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
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 then 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 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 mediate 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 only way to improve in all true Christian knowledge this shows 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. 2 ly 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 Sense 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 sense 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
his Son for he owns himself our Father in no other Name and if he will hear our Prayers and answer our humble Petitions only as a Father then he will hear only those Prayers which are made to him in the Name of his Son How great Favourites soever the Blessed Virgin and other Saints may be if God hear Prayers only as a Father it is to no purpose to pray to God in their Names for he hears us not 3. To Worship God as a Father signifies to pray to him with the humble assurance and confidence of Children This is the spirit of adoption whereby we cry Abba Father For because ye are sons God hath sent forth the spirit of his Son into your hearts crying Abba Father A dutiful Son does not question his Father's good will to him nor readiness to hear and answer all his just requests he depends upon the kindness of his Father and his interest and relation to him and seeks for no other Friends and Favourites to recommend him And upon this account also the Invocation of Saints is a contradiction to the Gospel-Spirit of Prayer to that Spirit of Adoption which teaches us to cry Abba Father for surely those have not the hope and assurance and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Children who dare not go to their Father themselves but must send their Petitions to him by the hands of Favourites and Intercessors To pray to God in the Name of Christ is onely to pray to him as Sons for it is in his Name only that he owns us for Sons and this is the true Spirit of Adoption in the Name and Mediation of Christ to go to God as Children to a Father but to pray to him in any other Name how powerful soever is not to go to him as a Father but as to our Lord and King who must be Addressed to by the Mediation of some great Favourites To pray to God in any other Name which does not make us his Sons is to distrust our Relation to him as our Father in Christ and this is contrary to the Spirit of Adoption which teaches us to call God Father and gives us that assurance of his Fatherly goodness to us in Christ that we need and desire no other Advocates Thirdly To Worship God in Spirit is to Worship him with our Mind and Spirit for that is most agreeable to the Nature of God who is a Spirit God cannot be Worshipped but by a reasonable Creature and yet a Beast may Worship God as well as a Man who Worships without any act of Reason and Understanding or devout Affections To pray to God without knowing what we say when neither our Understandings nor Affections can joyn in our Prayers is so absurd a Worship of a pure Mind that Transubstantiation it self is not more contrary to Sense than Prayers in an unknown Tongue are to the Essential Reason and Nature of Worship I suppose no man will say that to pray to God or praise him in words which we do not understand is to Worship God in Spirit unless he thinks that a Parrot may be taught to pray in the Spirit What difference is there between a man 's not speaking and speaking what he does not understand Just so much difference there is between not praying and praying what we do not understand and he honours God to the full as much who does not pray at all as he who prays he knows not what and I am sure he affronts him a great deal less However if Christian Worship be to worship God in Spirit Prayers in an unknown Tongue in which the Mind and Spirit cannot be concerned is no Christian Worship SECT IV. Concerning the Reformation and Improvement of Humane Nature by the Gospel of CHRIST 4. 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 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 and walking after the Spirit and this new Nature is the Divine Nature the Image of God the new man 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 Sense 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
while they adhere to their own Judgment or they should renounce them both together nay they must not onely renounce their own Judgments as soon as they are Converted but they must renounce the Authority and Validity of those very Arguments whereby they are Converted whether from Scripture Reason or Fathers they must confess that these Arguments are not a sufficient Foundation for a Divine Faith without the Authority of the Church for it is a dangerous thing to allow any Authority to Scripture or Fathers without the Church for that may make men Hereticks and yet I suppose when Hereticks are converted by these Arguments it must be the force of the Arguments and not the Authority of the Church which converts them unless they believed the Authority of the Church before they were converted and that was a little to early for it Now methinks when Protestants turn Papists as they pretend from the conviction of their own Reason and Judgment and as soon as they are converted are taught that there is no relying upon their own Judgment and that the Reasons whereby they were converted are not good in themselves without Church Authority if it were possible for them ever to use their Reason more after such a change it would certainly make them disown their Conversion which it seems was the effect of a very fallible Judgment and very uncertain and inauthentick Reasons 2. There is another pretence for these Disputes which may seem to answer this difficulty that the intention of these Disputes is onely to lead you to the Infallible Church and set you upon a Rock and then it is very natural to renounce your own Judgment when you have an Infallible Guide Our own Judgment then must bring us to the Infallible Guide and when we have found him we have no farther use for our own Judgment I answer 1. Should we