Protestants examining the Scriptures now but what would have held as well against the Command of our Saviour here to the Jews unless they can shew us a positive Institution of an Infallible Guide but all the Arguments from Reason and the imperfection of our Understanding are perfectly the same in both Cases The truth is all our Saviour's Preaching did suppose this for it had been a vain thing to Preach to People who had not abilities to understand And if we go further to the Preaching of the Apostles we shall find that they endeavoured to prove the truth of what they said out of the Scriptures by which they appealed to the Understanding of their Hearers and made them proper Judges of what they said as far as their own Salvation was concerned in it We see in Acts 17.11 The Bereans were commended as more noble than those of Thessalonica because they searched the Scriptures daily to see whether the things the Apostles preached were so or not The Apostle St. John commands Christians to try the Spirits that is to examine the pretences that any should make to the Spirit of God which supposes that their Understanding how fallible soever was sufficient to judge in these Matters In a word the Writers and Emissaries of the Church of Rome do themselves when they don't think of it in effect confess this for when they bring Scripture and other Arguments to persuade us to come over to their Church I would ask them are we proper Judges of these things or are we not Will our Faith be a true Faith that is founded upon these Scriptures or these Reasons that you here bring If it be so then we may understand for our selves and there is no necessity in order to true Faith of an Infallible Judge but if it be not so there ought to be then an end of Disputes for it 's in vain to Dispute where it 's supposed that we cannot understand or judge and all offering of Scripture or Reason to prove the truth of their Opinions is only affront and mockery But it may be it will be said Don't we see People differ about the Interpretation of Scripture some go one way and some another and yet all are consident of their own how can we be sure that we are in the right any more than they who are as confident in what they say as we are Now this Objection is founded upon this that we cannot have certainty of what is once Disputed which is contrary to the Common Opinion of Mankind who would have done Disputing if they thought they could not be certain when once Men differed from them This does indeed overthrow all Reason and Religion Some have ventured to Dispute the Being of God and many more the Truth of the Christian Religion and yet I hope we may be very certain of the Truth of both these But I would only urge at present this one Consideration Are all the World agreed about their Infallible Judge If not how can they be certain of that But to press this Matter a little more plainly they say for instance that we can't from Scripture be certain of the Divinity of our Saviour because the Socinian's a small number of Men dispute that Matter But the same Socinians deny their Infallible Judge and therefore that must at least be as uncertain as the other And not only the Socinians but all Protestants deny it which must make it still more uncertain and not only all the Protestants but the Greek Armenian Aethiopian Churches a vast Body of Men which must still add to the uncertainty and not only all these but all that in any Age or Nation have ever differed from the Church of Rome for whoever differs from them must deny their Infallibility and consequently this must have been Disputed not only as much as any one Point but as much as all the rest together This I think is a demonstrative Answer to this whole way of Arguing and shews the manifest Absurdity of it for it makes things uncertain because they are Disputed and yet makes the most Disputed thing in all the World the Foundation of all the certainty they have I have been the longer in examining this Point of the Infallibility of your Church as being that which is the great support of all your other Errors I now proceed to speak something to the particulars I promised and first I shall begin with Transubstantiation which is the first thing Renounced in the Test The Sense of the Church of England in this Matter seems to be this That tho' Believers in the faithful and due receiving of this Holy Sacrament are made Partakers of the Benefits of the Death of Christ that is of the breaking of his Body and the shedding his Blood and so may be properly enough said to be partakers of his Body and Blood yet that which they take into their Mouths is really but Bread and Wine but Bread and Wine set apart for a holy Use to represent the breaking of the Body and the shedding of the Blood of our Blessed Saviour and therefore in a Sacramental sense may be called his Body and Blood tho' in truth and reality they are but Bread and Wine Both Sides do in some Sense own a real Presence of Christ in this Sacrament but this one thing if observed will sufficiently shew the difference That Protestants say that in the devout and holy Use of this Sacrament Christ will be present with his Grace and Assistance to the Souls of good People but that the Things which appear before us which we eat and drink are not Christ but Bread and Wine Those of the Church of Rome on the other side say That the Thing which lies before them which they put into their Mouths tho' before Consecration they are Bread and Wine yet upon pronouncing those Words This is my Body and this is my Blood they lose their own Nature and Substance of Bread and Wine and become very Christ the very same Christ that was Born of the Virgin Mary and that suffered upon the Cross And therefore pay them the same Divine Honour and Worship as if God or Christ did truly and openly appear before them Now the whole ground of this Dispute lies in the Words of the Institution This is my Body and this is my Blood They say that the Words ought to be understood in the plain literal Sense we say they ought to be understood as used by Christ in his Instituting a Sacrament that is appointing one thing to be a representation and a memorial of another and which because it does represent may very well be called by the Name of that Thing which is represented by it which we think to be a very natural easy way of speaking and agreeable as to that present occasion so to other terms of Speech of the same nature which had been in use among those People to whom our Saviour spoke But in particular the time in which
