to come into the Church they give up the Authority of the Church and make every man his own Pope and expose themselves to all the senseless Rallery of their admired Pax Vobis By this they confess that the Scripture may be understood by Reason that they can back their Interpretations with such powerful Arguments as are able to convince Hereticks who reject the Authority of an Infallible Interpreter and then they must unsay all their hard Sayings against the Scriptures That they are dark and obscure dead Letters unsenced Characters meer figured Ink and Paper they must recant all their Rallery against expounding Scripture by a private Spirit and allowing every man to judge of the sence of it and to chuse what he pleases for thus they do themselves when they dispute with Hereticks about the sence of Scripture and I am pretty confident they would never speak against Scripture nor a private Spirit more if this private Spirit would but make us Converts but the mischief is a private Spirit if it have any tincture of Sence and Reason seldom expounds Scripture to a Roman-Catholick sence So that in truth it is a vain nay a dangerous thing for Papists to dispute with Protestants about the sence of Scripture for it betrays the Cause of the Church and vindicates the Scriptures and every mans natural Right of judging from the Usurpations and Encroachments of a pretended Infallibility but yet dispute they do and attempt to prove their Doctrines from Scripture And because it is too large a task for this present Undertaking to examine all their Scripture-Proofs I shall only observe some general faults tâ—y are guilty of which whoever is aware of is in no danger of being imposed on by their Pretences to Scripture and I shall not industriously multiply Particulars for there are some few palpable mistakes which run through most of their Scripture-Proofs 1. As first many of their Scripture-Proofs are founded upon the likeness of a word or phrase without any regard to the sense and signification of that word in Scripture or to the matter to which it is applied As for instance There is not a more useful Doctrine to the Church of Rome than that of unwritten Traditions which are of equal Authority with the Scriptures for were this owned they might put what novel Doctrines they pleased upon us under the venerable name of ancient and unwritten Traditions Well we deny that there are any such unwritten Traditions which are of equal Authority with the Scripture since the Canon of Scripture was written and perfected and desire them to prove that there are any such unwritten Traditions Now they think it sufficient to do this if they can but find the word Tradition in Scripture and that we confess they do in several places for Tradition signifies only the delivery of the Doctrine of the Gospel which we grant was not done perfectly in writing when those Epistles were written which speak of Traditions by word as well as by Epistle But because the whole Doctrine of the Gospel was not written at first but delivered by word of mouth does it hence follow that after the Gospel is written there are still unwritten Traditions of equal Authority with the Scripture This is what they should prove and the meer naming of Traditions in Scripture before the Canon was perfected does not prove this for all men know that the Gospel was delivered by word of mouth or by unwritten Tradition before it was written but this does by no means prove that there are unwritten Traditions after the Gospel was written To prove this they should shew us where it is said that there are some Traditions which shall never be written that the Rule of Faith shall always consist partly of written partly of unwritten Traditions Thus we know how zealous the Church of Rome is for their Purgatory-fire wherein all men who are in a state of grace or delivered from the guilt of their sins must yet undergo that punishment of them which has not been satisfied for by other means As profitable a Doctrine as any the Church of Rome has because it gives great Authority to Sacerdotal Absolutions and sets a good price upon Masses for the Dead and Indulgences and yet the best proof they have for this is that Fire mentioned 1 Cor. 3. 13 14 15. Every mans work shall be made manifest for the day shall declare it because it shall be revealed by fire and the fire shall declare every mans work of what sort it is If any mans work shall be burnt he shall suffer loss but he himself shall be saved but so as by fire Now here is mention of fire indeed but how does it appear to be the Popish Purgatory Suppose it were meant of a material fire though that does not seem so proper to try good or bad Actions a true and Orthodox or Heretical Faith yet this fire is not kindled till the day of Judgment which is eminently in Scripture called the day and is the only day we know of in Scripture which shall be revealed by fire when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels in flaming fire 2 Thess. 1. 