a substance; it is therefore unaccountable how new accidents arise upon these accidents, without any miraculous interference. 4. They hold that when the main accidents are destroyed, then the presence of Christ ceases. The space therefore which had been filled by these accidents, becomes a vacuum, and consequently a new miracle is required to create matter, in order to supply that vacuum.

As to the form, it may be objected, 1. The general notion of the form of a sacrament is, that it sanctifies and applies the matter. Here, however, the former matter is so far from being consecrated, that it is annihilated by it, and the new matter is not sanctified by the words, but produced. 2. The phrase "this is," signifies that the thing to which we apply it is in existence before we use that phrase. In the case before us, however, the words "this is my body," are used, yet, while they are in the act of being pronounced, the thing is not that which it is said to be till the instant in which the last syllable is spoken. During their pronunciation, therefore, these words have no meaning. The difficulties which have been here mentioned in this doctrine are but a few of those presented on a closer view of the subject; which are increased by the subtle distinctions invented by the schoolmen, and the new philosophy they have introduced, in order to defend their cause.

2nd. We shall consider the general objections against this doctrine.

1. This doctrine is opposed to philosophy. We have no other notion of accidents but that they are different modes of matter, and have no being distinct from the body in which they appear. We have no other notion of a body, but that it is an extended substance, composed of impenetrable parts, each of which fills its proper space. We have no other notion of a body's being in a place than that it fills it, and can be in no other place at the same time. And though we can apprehend that an infinite power may both create and annihilate beings at pleasure, yet we cannot conceive that God changes the essences of things, and thus causes them to be of a contrary nature from that which he himself originally gave them. Yet all these notions are contradictory to the doctrine of transubstantiation.

2. It contradicts the evidence of our senses. God has made us capable of serving him, and has, for this purpose, given us some senses, by means of which we form true ideas of the objects presented to us. When the impression made upon them is clear and strong, and when we feel that neither our organs nor our faculties are in any way deranged, then the evidence of these senses is so certain, that we are determined, and cannot help being determined by it. It is true, that we may be mistaken in the apprehensions

first conveyed to us; but when we have fully examined an object, and corrected one sense by another, we cannot doubt their united testimony. Further, the communications of God to man proceed on the supposition of the certainty of this evidence. For it is by the power to work miracles that God convinces the world of the authority of those he sends in his name. Now miracles are an appeal to the senses: they are the highest appeal too; for we find that those who were unconvinced by Christ's miracles, are said to have had no cloak for their sins. If then men are liable to be mistaken in that which is the utmost mean of conviction offered by God, then, all certainty of faith is quite overthrown. Nay more, we cannot be bound to believe any revelation which contradicts our senses; for we can only receive a revelation by our ears or our eyes. If, therefore, any part of this revelation destroys the certainty of the evidence that those senses give us, it destroys itself; since we are under no obligation to believe a revelation upon the evidence of those senses, which itself commands us not to believe.

To these objections two answers are made: 1st. It is said that we must believe God in preference to our senses, in case he reveals any thing which is contrary to their evidence, though in all other cases we must be decided by that evidence. But this evasion is unsatisfactory. From

the remoteness of objects, or other causes, our senses may sometimes misinform us; but where these causes do not exist, their combined testimony is infallible. To believe a revelation, therefore, in opposition to them, would be to believe God in contradiction to himself; for we should admit that revelation certainly, upon an evidence which itself declares to be uncertain. 2nd. It is said, that we believe the doctrine of the Trinity on the authority of God; yet it contradicts our reason; the evidence of which is equal to that of our senses. But this assertion is not true. We know, that a thing cannot be one and three in the same respect; our reason assures us of this, and we do and must believe it; but we know that in different respects the same thing may be one and three. And since we cannot know all the possibilities of those different respects, we must, upon the authority of God revealing it, believe that the same thing is both one and three, though if a revelation affirmed that the same thing were one and three in the same respect, we should not and could not believe it.a

3. It contradicts the nature and end of miracles. The nature of miracles consists in their being an appeal to the senses; in this, on the contrary, there is an appeal from them. Again, the visible end of miracles is to serve as an at

testation to the truth of a communication from God. The miracle performed in this sacrament, however, cannot give credit to a revelation, for the senses, so far from perceiving, contradict it. Nor is there any spiritual end served in working this miracle, for it is acknowledged, that in this sacrament unworthy receivers, though they receive the true body of Christ, do not obtain grace with it; and the grace that is given by it to worthy receivers remains with them after that, by the destruction of the species of the bread and wine, the body of Christ is withdrawn. The spiritual effect therefore of this sacrament, confessedly does not depend on the corporal presence. Here then it is supposed that God is every day working a great many miracles of the most stupendous nature, in a vast number of different places, in our behalf; yet he has not acquainted us with any end for which he should perform them, whether visible or spiritual.

4. It contradicts Scripture. In order to distinguish between literal and figurative expressions, this rule is given us by St. Augustine : "If any place seems to command a crime or horrid action, it is figurative;" and for an instance of this he cites the words, "except ye

66

eat the flesh and drink the blood of the Son "of Man, ye have no life in you." Likewise Origen delivers the same maxim, "that the un