so false a Doctrine and to lay open the monstrous absurdity of it And in the handling of this Argument I shall proceed in this plain method I. I shall consider the pretended grounds and reasons of the Church of Rome for this Doctrine II. I shall produce our Objections against it And if I can shew that there is no tolerable ground for it and that there are invincible Objections against it then every man is not onely in reason excused from believing this Doctrine but hath great cause to believe the contrary FIRST I will consider the pretended grounds and reasons of the Church of Rome for this Doctrine Which must be one or more of these five Either 1 st The Authority of Scripture Or 2 ly The perpetual belief of this Doctrine in the Christian Church as an evidence that they always understood and interpreted our Saviour's words This is my body in this sense Or 3 ly The Authority of the present Church to make and declare new Articles of Faith Or 4 ly The absolute necessity of such a change as this in the Sacrament to the comfort and benefit of those who receive this Sacrament Or 5 ly To magnifie the power of the Priest in being able to work so great a Miracle 1st They pretend for this Doctrine the Authority of Scripture in those words of our Saviour This is my body Now to shew the insufficiency of this pretence I shall endeavour to make good these two things 1. That there is no necessity of understanding those words of our Saviour in the sense of Transubstantiation 2. That there is a great deal of reason nay that it is very absurd and unreasonable to understand them otherwise First That there is no necessity to understand those words of our Saviour in the sense of Transubstantiation If there be any it must be from one of these two reasons Either because there are no figurative expressions in Scripture which I think no man ever yet said or else because a Sacrament admits of no figures which would be very absurd for any man to say since it is of the very nature of a Sacrament to represent and exhibit some invisible grace and benefit by an outward sign and figure And especially since it cannot be denied but that in the institution of this very Sacrament our Saviour useth figurative expressions and several words which cannot be taken strictly and literally When he gave the Cup he said This Cup is the new Testament in my bloud which is shed for you and for many for the remission of Sins Where first the Cup is put for the Wine contained in the Cup or else if the words be literally taken so as to signifie a substantial change it is not of the Wine but of the Cup and that not into the bloud of Christ but into the new Testament or new Covenant in his bloud Besides that his bloud is said then to be shied and his body to be broken which was not till his Passion which followed the institution and first celebration of this Sacrament But that there is no necessity to understand our Saviour's words in the sense of Transubstantiation I will take the plain concession of a great number of the most learned Writers of the Church of Rome in this Controversie (a) de Euch. l. 3. c. 23. Bellarmine (b) in 3. dis 49. Qu. 75. Sect. 2. Suarez and (c) in 3. part disp 180. Qu. 75. art 2. c. 15. Vasquez do acknowledge Scotus the great Schoolman to have said that this Doctrine cannot be evidently proved from Scripture And Bellarmine grants this not to be improbable and Suarez and Vasquez acknowledge (d) in Sent. l. 4. dist 11. Qu. 1. n. 15. Durandus to have said as much (e) in 4. Sent. Q 5. Quodl 4. Q. 3. Ocham another famous Schoolman says expresly that the Doctrine which holds the substance of the Bread and Wine to remain after consecration is neither repugnant to Reason nor to Scripture (f) in 4. Sent. Q. 6. art 2. Petrus ab Alliaco Cardinal of Cambray says plainly that the Doctrine of the Substance of Bread and Wine remaining after Consecration is more easie and free from absurdity more rational and no ways repugnant to the authority of Scripture nay more that for the other Doctrine viz. of Transubstantiation there is no evidence in Scripture (g) in canon Miss Lect. 40. Gabriel Biel another great Schoolman and Divine of their Church freely declares that as to any thing express'd in the Canon of the Scriptures a wan may believe that the substance of Bread and Wine doth remain after Consecration and therefore he resolves the belief of Transubstantiation into some other Revelation besides Scripture which he supposeth the Church had about it Cardinal (h) in Aquin 3. part Qu. 75. art 1. Cajetan confesseth that the Gospel doth no where express that the Bread is changed into the Body of Christ that we have this from the authority of the Church nay he goes farther that there is nothing in the Gospel which enforceth any man to understand these words of Christ this is my body in a proper and not in a metaphorical sense but the Church having understood them in a proper sense they are to be so explained Which words in the Roman Edition of Cajetan are expunged by order of Pope (i) Aegid Conink de Sacram Q. 75. art 1. n. 13. Pius V. Cardinal (k) de Sacram l. 2. c. 3. Contarenus and (l) Loc. Theolog. l. 3. c. 3. Melchior Canus one of the best and most judicious Writers that Church ever had reckon this Doctrine among those which are not so expresly found in Scripture I will add but one more of great authority in the Church and a reputed Martyr (m) contra captiv Babylon c. 10. n. 2. Fisher Bishop of Rochester who ingenuously confesseth that in the words of the Institution there is not one word from whence the true presence of the flesh and bloud of Christ in our Mass can be proved So that we need not much contend that this Doctrine hath no certain foundation in Scripture when this is so fully and frankly acknowledged by our Adversaries themselves Secondly If there be no necessity of understanding our Saviour's words in the sense of Transubstantiation I am sure there is a great deal of reason to understand them otherwise Whether we consider the like expressions in Scripture as where our Saviour says he is the door and the true Vine which the Church of Rome would mightily have triumph'd in had it been said this is my true body And so likewise where the Church is said to be Christ's body and the Rock which followed the Israelites to be Christ 1 Cor. 10.4 They drank of that Rock which followed them and that rock was Christ All which and innumerable more like expressions in Scripture every man understands in a figurative and not in a strictly literal
pretended Demonstration of Reason against plain Experience and matter of Fact This is just Zenoe's Demonstration of the impossibility of motion against Diogenes walking before his Eyes For this is to undertake to prove that impossible to have been which most certainly was Just thus the Servants in the Parable might have demonstrated that the tares were wheat because they were sure none but good seed was sown at first and no man could give any account of the punctual time when any tares were sown or by whom and if an Enemy had come to do it he must needs have met with great resistance and opposition but no such resistance was made and therefore there could be no tares in the field but that which they call'd tares was certainly good wheat At the same rate a man might demonstrate that our King his Majesty of great Britain is not return'd into England nor restor'd to his Crown because there being so great and powerfull an Army possess'd of his Lands and therefore obliged by interest to keep him out it was impossible he should ever come in without a great deal of fighting and bloudshed but there was no such thing therefore he is not return'd and restor'd to his Crown And by the like kind of Demonstration one might prove that the Turk did not invade Christendom last year and besiege Vienna because if he had the most Christian King who had the greatest Army in Christendom in a readiness would certainly have employed it against him but Monsieur Arnauld certainly knows no such thing was done And therefore according to his way of Demonstration the matter of fact so commonly reported and believed concerning the Turks Invasion of Christendom and besieging Vienna last year was a perfect mistake But a man may demonstrate till his head and heart ake before he shall ever be able to prove that which certainly is or was never to have been For of all sorts of impossibles nothing is more evidently so than to make that which hath been not to have been All the reason in the world is too weak to cope with so tough and obstinate a difficulty And I have often wonder'd how a man of Monsieur Arnauld's great wit and sharp Judgment could prevail with himself to engage in so bad and baffled a Cause or could think to defend it with so wooden a Dagger as his Demonstration of Reason against certain Experience and matter of Fact A thing if it be possible of equal absurdity with what he pretends to demonstrate Transubstantiation it self I proceed to the Third pretended Ground of this Doctrine of Transubstantiation and that is The Infallible Authority of the present Church to make and declare new Articles of Faith And this in truth is the ground into which the most of the learned men of their Church did heretofore and many do still resolve their belief of this Doctrine And as I have already shewn do plainly say that they see no sufficient reason either from Scripture or Tradition for the belief of it And that they should have believed the contrary had not the determination of the Church obliged them otherwise But if this Doctrine be obtruded upon the world merely by virtue of the Authority of the Roman Church and the Declaration of the Council under Pope Gregory the VII th or of the Lateran Council under Innocent the III. then it is a plain Innovation in the Christian Doctrine and a new Article of Faith impos'd upon the Christian world And if any