CHAP. I�.] TIANSlIBST&N?IA?ION. ? comprehend, because they' can only take cognizance of objects material and finite. (4.) The Roman Catholic8 say that the doctrine of the trinity equally against reason ancl contradictory as that of transubstantiation. This we deny, because we can show many impossibilities and contra�ctions in the latter, to every person of common sense, and such u they* cannot possibly ?et clear of by all their distinctions, subtleties, and sopblares. But tttey cannot show us any such absurdities and contradictions in the doctrine of the trinity, however mysterious it may appear; no, nor in any doctrine of (?hriatianity. There is no doctrine of Scripture but we can give such an account of it that no one can charge it with absurdity. '['hough we may not be able to prove it by* reason, )?et, wllen God has once revealed it, we can prove that it is not conira,/to reason, although it may be far abotw the power of reason to comprehend it completely. It is mere sophtstry to represent the sublime mystery of the trinity and the absurdity' of transubstantiation as equally improbable, or squall)- easy. The m�ster)' of the trinity is, in fact, a partial revelation, ac- commodated to the imperfection of our limited capacities. If the 808- psi declared that there are thr? persons in the Godhead, and that yet there is only one person, we must necessarily reject it, as being founded on insufficient evidence. But the case i8 otherwise. "The Catholic faith is, that we worship one God in trinity, and trinity in unity, nei- ther c. on.?o?ndin? the Persons nor ditt/d?n? the substance.'* The of the Deity is essential. The ?r/nit?/ of the Deity is personal. But in whatever the divine unity may consist, it does not consist in that of person, for we acknowledge a plurality of persons. How this plurality o� l?ersons should agree with unity of essence we do not pt'stand to conceive, because we are ignorant of the na?m'e of the divine essence. This truth may probably be mysterious to the loftiest created intelli- gence. Bttt we can conceive of the difference between a mystery, and a contradiction. It is one thing to believe a mystery, though we can- not comprehend it, on the authority of divine revelation; and another thing to believe a contradiction, which we are certain cannot but be false, upon any authority whatever. 6. They say the doctrine of transubstantiation is a mystery. To this we answer, that it is no mystery, but it is as plainly Been to be an error as any thing else is seen to be a truth: because it relates not to an infinite nature, as God, but to what is finite, a piece of bread and a human body. 7. But they say, "?[od can do all things, and ?e?*efore there is no- thing impossible to him in the doctrine of transubstantiation.'* But ? cannot do that which is naturally impossible to be done. He cannot make a thing to be this, and not to be this, at the same time, or to be here and elsewhere at the same time. However, this objection has been fully met when we considered the iml)oasibilitien which accompanied this doctrine. 8. They sometime8 pretend that this doctrine is whofly a specula- tive point; that our practice is not concerned in it; and though it be an error, it is not a matter of much importance, for it is no bar to our salvation. (1.) Suppose it to be a speculative error; yet they have made the 1 ,Goocle
�
