Tittle of all this, yet they have a Text whereon they graft this Doctrine of Tranfubftantiation, viz. This is my Body, which they fay, fignifies every thing which they teach concerning Tranfubftantiation; but then I hope they will prove that it does fo, not expect that we fhould take it for granted, because they say it. Now, not to infift upon thofe Arguments, whereby our Divines have fo demonstratively proved, that Tranfubftantiation, as explained by the Church of Rome, cannot be the fence of This is my Body, my advice to Proteftants is to put them upon the proof, that this is the fence of it, which in reafon they ought to prove, becaufe there is not one word of it in the Text; and I fhall only tell them what Proofs they ought to demand for it.

Now, I fuppofe, all men will think it reasonable, that the Evidence for it, fhould at least be equal to the Evidence againft it, though we ought indeed to have more reason to believe it, than to dif-believe it; or else we muft hang in fufpence, when the Balance is equal and turns neither way. Now I will not oppose the Evidence of Sence and Reason, against the Authority of Scripture; for I will never fuppofe that they can contradict each other; and if there fhould appear fome contradiction between them, I will be contented at prefent, without difputing that point, to give it on the fide of Scripture; but I will oppose the Evidence of Sense and Reason against any private man's, or any Churches Expofition of Scripture: and if that Expofition they give of any Text of Scripture, as fuppofe, This is my Body, contradict the Evidence of Senfe and Reason, may modeftly require as plain proof, that this is the meaning of the Text, as I have, that fuch a meaning is contrary to all Senfe and Reafon: for though Senfe and Reafon be not the Rule and Measure of Faith,yet we muft

ufe

ufe our Senfe and Reafon in expounding Scripture, or we may quickly make a very abfurd and fenfelefs Reli gion.

Now this fhews us what kind of Proof we must require, that Tranfubftantiation is the Doctrine of the Gospel, viz. as certain Proof as we have,that Tranfubftantiation is contrary to Senfe and Reason. And there fore,

1. We must demand a felf-evident Proof of this, be cause it is felf-evident, that Transubstantiation contradias Sence and Reason. Every man, who knows what the word means, (which I believe men may do, without being great Philofophers) and will confult his own Senfes and Reafon,will need no Arguments to prove, that Tranfubftantiation contradicts both. Now fuch a Scripture-Proof, I would fee for Tranfubftantiation, so plain, and exprefs, and felf-evident, that no man, who underftands the words, can doubt whether this be the meaning of them; I mean, a reasonable, not an obftinate, wilful, and fceptical doubting. Now I believe, that our Adverfaries themselves will not fay, that This is my Body, is such a self-evident Proof of Tranfubftantiation; I am fure some of the wifeft men among them have not thought it fo, and the fierce Difputes for fo many Ages: about the interpretation of thofe words, proves that it is not fo: for men do not use (to difpute what is felfevident, and proves it felf without any other Arguments. Now it is very unreasonable to require any man to believe Tradfubftantiation against a felf-evident Proof, that it is contrary to Senfe and Reafon, without giving him a felf-evident Proof, that it is the Doctrine of Scripture:;: which is to require a man to believe against the best Reason and Evidence.

2. We muft demand fuch a Scripture-Proof of Tranfubftan

fubftantiation, as cannot poffibly fignifie any thing elfe; or else it will not answer that Evidence which we have against Transubstantiation? for Sense and Reason pronounce Transubstantiation to be naturally impoffible; and therefore unless it be as impoffible to put any other fense upon Scripture than what fignifies Tranfubftantiation, as it is to reconcile Tranfubftantiation to Sense and Reason, there is not fuch good Evidence for Transubftantiation, as against it. Were the Scripture-Proofs for Tranfubftantiation fo plain and evident, that it were impoffible to put any other fenfe on the words, then I would grant, that it is as impoffible for those who believe the Scriptures to disbelieve Transubstantiation, as it is for thofe, who truft to their own Senfe and Reason, to believe it. Here the difficulty would be equal on both fides, and then I fhould prefer a Divine Revelation (if it were poffible to prove fuch a Revelation to be Divine) before natural Sense and Reason; but I prefume, no man will say, that it is impoffible to put another, and that a very reasonable, interpretation upon those words, This is my Body, without expounding them to the sense of Transubstantiation.