Church hath this power the Christian Faith may be enlarged and changed as often as men please and that which is no part of our Saviour's Doctrine nay any thing though never so absurd and unreasonable may become an Article of Faith obliging all Christians to the belief of it whenever the Church of Rome shall think fit to stamp her Authority upon it which would make Christianity a most uncertain and endless thing The Fourth pretended ground of this Doctrine is the necessity of such a change as this in the Sacrament to the comfort and benefit of those who receive it But there is no colour for this if the thing be rightly consider'd Because the comfort and benefit of the Sacrament depends upon the blessing annexed to the Institution And as Water in Baptism without any substantial change made in that Element may by the Divine blessing accompanying the Institution be effectual to the washing away of Sin and Spiritual Regeneration So there can no reason in the world be given why the Elements of Bread and Wine in the Lord's Supper may not by the same Divide blessing accompanying this Institution make the worthy receivers partakers of all the Spiritual comfort and benefit designed to us thereby without any substantial change made in those Elements since our Lord hath told us that verily the flesh profiteth nothing So that if we could do so odd and strange a thing as to eat the very natural flesh and drink the bloud of our Lord I do not see of what greater advantage it would be to us than what we may have by partaking of the Symbols of his body and bloud as he hath appointed in remembrance of him For the Spiritual efficacy of the Sacrament doth not depend upon the nature of the thing received supposing we receive what our Lord appointed and receive it with a right preparation and disposition of mind but upon the supernatural blessing that goes along with it and makes it effectual to those spiritual ends for which it was appointed The Fifth and last pretended ground of this Doctrine is to magnifie the power of the Priest in being able to work so great a Miracle And this with great pride and pomp is often urg'd by them as a transcendent instance of the Divine wisedom to find out so admirable a way to raise the power and reverence of the Priest that he should be able every day and as often as he pleases by repeating a few words to work so miraculous a change and as they love most absurdly and blasphemously to speak to make God himself But this is to pretend to a power above that of God himself for he did not nor cannot make himself nor do any thing that implies a contradiction as Transubstantiation evidently does in their pretending to make God For to make that which already is and to make that now which always was is not onely vain and trifling if it could be done but impossible because it implies a contradiction And what if after all Transubstantiation if it were possible and actually wrought by the Priest would yet be no Miracle For there are two things necessary to a Miracle that there be a supernatural effect wrought and that this effect be evident to sense So that though a supernatural effect be wrought yet if it be not evident to sense it is to all the ends and purposes of a Miracle as if it were not and can be no testimony or proof of any
thing because it self stands in need of another Miracle to give testimony to it and to prove that it was wrought And neither in Scripture nor in profane Authours nor in common use of speech is any thing call'd a Miracle but what falls under the notice of our senses A Miracle being nothing else but a supernatural effect evident to sense the great end and design whereof is to be a sensible proof and conviction to us of something that we do not see And for want of this Condition Transubstantiation if it were true would be no Miracle It would indeed be very supernatural but for all that it would not be a Sign or Miracle For a Sign or Miracle is always a thing sensible otherwise it could be no Sign Now that such a change as is pretended in Transubstantiation should really be wrought and yet there should be no sign and appearance of it is a thing very wonderfull but not to sense for our senses perceive no change the Bread and Wine in the Sacrament to all our senses remaining just as they were before And that a thing should remain to all appearance just as it was hath nothing at all of wonder in it we wonder indeed when we see a strange thing done but no man wonders when he sees nothing done So that Transubstantiation if they will needs have it a Miracle is such a Miracle as any man may work that hath but the confidence to face men down that he works it and the fortune to be believed And though the Church of Rome may magnify their Priests upon account of this Miracle which they say they can work every day and every hour yet I cannot understand the reason of it for when this great work as they call it is done there is nothing more appears to be done than if there were no Miracle Now such a Miracle as to all appearance is no Miracle I see no reason why a Protestant Minister as well as a Popish Priest may not work as often as he pleases or if he can but have the patience to let it alone it will work it self For surely nothing in the world is easier than to let a thing be as it is and by speaking a few words over it to make it just what it was before Every man every day may work ten thousand such Miracles And thus I have dispathc'd the First part of my Discourse which was to consider the pretended grounds and Reasons of the Church of Rome for this Doctrine and to shew the weakness and insufficiency of them I come in the SECOND place to produce our Objections against it Which will be of so much the greater force because I have already shewn this Doctrine to be destitute of all Divine warrant and authority and of any other sort of Ground sufficient in reason to justify it So that I do not now object against a Doctrine which hath a fair probability of Divine Revelation on its side for that would weigh down all objections which did not plainly overthrow the probability and credit of its Divine Revelation But I object against a Doctrine by the mere will and Tyranny of men impos'd upon the belief of Christians without any evidence of Scripture and against all the evidence of Reason and Sense The Objection I shall reduce to these two Heads First The infinite scandal of this Doctrine to the Christian Religion And Secondly The monstrous and insupportable absurdity of it First The infinite scandal of this Doctrine to the Christian Religion And that upon these four accounts 1. Of the stupidity of this Doctrine 2. The real barbarousness of this Sacrament and Rite of our Religion upon supposition of the truth of this Doctrine 3. Of the cruel and bloudy consequences of it 4. Of the danger of Idolatry which they are certainly guilty of if this Doctrine be not true 1. Upon account of the stupidity of this Doctrine I remember that Tully who was a man of very good sense instanceth in the conceit of eating God as the extremity of madness and so stupid an apprehension as he thought no man was ever guilty of * De Nat. Deorum l. 3. When we call says he the fruits of the earth Ceres and wine Bacchus we use but the common language but do you think any man so mad as to believe that which he eats to be God It seems he could not believe that so extravagant a folly had ever entred into the mind of man It is a very severe saying of Averroes the Arabian Philosopher who lived after this Doctrine was entertained among Christians and ought to make the Church or Rome blush * Dionys Carthus in 4. dist 10. art 1. if she can I have travell'd says he over the world and have found divers Sects but so sottish a Sect or Law I never found as is the Sect of the Christians because with their own teeth they devour their God whom they worship It was great stupidity in the People of Israel to say Come let us make us Gods but it was civilly said of them Let us make us Gods that may go before us in comparison of the Church of Rome who say Let us make a God that we may eat him So that upon the whole matter I cannot but wonder that they should chuse thus to expose Faith to the contempt of all that are endued with Reason And to speak the plain truth the Christian Religion was never so horribly exposed to the scorn of Atheists and Infidels as it hath been by this most absurd and senseless Doctrine But thus it was foretold that †2 Thess 2.10 the Man of Sin should come with Power and Signs and Lying Miracles and with all deceiveableness of unrighteousness with all the Legerdemain and jugling tricks of falshood and imposture amongst which this of Transubstantiation which they call a Miracle and we a Cheat is one of the chief And in all probability those common jugling words of hocus pocus are nothing else but a corruption of hoc est corpus by way of ridiculous imitation of the Priests of the Church of Rome in their trick of Transubstantiation Into such contempt by this foolish Doctrine and pretended Miracle of theirs have they brought the most sacred and venerable Mystery of our Religion 2. It is very scandalous likewise upon account of the real barbarousness of this Sacrament and Rite of our Religion upon supposition of the truth of this Doctrine Literally to eat the flesh of the Son of man and to drink his bloud St. Austin as I have shewed before declares to be a great Impiety And the impiety and barbarousness of the thing is not in truth extenuated but onely the appearance of it by its being done under the Species of Bread and Wine For the thing they acknowledge is really done and they believe that they verily eat and drink the natural flesh and bloud of Christ And what can any man do more unworthily towards his