7 8. So that here is nothing but the word fire applied to another Fire than St. Paul ever thought on to prove a Popish Purgatory Thus they make Confession to a Priest ordinarily necessary to obtain the Forgiveness of our sins and have no better Scripture-Proofs for it but that we are often commanded to confess our sins sometimes to God and sometimes to another but never to a Priest. They have made a Sacrament of Extream Unction wherein the sick Person is anointed for the Forgiveness of sins and though a Sacrament ought to have the most plain and express institution both as to the matter and form and use and end of it yet the only Proofs they produce for this is the Disciples working miraculous Cures by anointing the sick with Oyl 6 Mark 13 which methinks is a little different from the Sacrament of extream Unction which is not to cure their sickness but to forgive their sins and St. James his Command Is any sick among you let him call for the Elders of the Church and let them pray over him anointing him with oyl in the name of the Lord and the prayer of faith shall save the sick and the Lord shall raise him up and if he have committed sins they shall be forgiven him Where anointing with Oyl joyned with servent Prayer is prescribed as a means of restoring the sick person to health again and therefore is not the Popish Extream Unction which is to be administred only to those who are dying And though St. James adds And if he have committed sins they shall be forgiven him yet 1. This is not said to be the effect of Anointing but of the servent Prayer and 2. This very Forgiveness of sins does not refer to a plenary Pardon of sins in the
good As suppose a man pray to the Virgin Mary in the hour of Death or in a great Storm at Sea the man may be dead and Ship wrackt before the Virgin knows of his Prayers and may carry the first news of it into the other World himself Such kind of May-bes and Conjectures as these are a very sorry Foundation for an Infallible Church to build her Faith on 4. You must reject also all such Reasons in Divine and Spiritual things as are drawn from Earthly Patterns A considering man would a little wonder how a Papist should so punctually determine what is done in the other World without speaking with any one who has seen it and without having any Revelation about it as I have already observed but whoever considers many of their Arguments will soon find that they make this World the Pattern of the next and reason from Sensible to Spiritual things Thus the true Foundation of Saint-worship is that men judge of the Court of Heaven by the Courts of earthly Princes The most effectual way to obtain any Request of our Prince is to address our selves to some powerful Favourite and they take it for granted that all Saints and Angels in Heaven are such Favourites and can obtain whatever they ask and therefore they pray very devoutly to them and beg their Intercession with God and their Saviour Especially in earthly Courts the Queen Mother is supposed to have a powerful influence upon the young Prince her Son and therefore they do not doubt but the Virgin Mary the Mother of Christ can do what she pleases with her Son And since it is generally observed that Women are more soft and tender and compassionate than men they hope to gain that by her Intercession which He who died for them would not grant without it and therefore they beg her to shew her self to be a Mother that is to take the Authority of a Mother upon her and command her Son. Thus Princes and Great Men love to have their Pictures set up in publick places and to have all civil Respects paid to them which redounds to the honour of those whose Pictures they are and therefore they imagine that this is as acceptable to Christ and the Saints as it is to Men as if the other World were nothing else but a new Scene of Sense and Passion Mankind is very apt to such kind of Reasonings as these and indeed they can have no other when they will undertake to guess at unseen and unknown things But if there be any difference between the Court of Heaven and Earth if pure Spirits who are separated from Flesh and Sense have other Passions and Resentments than Men have that is if we must not judge of spiritual things by Sense of the Government of God by the Passions of men then such Reasonings as these may betray us to absurd and foolish Superstitions but are a very ill foundation for any new and uncommanded Acts of Worship 5. Never admit any Arguments meerly from the usefulness conveniency or supposed necessity of any thing to prove that it is As for instance A Supream Oecumenical Bishop and an Infallible Judge of Controversies are thought absolutely necessary to the Unity of the Church and certainty of Faith and confounding of Schisms and Heresies If there be not a Supream Pastor there can be no Unity if there be not an Infallible Judge there can be no certainty in Religion every man must be left to his own private Judgment and then there will be as many different Religions as there are Faces Now if I thought all this were true as I believe not a word of it is I should only conclude that it is great pity that there is not an Universal Pastor and Infallible Judge instituted by Christ but if you would have me conclude from these Premises Ergo there is an Universal Bishop and Head of the Church and an Infallible Judge of Controversies I must beg your pardon for that for such Arguments as these do not prove that there is such a Judge but only that there ought to be one and therefore I must conclude no more from them Indeed this is a very fallacious way of Reasoning because what we may call useful convenient necessary may not be so in it self and we have reason to believe it is not so if God have not appointed what we think so useful convenient or necessary which is a truer and