Opinion of the Mercy of God to invincible Ignorance be true this is Comfort to us supposing we are mistaken as it is to you supposing you are so and on the other side if your Damning Doctrine be true this is as dangerous to you as it is to us It lies therefore upon you even from the Opinion of your own Divines to be very impartial in examining the Grounds of your Religion tho' indeed our Obligation to search after Truth does not arise chiefly from the danger of being mistaken but from that desire that every good Man should have to please God and to serve him as well as he can and the want of this desire has more danger and malignity in it than a great many mistakes in Matters of meer Belief To be only concerned to avoid those Errors that may Damn us is the same undutiful Temper toward God as it would be in a Son to have no concern to please his Father but only so far as that he may not be dis-inherited Many Errors that may not be fatal to Ignorant People may yet be very dishonourable to God bring a great Scandal to our Holy Religion and do a great deal of mischief in the World and these are things which a good Christian would have a great care of tho' at the same time he might hope that God would pardon him should he ignorantly fall into them This I hope may be sufficient to convince you that you ought to examine well the Grounds you go upon in your Religion I shall now endeavour to shew you some of the Errors which we charge upon your Church and the Reasons why we Renounced them and why we think it your Duty to do so too As to the particulars I shall chiefly confine my self to those which the present Act mentions those to be renounced in the Test and in the Oath of Supremacy But before I proceed to them I would speak a little to that which is the great ground and support of all your other Errors the Infallibility of your Church which if I can shew you to be a meer pretence without any Warrant or Authority from Jesus Christ you will then more easily hearken to what can be said in the other Matters It cannot be expected that I should handle these Controversies in their full extent in the short compass which it 's fit this present Address should have but if you find what is said here to have weight in it and that it gives you just cause of doubting I hope you will be so kind to your selves as to come to some of our Divines who may inform you more fully or to read some of those Books which have at large examined these Matters About the Infalibility of the Church of Rome Infallibility is the thing in the World which a good Christian should have the least prejudice against for tho' I do now believe since I see plainly that God has appointed no Infalliable Judge that it is best all things considered that there should be none Yet I must confess were I to judge of things by my own Reason without any regard to what God has done I should be apt to think such a Judge would be a great Blessing to the World I could not but be very glad to find an Infallible way to end Disputes among Christians but Christianity has now been in the World near 1700 Years and I do not know any Age in which there have not been great Contests and Disputes except some few that were so stupidly Ignorant that Men hardly knew any thing of Religion and then no wonder if there were not many Disputes from whence I cannot but conclude that either it is the Will of God for wise Reasons that Controversies should not be ended or that an Infallible Judge cannot end them or that there has all this while been no Infallible Judge But to consider this Matter more methodically I have these Two I think strong Reasons which make me conclude there is no such Judge I. That you your selves are not agreed who he is And II. That the Reasons commonly brought to prove that there is or ought to be such a one do if well weighed rather prove against it 1. That you your selves are not agreed who he is and this is a mighty prejudice in a thing of this Consequence certainly that which it appointed by God to end all Controversies ought to be a thing out of Controversy it self There ought to be a plain Commission a plain Designation of the Person or Persons that Christians might know where to repair in their Difficulties But is this Matter plain Can you assign us any Man or number of Men that have I won't say such a Commission but that in fact only have ever since the Apostles Days been repaired to by Christians and looked upon as their Judge and their Determinations thought to be Infallible If you can I for my part shall very thankfully submit and own the Authority But let us see what the People of your own Church say about it You are sure that you have Infallibility but you don't know where it is Some say it is in the Pope as Head of the Church and Vicar of Jesus Christ others say it is in a General Council but these differs Some say they are Infallible if Confirmed by the Pope others that their Determinations do not need his Confirmation But besides these there are others that say it is they don't know how in the diffusive Body of the Church Now pray Gentlemen does this sound like the Voice of Truth or a Method appointed by God to end all Controversies In Matters of smaller moment we allow Men to abound in their own Sense and to differ from one another at least we cannot conclude they are all in the wrong because they differ but in this we may and ought because if there were any such thing as Infallibility in the Church and that designed to be the Guide of all Christians it could not be a Secret or matter of Controversie where it was lodged we should see the plain Appointment of God or at least we should see in the History of the Church to whom Christians had appeal'd in all Ages And for the Christian Church to be at uncertainty where to go for so long a time to end their Disputes is the same sort of Absurdity that it would be in a Nation for 1700 Years together not to know where to go for Justice But this Absurdity will appear the greater if we consider besides this that tho' the Church of Rome be united together in a strong Bond of External Government and Polity yet in truth and reality this Difference about the Guide of their Faith makes them different Churches and of different Religions For a different Guide and Judge if he be esteem'd Infallible must make a different Rule of Faith because his Determinations must be part of the Rule of Faith and a different Rule of Faith must