grant this it puts an end to all the particular Disputes of Religion between us and the Church of Rome We may Dispute on about an Infallible Judge but they cannot with any sence Dispute with us about the particular Articles of Faith such as Transubstantiation the Sacrifice of the Mass the Worship of Images and the like for these are to be learnt onely from the Church and cannot be proved by Scripture or Fathers without the Authority of the Church And if they would confess this they would save us and themselves a great deal of trouble For why should they be at the trouble of writing such Arguments or we to answer them when they themselves confess that the Arguments are not good unless they be confirmed by the Churches Authority I confess I have often wondered to see such Volumes of Controversies written by the Roman Divines for I could never imagine to what end they are writ Is not their Faith wholly resolved into the Authority of the Church what need Reasons and Arguments then which cannot work Faith in us Either these Arguments are sufficient to confirm the Articles of their Faith without the Authority of the Church or they are not If they are then there is no need of Infallibility since all the Articles of Faith are confirmed by such Reasons as are a sufficient Foundation for Faith without it And thus they give up all their Arguments for an Infallible Judge from the necessity of such a Judge If they be not of what use are they does the Decision of the Church need to be confirmed by such Arguments If they are not good Arguments without the Authority of the Church they can no more give Authority to the Church than an Infallible Church can want any Authority but it s own Are they to convince Hereticks but how if Hereticks should confute them If they be not in themselves good Arguments they may be confuted and they know by sad experience that there are Hereticks as they call them who have Wit and Learning enough to confute what is to be confuted and if they fall into such hands which has been their hard fate of late they are sure to be confuted And I doubt then they had better have let them alone for the Catholick Cause may suffer much in the Opinion of the World when all their Arguments are confuted All then that they can design by such Arguments is to impose upon the Weak and Ignorant when Learned Men are out of the way which is no very commendable design and that design will be spoiled too if Unlearned Men do but learn to ask them the Question Whether they build their Faith upon such Arguments For then they must either quit the Authority of their Church or the strength of their Arguments The first reduces them to Protestant Uncertainty for then they have no other Foundation for their Faith than Protestants have which resolves it self into the Reasons and Arguments of Faith The second puts an end to Disputing about these matters for no man needs answer any Arguments which the Disputant himself acknowledges not to be good 2. There is nothing left then for Disâ—utation and the Exercise of our private Reason and Judgment but the inquiry after an Infallible Judge And here also before you dispute it will be necessary to ask them Whether the belief of an Infallible Judge must be resolved into every mans private Judgment whether it be not necessary to believe this with a Divine-Faith and whether there can be any Divine Faith without an Infallible Judge Certainly if ever it be necessary to have an Infallible Faith it is so to be infallibly assured of an Infallible Judge because this is the Foundation of all the rest for though the Judge be Infallible if I be not infallibly assured of this I can never arrive to Infallibility in any thing for I cannot be more certain that his Determinations are Infallible than I am that he himself is Infallible and if I have but a Moral assurance of this I can be but morally assured of the rest for the Building cannot be more firm than the Foundation is and thus there is an end to all the Roman Pretences to Infallibility Now if we must believe the Infallibility of the Church or Pope of Rome with an Infallible Faith there is an end of Disputing for no Reasons or Arguments not the Authority of the Scripture it self without an Infallible Judge can beget an Infallible Faith according to the Roman Doctors For this reason they charge the Protestant Faith with Uncertainty and will not allow it to be a Divine but Humane Faith though it is built upon the firmest Reasons the best Authority and the most express Scripture that can be had for any thing but because we do not pretend to rely on the Authority of a Living Infallible Judge therefore forsooth our Faith is Uncertain Humane and Fallible and this they say makes an Infallible Judge necessary because without him we have no Infallible Certainty of any thing Now if nothiâ—â— but an Infallible Judge can be the Foundation of an Infallible Faith
Sins which are forgiven in the next World because there is a Sin which shall not be forgiven there Now not to consider the ordinary use of such Phrases to signifie no more than it shall never be without distinguishing between what is to be done in this World and what in the next nay not to consider how contrary this is to their own Doctrine of Purgatory that men who go to Purgatory have all their Sins already forgiven though they must suffer the punishment of them there which how absurd soever it is yet shews that Purgatory is not a place of forgiving Sins and therefore cannot be meant by our Saviour in those words yet supposing all they would have that there shall be some Sins forgiven in the next World which are not forgiven in this How does this prove a Popish Purgatory where Souls endure such torments as are not inferiour to those of Hell it self excepting their duration That some Sins shall be forgiven in the next World I think does not very evidently prove that men shall be tormented it may be for several Ages in the Fire of Purgatory Thus they prove the necessity of Auricular Confession to Priest from the power of Judicial Absolution Christ has given the Priest power to forgive Sins and hereby has made him a Judge to retain or remit Sins to absolve and