more modest way of Reasoning than to conclude that God has appointed such a Judge when no such thing appears only because we think it so useful and necessary that he ought to do it These Directions are sufficient to Preserve all considering Protestants from being imposed on by the fallacious Reasonings of Papists SECT II. Concerning Scripture-Proofs 2. LEt us now consider their Scripture-Proofs though it is not choice but necessity which puts them upon this Tryal When they have good Catholicks to deal with a little Scripture will serve the turn but Hereticks will be satisfied with nothing else and therefore in disputing with them they are forced to make some little shew and appearance of proving their Doctrines by Scripture but they come very unwillingly to it and make as much of a little as may be The truth is there is Evidence enough that they have no great confidence in the Scripture themselves and therefore do not deal honestly and fairly with poor Hereticks when they make their boasts of Scripture For did they believe that their Doctrines which they endeavour to prove from Scripture were plainly and evidently contained in them why should they deny the People the liberty of reading the Scriptures If the Scriptures be for them why should they be against the Scriptures The common Pretence is that those who are unlearned put very wild sences upon Scripture and expound it by their own fancies which in many cases indeed is too true but why should the Church of Rome be more afraid of this than other Protestant Churches If they think the Scripture is as much for them as we think it is for us why dare not they venture this as well as we We are not afraid men should read the Scripture though we see what wild Interpretations some put on them because we are certain we can prove our Faith by Scripture and are able to satisfie all honest men who will impartially study the Scriptures that we give the true sence of them and if they believed they could do so too Why do they avoid this tryal when ever they can For though they admit People to dispute from the Scripture in England where they cannot help it yet they will not allow them so much as to see the Scriptures in Italy or Spain where they have power to hinder it Nay they themselves do in effect confess that the peculiar Doctrines and Practices of their Religion wherein they differ from all other Christian Churches cannot be proved by Scripture And therefore to help them out
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
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
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
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-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-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
not die so suddenly as to be surprized in any mortal sin that Hell seems to be very little thought of or feared in the Church of Rome Now I desire no better Argument that all these are not Gospel-Doctrines than that they destroy the force of all those Arguments the Gospel uses to make men good that is they are a direct contradiction to the Gospel of Christ. 6. I shall name but one Motive more and that is the Examples of good men To be followers of them who through faith and patience inherit the promises that being incompassed with such a cloud of witnesses we should lay aside every weight and the sin which doth so easily beset us and run with patience the race which is set before us Now this is a powerful Argument because they were men as we are subject to the same temptations and infirmities and therefore their Examples prove that Holiness is a practicable thing that it is possible for men to conquer all the difficulties of Religion and all the temptations in this life and many times in them we see the visible rewards of Vertue in great peace of mind great assurances of the divine favour great supports under all adversities and such a triumphant death as is a blessed presage of a glorious Resurrection But now in the Church of Rome if there be any great and meritorious Saints as they call them their extraordinary Vertues are not so much for Imitation as for a stock of Merits The more Saints they have the less reason other men have to be Saints if they have no mind to it because there is a greater treasury of Merits in the Church to relieve those who have none of their own The extraordinary Devotion of their Monasteries and Nunneries for so they would perswade the World that there is nothing but Devotion there is not for Imitation and it is unreasonable it should because no body sees it and it is impossible to imitate that recluse life without turning the whole World into a Monastery but these Religious Societies furnish the Church with a stock of Merits out of which she grants Indulgencies to those who are not very religious and it is plain that if one man can merit for twenty there is no need there should be above one in twenty good Herein indeed the Members of the Church of Rome have the advantage of all other Churches especially if they enter themselves into any religious Confraternity to partake in the Merits of the Society that others can merit for them and then if we can share in the Merits of the Saints we need not imitate them a Church which has Saints to merit for them on Earth and to intercede for them in Heaven if she can but maintain and propagate a Race of such meriting