be contained wholly in that which is less and that not once only but as many times over as there are Points in the Bread and Wine That the same thing at the same time should be wholly above it self and wholly below it self within it self and without it self on the right Hand and on the left Hand and round about it self That the same thing at the same time should move to and from it self and lie still or that it should be carried from one place to another through the middle space and yet not move That to be One should be to be undivided from it self and yet that one and the same thing should be divided from it self That a finite thing may be in all Places at once That there should be no certainty in our Senses and yet that we should know some things certainly and know nothing Corporal but by our Senses That that which is and was long ago should now begin to be That the same thing should be before and after it self That it should be possible that the same Man for Example You or I may at the same time be awake at London and not awake but asleep at Rome there run or walk here not run or walk but stand still sit or liedown there study or write here do nothing but dine or sup there speak here be silent that he may in one place freeze with cold in another burn with heat that he may be drunk in one place sober in another valiant in one place a coward in another a Thief in one place and honest in another that he may be a Papist and go to Mass in Rome a Protestant and go to Church in England that he may die in Rome and live in England or dying in both Places may go to Hell from Rome and to Heaven from Fngland That the Body and Soul of Christ should cease to be where it was and yet not go to another place nor be destroyed These are some of those monstrous Contradictions which are involved in this Doctrine of Transubstantiation I shall only observe these few things more about this Matter and then conclude this Point 1. That you ought not for the avoiding of these Difficulties to content your selves to believe in general that somehow or other you don't know how this Sacrament is the Body of Christ for your Church has determined the Matter that it is the very Body of Christ which was Born of the Virgin Mary and was afterward Crucified and that there remains no substance of Bread but only this Body of Christ after Consecration 2. I would observe that none of these Difficulties are taken off by considering Christ's Body as glorified for besides that if it be a Body still it must have the Properties of a Body this Sacrament was Instituted while our Saviour lived in the World and had just such a Body as other Men of the same bigness and all other qualities as to his Body the same And therefore in interpreting these Words This is my Body all the Difficlties are still the same as if he were now living or as they would be were they spoken of the Body of any other Man 3. I desire that you would consider that you may be sure we do not mis-understand nor mis-represent your Opinion because these Absurdities are what your own Divines take notice of as well as ours and do not pretend to be able to give any direct Answer to them 4. I would observe That tho' these Contradictions are so apparent and staring that no Body that hears of this Doctrine can well miss of them yet they are new and none of them ever heard of in the Church for many Hundred Years from whence we inferr that the Doctrine it self was as little heard of 5. We do not find that any Christian for many Hundred Years ever denied or disputed the truth of this Doctrine from whence we cannot but conclude that it was then unknown in the Church for it must have had strange good fortune to escape without any Contradiction when all the Articles of the Creed had been Disputed round 6. As this was not disputed or denied by any Christians so neither was it objected against the Christian Religion by any Heathen not even by Julian himself who as being an Apostate must have known all the Secrets of our Religion whereas in truth there had been Ten times more weight in this than in all the Objections together which they made use of against Christianity 7. There were several things in the Primitive Church inconsistent with the belief of this Doctrine in particular that of mixing Water with the Wine the Water to represent the People as the Wine represented the Blood of Christ of which St. Cyprian gives us a full Account Vid. Cypr. Epist 63. 8. I would observe That the Church of Rome can assign no peculiar necessity or usefulness of this Sacrament above others that should give a probable Reason of the mighty difference betwixt this and others and of such a strange wonderful Dispensation as the eating our Blessed Saviour himself Nay with them both Baplism and Confession are esteemed much more necessary and the omission of them more dangerous than the omission of this Sacrament 9. To conclude this whole Matter I think I have sufficiently shewed that this Doctrine has no foundation in Scripture I would have considered at large the Sense of the Primitive Church in it and I do not question but to have been able very clearly to make out that it was a Doctrine quite unknown to the Church of God for many Ages but that was not consistent with the Brevity I am at present forced to use I would therefore only observe this one thing That we ought not to conclude this to have been the Doctrine of the Fathers only from some accidental or general Expressions which they sometimes make use of It 's plain that none of them designedly treat of this Matter or explain it to us none of them recite it among the Articles of their Faith none of them take any notice of the difficulties of it no Christians appear to have been shocked at this Doctrine and no Heathens to have Objected it all which could hardly have been avoided had this been the constant Doctrine of the Catholick Church And as for General Expressions the calling what they received the Body and Blood of Christ that could not be avoided the Nature of the thing requiring them even according to our Opinion of this Matter And we see that notwithstanding we have made such express Declarations against the Doctrine of the Church of Rome and that by reason of this Controversy we express our selves more cautiously than we may suppose the Fathers would do before any Controversy was moved ved about it yet some general Expressions of our own Divines are often turned against us by those of the Church of Rome and there is no question but were the Authors of them as Old as the