not seen and yet have believed hath no where said blessed are they that have seen and yet have not believed much less blessed are they that believe directly contrary to what they see To conclude this Discourse By what hath been said upon this Argument it will appear with how little truth and reason and regard to the interest of our common Christianity it is so often said by our Adversaries that there are as good arguments for the belief of Transubstantiation as of the Doctrine of the Trinity When they themselves do acknowledge with us that the Doctrine of the Trinity is grounded upon the Scriptures and that according to the interpretation of them by the consent of the ancient Fathers But their Doctrine of Transubstantiation I have plainly shewn to have no such ground and that this is acknowledged by very many learned men of their own Church And this Doctrine of theirs being first plainly proved by us to be destitute of all Divine Warrant and Authority our Objections against it from the manifold contradictions of it to Reason and Sense are so many Demonstrations of the falshood of it Against all which they have nothing to put in the opposite Scale but the Infallibility of their Church for which there is even less colour of proof from Scripture than for Transubstantiation it self But so fond are they of their own Innovations and Errours that rather than the Dictates of their Church how groundless and absurd soever should be call'd in question rather than not have their will of us in imposing upon us what they please they will overthrow any Article of the Christian Faith and shake the very foundations of our common Religion A clear evidence that the Church of Rome is not the true Mother since she can be so well contented that Christianity should be destroyed rather than the Point in question should be decided against her THE Protestant Religion Vindicated from the Charge of Singularity and Novelty IN A SERMON Preached before the KING At WHITE-HALL April the 2d 1680. JOSHUA XXIV 15. If it seem evil unto you to serve the Lord chuse you this day whom you will serve THese are the words of Joshua who after he had brought the People of Israel thorough many difficulties and hazards into the quiet possession of the promised land like a good Prince and Father of his Country was very sollicitous before his death to lay the firmest foundation he could devise of the future happiness and prosperity of that People in whose present settlement he had by the blessing of God been so succesfull an instrument And because he knew no means so effectual to this end as to confirm them in the Religion and Worship of the true God who had by so remarkable and miraculous a Providence planted them in that good Land he summons the people together and represents to them all those considerations that might engage them and their posterity for ever to continue in the true Religion He tells them what God had already done for them and what he had promised to do more if they would be faithfull to him And on the other hand what fearfull calamities he had threatned and would certainly bring upon them in case they should transgress his Covenant and go and serve other Gods And after many Arguments to this purpose he concludes with this earnest Exhortation at the 14th verse Now therefore fear the Lord and serve him in sincerity and in truth and put away the Gods which your father served on the other side of the flood and in Egypt and serve ye the Lord. And to give the greater weight and force to this Exhortation he do's by a very eloquent kind of insinuation as it were once more set them at liberty and leave them to their own election It being the nature of man to stick more stedfastly to that which is not violently imposed but is our own free and deliberate choice And if it seem evil unto you to serve the Lord chuse you this day whom you will serve Which words offer to our consideration these following Observations 1. It is here supposed that a Nation must be of some Religion or other Joshua do's not put this to their choice but takes it for granted 2. That though Religion be a matter of choice yet it is neither a thing indifferent in it self nor to a good Governour what Religion his people are of Joshua do's not put it to them as if it were an indifferent matter whether they served God or Idols he had sufficiently declared before which of these was to be preferred 3. The true Religion may have several prejudices and objections against it If it seem evil unto you to serve the Lord intimating that upon some accounts and to some persons it may appear so 4. That the true Religion hath those real advantages on its side that it may safely be referr'd to any considerate mans choice And this seems to be the true Reason why Joshua refers it to them Not that he thought the thing indifferent but because he was fully satisfied that the truth and goodness of the one above the other was so evident that there was no danger that any prudent man should make a wrong choice If it seem evil unto you to serve the Lord chuse you this day whom you will serve intimating that the plain difference of the things in competition would direct them what to chuse 5. The Example of Princes and Governours hath a very great influence upon the people in matters of Religion This I collect from the Context And Joshua was sensible of it and therefore though he firmly believed the true Religion to have those advantages that would certainly recommend it to every impartial mans judgment yet knowing that the multitude are easily imposed upon and led into error he thought fit to encline and determine them by his own example and by declaring his own peremptory resolution in the case Chuse you this day whom you will serve as for me I and my house will serve the Lord. Laws are a good security to Religion but the Example of Governours is a living Law which secretly overrules the minds of men and bends them to a compliance with it Non sic inflectere sensus Humanos edicta valent ut vita Regentis The Lives and Actions of Princes have usually a greater sway upon the minds of the People than their Laws All these Observations are I think very natural and very considerable I shall not be able to speak to them all but shall proceed so far as the time and your patience will give me leave First It is here supposed that a Nation must be of some Religion or other Joshua do's not put it to their choice whether they would worship any Deity at all That had been too wild and extravagant a supposition and which it is likely in those days had never entered into any mans mind But he takes it for granted that all people will
that for our greater assurance and comfort God hath confirmed his promises to us by an Oath condescending herein to deal with us after the manner of men who when they would give credit to a doubtful matter confirm what they say by an Oath And generally when any doubt or controversie ariseth between Parties concerning a matter of fact one side affirming and the other denying an end is put to this contest by an Oath An Oath for confirmation being to them an end of all strife An Oath for confirmation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the greater assurance and establishment of a thing Not that an Oath is always a certain and infallible decision of things according to truth and right but that this is the utmost credit that we can give to any thing and the last resort of truth and confidence among men After this we can go no farther for if the Religion of an Oath will not oblige men to speak truth nothing will This is the utmost secutity that men can give and must therefore be the final decision of all contests An Oath for confirmation is to them an end of all strife Now from this assertion of the Apostle concerning the great use and end of Oaths among men I shall take occasion 1. To consider the nature of an Oath and the kinds of it 2. To shew the great use and even necessity of Oaths in many cases 3. To vindicate the lawfulness of them where they are necessary 4. To shew the sacred obligation of an Oath I shall be as brief in these as the just handling of them will bear I. For the nature of an Oath and the kinds of it An Oath is an invocation of God or an appeal to him as a witness of the truth of what we say So that an Oath is a sacred thing as being an act of Religion and an invocation of the Name of God And this whether the Name of God be expresly mentioned in it or not If a man only say I swear or I take my Oath that a thing is or is not so or so or that I will or will not do such a thing Or if a man answer upon his Oath being adjured and required so to do Or if a man swear by Heaven or by Earth or by any other thing that hath relation to God in all these cases a man doth virtually call God to witness and in so doing he doth by consequence invoke him as a Judge and an Avenger in case what he swears be not true And if this be exprest the Oath is a formal Imprecation but whether it be or not a curse upon our selves is always implied in case of perjury There are two sorts of Oaths Assertory and Promissory An assertory Oath is when a man affirms or denies upon oath a matter of fact past or present When he swears that a thing was or is so or not so A promissory Oath is a promise confirmed by an Oath which always respects something that is future And if the promise be made directly and immediately to God then it is called a Vow if to men an Oath I proceed to the II. Thing which is to shew the great use and even necessity of Oaths in many cases Which is so great that humane Society can very hardly if at all subsist long without them Government would many times be very insecure and for the faithful discharge of Offices of great trust in which the welfare of the Publick is nearly concerned it is not possible to find any security equal to that of an Oath because the obligation of that reacheth to the most secret and hidden practices of men and takes hold of them in many cases where the penalty of no humane Law can