Saints which is taken care of in the Institution and Encouragement of Monastick Orders and Fraternities may be very indulgent to the rest of her Members who do not like meriting themselves So that the principal Motives of the Gospel to Holy Life as appears in these Six Particulars lose their force and efficacy in the Church of Rome and certainly those cannot be gospel-Gospel-Doctrines which destroy the great end of the Gospel to make men Good. 3 ly Nor do the Gospel-means and Instruments of Holiness and Vertue escape better in the Church of Rome as will appear in a very few words Reading and Meditating on the Holy Scriptures is one excellent means of Grace not only as it informs us of our Duty but as it keeps a constant warm sense of it upon our Minds which nothing can so effectually do as a daily reading of the Scripture which strikes the mind with a more sacred authority than any Humane Discourses can do but this is denied to the People of the Church of Rome who are not allowed to read the Scriptures in the Vulgar Tongue for fear of Heresie which it seems is more plain and obvious in the Scripture than Catholick Doctrines but they should also have considered whether the danger of Heresie or Sin be the greater whether an orthodox faith or a good life be more valuable and if denying the people the use of the Bible be the way to keep them orthodox I am sure it is not the way to make them good True Piety will lose more by this than the Faith will get by it Thus constant and servent Prayer besides that supernatural grace and assistance it obtains for us is an excellent moral instrument of holiness for when men confess their sins to God with shame and sorrow when with inflamed Devotions they beg the assistances of the Divine Grace when their souls are every day possessed with such a great sence awe and reverence for God as he must have who prays devoutly to him every day I say it is impossible such men should easily return to those sins which they have so lately confessed with such shame and confusion and bitter remorse that those who so importunately beg the assistance of the Divine Grace should not use their best endeavours to resist Temptations and to improve in Grace and Vertue which is a prophane mockery of God to beg his assistance that he will work in us and with us when we will not work that those who have a constant sence and reverence of God should do such things as argue that men have no fear of God before their eyes But this is all lost in the Church of Rome where men are taught to Pray they know not what and when men do not understand their Prayers it is certain such Prayers cannot affect their minds what other good soever Latin Prayers may do them and thus one of the most powerful Instruments of Piety and Vertue is quite spoiled by Prayers in an unknown Tongue which can no more improve their Vertue than their Knowledge Sorrow for Sin is an excellent Instrument of true Repentance as that signifies the reformation of our Lives for the natural effect of Sorrow is not to do that again which we are sorry for doing but in the Church of Rome this contrition or sorrow for sin serves only to qualifie men for absolution and that puts them into a state of grace and then they may expiate their sins by Penances but are under no necessity of forsaking them The Sacrament of the Lord's Supper besides those supernatural conveyances of Grace which are annexed to it by our Saviour's Institution is a great Moral Instrument of Holiness it representing to us the Love of our crucified Lord the Merit and Desert of Sin the Vertue of his Sacrifice to expiate our Sins and to purge our Consciences from Dead Works and requiring the exercise of a great many Vertues an abhorrence and detestation of our Sins great and ardent Passions of Love and Devotion firm Resolutions of Living to him who Died for us Forgiveness of Enemies and an Universal Love and Charity to all Men especially to the Members of the same Body with us but
then it is to no purpose to dispute about such a Judge for Disputing is nothing else but weighing Reason against Reason and Argument against Argument or Scripture against the pretence of Scripture but whoever gets the better of it this way no Reasons or Arguments or Scripture Proofs can beget an Infallible Certainty which is necessary in this case and therefore this is all lost labour and they do but put a trick upon you when they pretend to dispute you into the belief of an Infallible Judge for they themselves know and must confess if you ask them that the best and must convincing Arguments cannot give us an Infallible assurance of this matter and yet unless we are infallibly assured of an infallible Judge it is all to no purpose 3. I can think but of one thing more that can be said in this cause viz. that it is manifestly unreasonable not to grant to the Church of Rome that Liberty which all men and Churches challenge to dispute for themselves and against their Adversaries for when two men or two Churches differ in matters of Faith there is no other way to end the Controversie but by disputing it out whereas this Discourse will not allow them to dispute nor any Protestants to dispute with them In answer to this I grant that the Charge is in a great measure true and shews the absurdity of that Church and Religion but does not disprove the reasonableness of this method If men will embrace such a Religion as