us ! Can any man living give a more intelligible account of that mys- tery than we can give of transubstantiation ? Will not the notion of three in one be eternally as great a contradiction as that the body of Christ should be in a thonsantl places at once ? Leave, therefore, these sensual hankerings alter reason, and believe whatever God nitit is true, how impossible soever it seems to us: it is not our business to dispute God's assertions, but to submit to them." This, indeed, is 8aid very plausibly, and it is probable that the un- wary may sometimes be deceived by it. But if it is duly weighed, the sophistry will appear to the light; becanso there is a vast disparity between the doctrine of transubstantiation and those of the trinity, in- carnation, &c. We shall offer four things whereby the difference will appear manifest. (1.) The doctrine of the trinity is so clearly revealed in Scripture, that we must deny the very authority of divine revelation ff we den)' it; and none, from Christ's time till the present, ever denied the doc- trines of the trinity or of the incarnation but were esteemed heretics. Whereas transnbztantiation has no'foundation in Scripture, but is directly contrary to it. (2.) The doctrines of the trinity and incarnation were contained in the apostles' creed, and were taught assiduously by the primitive church. But transubstantiation was never in any of the primitive creeds, nor taught by the ancient doctors in the church of Christ during the first eight centuries. Indeed it is a perfect novelty, first established by the Council of Lateran. So that it is absurd to associate the doc- trine of transubstantiation with that of the trinity or incarnation. (3.) Another difference between the doctrine of transubstantiation and those of the trinity and incarnation is, that the first comes under the inspection of our senses, but the others do not. It is no wonder we cannot fathom the depth of the trinity, because God is an infinite being, and our understandings are finite. God only knows his own nature, and we know no more of it than what he has been pleased to reveal to us; and though our reason cannot fully comprehend the na- ture of God, we know there is an infinite disproportion between our faculties and the object that they are employed upon. Yet our not be- ing able to fathom'his nature proceeds from the greatness of the object. and the weakness of our understanding, rather than from any thing inconsistent or unintelligible in the thing itself. But when we come to speak of transubstantiation it is quite different, this being an object of sense. If we can judge of the reality of any thing in the world, we can certainly judge concerning a cup of wine or a piece of bread. We are undoubtedly competent judges of those things that fall under our senses, or we must suspend all determinations concerning things to the end of the world. It is in vain, therefore, for Romanists to say, that our not being able to give an account of the trinity is as much an argument against that .mystery, as their not being able to give an account of transubstantiation m an argument against it. If the nature of God fell under our senses, and was to be judged by them, as all bodies are, they would argue right; but it is otherwise; for God is an infinite and incomprehensible Spizit, and therefore cannot be an object that the senses of man can 1
�
