And if they be mistaken in this change, through the knavery or croffness of the priest, who will not make God but when he thinks fit, they must not think to excufe themselves from idolatry, because they intended to worship God, and not a creature: for fo the Perfians might be excufed from idolatry in worshipping the fun, because they intend to worship God, and not a creature. And fo indeed we may excufe all the idolatry that ever was in the world; which is nothing else but a mistake of the Deity, and, upon that mistake, a worshipping of fomething as God which is not God.

II. Befides the infinite fcandal of this doctrine upon the accounts I have mentioned, the monftrous abfurdities of it make it infupportable to any religion. I am very well affured of the grounds of religion in general, and of the Chriftian religion in particular; and yet I cannot fee that the foundations of any revealed religion are ftrong enough to bear the weight of fo many and fo great abfurdities as this doctrine of tranfubftantiation would load it withal. And to make this evident, I fhall not infist upon those gross contradictions, of the same body being in fo many feveral places at once; of our Saviour's giving away himself with his own hands to every one of his difciples, and yet ftill keeping himself to himself; and a thousand more of the like nature: but to fhew the abfurdity of this doctrine, I shall only ask thefe few questions.

1. Whether any man have, or ever had, greater evidence of the truth of any divine revelation, than any man hath of the falfhood of transubstantiation? Infidelity were hardly poffible to men, if all men had the fame evidence for the Christian religion which they have against tranfubftantiation; that is, the clear and irreLiftible evidence of fenfe. He that can once be brought to contradict or deny his senses, is at an end of certainty: for what can a man be certain of, if he be not certain of what he fees? In fome circumftances our fenfes may deceive us, but no faculty deceives us fo little and fo feldom and when our fenfes do deceive us, even that error is not to be corrected without the help of our fenfes.

:

2. Suppofing this doctrine had been delivered in fcri

ptu.e

pture in the very fame words that it is decreed in the council of Trent, by what clearer evidence or ítronger argument could any man prove to me that fuch words were in the Bible, than I can prove to him that bread and wine, after confecration, are bread and wine still? He could but appeal to my eyes to prove fuch words to be in the Bible; and with the fame reason and juftice might I appeal to feveral of his fenfes to prove to him, that the bread and wine, after confecration, are bread and wine ftill.

3. Whether it be reasonable to imagine, that God should make that a part of the Chriftian religion, which shakes the main external evidence and confirmation of the whole? I mean the miracles which were wrought by Our Saviour and his Apostles, the affurance whereof did at first depend upon the certainty of sense. For if the fenfes of those who say they faw them were deceived, then there might be no miracles wrought; and confequently it may juftly be doubted, whether that kind of confirmation which God hath given to the Christian religion, would be ftrong enough to prove it, fuppofing tranfubftantiation to be a part of it; because every man hath as great evidence that transubstantiation is false, as he hath that the Christian religion is true. Suppose then tranfubftantiation to be part of the Chriftian doctrine, it must have the fame 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 fame affurance which any man hath of the truth of the miracle, he hath of the falfhood of the doctrine; that is, the clear evidence of his fenfes. For that there is a miracle wrought, to prove, that what he fees in the facrament is not bread, but the body of Chrift, there is only the evidence of fenfe; and there is the very fame evidence to prove, that what he fees in the facrament is not the body of Chrift, but bread. So that here would arife a new controverfy, Whether a man fhould rather believe his fenfes giving teftimony against the doctrine of transubstantiation, or bearing witness to a miracle wrought to confirm that doctrine? there being the very fame evidence against the truth of the doctrine, which

there

there is for the truth of the miracle and then the argument for tranfubftantiation, and the objection against it, would just balance one another; and confequently tran fubftantiation is not to be proved by a miracle, because that would be to prove to a man by fomething that Łę fees, that he doth not fee what he fees. And if there were no other evidence that tranfubftantiation is no part of the Christian doctrine, this would be fufficient, that what proves the one, doth as much overthrow the other; and that miracles, which are certainly the best and higheft external proof of Chriftianity, are the worst proof in the world of tranfubftantiation; unless a man can renounce his fenfes at the fame time that he relies upon them for a man cannot believe a miracle, without relying upon fenfe; nor transubstantiation, without renouncing it. So that never were any two things fo ill coupled together, as the doctrine of Christianity and that of tranfubftantiation; because they draw feveral ways, and are ready to ftrangle one another: for the main evidence of the Chriftian doctrine, which is miracles, is refolved into the certainty of fenfe; but this evidence is clear and point-blank against transubstantiation.