will not admit of disputing it is their own and their Religions fault not the fault of those men who will not dispute with them Now a Religion which leaves no room for the exercise of Reason and private Judgment leaves no place for Disputes neither for how shall men dispute who must not use their own Reason and Judgment They ought not to dispute themselves if they be true to their own Principles and no man ought to dispute with them who will not be laugh'd at by them and by all the World For to dispute without Reason is a new way of disputing though it is the only thing that can justifie the Romanists and our late Disputants have been very careful to observe it and to dispute with Reason is to use our private Reason in Religion which is Protestant Heresie Infallible men ought not to dispute for that is to quit their Infallibility and fallible men are very unwise to dispute with them because no good can come of it for Reason can never confute their infallible Adversaries nor make themselves infallible Believers But for the better understanding of this I have two things to say 1. That Papists may dispute against Protestant Heresies as they call them but cannot dispute for their own Religion 2. Protestants may dispute against Popish Doctrines and to vindicate their own Faith but cannot reasonably be disputed into Popery 1. That Papists may dispute against Protestant Heresies but cannot dispute for their own Religion And the reason of this difference is plain because Protestants allow of Reason and Discourse in matters of Religion and therefore they may be confuted if good Reasons can be produced against them And here the Romanists may try their skill but the Religion of Rome is not founded on Reason but on Infallibility and therefore is not the subject of a Dispute because the truth and certainty of those Doctrines is not resolved into the Reasons of them They ought to alledge no other ground of their Faith but the Infallibility of the Church and they ought not to dispute about this neither but those who will believe it may and those who won't may let it alone because Infallibility is not to be proved by Reason for Reason proves nothing infallibly and therefore cannot give us an infallible certainty of the Churches Infallibility But you will say if they have other Arguments for the truth of their Faith besides the Infallibility of the Church why may they not urge those other Reasons and Arguments to convince those who will not own the Churches Infallibility I answer Because whatever other Reasons they have their Faith is not resolved into them and therefore it is not honest in them to urge those for the Reasons of their Faith which are not the Reasons why they believed For let me ask them Suppose they may have very good Reasons for some of their Doctrines do they believe them meerly because they are reasonable If they say they do then they believe just as Protestants believe and there is no need of Infallibility when men believe nothing but what is reasonable and it is pity that so good a thing as Infallibility should serve only to support an unreasonable Faith. Let me ask them again Can they have a sufficient certainty that these Reasons are good without an infallible Judge If they can then the Faith of Protestants which is grounded upon rational Evidences may be very certain too though it be not infallible if they cannot then their Reasons are none since the very certainty of them is resolved into an infallible Authority and therefore they are no certain Reasons that is not such as a man may rely on when they are separated from Infallibility and consequently they ought never to be urged apart from Infallibility because they themselves do not think them good Reasons that is not a sufficient foundation of Faith alone and then I know not why they should be urged at all for Infallibility can stand by it self without the support of any Reasons I ask them again Would they reject those Doctrines which they think they can prove by such evident Reasons did they see those Reasons as evidently confuted If they would not then it is plain they do not believe them for the sake of those Reasons for if they did they would reject them when all their Reasons were confuted They only impose upon the World with a pretence and flourish of Reason and set up a Man of Straw for Protestants to shoot at but whatever becomes comes of their Reasons they have a safe Retreat into Infallibility If they believed any Doctrine because it is reasonable if they will be true to themselves they ought to reject all Doctrines which are unreasonable or contrary to Sense and Reason He who believes for the sake of Reason can never believe against it for if Reason makes a thing credible then what is unreasonable is incredible too and we may as reasonably dis-believe what is confirmed by Reason as believe what Reason contradicts and therefore it is not very modest to hear men talk of Reason in any case who can believe such an absurd and unreasonable Doctrine as Transubstantiation Now whatever Opinion Protestants have of Reason Papists ought not to pretend to it because their Faith has nothing to do with Reason it is a Reproach to an infallible Church and infallible Faith to need the supports of Reasons And the truth is those who will have nothing to do
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
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