Axiomes which were purposely erected as Strongholds to cover and shelter the absurd Doctrines of the Church of Rome and especially that of Transubstantiation by feigning that Revelation and Reason are at variance and that in that Case Reason is to be abandoned It may justly be admired that Cartes a Man of clear Sense should begin such Rules but it is to be remembred That he was to make some amends for the bold Truths he had elsewhere delivered and likewise That he was able to complement the Church of Rome as well as he did particular Persons without being a Slave to his Complement for when he was pressed with what he had said upon such Occasions and with his own very words he used to tell them Urbanitas Styli Gallici te fefellit you did not understand a French Complement I doubt not but the Learned Men of the Port Royal did very well understand it but it is their Craft to make silver Shrines for Diana and all the Commendation we can give them is to say that they are very able Workmen and Masters of their Trade such a one as it is To conclude Reason is that whereby we chuse our Religion and judg whether it be a Revelation which came from God and whereby we distinguish betwixt the Bible and the Alchoran And as Cartes says Presp ad 2. Obj. Art. 5. If a Turk or a Heathen being induced by some False Reasonings should embrace Christianity and did not know that it came from God he would not thereupon be a Christian but rather he would be guilty of a Sin in not using his Reason aright Reason is that whereby we interpret a Revelation or else a man can give no reason why he interprets it in that manner rather than in another And as St. Paul speaks in another Case Do ye not know that the Saints shall judg the World c. Do ye not know that Reason must judg of the Sum of Religion And if the whole must be judged by it Is it unworthy to judg in the smallest Matters such as a Phrase or a Figure Shall it not judge in so plain and so easie a Case as this That Christ's Body on which the Woman poured her Alabaster Box of Ointment Matth. 26.12 was his living Natural Body And the Body which Joseph of Arimathea begged and buried Matth. 27.58 was his dead Natural Body And the Body of Christ which is to be Edified Eph. 4.12 is the Church or Society of all Christian People And the Body of Christ which is to be eaten Matth. 26.26 is the Sign or Sacrament or Memorial of his Body If Reason may not judg in this Case by considering and examining these several Places but is to be set aside or renounced and the Letter of Scripture to determine it Then I am sure that if the Communicant by vertue of those words This is my Body eats the Natural Body of Christ either dead or alive At the same time he also eats up all Christian People by vertue of St. Paul's words who in like manner expresly calls Them the Body of Christ In a word whatsoever is believed or done in Religion must be by Reason or else it is an Irrational Belief and Practice For Reason is the Principle of a Man and whatsoever is not done by it is not done by the Man it is not an Humane Act but the Act of a Brute Whenever therefore I become a Scholar in the School of the Eucharist and renounce the Reason which God has given me to embrace the Romish Doctrine of Transubstantiation I am fully resolved to keep a decorum in it and I will certainly go over to that Church upon all Four. I have not thus much insisted upon Reason because we are destitute of Scripture-proof to shew that Transubstantiation is false for we have not a clearer and fuller evidence from Revelation that our Saviour came into the World than we have that his Body even since his Resurrection is such as cannot possibly be present in form of Bread. As to name no more Luke 24.39 Behold my hands and my feet that it is I my self handle me and see for a Spirit hath not flesh and bones as ye see me have These are the Scripture-marks of our Saviour's Body which he himself gave on purpose to know it by But can we possibly behold Hands and Feet in a Wafer Can we handle and see Flesh and Bones in it If we cannot Then it is not He himself otherwise these are fallacious Marks of him for roundness and whiteness and no Hands and Feet and no Flesh and Bones might have been the Marks as well But I was hereby willing to shew that as Scripture is against Transubstantiation so the primitive Light of Reason is against it too the Vnwritten as well as the Written Word of God And that as Transubstantiation tends to the destruction of all that is Man or Christian in us So on the other hand Common Sense Reason Christianity and all that is within us does rise up in opposition against so monstrous and mischievous a Doctrine THE ABSOLUTE IMPOSSIBILITY OF Transubstantiation DEMONSTRATED TRansubstantiation is not the Name of one single Absurdity but it signifies as Legion does many Thousands in one For which reason it is very hard to draw them up or put them into any good order which however I shall endeavour to do under these two Heads First Of Intellectual Absurdities And Secondly Of Practical Absurdities 1. The first Head is of Intellectual Absurdities by which I mean such Falshoods as are repugnant to the common Reason and Understanding of Mankind And I purposely wave all those Absurdities of Transubstantiation which contradict our Senses because if a man be bent upon it and will outface me out of all all my senses as I cannot believe him so I cannot disprove him If he says the Sun does not shine when at the same time I am really dazled with the light and brightness of it I can only say as I find and appeal to his own senses and desire him to do me right In case a Romanist should bear me down that the Bible in my hand is not a Book but the living Judg of Controversie Pope Innocent the Eleventh and all the Bishops of the Christian World sitting together in Council I can't help my self especially if he pretend to have chang'd the Book into such and so many living men by saying some powerfully charming words over it and further if in condescension and compliance with the frailty of human sense he likewise acknowledges that it looks like a Printed and Bound Book and is cloath'd with all the Accidents and Properties of a Book and that one part of the Enchantment lies in this that tho in all appearance it is a Book yet it is in reality Pope Innocent the Eleventh and an Assembly of living Bishops in this case I can't use my senses because he has already foreclosed the use and evidence of them But if