have any awe or force upon them And especially it is as the Civil Law expresseth it maximum expediendarum litium remedium the best means of ending controversies And where mens estates or lives are concerned no evidence but what is assured by an Oath will be thought sufficient to decide the matter so as to give full and general satisfaction to mankind For in matters of so great concernment when men have all the assurance that can be had and not till then they are contented to sit down and rest satisfied with it And among all Nations an Oath hath always been thought the only peremptory and satisfactory way of deciding such controversies III. The third thing I proposed was to vindicate the lawfulness of Oaths where they are necessary And it is a very strong inducement to believe the lawfulness of them that the unavoidable condition of humane affairs hath made them so necessary The Apostle takes it for granted that an Oath is not only of great use in humane affairs but in many cases of great necessity to confirm a doubtful thing and to put an end to controversies which cannot otherwise be decided to the satisfaction of the Parties contending An oath for confirmation is to them an end of all strife And indeed it is hardly imaginable that God should not have left that lawful which is so evidently necessary to the peace and security of Mankind But because there is a Sect sprung up in our memory which hath called in question the lawfulness of all Oaths to the great mischief and disturbance of humane Society I shall endeavour to search this matter to the bottom and to manifest how unreasonable and groundless this Opinion is And to this end I shall First Prove the lawfulness of Oaths from the authority of this Text and from the reasons plainly contained or strongly implied in it Secondly I shall shew the weakness and insufficiency of the grounds of the contrary Opinion whether from Reason or from Scripture which last they principally rely upon and if it could be made out from thence would determine the case 1. I shall prove the lawfulness of Oaths from the authority of this Text and the reasons plainly contained or strongly implied in it Because the Apostle doth not only speak of the use of Oaths among men without any manner of censure and reproof but as a commendable custom and practice and in many cases necessary for the confirmation of doubtful matters and in order to the final decision of Controversies and Differences among men For First He speaks of it as the general practice of Mankind to confirm things by an oath in order to the ending of differences And indeed there is nothing that hath more universally obtained in all Ages and Nations of the World than which there is not a more certain indication that a thing is agreeable to the Law of Nature and the best Reason of Mankind And that this was no degenerate practice of Mankind like that of Idolatry is from hence evident that when God separated a People to himself it was practised among them by the holy Patriarchs Abraham Isaac and Jacob and was afterwards not only allowed but in many Cases commanded by the Law of Moses which had it
Prophet who teacheth any thing contrary to that natural Notion which men have That there is but one God who only ought to be worshipped 5. Nothing ought to he received as a Divine Doctrine and Revelation without good evidence that it is so that is without some Argument sufficient to satisfie a prudent and considerate man Now supposing there be nothing in the matter of the Revelation that is evidently contrary to the Principles of Natural Religion nor to any former Revelation which hath already received a greater and more solemn attestation from God Miracles are owned by all Mankind to be a sufficient Testimony to any Person or Doctrine that are from God This was the Testimony which God gave to Moses to satisfie the people of Israel that he had sent him Exed 4.1 2. Moses said They will not believe me nor hearken unto my voice for they will say The Lord hath not appeared unto thee Upon this God endues him with a power of Miracles to be an evidence to them That they may believe that the God of their Fathers Abraham Isaac and Jacob hath appeared unto thee And all along in the Old Testament when God sent his Prophets to make a new Revelation or upon any strange and extraordinary message he always gave credit to them by some Sign or Wonder which they foretold or wrought And when he sent his Son into the World he gave Testimony to him by innumerable great and unquestionable Miracles more and grearer than Moses and all the Prophets had wrought And there was great reason for this because our Saviour came not only to publish a new Religion to the World but to put an end to that Religion which God had instituted before And now that the Gospel hath had the confirmation of such Miracles as never were wrought upon any other occasion no Evidence inferiour to this can in reason controul this Revelation or give credit to any thing contrary to it And therefore though the false Prophets and Antichrists foretold by our Saviour did really work Miracles yet they were so inconsiderable in comparison of our Saviour's that they deserve no credit in opposition to that Revelation which had so clear a Testimony given to it from Heaven by Miracles besides all other concurring Arguments to confirm it 6. And Lastly No Argument is sufficient to prove a Doctrine or Revelation to be from God which is not clearer and stronger than the Difficulties and Objections against it Because all assent is grounded upon Evidence and the strongest and clearest evidence always carries it But where the evidence is equal on both sides that can produce nothing but a suspense and doubt in the mind whether the thing be true or not If Moses had not confuted Pharaoh's Magicians by working Miracles which they could not work they might reasonably have disputed it with him who had been the true Prophet But when he did works plainly above the power of their Magick and the Devil to do then they submitted and acknowledged that there was the Finger of God So likewise though a person work a Miracle which ordinarily is a good evidence that he is sent by God yet if the Doctrine he brings be plainly contrary to those natural Notions which we have of God this is a better objection against the truth of this Doctrine than the other is a proof of it as is plain in the case which Moses puts Deut. 13. which I mentioned before Upon the same account no man can reasonably believe the Doctrine of Transubstantiation to be revealed by God because every man hath as great evidence that Transubstantiation is false as any man can pretend to have that God hath revealed any such thing Suppose Transubstantiation to be part of the Christian Doctrine it must have the same confirmation with the whole and that is Miracles But of all Doctrines in the world it is peculiarly incapable of being proved by a Miracle For if a Miracle were wrought for the proof of it the very same assurance which a man hath of the truth of the Miracle he hath of the falshood of the Doctrine that is the clear evidence of his senses for both For that there is a Miracle wrought to prove that what he sees in the Sacrament is not bread but the body of Christ he hath onely the evidence of his senses and he hath the very same evidence to prove that what he sees in the Sacrament is not the body of Christ but bread So that here ariseth a new controversie whether a man should believe his senses giving testimony against the Doctrine of Transubstantiation or bearing testimony to the Miracle which is wrought to confirm that Doctrine For there is just the same evidence against the truth of the Doctrine which there is for the truth of the Miracle So that the Argument for Transubstantiation and the Objection against it do just ballance one another and where the weights in Both Scales are equal it is impossible that the one should weigh down the other and consequently Transubstantiation is not to be proved by a Miracle for that would be to prove to a man by something that he sees that he does not see what he sees And thus I have endeavoured as briefly and clearly as I could to give satisfaction to the first Enquiry I propounded viz. How we may discern between true and counterfeit Revelations and Doctrines I proceed now to the II To whom this judgement of Discerning does appertain Whether to Christians in general or to some particular Person or Persons authorised by God to judge for the rest of mankind by whose judgment all men are concluded and bound up And this is an enquiry of no small Importance because it is one of the most fundamental Points in difference between Us and the Church of Rome And however in many particular Controversies as concerning Transubstantiation the Communion in one kind the Service of God in an unknown Tongue the business of Indulgences the Invocation of Saints the Worship of Images they are not able to offer any thing that is fit to move a reasonable and considerate man yet in this Controversie concerning the Judge of Controversies they are not destitute of some specious appearance of Reason which deserves to be weighed and considered Therefore that we may examine this matter to the bottom I shall do these three things 1. Lay down some Cautions and Limitations whereby we may understand how far the generality of Christians are allowed to judge in matters of Religion 2. I shall represent the grounds of this Principle 3. Endeavour to satisfie the main Objection of our Adversaries against it And likewise to shew that there is no such reason and necessity for an universal infallible Judge as they pretend I. I shall lay down some Cautions and Limitations by which we may understand how far the generality of Christians are allowed to judge in matters of Religion First Private Persons are onely to judge for themselves
