evidences of our senses, therefore it overtitrews the evidences of C?hristiani?. If this doctrine be true, the apostles could not be certaht that what they saw and heard concerning Christ was true, nor could they persuade others to whom they preached that what they* taught was true. The conclusion therefore is, that if transubetantiation be true, it can never be proved that Ch_ristianit? is true, because by* it the credit of our senses is taken away*; and yet upon this credit our belief of' Christiani? depends. The humanity* of' Christ could never be proved if' transubetanti?tion be true. The evidence of the senses is not only needed for the sup- port of the Christian system; it is also needed for the con/irmation d an article of the creed. For the Valentinians and the Marcionites thought Christ's body to be only. a phantom, and so denied the incar- nation. Now how easily could they retort on the apostles, or others who would assert that the appearances of bread and wine only remained in the sacrament! They could say that Christ's body, which was so called in Scripture, only seemed to be a body, and that it existed only in appearance. But then the doctrine of transubstantiation is only of the heresies of the Church of Rome. But Romanists say "that the sacrament is an object offa/tA, and not of sense." We grant it is an object of faith, but it is the inward and spiritual grace that is such. The outward and visible sign is necessa- rily an object of sense. "Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." If therefore our senses deceive us in one plain case which comes under their inspection, there is no certainty but that we may be deceived in every thing. It is equally futile to say that the conversion of the elements is rata/our. But miracles themselves are an appeal to our senses, for the purpose of proving a divine commission. When we read of any mira- culous conversion of one thing into another, the fact was an object d sense. When the rod of Moses was changed into a serpent, it ceased to be a rod; it lost all the accidents of a rod, and became, in colour, shape, and quality, a serpent. When our Saviour turned water into wine, it had no longer the appearance or taste of water, but had all the accidents as well as substance of wine. Neither can a corporeal sub- stance exist without accidents, nor accidents without substance; and it is by the'former alons that we know the latter. B?t they say: "We are not deceived in the object of our senses, but we may be deceived by the/substances that are conveyed under these objects." This is a mere quibble. The question is not whether there be really such impressions made upon our outward senses, but whether, when such impressions are made, and we use our senses, not one singly, but all of them together, to try the object by, and we more- over use our reason, we may not form a true judgment of the object; or rather, whether we ought not, all things duly considered, give judg- ment according to the import of our senses ? We say we ought; the Roman Catholics say we ought not. But in saying so they overthrow the credit of all sense; so that no man can be certain that any thing he sees is what he takes it to be, and so of the rest. They farther say: "It is true, that in all other cases our senses are to be believed; but it is not so in this, for Christ, who cannot lie, has pronounced bread and wine to be his body' and blood." To this we 1
�
