know the true sence of Scripture before we know this infallible Interpreter For an Interpreter how infallible soever he be cannot interpret Scripture for us before we know him and if we must know this infallible Interpreter by Scripture we must at least understand these Scriptures which direct us to this infallible Interpreter without his assistance So that of necessity some Scriptures must be understood without an infallible Interpreter and therefore he is not necessary for the Interpretation of all Scripture And then I desire to know why other Scriptures may not be understood the same way by which we must find out the meaning of those Texts which direct us to an infallible Interpreter There are a hundred places of Scripture which our Adversaries must grant areas plain and easie to be understood as those And we believe it as easie a matter to find all the other Trent-Articles in Scripture as the Supremacy and Infallibility of the Bishop of Rome If ever there needed an infallible Interpreter of Scripture it is to prove such an infallible Interpreter from Scripture but upon this occasion he cannot be had and if we may make shift without him here we may as well spare him in all other cases 3. Suppose we were satisfied from Scripture that there is such an infallible Interpreter yet it were worth knowing
where his infallible Interpretation is to be found for if there be such an Interpreter who never Interprets I know not how either they or we shall understand Scripture the better for him Now have either Popes or General Councils given us an authentick and infallible Exposition of Scripture I know of none such all the Expositions of Scripture in the Church of Rome are writ by private Doctors who were far enough from being infallible and the business of General Councils was not to expound Scripture but to define Articles of Faith and therefore we find the sence of very few Texts of Scripture Synodically defined by any General Council I think not above four or five by the Council of Trent So that after all their talk of an infallible Interpreter when they undertake to expound particular Texts and to dispute with us about the sence of them they have no more Infallibility in this than we have for if they have an infallible Interpreter they are never the better for him for he has not given them an infallible Interpretation and therefore they are forced to do as Protestants do interpret Scripture according to their own skill and understanding which I suppose they will not say is infallible But you 'll say though the Church has not given us an infallible Interpretation of Scripture yet she has given us an infallible Exposition of the Faith and that is an infallible Rule for expounding Scripture I answer there is a vast difference between these two for our dispute is not about the sence of their Church but about the sence of the Scripture we know what Doctrines their Church has defined but we desire to see them proved from Scripture And is it not a very modest and pleasant proposal when the dispute is how their Faith agrees with Scripture to make their Faith the Rule of expounding Scripture Though I confess that is the only way I know of to make their Faith and the Scriptures agree but this brings the Scriptures to their Faith does not prove their Faith from Scripture II. As for Expounding Scripture by the unanimous consent of Primitve Fathers This is indeed the Rule which the Council of Trent gives and which their Doctors swear to observe how well they keep this Oath they ought to consider Now as to this you may tell them that you would readily pay a great deference to the unanimous consent of Fathers could you tell how to know it and therefore in the first place you desire to know the agreement of how many Fathers makes an unanimous Consent for you have been told that there have been as great variety in interpreting Scripture among the ancient Fathers as among our modern Interpreters that there are very few if any controverted Texts of Scripture which are interpreted by an unanimous consent of all the Fathers If this unanimous Consent then signifie all the Fathers we shall be troubled to find such a Consent in expounding Scripture must it then be the unanimous Consent of the greatest number of Fathers This will be a very hard thing especially for unlearned men to tell Noses we can know the Opinion onely of those Fathers who were the Writers in every Age and whose Writings have been preserved down to us and who can tell whether the major number of those Fathers who did not write or whose Writings are lost were of the same mind with those whose Writings we have and why must the major part be always the wisest and best men and if they were not the consent of a few wise men is to be preferred before great numbers of other Expositors Again ask them whether these Fathers were Infallible or Traditionary Expositors of Scripture or whether they expounded Scripture according to their own private Reason and Judgment if they were Infallible Expositors and delivered the Traditionary sence and interpretation of Scripture it is a little strange how they should differ in their Expositions of Scripture and as strange how private Doctors and Bishops should in that Age come to be Infallible and how they should lose it in this for now Infallibility is confined to the Bishop of Rome and a General Council If they were not Infallible Expositors how comes their Interpretation of Scripture to be so sacred that it must not be opposed Nay how comes an Infallible Church to prescribe such a fallible Rule of interpreting Scriptures If they expounded Scripture according to their own Reason and Judgment as it is plain they did then their Authority is no more sacred than their Reason is and those are the best Expositors whether Ancient or Modern whose Expositions are backed with the best Reasons We think it a great confirmation of our Faith that the Fathers of the Church in the first and best Ages did believe the same Doctrines and expound Scripture in great and concerning points much to the same sence that we do and therefore we refuse not to appeal to them but yet we do not wholly build our Faith upon the Authority of the Fathers we forsake them where they forsake the Scriptures or put perverse sences on them and so does the Church of Rome too after all their boast of the Fathers when they contradict the present Roman-Catholick as they do very often though I believe without any malicious design because they knew nothing of it However ask them once more whether that sence which they give of those Texts of Scripture which are controverted between us and the Church of Rome be confirmed by the unanimous consent of all the ancient Fathers whether for instance all the ancient Fathers did expound those Texts Thou art Peter and on this Rock will I build my Church and feed my Sheep c. of the personal Supremacy and Infallibility of Peter and his Successors the Bishops of Rome Whether they all expounded those words This is my Body of the Transubstantiation of the Elements of Bread and Wine into the natural Flesh and Bloud of Christ and those words Drink ye all of this to signifie Let none drink of the Cup but the Priest who consecrates and so in other Scriptures If they have the confidence to say that all the Fathers expounded these and such-like Scriptures as the Doctors of the Church of Rome now do tell them you have heard and seen other Expositions of such Scriptures cited from the ancient Fathers by our Divines and that you will refer that cause to them and have it tried whenever they please III. There is no other way then left of understanding Scripture but to expound it as we do other Writings by considering the signification and propriety of words and phrases the scope and context of the place the reasons of things the Analogie between the Old and New Testament and the like When they dispute with Protestants they can reasonably pretend to no other way of expounding Scripture because we admit of no other and yet if they allow of this they open a wide Gap for all Heresies