or any man else could tell me but I took him to conduct and direct me the nearest way to York And therefore after all his impertinent talk after all his Motives of Credibility to perswade me to believe him and all his confident sayings which he gravely calls Demonstrations I stand stifly upon the shore and leave my learned and reverend Guide to take his own course and to dispose of himself as he pleaseth but firmly resolved not to follow him And is any man to be blamed that breaks with his Guide upon these Terms And this is truly the Case when a man commits himself to the Guidance of any Person or Church If by virtue of this Authority they will needs perswade me out of my senses and not to believe what I see but what they say that Vertue is Vice and Vice Vertue it they declare them to be so And that because they say they are Infallible I am to receive all their Dictates for Oracles tho never so evidently false and absurd in the Judgment of all Mankind In this case there is no way to be rid of these unreasonable People but to desire of them since one kindness deserves another and all Contradictions are alike easie to be believed that they would be pleased to believe that Infidelity is Faith and that when I absolutely renounce their Authority I do yield a most perfect submission and obedience to it Upon the whole matter all the Revelations of God as well as the Laws of men go upon this presumption that men are not stark fools but that they will consider their Interest and have some regard to the great concernment of their eternal salvation And this is as much to secure men from mistake in matters of Belief as God hath afforded to keep men from sin in matters of Practice He hath made no effectual and infallible provision that men shall not sin and yet it would puzzle any man to give a good Reason why God should take more care to secure men against Errors in belief than against sin and wickedness in their Lives I shall now only draw three or four Inferences from this Discourse which I have made and so conclude 1. That it is every mans Duty who hath ability and capacity for it to endeavour to understand the grounds of his Religion For to try Doctrines is to inquire into the grounds and reasons of them which the better any man understands the more firmly he will be established in the Truth and be the more resolute in the day of Trial and the better able to withstand the Arts and assaults of cunning Adversaries and the fierce storms of Persecution And on the contrary that man will soon be moved from his stedfastness who never examined the Grounds and Reasons of his belief When it comes to the Trial he that hath but little to say for his Religion will probably neither do nor suffer much for it 2. That all Doctrines are vehemently to be suspected which decline Trial and are so loath to be brought into the light which will hot endure a fair Examination but magisterially require an implicite Faith Whereas Truth is bold and full of courage and loves to appear openly and is so secure and confident of her own strength as to offer her self to the severest Trial and Examination But to deny all liberty of Enquiry and Judgment in matters of Religion is the greatest injury and disparagement to Truth that can be and a tacite acknowledgment that she lies under some disadvantage and that there is less to be said for her than for Error I have often wonder'd why the People in the Church of Rome do not suspect their Teachers and Guides to have some ill design upon them when they do so industriously debar them of the means of Knowledge and are so very loath to let them understand what it is that we have to say against their Religion For can any thing in the world be more suspicious than to perswade men to put out their eyes upon promise that they will help them to a much better and more faithful Guide If any Church any Profession of men be unwilling their Doctrines should be exposed to Trial it is a certain sign they know something by them that is faulty and which will not endure the light This is the account which our Saviour gives us in a like case It was because mens deeds were evil that they loved darkness rather than light For every one that doth evil hateth the light neither cometh he to the light lest his deeds should be reproved But he that doth the truth cometh to the light that his deeds may be made manifest that they are wrought in God 3. Since Reason and Christianity allow this liberty to private persons to judg for themselves in matters of Religion we should use this priviledg with much modesty and humility with great submission and deference to our Spiritual Rulers and Guides whom God hath appointed in his Church And there is very great need of this Caution since by experience we find this liberty so much abused by many to the nourishing of Pride and Self-conceit of Division and Faction and those who are least able to judge to be frequently the most forward and confident the most peremptory and perverse and instead of demeaning themselves with the submission of Learners to assume to themselves the authority of Judges even in the most doubtful and disputable matters The Tyranny of the Roman Church over the Minds and Consciences of men is not to be justified upon any account but nothing puts so plausible a colour upon it as the ill use that is too frequently made of this natural Privilege of mens judging for themselves in a matter of so infinite concernment as that of their eternal happiness But then it is to be consider'd that the proper remedy in this Case is not to deprive men of this Privelege but to use the best means to prevent the abuse of it For though the inconveniences arising from the ill use of it may be very great yet the mischief on the other hand is intolerable Religion it self is liable to be abused to very bad purposes and frequently is so but it is not therefore best that there should be no Religion And yet this Objection if it be of any force and be pursued home is every whit as strong against Religion it self as against mens liberty of judging in matters of Religion Nay I add farther that no man can judiciously embrace the true Religion unless he be permitted to judge whether that which he embraces be the true Religion or not 4. When upon due Trial and Examination we are well setled and established in our Religion let us hold fast the prosession of our Faith without wavering and not be like Children tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of Doctrine through the sleight of men and the cunning craftiness of those who lye in wait to deceive
And above all let us resolve to live according to the excellent Rules and Precepts of our holy Religion let us heartily obey that Doctrine which we profess to believe We who enjoy the Protestant Religion have all the means and advantages of understanding the Will of God free liberty and full scope of enquiring into it and informing our selves concerning it We have all the opportunities we can wish of coming to the knowledge of our Duty The Oracles of God lie open to us and his Law is continually before our eyes his word is nigh unto us in our mouths and in our hearts that is we may read it and meditate upon it that we may do it The Key of Knowledge is put into our hands so that if we do not enter into the Kingdom of Heaven it is we our selves that shut our selves out And where there is nothing to hinder us from the knowledge of our Duty there certainly nothing can excuse us from the practice of it For the End of all knowledge is to direct men in their duty and effectually to engage them to the performance of it The great business of Religion is to make men truly good and to teach them to live well And if Religion have not this effect it matters not of what Church any man lists and enters himself for most certainly A bad man can be saved in none Though a man know the right way to Heaven never so well and be entred into it yet if he will not walk therein he shall never come thither Nay it will be an aggravation of this man's unhappiness that he was lost in the way to Heaven and perished in the very road to Salvation But if we will in good earnest apply our selves to the practice of Religion and the obedience of God's holy Laws his Grace will never be wanting to us to so good a purpose I have not time to recommend Religion to you at large with all its advantages I will comprise what I have to say in a few words and mind them at your peril Let that which is our great concernment be our great care To know the Truth and to do it To fear God and keep his Commandments Considering the Reasonableness and the Reward of Piety arid Vertue nothing can be wiser and considering the mighty assistance of God's Grace which he is ready to afford to us and the unspeakable satisfaction and delight which is to be had in the doing of our duty nothing can be easier Nothing will give us that pleasure while we live nothing can minister that true and solid comfort to us when we come to die There is probably no such way for a man to be happy in this World to be sure there is no way but this to escape the intolerable and endless miseries of another World Now God grant that we may all know and do in this our day the things that belong to our peace for his Mercies sake in Jesus Christ To whom with the Father and the Holy Ghost be all Honour and Glory now and for ever Amen A SERMON PREACHED At the Assises held at KINGSTON upon THAMES July 21. 