A27011:196
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 if it were, what's that to the positive deception of all our Senses?
He tells us of the Hypostatical Union, answered before: What Senses are deceived by that? Doth Sense judge that Christ was not God? Or that there is no Trinity? Or that a Virgin may not conceive? Not at all: Sense neither tells us that it is so, or that it is not. Therefore to tell us of things hidden from Sense, is impertinent. All the spiritual and noblest parts of Nature are out of the reach of our bodily Senses: But Sense is our only first perceiver of all its own proper Objects, and the Intellects first perception of them, is only as they are sensate.
But the only pertinent Answer given, is, [We may alway trust our Senses about their own Objects, and in due circumstances, and when we have not positive grounds to think, either God Almighty by himself, or by an Angel, or permissively by a Devil, represents things otherwise than they are.]
Answ. When things are represented otherwise than they are, it is either in other sensible qualities than they have, or else something else is under those qualities, than what they naturally signify; or else it is by altering the Sense, Organ, or Medium. The first is a mere contradiction: To make an Object to be what it was not, is usual; but to make it at the same instant to be what it is not, is a contradiction. Therefore by representing you cannot rationally