inflict Penances Now a Judge cannot judge right without a particular knowledge of the Fact and all the circumstances of it and this the Priest cannot know without the confession of the Penitent and therefore as Priests have authority to absolve so a Penitent who would be absolved must of necessity confess But now I should think it a much better consequence that the Priest has not such a judicial authority of Absolution as requires a particular confession of the Penitent because Christ has no where commanded all men to confess their Sins to a Priest than that the Priest has such a judicial Authority and therefore all men must confess to a Priest for though our Saviour does give power to his Apostles to remit and retain Sins yet those words do not necessarily signifie a judicial Authority to forgive Sins or if it did it may relate onely to publick Sins which are too well known without a private confession or however it is not the particular knowledge of the Sin with all the circumstances of it but the marks and characters of true Repentance for publick or secret Sins which is the best rule and direction whom to absolve and therefore there is no need of a particular confession to this purpose But the Sophistry of this is most palpable when they draw such consequences from one Text of Scripture as directly contradict other plain and express Texts Thus because St. Peter tells us That there are many things hard to be understood in St. Paul's Epistles which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest as they do also the other scriptures to their own destruction 2 Pet. 3. 16. From hence they would conclude that People ought not to be allowed to read the Bible as if St. Peter had intended to forbid them to read those Epistles which St. Paul had written to them nay to read this very Epistle which he himself now sent to them For these Epistles which were sent to the Churches that they might be read by them make a considerable part of the New Testament which the People must not be allowed to read now But setting aside this this consequence that the People must not read the Bible is directly contrary to a great many other Texts which expresly command them to read and search and study and meditate on the Laws of God and the Holy Scriptures as every body knows I confess it amazes me to hear men argue at this rate when they cannot produce any one Text which forbids People to read the Scriptures and there are a great many express commands that they should read the Scriptures they think it sufficient to oppose against all this Authority a consequence of their own making and a very absurd one too and call this a Scripture-proof I would not be thought wholly to reject a plain and evident consequence from Scripture but yet I will never admit of a meer consequence to prove an Institution which must be delivered in plain terms as all Laws ought to be and where I have no other proof but some Scripture-consequences I shall not think it equivalent to a Scripture-proof if the consequences be plain and obvious and such as every man sees I shall not question it but remote and dubious and disputed consequences if we have no better evidence to be sure are a very ill foundation for Articles of Faith. Let our Protestant then tell such Disputants that for the Institution of Sacraments and for Articles of Faith he expects plain positive Proofs that as much as the Protestant Faith is charged with uncertainty we desire a little more certainty for our Faith than meer inferences from Scripture and those none of the plainest neither 4. Another false pretence to Scripture-proofs is to clap their own sense upon the words of Scripture without any regard to the use and propriety of words to the circumstances of the place to the reason and nature of things and to call this a Scripture-proof of their Doctrine when their Doctrines do not naturally grow there but are onely engrafted by some cunning Artists upon a Scripture-stock I shall give you onely one instance of this their Doctrine of Transubstantiation As for Transubstantiation they teach that the Elements of Bread and Wine are converted into the natural Flesh and Bloud of Christ which was born of the Virgin Mary That after Consecration there is nothing of the substance of Bread and Wine but the Accidents subsist without a substance That the natural Body of Christ his Soul and Divinity are present under the species of Bread nay that whole Christ Flesh and Bloud is under the species of Bread and in every particle of it and under the species of Wine and every drop of it That the Body of Christ is not broken nor his Bloud shed in the Sacrament but only the species of Bread and Wine which are nothing That it is only this Nothing which we eat and drink in the Sacrament and which goes down into our stomachs and carries whole Christ down with it Now this Doctrine founds so very harsh is so contrary to all the Evidence of our Senses and has so many Absurdities and Contradictions to Reason that it ought to be very plainly proved from Scripture in every part of it for if a man might be perswaded to renounce his Senses and Reason to believe Scripture yet it ought to be equally evident to him at least that Scripture is for it as it is that Sense and Reason is against it and yet there is not one word in Scripture to prove any one part of this Doctrine of Transubstantiation neither that the natural
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 independent 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 hard 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 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-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 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