1681. TO THE Right Worshipful and my honoured Friend JOSEPH REEVE Esq High Sherif of the County of SURREY SIR WHen I had perform'd the Service which you were pleased to call me to in the preaching of this Sermon I had no thoughts of making it more publique And yet in this also I was the more easily induced to comply with your desire because of the suitableness of the Argument to the Age in which we live wherein as men have run into the wildest extremities in other things so particularly in the matter of Oaths some making conscience of taking any Oaths at all and too many none at all of breaking them To convince the great mistake of the one extreme and to check the growing evil and mischief of the other is the chief design of this Discourse To which I shall be very glad if by God's blessing it may prove any-wise serviceable I am Sir Your very faithful and humble Servant Jo. Tillotson The Lawfulness AND Obligation of OATHS A SERMON Preach'd at the Assises held at Kingston upon Thames July 21. 1681. HEB. VI. 16. And an Oath for confirmation is to them an end of all strife THE Necessity of Religion to the support of humane Society in nothing appears more evidently than in this That the obligation of an Oath which is so necessary for the maintenance of peace and justice among men depends wholly upon the sence and belief of a Deity For no reason can be imagined why any man that doth not believe a God should make the least conscience of an Oath which is nothing else but a solemn appeal to God as a witness of the truth of what we say So that whoever promotes Atheism and Infidelity doth the most destructive thing imaginable to human Society because he takes away the reverence and obligation of Oaths And whenever that is generally cast off human Society must disband and all things run into disorder The just sense whereof made David cry out to God with so much earnestness as if the World had been cracking and the frame of it ready to break in pieces Psal 12. Help Lord for the righteous man ceaseth and the faithful fail from among the children of men Intimating That when Faith fails from among men nothing but a particular and immediate interposition of the Divine Providence can preserve the World from falling into confusion And our Blessed Saviour gives this as a sign of the end of the Worâ—d and the approaching dissolution of all things when faith and truth shall hardly be found among men Luke 18.8 When the Son of man comes shall he find Faith on the earth This state of things doth loudly call for his coming to destroy the World which is even ready to dissolve and fall in pieces of it self when these bands and pillars of humane Society do break and fail And surely never in any age was this sign of the coming of the Son of man more glaring and terrible than in this degenerate Age wherein we live when almost all sorts of men seem to have broke loose from all obligations to faith and truth And therefore I do not know any Argument more proper and useful to be treated of upon this Occasion than of the Nature and Obligation of an Oath which is the utmost security that one man can give to another of the truth of what he says the strongest tye of fideility the surest ground of Judicial proceedings and the most firm and sacred bond that can be laid upon all that are concerned in the administration of publick Justice upon Judge and Jury and Witnesses And for this reason I have pitched upon these Words In which the Apostle declares to us the great use and necessity of Oaths among men an Oath for confirmation is to them an end of all strife He had said before
been a thing evil in it self and forbidden by the Law of Nature would not have been done Secondly Another undeniable Argument from the Text of the lawfulness of Oaths is that God himself in condescension to the Custome of men who use to confirm and give credit to what they say by an Oath is represented by the Apostle as confirming his promise to us by an Oath verse 13. When God made the promise to Abraham because he could swear by none greater he swears by himself For men verily swear by the greater and an oath for confirmation is to them an end of all strife Wherein God willing more abundantly to shew unto the heirs of promise the immutability of his counsel confirmed it by an oath which he certainly would not have done had an oath been unlawful in it self For that had been to comply with men in an evil practice and by his own example to give countenance to it in the highest manner But though God condescend to represent himself to us after the manner of men he never does it in any thing that is in its own nature evil and sinful Thirdly From the great Usefulness of Oaths in humane affairs to give credit and confirmation to our word and to put an end to Contestations Now that which serves to such excellent purposes and is so convenient for humane society and for mutual security and confidence among men ought not easily to be presumed unlawful till it be plainly proved to be so And if we consider the nature of an oath and every thing belonging to it there is nothing that hath the least appearance of evil in it There is surely no evil in it as it is an act of Religion nor as it is an Appeal to God as a witness and avenger in case we swear falsly nor as it is a confirmation of a doubtful matter nor as it puts an end to strife and controversie And these are all the essential ingredients of an Oath and the ends of it and they are all so good that they rather commend it than give the least colour of ground to condemn it I proceed in the Second place to shew the weakness and insufficiency of the grounds of the contrary opinion whether from Reason or from Scripture First from Reason They say the necessity of an Oath is occasioned by the want of truth and fidelity among men And that every man ought to demean himself with that faithfulness and integrity as may give credit and confirmation to his word and then Oaths will be needless This pretence will be fully answered if we consider these two things 1. That in matters of great importance no other obligation besides that of an oath hath been thought sufficient amongst the best and wisest of men to assert their fidelity to one another Even the best men to use the words of a great Author have not trusted the best men without it As we see in very remarkable instances where Oaths have pass'd between those who might be thought to have the greatest confidence in one another As between Abraham and his old faithful servant Eliezer concerning the choice of a Wife for his Son Between Father and Son Jacob and Joseph concerning the burial of his Father in the Land of Canaan Between two of the dearest and most intimate Friends David and Jonathan to assure their friendship to one another and it had its effect long after Jonathans death in the saving of Mephibosheth when reason of State and the security of his Throne seem'd to move David strongly to the contrary for it is expresly said 2 Sam. 21.7 that David spared Mephibosheth Jonathan's Son because of the oath of the Lord that was between them implying that had it not been for his Oath other considerations might probably have prevail'd with him to have permitted him to have been cut off with the rest of Saul's Children 2. This Reason which is alledged against Oaths among men is much stronger against God's confirming his promises to us by an Oath For he who is truth it self is surely of all other most to be credited upon his bare word and his oath needless to give confirmation to it and yet he condescends to add his oath to his word and therefore that reason is evidently of no force Secondly From Scripture Our Saviour seems altogether to forbid swearing in any case Matth. 5.33 34. Ye have heard that it hath been said to them of old time thou shalt not forswear thy self but I say unto you swear not at all neither by heaven c. But let your communication be yea yea and nay nay for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil And this Law St. James recites chap. 5. vers 12. as that which Christians ought to have a very particular and principal regard to above all things my brethren swear not And he makes the breach of this Law a damning sin lest ye fall into condemnation But the authority of our Saviour alone is sufficient and therefore I shall only consider that Text. And because here lies the main strength of this opinion of the unlawfulness of Oaths it is very fit that this Text be fully consider'd and that it be made very evident that it was not our Saviour's meaning by this prohibition wholly to forbid the use of Oaths But before I enter upon this matter I will readily grant that there is scarce any Errour whatsoever that hath a more plausible colour from Scripture than this which makes the case of those who are seduced into it the more pityable But then it ought to be consider'd how much this Doctrine of the unlawfulness of oaths reflects upon the Christian Religion since it is so evidently prejudicial both to humane Society in general and particularly to those persons that entertain it neither of which ought rashly to be supposed and taken for granted concerning any Law delivered by our Saviour Because upon these terms it will be very hard for us to vindicate the divine wisdom of our Saviour's Doctrine and the Reasonableness of the Christian Religion Of the inconvenience of this Doctrine to humane Society I have spoken already But besides this it is very prejudicial to them that hold it It renders them suspected to Government and in many cases incapable of the common benefits of Justice and other privileges of humane Society and exposeth them to great penalties as the constitution of all Laws and Governments at present is and it is not easie to imagine how they should be otherwise And which is very considerable in this matter it sets those who refuse Oaths upon very unequal terms with the rest of Mankind if where the estates and lives of men are equally concern'd their bare testimonies shall be admitted without an Oath and others shall be obliged to speak upon Oath Nothing being more certain in experience than that many men will lie for their interest when they will not be perjured God having planted in the natural Consciences of