But

4. and laftly, I would ask what we are to think of the argument which our Saviour ufed to convince his difciples after his refurrection, that his body was really rifen, and that they were not deluded by a ghoft or apparition? Is it a neceffary and conclufive argument or not? Luke xxiv. 38. 39. And he faid unto them, Why are ye troubled, and why do thoughts arife in your hearts ? Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: for a Spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye fee me have. now, if we fuppofe, with the church of Rome, the doctrine of tranfubftantiation to be true, and that he had inftructed his difciples in it just before his death, ftrange thoughts might juftly have rifen in their hearts; and they might have faid to him, Lord, it is but a few days ago fince thou didst teach us not to believe our fenfes, but directly contrary to what we faw, viz. that the bread which thou gavest us in the facrament, though we saw it, and handled it, and tafted it to be bread, yet was not bread, but thine own natural body; and now thou appealeft to our fenfes, to prove that this is thy body which

we

;

we now fee. If feeing and handling be an unqueftionable evidence that things are what they appear to our fenfes, then we were deceived before in the facrament and if they be not, then we are not fure now that this is thy body which we now fee and handle, but it may be perhaps bread under the appearance of flesh and bones; juft as in the facrament, that which we faw, and handled, and tasted to be bread, was thy flesh and bones under the form and appearance of bread. Now, upon this fuppofition, it would have been a hard matter to have quieted the thoughts of the difciples: for if the argument which our Saviour used, did certainly prove to them, that what they faw and handled was his body, his very natural flesh and bones, because they faw and handled them, which it were impious to deny; it would as ftrongly prove, that what they faw and received before in the facrament, was not the natural body and blood of Chrift, but real bread and wine; and confequently that, according to our Saviour's arguing after his refurrection, they had no reason to believe transubstantiation before. For that very argument by which our Saviour proves the reality of his body after his refurrection, doth as ftrongly prove the reality of bread and wine after confecration. But our Saviour's argument was most infallibly good and true, and therefore the doctrine of tranfubftantiation is undoubtedly falfe.

Upon the whole matter, I fhall only fay this, that fome other points between us and the church of Rome are managed with fome kind of wit and fubtilty; but this of tranfubftantiation is carried out by mere dint of impudence, and facing down of mankind.

And of this the more difcerning perfons of that church are of late grown fo fenfible, that they would now be glad to be rid of this odious and ridiculous do&trine. But the council of Trent hath rivetted it fo faft into their religion, and made it fo neceffary and effential a point of their belief, that they cannot now part with it if they would. It is like a mill-ftone hung about the neck of Popery, which will fink it at the last.

And though fome of their greatest wits, as Cardinal Perron, and of late Monfieur Arnauld, have undertaken the defence of it in great volumes; yet it is an abfurdity

abfurdity of that monftrous and maffy weight, that no human authority or wit are able to fupport it. It will make the very pillars of St. Peter's crack; and requires more volumes to make it good, than would fill the Vatican.

And now I would apply myself to the poor deluded people of that church, if they were either permitted by their priests, or durft venture without their leave, to look into their religion, and to examine the doctrines of it. Confider, and fhew yourselves men. Do not fuffer yourfelves any longer to be led blindfold, and by an implicit faith in your priefts, into the belief of nonfenfe and contradiction. Think it enough, and too much, to let them rook you out of your money for pretended pardons and counterfeit relicks; but let not the authority of any priest or church perfuade you out of your fenfes. Credulity is certainly a fault as well as infidelity and he who faid, Blessed are they that have not feen, and yet have believed; hath no where faid, Bleffed are they that have feen, and yet have not believed; much lefs, Bleed are they that believe directly contrary to to what they fee.

To conclude this difcourfe: By what hath been faid upon this argument, it will appear, with how little truth and reafon, and regard to the intereft of our common Christianity, it is fo often faid by our adverfaries, that there are as good arguments for the belief of tranfubftantiation, as of the doctrine of the Trinity; when they themselves do acknowledge with us, that the doctrine of the Trinity is grounded upon the fcriptures, and that, according to the interpretation of them, by the confent of the ancient fathers: but their doctrine of tranfubftantiation I have plainly fhewn to have no fuch 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 againft it, from the manifold contradictions of it to reafon and sense, are fo many demonstrations of the falfhood of it. Against all which they have nothing to put in the oppofite fcale, but the infallibility of their church; for which there is even lefs colour of proof from fcripture than for tran fubftantiation

i