The safe religion, or, Three disputations for the reformed catholic religion against popery proving…The safe religion, or, Three disputations for the reformed catholike religion against popery proving…

For the first, I appeal to the senses of all men that ever received the Eucharist. Whether seeing, feeling, smelling, and tasting, do not as plainly take it to be Bread and Wine, as they do any other Bread or Wine at their own tables? and whether they can see or taste, or smell, or feel, any difference to give them the least cause of doubting? I am sure I have the judgement of thousands and millions on my side, which in a matter of sense among sound men, is certainly enough. And if the Papists are so mad as to tell me, that it is otherwise with their senses; and will seriously profess that their eyes, and taste, &c. do not take these for Bread and Wine, but perceive that they are not, I will take them for shameless liars, or madmen; and I suppose no man in his senses will blame me for so doing. Well I its pa•• doubt that all our senses tell us its Bread and Wine, as confidently as they tell us any thing is such. And it is certain that the Pope and his Council tell us it is not Bread and Wine: If our eyes be infallible that ⟨p. 243⟩read it, and our ears that hear it from their own mouths; then this is sure enough and too sure; I know they will not deny it: I would they would, we should then be somewhat nearer a reconciliation. What now can be said to avoid the conclusion, is past my understanding; save only that it is possible that some of them may come in with some alluding distinction to see if they can blind mens sense and reason; and so perhaps they'll tell them that 1. sense is infallible, on supposition of the right constitution of the medium, but else not: or 2. that sense judgeth but of accidents, and not of substances, and the accidents of Bread and Wine are here; or 3. that sense is infallible in common cases, where substances and accidents are not separated, as here they be. To which (if such stuff deserve an answer) I reply, 1. What medium is here questionable or questioned by you, but the accidents themselves, which you say are the objects. Sure the air is clear and perspicuous: the distance is not too near or too far off; our eyes and taste are sound. 2. I think senses judge of substances with their accidents: The eye sees substantiam coloratam, and the hand feeleth the substantiam qualem & quantam, and not only qualitatem & quantitatem substantiae.

For the first, I appeal to the senses of all men that ever received the Eucharist. Whether seeing, feeling, smelling, and tasting, do not as plainly take it to be Bread and Wine, as they do any other Bread or Wine at their own tables? and whether they can see or taste, or smell, or feel, any difference to give them the least cause of doubting? I am sure I have the judgement of thousands and millions on my side, which in a matter of sense among sound men, is certainly enough. And if the Papists are so mad as to tell me, that it is otherwise with their senses; and will seriously profess that their eyes, and taste, &c. do not take these for Bread and Wine, but perceive that they are not, I will take them for shameless lyars, or madmen; and I suppose no man in his senses will blame me for so doing. Well I its pa doubt that all our senses tell us its Bread and Wine, as confidently as they tell us any thing is such. And it is certain that the Pope and his Council tell us it is not Bread and Wine: If our eyes be infallible that