1 2. It is very fcandalous likewise upon account of the real barbaroufness of this Sacrament and Rite of our Religion, upon fuppofition 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 fhewed 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 Chrift. And what can any man do more unworthily towards his Friend? How can he poffibly use him more: barbarously, than to feast upon his living flesh and bloud? It is one of the greatest wonders in the world, that it should ever enter into the minds of men to put upon our Saviour's words, fo easily capable of a more convenient sense and so neceffarily requiring it, a meaning fo plainly contrary to Reason, and fenfe, and even to Humanity it felf. Had the ancient Chriftians owned any fuch Doctrine, we should have heard of it. from the Adversaries of our. Religion in every page of their Writings; and they would have defired no greater advantage against the Chriftians than to have been able to hit them in the teeth with their feafting upon the natural flesh and bloud of their Lord, and their God, and their beft Friend. What endless triumphs would they have made upon this Subject? And with what confidence would they have fet the cruelty used by Christians in their Sacrament, against their God Saturn's eating his own Children, and all the cruel and bloudy Rites of their Idolatry? But that no fuch thing was then objected by the Heathens to the Chriftians, is to a wife man inftead of a thousand: Demonstrations that no fuch Doctrine was then believed.. 3. It. 3. It is fcandalous alfo upon account of the cruel and bloudy confequences of this Doctrine; fo contrary to the plain Laws of Christianity, and to one great end and defign of this Sacrament, which is to unite Chriftians in the most perfect love and charity to one another; Whereas this Doctrine hath been the occafion of the moft barbarous and bloudy Tragedies that ever were acted in the world. For this hath been in the Church of Rome the great burning Article; and as abfurd and unreasonable as it is, more Chriftians have been murther'd for the denial of it than perhaps for all the other Articles of their Religion. And I think it may generally pass for a true obfervation that all Sects are commonly most hot and furious for thofe things for which there is leaft Reason; for what men want of Reason for their opinions they usually supply and make up in Rage. And it was no more than needed to ufe this feverity upon this occafion; for nothing but the cruel fear of death could in probability have driven fo great a part of mankind into the acknowledgment of fo unreasonable and fenfeless a Doctrine. O bleffed Saviour! thou beft Friend and greatest lover of mankind, who can imagine thou didst ever intend that men fhould kill one another for not being able to believe contrary to their fenfes; for being unwilling to think, that thou fhouldft make one of the moft horrid and barbarous things that can be imagin'd a main Duty and principal Myftery of thy Religion; for not flattering the pride and prefumption of the Priest who fays he can make God, and for not complying with the folly and ftupidity of the People who believe that they can eat him? 4. Upon account of the danger of Idolatry; which they are certainly guilty of if this Doctrine be not true, and fuch a change as they pretend be not made in the Sacra Sacrament; for if it be not, then they worship a Creature instead of the Creatour God bleffed for ever. But fuch a change I have fhewn to be impoffible; or if it could be, yet they can never be certain that it is, and confequently are always in danger of Idolatry: And that they can never be certain that fuch a change is made, is evident; becaufe, according to the exprefs determination of the Council of Trent, that depends upon the mind and intention of the Priest, which cannot certainly be known but by Revelation, which is not pretended in this cafe. And if they be mistaken about 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 excus'd from Idolatry in worshipping the Sun, because they intend to worship God and not a Creature; and fo indeed we may excufe all the Idolatry that every 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. Besides the infinite fcandal of this Doctrine upon the accounts I have mentioned, the monstrous abfurdities of it make it infupportable to any Religion. I am very well affur'd 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 so many and fo great abfurdities as this Doctrine of Tran fubftantiation would load it withall. And to make this evident, I fhall not infift upon thofe grofs contradictions, of the fame 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 Disciples, and yet Aill keeping . keeping himself to himself; and a thousand more of the like nature: But to fhew the abfurdity of this Doctrine I fhall onely ask these few Questions. 1. Whether any man have, or ever had greater evidence of the truth of any Divine Revelation than every man hath of the falfhood of Tranfubftantiation ? Infidelity were hardly poffible to men, if all men had the fame evidence for the Chriftian Religion which they have againft: Tranfubftantiation, that is, the clear and irresistible evidence of fenfe. He that can once be brought to contradict or deny his fenfes, 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 circumstances our fenfes may deceive us, but no Faculty deceives us fo little and fo feldom: And when our fenfes do deceive us, even that errour is not to be corrected without the help of our fenfes. 2. Suppofing this Doctrine had been delivered in Scripture in the very fame words that it is decreed in the Council of Trent, by what clearer evidence or ftronger 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 ftill? He could but appeal to my eyes to prove fuch words to be in the Bible, and with the fame reafon and justice 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 Thould make that a part of the Chriftian Religion which thakes the main external evidence and confirmation of the whole? I mean the Miracles which were wrought by our Saviour and his Apoftles, the affurance whereof did at first depend upon the certainty of fenfe. For if the fenfes of those who fay they faw them them were deceived then there might be no Miracles wrought; and confequently it may justly be doubted whether that kind of confirmation which God hath given to the Chriftian Religion would be ftrong enough to prove it, fuppofing Tranfubftantiation to be a part of it Because every man hath as great evidence that Tranfubftantiation is falfe, as he hath that the Chriftian Religion is true. Suppofe then Tranfubftantiation to be part of the Christian 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 falfehood 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 Sacrament is not bread but the body of Chrift, there is onely the evidence of fenfe; and there is the very fame evidence to prove that what he fees in the Sacrament is not the body of Christ but bread. So that here would arise a new Controverfie, whether a man should rather believe his fenfes giving teftimony against the Doctrine of Tranfubftantiation, 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 is for the truth of the Miracle: And then the Argument for Tranfubftantiation and the Objection against it would just balance one another and consequently Tranfubftantiation is not to be proved by a Miracle, because that would be, to prove to a man by fome thing that he fees, that he does not fee what he fees. And if there were no other evidence that Tranfubftantiation is no part of the Chriftian Doctrine this would be fufficient, that what proves the F ; one |