Ser. 48. wills of free agents; it being utterly inconceivable, how any understanding, how large and perfect foever, can certainly know beforehand that which depends upon the free will of another, which is an arbitrary and uncertain cause.

And yet the fcripture doth not only attribute this foreknowledge to God; but gives us alfo plain inftances of God's foretelling fuch things, many ages before they happened, as could not come to pass but by the fins of men; in which we are fure that God can have no hand, though nothing can happen without his permiffion. Such was that most memorable event of the death of Christ, who, as the fcripture tells us, was by wicked hands crucified and flain: and yet even this is faid to have happened according to the determinate foreknowledge of God; and was punctually foretold by him fome hundreds of years before. Nay, the fcripture doth not only afcribe this power and perfection to the divine knowledge, but natural reafon hath been forced to acknowledge it; as we may fee in fome of the wifeft of the philofophers. And yet it would puzzle the greatest philofopher that ever was, to give any tolerable account how any knowledge whatfoever can certainly and infallibly forefee an event through uncertain and contingent caufes. All the reafonable fatisfaction that can be had in this matter is this, that it is not at all unreasonable to fuppose, that infinite knowledge may have ways of knowing things, which our finite understandings can by no means comprehend how they can poffibly be known.

Again, there is hardly any thing more inconceivable, than how a thing fhould be of itself, and without any cause of its being and yet our reafon compels us to acknowledge this; becaufe we certainly fee, that fomething is, which must either have been of itself, and without a caufe, or else something that we do not fee must have been of itself, and have made all other things. And by this reafoning, we are forced to acknowledge a Deity; the mind of man being able to find no reft, but in the acknowledgment of one eternal and wife mind, as the principle and first caufe of all other things: and this principle is that which mankind do by general confent call God. So that God hath laid a fure foundation of

our

our acknowledgment of his being in the reafon of our own minds. And though it be one of the hardest things in the world, to conceive how any thing can be of itself; yet neceffity drives us to acknowledge it whether we will or no: and this being once granted, our reafon being tired in trying all other ways, will, for its own quiet and cafe, force us at last to fall in with the general apprehenfion and belief of mankind concerning a Deity.

To give but one inftance more: There is the like difficulty in conceiving how any thing can be made out of nothing and yet our reafon doth oblige us to believe it; because matter, which is a very imperfect being, and merely paffive, muft either always have been of itfelf, or elfe, by the infinite power of a molt perfect and active being, must have been made out of nothing. Which is much more credible, than that any thing fo imperfect as matter is, fhould be of itfelf; because that' which is of itself, cannot be conceived to have any bounds and limits of its being and perfection; for by the fame reason that it neceffarily is and of itself, it must neceffarily have all perfection, which it is certain matter hath not: and yet neceffary exiftence is fo great a perfection, that we cannot reasonably suppose any thing that hath this perfection, to want any other.

Thus you fee, by these instances, that it is not repugnant to reafon, to believe a great many things to be, of the manner of whofe existence we are not able to give a particular and distinct account. And much lefs is it. repugnant to reafon, to believe thofe things concerning God, which we are very well affured he hath declared concerning himself, though these things by our reafon fhould be incomprehenfible.

And this is truly the cafe as to the matter now under debate. We are fufficiently affured, that the fcriptures are a divine revelation, and that this mystery of the Trinity is therein declared to us. Now, that we cannot compre. hend it, is no fufficient reafon not to believe it: for, if this were a good reafon for not believing it, then no man ought to believe that there is a God; because his nature is most certainly incomprehenfible. But we are affured by many arguments that there is a God; and

M 3

the

Ser. 48. the fame natural reafon which affures us that he is, doth likewife affure us, that he is incomprehenfible: and therefore our believing him to be fo, doth by no means overthrow our belief of his being.

In like manner, we are affured by divine revelation of the truth of this doctrine of the Trinity; and being once affured of that, our not being able fully to comprehend it, is not reafon enough to ftagger our belief of it. A man cannot deny what he fees, though the neceffary confequence of admitting it may be fomething which he cannot comprehend. One cannot deny the frame of this world which he fees with his eyes, though from thence it will neceffarily follow, that either that or fomething elfe must be of itself; which yet, as I faid before, is a thing which no man can comprehend how it can be.

And by the fame reason, a man must not deny what God fays, to be true; though he cannot comprehend many things which God fays: as particularly concerning this mystery of the Trinity. It ought then to fatisfy us, that there is fufficient evidence, that this doctrine is delivered in fcripture; and that what is there declared concerning it, doth not imply a contradiction. For why should our finite understandings pretend to comprehend that which is infinite; or to know all the real differences that are confiftent with the unity of an infinite being; or to be able fully to explain this mystery by any fimilitude or resemblance taken from finite beings?