Consider it as an Argument ad hominem and shew the fitness and force of it to convince those with whom our Saviour disputed Secondly I shall enquire Whether it be more than an Argument ad hominem And if it be wherein the real and absolute force of it doth consist And then I shall apply this Doctrine of the Resurrection to the present Occasion I. First We will consider it as an Argument ad hominem and shew the fitness and force of it to convince those with whom our Saviour disputed And this will appear if we carefully consider these four things 1. What our Saviour intended directly and immediately to prove by this Argument 2. The extraordinary veneration which the Jews in general had for the Writings of Moses above any other Books of the Old Testament 3. The peculiar notion which the Jews had concerning the use of this Phrase or expression of God's being any one 's God 4. The great respect which the Jews had for these three Fathers of their Nation Abraham Isaac and Jacoh For each of these make our Saviour's Argument more forcible against those with whom he disputed First We will consider what our Saviour intended directly and immediately to prove by this Argument And that was this That there is another state after this life wherein men shall be happy or miserable according as they have lived in this world And this doth not only suppose the immortality of the Soul but forasmuch as the Body is an essential part of man doth by consequence infer the resurrection of the Body because otherwise the man would not be happy or misererable in the other world But I cannot see any sufficient ground to believe that our Saviour intended by this Argument directly and immediately to prove the resurrection of the Body but only by consequence and as it follows from the admission of a future state wherein men shall be rewarded or punished For that Reason of our Saviour that God is not a God of the dead but of the living if it did directly prove the resurrection of the Body it would prove that the Bodies of Abraham Isaac and Jacob were raised to life again at or before that time when God spake to Moses and called himself the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob But we do not believe this and therefore ought not to suppose that it was the intention of our Saviour directly and immediately to prove the resurrection of the Body but only as I said before a future state And that this was all our Saviour intended will more plainly appear if we consider what that Errour of the Sadduces was which our Saviour here confutes And Josephus who very well understood the difference of the Sects among the Jews and gives a particular account of them makes not the least mention of any Controversie between the Pharisees and the Sadduces about the resurrection of the Body All that he says is this That the Pharisees hold the Immortality of the Soul and that there are Rewards and Punishments in another world But the Sadduces denied all this and that there was any other state after this life And this is the very same account with that which is given of them in the New Testament vers 27. of this Chapt. The Sadduces who deny that there is any resurrection The meaning of which is more fully declared Act. 23.8 The Sadduces say that there is no resurrection neither angel nor spirit but the Pharisees confess both That is the Sadduces denied that there was any other state of men after this life and that there was any such thing as an immortal Spirit either Angels or the Souls of men surviving their Bodies And as Dr. Hammond hath judiciously observed this is the true importance of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 viz. a future or another state unless in such Texts where the Context does restrain it to the raising again of the Body or where some word that denotes the body as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is added to it Secondly The force of this Argument against those with whom our Saviour disputed will further appear if we consider the great veneration which the Jews in general had for the Writings of Moses above any other Books of the Old Testament which they especially the Sadduces looked upon only as Explications and Comments upon the Law of Moses But they esteemed nothing as a necessary Article of Faith which had not some foundation in the Writings of Moses And this seems to me to be the true Reason why our Saviour chose to confute them out of Moses rather than any other part of the Old Testament And not as many learned men have imagined because the Sadduces did not receive any part of the Old Testament but only the five Books of M ses so that it was in vain to argue against them out of any other This I know hath been a general opinion grounded I think upon the mistake of a passage in Josephus who says the Sadduces only received the written Law But if We carefully consider that passage we shall find that Josephus doth not there oppose the Law to the other Bâ—â—ks of the Old Testament which were also written but to Oral Tradition For he says expresly that the Sadduces only received the written Law but the Pharisees over and besides what was written received the Oral which they call Tradition I deny not but that in the later Prophets there are more express Texts for the proof of a future state than any are to be found in the Books of Moses As Daniel 12.2 And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake s me to everlasting life and some to shame and everlasting contempt And indeed it seems very plain that holy men among the Jews towards the expiration of the Legal dispensation had still clearer and more express apprehensions concerning a future state than are to be met with in the Writings of Moses or of any of the Prophets The Law given by Moses did suppose the Immortality of the Souls of men and the expectation of another life after this as Principles of Religion in some degree naturally known but made no new and express Revelation of these things Nor was there any occasion for it the Law of Moses being a Political Law not intended for the Government of mankind but of one particular Nation and therefore was establish'd as Political Laws are upon temporal promises and threatnings promising temporal prosperity to the observation of its precepts and threatning the breach of them with temporal judgments and calamities And this I take to be the true reason why arguments fetch'd from another world are so obscurely insisted upon under that Dispensation not but that another life after this was always suppos'd and was undoubtedly the hope and expectation of good men under the Law but the clear discovery of it was reserv'd for the Times of the Messias And therefore as
off all Religion He that unworthily useth or performs any part of Religion is in an evil and dangerous condition but he that casts off all Religion plungeth himself into a most desperate state and does certainly damn himself to avoid the danger of damnation Because he that casts off all Religion throws off all the means whereby he should be reclaimed and brought into a better state I cannot more fitly illustrate this matter than by this plain Similitude He that eats and drinks intemperately endangers his health and his life but he that to avoid this danger will not eat at all I need not tell you what will certainly become of him in a very short space There are some conscientious persons who abstain from the Sacrament upon an apprehension that the sins which they shall commit afterwards are unpardonable But this is a great mistake our Saviour having so plainly declared that all manner of sin mall be forgiven men except the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost such as was that of the Pharisees who as our Saviour tells us blasphemed the Holy Ghost in ascribing those great miracles which they saw him work and which he really wrought by the Spirit of God to the power of the Devil Indeed to sin deliberately after so solemn an engagement to the contrary is a great aggravation of sin but not such as to make it unpardonable But the neglect of the Sacrament is not the way to prevent these sins but on the contrary the constant receiving of it with the best preparation we can is one of the most effectual means to prevent sin for the future and to obtain the assistence of God's grace to that end And if we fall into sin afterwards we may be renewed by repentance for we have an advocate with the Father Jesus Christ the righteous who is the propitiation for our sins and as such is in a very lively and affecting manner exhibited to us in this blessed Sacrament of his body broken and his bloud shed for the remission of our sins Can we think that the primitive Christians who so frequently received this holy Sacrament did never after the receiving of it fall into any deliberate sin undoubtedly many of them did but far be it from us to think that such sins were unpardonable and that so many good men should because of their carefull and conscientious observance of our Lord's Institution unavoidably fall into condemnation To draw to a conclusion of this matter such groundless fears and jealousies as these may be a sign of a good meaning but they are certainly a sign of an injudicious mind For if we stand upon these Scruples no man perhaps was ever so worthily prepared to draw near to God in any duty of Religion but there was still some defect or other in the disposition of his mind and the degree of his preparation But if we prepare our selves as well as we can this is all God expects And for our fears of falling into sin afterwards there is this plain answer to be given to it that the danger of falling into sin is not prevented by neglecting the Sacrament but encrcased because a powerfull and probable means of preserving men from sin is neglected And why should not every sincere Christian by the receiving of this Sacrament and renewing his Covenant with God rather hope to be confirmed in goodness and to receive farther assistences of God's grace and holy Spirit