it sufficient that a man believes as the Church believes without an explicite knowledge of any thing they believe but the general opinion is that a man must have an explicite belief of the Apostles Creed but as for every thing else it suffices if he believes as the Church believes without knowing what the faith of the Church is that is it is not necessary men should so much as know what the new Articles of the Trent Faith are if they believe the Apostles Creed and resign up their Faith implicitely to the Church Now this is a plain confession that all the Doctrines in dispute between us and the Church of Rome are of no use much less necessary to salvation for if they were they would be as necessary to be known and explicitely believed as the Apostles Creed and I cannot imagine why we Hereticks who believe the Apostles Creed and understand it as orthodoxly as they may not be saved without believing the new Trent Creed for if we need not know what it is there seems to be no need of believing it for I always thought that no man can and therefore to be sure no man need believe what he does not know So that it seems we know and believe all things the explicite knowledge and belief of which by their own confession is necessary to salvation except that one single Point of the Infallibility of the Church of Rome believe but that and ye need believe or know nothing more but the Apostles Creed and yet go to Heaven as a good Catholick which makes an implicite Faith in the Church of Rome as necessary as Faith in Christ is But if the intent of the Gospel was to improve our Knowledge then Christ never taught an implicite Faith for that does not improve Knowledge and if the Faith of the Church of Rome excepting the Apostles Creed which is the common Faith of all Christians need not be known then they are no Gospel-Doctrines much less necessary Articles of Faith for Christ taught nothing but what he would have known and though the knowledge of all things which Christ taught is not equally necessary to salvation yet it tends to the perfecting our knowledge and Christ taught nothing which a man need not know which I think is a reproach to meaner Masters and much more to the eternal and incarnate Wisdom Secondly The improvement and perfection of Humane Nature consists in true Holiness and Virtue in a likeness and conformity to God and a participation of the Divine Nature and this is the great end of the Gospel to advance us to as perfect Holiness as is attainable in this life Christ indeed has made expiation for our sins by his own Bloud but then this very Bloud of Atonement does not only expiate the guilt of sin but purges the Conscience from dead works that we may serve the living God for no Sacrifice not of the Son of God himself can reconcile an impenitent and unreformed Sinner to God that is can move God to love a Sinner who still loves and continues in his sins which an infinitely holy and pure being cannot do Indeed the expiation of sin is but one part of the work of our Redemption for a sinner cannot be saved that is cannot be advanced to immortal life in the Kingdom of Heaven without being born again without being renewed and sanctified by the holy Spirit after the Image and likeness of God. For this new Nature is the only Principle of a new immortal life in us an earthly sensual mind is no more capable of living in Heaven than an earthly mortal body In both senses flesh and bloud cannot inherit the Kingdom of God neither can corruption inherit incorruption The Church of Rome indeed has taken great care about the first of these and has found out more ways of expiating sin and making satisfaction for it than the Gospel ever taught us whether they are so effectual to this purpose let those look to it who trust in them but there is not that care taken to inculcate the necessity of internal holiness and purity of mind and one would easily guess there can be no great need of it in that Church which has so many easie ways of expiating sin The true character of Gospel-Doctrines is a Doctrine according to Godliness the principal design of which is to promote true goodness all the Articles of the Christian Faith tend to this end to lay great and irresistible obligations on us to abstain from every sin and to exercise our selves in every thing that is good as we have ability and opportunity to do it and therefore all Doctrines which secretly undermine a good life and make it unnecessary for men to be truly and sincerely vertuous can be no Gospel-Doctrines That there are such Doctrines in the Church of Rome has been abundantly proved by the late Learned and Reverend Bishop Taylor in his Disswasive from Popery which is so very useful a Book that I had rather direct my Readers to it than transcribe out of it My design leads me to another method for if I can prove that the Doctrines and Practices of the Church of Rome naturally tend to evacuate the force of the Gospel it self to make men good and holy every one will easily see that that can be no Gospel-Faith and Worship which sets aside the Gospel it self The whole Doctrine of the Gospel either consists of the Rules of Holiness or of the Motives and Instruments of it for the Articles of the Christian Faith are all of them so many Motives to a good life let us then consider how the Faith and Worship of the Church of Rome has made void the Gospel of our Saviour as the Pharisees made void the Law of Moses by their Traditions 1. Let us begin then with the Gospel-Rules of Holiness It would be an endless thing here to take notice of the loose Determinations of their famed and approved Casuists of their Doctrine of probable Opinions of the direction of the intention by which means the very Laws and Boundaries of Vertue and Vice are in a great measure quite altered and it may be this would only make work for the Representer and furnish out a fourth part of the Papist Misrepresented if we venture to tell the World what has been the avowed Doctrines of their great Divines and Casuists But whether such Definitions be the Doctrine of their Church or not I am sure they are equally mischievous if they be the Doctrines of their Confessors who have the immediate direction of mens Conscience Those who have a mind to be satisfied in this matter may find enough of it in the Provincial Letters the Jesuits Morals and Bishop Taylor 's Disswasive It sufficiently answers my present design to take notice of some few plain things which will admit of no dispute I have already shewn what a great value the Church of Rome sets upon an external Righteousness which is much more meritorious than a