But, before I leave this argument, I cannot but take notice of one thing which they of the church of Rome are perpetually objecting to us upon this occafion; and it is this: That by the fame reason that we believe the doctrine of the Trinity, we may and must receive that of tranfubftantiation. God forbid: Because of all the do&trines that ever were in any religion, this of transubstantiation is certainly the most abominably abfurd.

However, this objection plainly fhews how fondly and obftinately they are addicted to their own errors, how mishapen and monftrous foever; infomuch that, rather than the dictates of their church, how abfurd foever, fhould be called in queftion, they will question the

truth

truth even of Christianity itself; and if we will not take in transubstantiation, and admit it to be a neceffary article of the Christian faith, they grow fo fullen and defperate, that they matter not what becomes of all the reft and rather than not have their will of us in that which is controverted, they will give up that which by their own confeffion is an undoubted article of the Chriftian faith, and not controverted on either fide; except only by the Socinians, who yet are hearty enemies to tranfubftantiation, and have expofed the abfurdity of it with great advantage.

But I fhall endeavour to return a more particular anfwer to this objection, and such a one as I hope will fatisfy every confiderate and unprejudiced mind, that after all this confidence and swaggering of theirs, there is by no means equal reason either for the receiving, or for the rejecting of these two doctrines of the Trinity and tranfubftantiation.

1. There is not equal reafon for the belief of these two doctrines. This objection, if it be of any force, must fuppofe that there is equal evidence and proof from fcripture for these two doctrines. But this we utterly deny; and with great reafon; because it is no more evident from the words of fcripture, that the facramental bread is fubftantially changed into Chrift's natural body by virtue of those words, This is my body, than it is, that Chrift is fubftantially changed into a natural vine by virtue of those words, John xv. 1. I am the true vine ; or than that the rock in the wilderness, of which the Ifraelites drank, was fubftantially changed into the perfon of Chrift, because it is exprefsly faid, that Rock was Chrift; or than that the Chriftian church is fubftantially changed into the natural body of Chrift, because it is in exprefs terms faid of the church, that it is his body, Eph. i. 23.

But befides this, feveral of their own most learned writers have freely acknowledged, that transubstantiation can neither be directly proved, nor neceffarily concluded from fcripture. But this the writers of the Chriftian church did never acknowledge concerning the Trinity, and the divinity of Chrift; but have always appealed to the clear and undeniable teftimonies of fcripture for the proof of

thefe

thefe doctrines. And then the whole force of the objection amounts to this, That if I am bound to believe what I am fure God fays, though I cannot comprehend it; then I am bound by the fame reafon to believe the greatest abfurdity in the world, though I have no manner of affurance of any divine revelation concerning it. And if this be their meaning, though we understand not tranfubftantiation, yet we very well understand what they would have, but cannot grant it; because there is not equal reafon to believe two things, for one of which there is good proof, and for the other no proof at all.

2. Neither is there equal reason for the rejecting of thefe two doctrines. This the objection fuppofes, which yet cannot be fuppofed, but upon one or both of these two grounds; either because these two doctrines are equally incomprehensible; or because they are equally loaded with abfurdities and contradictions.

1st, The first is no good ground of rejecting any do&trine, merely because it is incomprehenfible; as I have abundantly thewed already. But befides this, there is a wide difference between plain matters of sense, and myfteries concerning God; and it does by no means follow, that if a man do once admit any thing concerning God which he cannot comprehend, he hath no reafon afterwards to believe what he himself fees. This is a most unreasonable and deftructive way of arguing; because it strikes at the foundation of all certainty, and fets every man at liberty to deny the most plain and evident truths of Chriftianity, if he may not be humoured in having the abfurdest things in the world admitted for true. The next step will be, to perfuade us, that we may as well deny the being of God, because his nature is incomprehenfible by our reafon, as deny tranfubftantiation, because it evidently contradicts our fenfes.

2dly, Nor are thefe two doctrines loaded with the like abfurdities and contradictions. So far from this, that the doctrine of the Trinity, as it is delivered in the fcriptures, and hath already been explained, hath no abfurdity or contradiction, either involved in it, or neceffarily confequent upon it. But the doctrine of tranfub ftantiation is big with all imaginable abfurdity and contradiction. And their own schoolmen have fufficiently

expofed