Our Roman Adverfaries do not deny, but that these words are capable of a figurative, as well as of a literal fense; as when the Church is called the Body of Christ, Flesh of his Flesh, and Bone of his Bone, it is not meant of his natural, but his mystical Body: and thus when the Bread is called the Body of Chrift, it may not fignifie his natural, but facramental Body, or his Body to all the ends and purposes of a Sacrament. Now if there be any other good fenfe to be made of these words, befides Tranfubftantiation, there cannot be fuch a neceffity to expound them of Transubstantiation, as there is not to expound them of it; for I do not reject Scripture, if

I

Ideny Tranfubftantiation, when the words of Scripture do not neceffarily prove it; but I renounce Senfe and Reafon, if I believe it. Now though I were bound to renounce my Senfe and Reason, when they contradict Scripture, yet fure I am not bound to deny my Sense and Reason, when they do not contradi& Scripture; and Senfe and Reason are never contrary to Scripture, nor Scripture to them, when the words of Scripture are capable of fuch an interpretation as is reconcileable both to Senfe and Reason: In fuch a cafe to expound Scripture contrary to Sense and Reason, is both to pervert the Scripture, and to contradict Reason, without any neceffity. An unlearned man need not enter into a large Difpute about Transubstantiation; let him but require his Adversary to give him as plain Evidence, that Tranfubftantiation is the Doctrine of the Gospel, as he can give him, that it is contrary to Sense and Reason, and the Dispute will quickly be at an end. It had been very easie to have given more inftances under every Head, and to have obferved more falfe ways of expounding Scripture, which the Doctors of the Church of Rome are guilty of; but these are the most obvious, and therefore the best fitted to my defign to instruct unlearned men; and I must not fuffer this Difcourfe, which was at firft intended much shorter than it already is, to swell too much under my hands.

SECT. III.

Concerning the Ancient Fathers and Writers of the
Christian Church.

T

Hough Learned men may fquabble about the Sence of Fathers and Councils, it is very unreasonable, that Unlearned men fhould be concerned in fuch

L

Disputes,

Difputes, because they are not competent Judges of it; and yet there is nothing which our Roman Difputants make a greater noife with, among Women and Children, and the meanest fort of People, than Quotations out of Fathers and Councils, whom they pretend to be all on their fide. Now as it is a ridiculous thing for them to talk of Fathers and Councils to fuch People, fo it is very ridiculous for fuch People to be converted by Sayings out of the Fathers and Councils : I confess, it has made me often smile,with a mixture of pity and indignation, at the folly of it; for what more contemptible eafiness can any man be guilty of, than to change his Religion which he has been taught out of the Scriptures, and may find there if he pleafes, because he is told by fome honest Priest, (a fort of men who never deceive any one) that fuch or fuch a Father, who lived it may be they know not where nor when, and wrote they know not what, has fpoke in favour of Transubstantiation, or Purgatory, or fome other Popish Doctrine.

And therefore let me advise our Proteftant, who is not skilled in these matters, when he is urged with the Authority of Fathers, to ask them fome few Quefti

ons.

1. Ask them, How you fhall certainly know what the Judgment of the Fathers was? and this includes a great many Questions, which must be refolved, before you can be fure of this, as, How you fhall know that fuch Books were written by that Father, whofe name it bears? or that it has not been corrupted by the ignorance or knavery of Transcribers, while they were in the hands of Monks, who ufurped great Authority over the Fathers, and did not only pare their Nails, but altered their very Habit and Dress, to fit them to the modes of

the