to strengthen him against sin and to enable him to subdue it than trouble himself with fears which are either without ground or if they are not are no sufficient reason to keep any man from the Sacrament We cannot surely entertain so unworthy a thought of God and our blessed Saviour as to imagine that he did institute the Sacrament not for the furtherance of our Salvation but as a snare and an occasion of our ruine and damnation This were to pervert the gracious design of God and to turn the cup of Salvation into a cup of deadly poison to the souls of men All then that can reasonably be inferred from the danger of unworthy receiving is that upon this consideration men should be quickned to come to the Sacrament with a due preparation of mind and so much the more to fortifie their resolutions of living sutably to that holy Covenant which they solemnly renew every time they receive this holy Sacrament This consideration ought to convince us of the absolute necessity of a good life but not to deter us from the use of any means which may contribute to make us good Therefore as a learned Divine says very well this Sacrament can be neglected by none but those that do not understand it but those who are unwilling to be tyed to their duty and are afraid of being engaged to use their best diligence to keep the commandments of Christ And such persons have no reason to fear being in a worse condition since they are already in so bad a state And thus much may suffice for answer to the first Objection concerning the great danger of unworthy receiving this holy Sacrament I proceed to the 2. Second Objection Obj. 2. which was this That so much preparation and worthiness being required to our worthy receiving the more timorus sort of Christians can never think themselves duly enough qualified for so sacred an Action For a full Answer to this Objection I shall endeavour briefly to clear these three things First That every degree of Imperfection in our preparation for this Sacrament is not a sufficient reason for men to refrain from it Secondly That a total want of a due preparation not only in the degree but in the main and substance of it though it render us unfit at present to receive this Sacrament yet it does by no means excuse our neglect of it Thirdly That the proper Inference and conclusion from the total want of a due preparation is not to cast off all thoughts of receiving the Sacrament but immediately to set upon the work of preparation that so we may be fit to receive it And if I can clearly make out these three things I hope this Objection is fully answered 1. That every degree of imperfection in our preparation for this Sacrament is not a sufficient reason for men to abstain from it For then no man should ever receive it For who is every way worthy and in all degrees and respects duly qualified to approach the presence of God in any of the duties of his Worship and Service Who can wash his hands in innocency that so he may be perfectly fit to approach God's Altar There is not man on earth that lives and sins not The Graces of the best men are imperfect and every imperfection in grace and goodness is an imperfection in the disposition and preparation of out minds for this holy Sacrament But if we do heartily repent of our sins and sincerely resolve to obey and perform the terms of the Gospel and of
long before his death Greater love than this hath no man that a man lay down his life for his friend ye are my friends if ye do whatsoever I command you It is a wonderfull love which he hath expressed to us and worthy to be had in perpetual remembrance And all that he expects from us by way of thankfull acknowledgment is to celebrate the remembrance of it by the frequent participation of this blessed Sacrament And shall this charge laid upon us by him who laid down his life for us lay no obligation upon us to the solemn remembrance of that unparallel'd kindness which is the fountain of so many blessings and benefits to us It is a sign we have no great sense of the benefit when we are so unmindfull of our benefactour as to forget him days without number The Obligation he hath laid upon us is so vastly great not only beyond all requital but beyond all expression that if he had commanded us some very grievous thing we ought with all the readiness and chearfulness in the world to have done it how much more when he hath imposed upon us so easie a commandment a thing of no burthen but of immence benefit when he hath onely said to us Eat O friends and drink O beloved when he onely invites us to his table to the best and most delicious Feast that we can partake of on this side heaven If we seriously believe the great blessings which are there exhibited to us and ready to be conferred upon us we should be so far from neglecting them that we should heartily thank God for every opportunity he offers to us of being made partakers of such benefits When such a price is put into our hands shall we want hearts to make use of it Methinks we should long with David who saw but the shadow of these blessings to be satisfied with the good things of God's house and to draw near his altar and should cry out with him O when shall I come and appear before thee My soul longeth yea even fainteth for the courts of the Lord and my flesh cryeth out for the living God And if we had a just esteem of things we should account it the greatest infelicity and judgment in the world to be debarred of this privilege which yet we do deliberately and frequently deprive our selves of We exclaim against the Church of Rome with great impatience and with a very just indignation for robbing the People of half of this blessed Sacrament and taking from them the cup of blessing the cup of salvation and yet we can patiently endure for some months nay years to exclude our selves wholly from it If no such great benefits and blessings belong to it why do we complain of them for hindring us of any part of it But if there do why do we by our own neglect deprive our selves of the whole In vain do we bemoan the decay of our graces and our slow progress and improvement in Christianity whilst we wilfully despise the best means of our growth in goodness Well do we deserve that God should send leanness into our souls and make them to consume and pine away in perpetual doubting and trouble if when God himself doth spread so bountifull a Table for us and set before us the bread of life we will not come and feed upon it with joy and thankfulness A DISCOURSE AGAINST TRANSVBSTANTIATION Concerning the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper one of the two great positive Institutions of the Christian Religion there are two main Points of difference between Vs and the Church of Rome One about the Doctrine of Transubstantiation in which they think but are not certain that they have the Scripture and the words of our Saviour on their side The other about the administration of this Sacrament to the People in both kinds in which we are sure that we have the Scripture and our Saviour's Institution on our side and that so plainly that our Adversaries themselves do not deny it Of the first of these I shall now treat and endeavour to shew against the Church of Rome That in this Sacrament there is no substantial change made of the Elements of Bread and Wine into the natural Body and Bloud of Christ that Body which was born of the Virgin Mary and suffered upon the Cross for so they explain that hard word Transubstantiation Before I engage in this Argument I cannot but observe what an unreasonable task we are put upon by the bold confidence of our Adversaries to dispute a matter of Sense which is one of those things about which Aristotle hath long since pronounc'd there ought to be no dispute It might well seem strange if any man should write a Book to prove that an Egg is not an Elephant and that a Musket-bullet is not a Pike It is every whit as hard a case to put to maintain by a long Discourse that what we see and handle and taste to be Bread is Bread and not the Body of a man and what we see and taste to be Wine is Wine and not Bloud And if this evidence may not pass for sufficient without any farther proof I do not see why any man that hath confidence enough to do so may not deny any thing to be what all the World sees it is or affirm any thing to be what all the World sees it is not and this without all possibility of being farther confuted So that the business of Transubstantiation is not a controversie of Scripture against Scripture or of Reason against Reason but of downright Impudence against the plain meaning of Scripture and all the Sense and Reason of Mankind It is a most Self-evident Falshood and there is no Doctrine or Proposition in the World that is of it self more evidently true than Transubstantiation is evidently false And yet if it were possible to be true it would be the most ill-natur'd and pernicious truth in the World because it would suffer nothing else to be true it is like the Roman-Catholick Church which will needs be the whole Christian Church and will allow no other Society of Christians to be any part of it So Transubstantiation if it be true at all it is all truth and nothing else is true for it cannot be true unless our Senses and the Senses of all mankind be deceived about their proper objects and if this he true and certain then nothing else can be so for if we be not certain of what we see we can be certain of nothing And yet notwithstanding all this there are a Company of men in the World so abandon'd and given up by God to the efficacy of delusion as in good earnest to believe this gross and palpable Errour and to impose the belief of it upon the Christian World under no less penalties than of temporal death and eternal damnation And therefore to undeceive if possible these deluded Souls it will be necessary to examine the pretended grounds of