evident then I can no more believe them as to any Revelation than 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 3 ly 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 Sense 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 Sense 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 Sense 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 Sense 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 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 4 ly 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
Flesh and Bloud of Christ is in the Sacrament nor that the substance of Bread and Wine does not remain after Consecration nor that the Accidents of Bread and Wine such as colour smell tast quantity weight subsist without any substance or subject to subsist in These are such Paradoxes to Sense and Reason that they ought to be very well supported with Scripture before they are received for Articles of Faith or else our Faith will be as very an Accident without any substance as the sacramental species themselves are But though they have no Text which proves the least Tittle of all this yet they have a Text whereon they graft this Doctrine of Transubstantiation viz. This is my Body which they say signifies every thing which they teach concerning Transubstantiation but then I hope they will prove that it does so not expect that we should take it for granted because they say it Now not to insist upon those Arguments whereby our Divines have so demonstratively proved that Transubstantiation as explained by the Church of Rome cannot be the sence of This is my Body my advice to Protestants is to put them upon the proof that this is the sence of it which in reason they ought to prove because there is not one word of it in the Text and I shall only tell them what Proofs they ought to demand for it Now I suppose all men will think it reasonable that the Evidence for it should at least be equal to the Evidence against it though we ought indeed to have more reason to believe it than to dis-believe it or else we must hang in suspence when the Balance is equal and turns neither way Now I will not oppose the Evidence of Sense and Reason against the Authority of Scripture for I will never suppose that they can contradict each other and if there should appear some contradiction between them I will be contented at present without disputing that point to give it on the side of Scripture but I will oppose the Evidence of Sense and Reason against any private man's or any Churches Exposition of Scripture and if that Exposition they give of any Text of Scripture as suppose This is my Body contradict the Evidence of Sense and Reason I may modestly require as plain proof that this is the meaning of the Text as I have that such a meaning is contrary to all Sense and Reason for though Sense and Reason be not the Rule and Measure of Faith yet we must use our Sense and Reason in expounding Scripture or we may quickly make a very absurd and senseless Religion Now this shews us what kind of Proof we must require that Transubstantiation is the Doctrine of the Gospel viz. as certain Proof as we have that Transubstantiation is contrary to Sense and Reason And therefore 1. We must demand a self-evident Proof of this because it is self-evident that Transubstantiation contradicts Sense and Reason Every man who knows what the word means which I believe men may do without being great Philosophers and will consult his own Senses and Reason will need no Arguments to prove that Transubstantiation contradicts both Now such a Scripture-Proof I would see for Transubstantiation so plain and express and self-evident that no man who understands the words can doubt whether this be the meaning of them I mean a reasonable not an obstinate wilful and sceptical doubting Now I believe that our Adversaries themselves will not say that This is my Body is such a self-evident Proof of Transubstantiation I am sure some of the wisest men among them have not thought it so and the fierce Disputes for so many Ages about the interpretation of those words proves that it is not so for men do not use to dispute what is self-evident and proves it self without any other Arguments Now it is very unreasonable to require any man to believe Transubstantiation against a self-evident Proof that it is contrary to Sense and Reason without giving him a self-evident Proof that it is the Doctrine of Scripture which is to require a man to believe against the best Reason and Evidence 2. We must demand such a Scripture-Proof of Transubstantiation as cannot possibly signifie any thing else or else it will not answer that Evidence which we have against Transubstantiation for Sense and Reason pronounce Transubstantiation to be naturally impossible and therefore unless it be as impossible to put any other sense upon Scripture than what signifies Transubstantiation as it is to reconcile Transubstantiation to Sense and Reason there is not such good Evidence for Transubstantiation as against it Were the Scripture-Proofs for Transubstantiation so plain and evident that it were impossible to put any other sense on the words then I would grant that it is as impossible for those who believe the Scriptures to disbelieve Transubstantiation as it is for those who trust to their own Sense and Reason to believe it Here the difficulty would be equal on both sides and then I should prefer a Divine Revelation if it were possible to prove such a Revelation to be Divine before natural Sense and Reason but I presume no man will say that it is impossible to put another and that a very reasonable interpretation upon those words This is my Body without expounding them to the sense of Transubstantiation Our Roman Adversaries do not deny but that these words are capable of a figurative as well as of a literal sense as when the Church is called the Body of Christ Flesh of his Flesh and Bone of his Bone it is not meant of his natural but his mystical Body and thus when the Bread is called the Body of Christ it may not signifie his natural but sacramental Body or his Body to all the ends and purposes of a Sacrament Now if there be any other good sense to be made of these words besides Transubstantiation there cannot be such a necessity to expound them of Transubstantiation as there is not to expound them of it for I do not reject Scripture if I deny Transubstantiation when the words of Scripture do not necessarily prove it but I renounce Sense and Reason if I believe it Now though I were bound to renounce my Sence and Reason when they contradict Scripture yet sure I am not bound to deny my Sense and Reason when they do not contradict Scripture and Sense and Reason are never contrary to Scripture nor Scripture to them when the words of Scripture are capable of such an interpretation as is reconcilable both to Sense and Reason In such a case to expound Scripture contrary to Sense and Reason is both to pervert the Scripture and to contradict Reason without any necessity An unlearned man need not enter into a large Dispute about Transubstantiation let him but require his Adversary to give him as plain Evidence that Transubstantiation is the Doctrine of the Gospel as he can give him that it is contrary to Sense and Reason and the