historicalgeogra00psal

The Authors Trai/els. 187
" ces at the fame time •, for then the fame Body
" might be kilFd and dead in one place, while it
" was alive in another.
" Thirdly, I argu'd, That when Chrift faid at
" the Inftitution of this Sacrament, Do this in
*'
remembrance of me^ he fuppofed that he would
" be abfent from them when they (hould cele-
" brate this Sacrament ^ for it is neither necef-
" fary nor ufual to remember a Friend prefent,
" but only one that is abfent •, and thereforej
" thefe words of Chrift, Do thk in remembrance
" of me^ do plainly imply, that he is not bodily
^'
prefenc (in this Sacrament.) I argu'd that
" their Doftrine of Tranfubftantiation could not
" be true, becaufe it fuppofed that the accidents
" of Bread (as they call them) remain'd with-
'^
out the Subftance, and thefubftance of Chrift'3
" Flefli was corporally prefent without the acci-
" dents that are peculiar to Flefli, both which
" appeared to me impoflible : For I cannot con-
" ceive how the whitenefs of Bread can fubfift,
" when there is nothing that is white, and how
" there can be the fubftance of Flefii, which can
" neither be feen, felt nor rafted.
Thefe were fome of the Arguments I urg'd a-
gainft their Doftrine of Tranfubftantiation, to
which I could never receive a fatisfaftory anfwer,
and tho' they alledg'd feveral Arguments to turn
me from Heathenifm ;
yet becaufe I thought
there were greater abfurdities in their Religion
than they could (hew in mine, I ftill adherM to
my own Religion. Here perhaps fome Papift or
other will ask me, whether they began to teach
me Tranfubftantiation as the firft ftep to my
Converfion ? I anfwer. No \ but it was the Do-
^rine that moft offended me ^ befides, I freely
Vvalk'd ^kiOMi Avignon four or five Months before
ovis