keeping himself to himfelf; and a thousand more of the like nature: But to fhew the abfurdity of this Doctrine I fhall onely ask thefe few Questions.

1. Whether any man have, or ever had greater evidence of the truth of any Divine Revelation than eve ry 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 against Transubstantiation, 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 so seldom : 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 fhould make that a part of the Chriftian Religion which fhakes 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 firft 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 juftly be doubted whether that kind of confirmation which God hath given to the Chriftian Religion would be strong 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 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 incas pable 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 Senfes. 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 Chrift but bread. So that here would arise a new Controverfie, whether a man fhould rather believe his Senfes 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 confequently Tranfubftantiation is not to be proved by a Miracle, because that would be, to prove to a man by fomething that he fees, that he doth not fee what he fees. And if there were no other evidence that Franfubftantiation is no part of the Chriftian Doctrine, this would be fufficient, that what proves the 97019 F

one

*Luke 24:

38, 39.

one doth as much overthrow the other; and that Mitacles which are certainly the best and higheft exter nal proof of Christianity are otheo worst proof in the World of Transubstantiation, unless a man can renounce his fenses at the fame time that he relies upon them. For a man cannot believe a Miracle without relying upon fenfe, nor Tranfubftantiation without renouncing itdo Soithat never were any two things fo ill coupled together as the Doctrine of Chriftianity and that of Tranfubftantiation, because they draw feveral ways, and are ready to ftrangle one another; because the main evidence of the Christian Doctrine, which is Miracles, is refolved into the certainty of fenfe, but this evidence is clear and point-blank against Transubstan tiation.

4. And Lastly, I would ask what we are to think of the Argument which our Saviour used to convince his Difciples after his Refurrection that his Body was really rifen, and that they were not deluded by a Ghost or Apparition? Is it a neceffary and conchifive Argument or not? * And be faid unto them, why are ye troubled and why do thoughts arife in your hearts Behold my bands and my feet, that it is I my self for a Spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye Jee me have. But 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 didft teach us not to believe our fenfes, but directly contrary to what we saw, viz, that the bread which thou gaveft us in the Sacrament, though we faw it and handled it and tafted it to be bread, yet was not bread, but thine own natural body; and now thon appealeft to our fenfes to

prove

prove that this is thy body which we now fee. If feeing and handling be an unquestionable evidence, that things are what they appear to our fenfes, then we were deceived before in the Sacrament; 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, just as in the Sacrament, that which we faw and handled and tafted 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 Sacrament was not the natural body and bloud of Christ, but real bread and wine And confequently, that according to our Saviour's arguing after his Refurrection they had no reafon to believe Tranfubftantiation before. For that very Argument by which our Saviour proves the reality of his bady after his Refurrection doth as strongly 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.dei valober

Upon the whole matter I fhall onely 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.

f 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 Doctrine. But the Council of Trent hath faften'd it to their Religion, and made it a neceflary and effential Point of their Belief, and 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 Arnaud, have undertaken the defence of it in great Volumes; yet it is an abfurdity of that monftrous and maffy weight, that no humane 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 my self 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 shew your felves men. Do not fuffer your felves any longer to be led blindfold, and by an implicit Faith in your Priests, into the belief of nonfenfe and contradiction. Think it enough and too much to let them rook you of your money for pretended Pardons and counterfeit Reliques, but let not the Authority of any Prieft or Church perfuade you out of your Senfes. Credulity is certainly a fault as well as Infidelity and he who faid, bleffed are they that have not feen and yet have believed, hath no-where faid, bleffed are they that have seen and yet have not be lieved, much lefs, blessed are they that believe directly contrary to what they feel

:

To conclude this Difcourfe. By what hath been faid upon this Argument it will appear, with how lit

tle