A27011:186
Roman tradition examined, as it is urged as infallible against all mens senses, reason,…
Roman tradition examined, as it is urged as infallible against all mens senses, reason, the Holy Scripture, the tradition and present judgment of the far greatest part of the Universal Church; in the point of transubstantiation; in answer to a book called A rational discourse of transubstantiation.Roman tradition examined, as it is urged as infallible against all mens senses, reason, the Holy Scripture, the tradition and present judgment of the far greatst part of the Universal Church; in the point of transubstantiation; in answer to a book called A rational discourse of transubstantiation.
S.l. : s.n., 1676
Modern spelling is a reading aid: the words are the author’s, only the spelling is modernized. Original shows the page as printed, with the transcription marks.
But the Discourser pretendeth in the end to Answer Objections: But he first made them himself so thin, that he might not despair of saying something, which a Man deep in his Cups, or one that is little used to the Exercise of his Brain, might possibly take for a Rational Answer. But if the Reader be a Man that will be at so much pains to escape delusion, as to Read over the Arguments against Transubstantiation in the forementioned (little) Book of R. B. and then try whether he can here find them Answered; I may conjecture that he will not boast of the Discourser's performances.
He begins the Objection with a [Why doth not this marvellous Change appear to our Senses, as well as other marvellous works: as the Water turned into Wine, &c.]
He begins the Objection with a [Why doth not this marvelous Change appear to our Senses, as well as other marvelous works: as the Water turned into Wine, &c.]
I confess it is strange Flesh and Blood, that no sense can perceive: But a spiritual Body may be out of the perception of our Sense. But did not the Discourser know, that it is another kind of Objection that we make? Not [Why doth not God show us the Miracle to our Sense?] but [whether God deceive all our Senses and Intellect, which there perceive Bread and Wine, when there is none?] It is not, whether Sense perceive Christ? but, [whether Sense perceive Bread and Wine?] It is not, whether Sense do privatively not perceive; but, whether it here positively err, and the first Intellective perception of the sensate Object be an Error?
I confess it is strange Flesh and Blood, that no sense can perceive: But a spiritual Body may be out of the perception of our Sense. But did not the Discourser know, that it is another kind of Objection that we make? Not [Why doth not God shew us the Miracle to our Sense?] but [whether God deceive all our Senses and Intellect, which there perceive Bread and Wine, when there is none?] It is not, whether Sense perceive Christ? but, [whether Sense perceive Bread and Wine?] It is not, whether Sense do privatively not perceive; but, whether it here positively erre, and the first Intellective perception of the sensate Object be an Errour?