Sacraments and to know your Maker from a Bit of Bread. Who have the Advantage of reading God's pure Word without either Romish Comments or Rhemish Annotations which overthrow the Text. Who are allowed to see with your own Eyes That if Scripture should be so forced and wrested as the Papists have used it in this Case then we must all be Anthropomorphites and either Believe that God is of Human Shape or else give him the Lye I know not how oft For the Right Hand of God and many other Bodily parts of him are ten times oftner asserted in Scripture than This is my Body If the Papists say That the Scripture in affirming that God is a Spirit does sufficiently rectifie all such blockish Mistakes I say so too And withal that our Saviour has done abundantly more to prevent and foreclose the no less blameable mistake concerning Transubstantiation For after he had called the Cup his Blood he afterwards again called it the Fruit of the Vine and after his Resurrection it self he gave his Disciples this Test to judg and discern his Body and to know it by Luke 24.39 Behold my hands and my feet that it is I my self handle me and see for a spirit hath not flesh and bones as ye see me have From whence we are bound to conclude That where we cannot see Hands and Feet where we cannot see and feel Flesh and Bones where we cannot handle and see Christ's Body there it is not he himself Well may there be some Sign or Token or Memorial of his Body but it cannot be he himself I shall not stand to enquire whether this be the Criterion to know Human Bodies from those Bodies which Angels heretofore assumed but we are sure that these are Infallible Marks to know our Saviour's Body by and that is all our present Business But as for the Noise they have lately made about our Saviour's surprizing the Disciples and entring into the room when the Doors were shut there never was any thing more precarious than the sense which the Papists have put upon that place as if our Saviour had passed through the Doors For there were Two Things as appears by the Scripture which disturbed the Disciples First That a Person should come into the Room without knocking or giving them any warning when they had made all fast and kept themselves close for sear of the Jews And the Second was That he entred in such a manner as made them apprehend him to be a Spirit Now how did ever Angels or Spirits enter into a Room or St. Peter come out of Prison under the conduct of an Angel but by the Doors opening before them of their own accord and shutting again after them As in the case of all the Apostles where the Officers found the Prison shut with all safety Acts 5.23 And I never yet heard or read of Angel or Spirit which entred a Room through Crannies or Key-holes or through Inch-boards But let that be as it will if our Saviour had entred in any such manner it had absolutely overthrown the Criterion which he gave them at the same time to judg of his Body and to Demonstrate that he was not a Spirit For common sense would have taught the Disciples to reply It is true indeed whatever you are Man or Spirit that you have now a gross Human Body and we cannot deny it but that it seems is only when you please for you had not such a one a while ago when you were pleased to come in at the Key-hole whereas there was nothing at all of this but they knew and owned him and were glad to see the Lord. But to conclude Is not this a very pertinent proof of Transubstantiation when the Doctrine of Transubstantiation asserts a thing quite contrary to the Passing through Doors For it asserts that our Saviour's Body is Present in a Room not by being Translated or by Passing out of one Place into another but by being produced in all fresh Places and by being Within Doors and Without Doors at the same Time. In short O my Protestant Countrymen You are Happy if you know your own Happiness and are not weary of it While you have the Light Rejoice in it and walk worthy of it and then God will continue it to you and to your Posterity So be it FINIS Books lately Printed for W. Rogers THE Doctrines and Practices of the Church of Rome truly Represented in Answer to a Book intituled A Papist Misrepresented and Represented c. Quarto An Answer to a Discourse intituled Papists protesting against Protestant Popery being a Vindication of Papists not Misrepresented by Protestants And containing a particular Examination of Monsieur de Meaux late Bishop of Condom his Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of Rome in the Articles of Invocation of Saints Worship of Images occasioned by that Discourse Quarto An Answer to the Amicable Accommodation of the Differences between the Representer and the Answerer Quarto A View of the whole Controversie between the Representer and the Answerer with an Answer to the Representer's last Reply in which are laid open some of the Methods by which Protestants are Misrepresented by Papists Quarto The Doctrine of the Trinity and Transubstantiation compared as to Scripture Reason and Tradition in a new Dialogue between a Protestant and a Papist the First Part Wherein an Answer is given to the late Proofs of the Antiquity of Transubstantiation in the Books called Consensus Veterum and Nubes Testium c. Quarto The Doctrine of the Trinity and Transubstantiation compared as to Scripture Reason and Tradition in a new Dialogue between a Protestant and a Papist the Second Part Wherein the Doctrine of the Trinity is shewed to be agreeable to Scripture and Reason and Transubstantiation repugnant to both Quarto An Answer to the Eighth Chapter of the Representer's Second Part in the first Dialogue between him and his Lay-Friend Of the Authority of Councils and the Rule of Faith. By a Person of Quality With an Answer to the Eight Theses laid down for the Tryal of the English Reformation in a Book that came lately from Oxford Sermons and Discourses some of which never before Printed The Third Volume By the Reverend Dr. Tillotson Dean of Canterbury 8vo A Manual for a Christian Soldier Written by Erasmus and Translated into English Twelves A new and easie Method to learn to Sing by Book whereby one who hath a good Voice and Ear may without other help learn to Sing true by Notes Design'd chiefly for and applied to the promoting of Psalmody and furnished with Variety of Psalm-Tunes in Parts with Directions for that kind of Singing A Book of Cyphers or Letters Reverst being a Work very pleasant and useful as well for Gentlemen as all sorts of Artificers Engravers Painters Carvers Chacers Embroiderers c. Where you may find a Cypher for any Name whatsoever curiously composed after the newest Mode By Jeremiah Marlow Price Bound 5 s. A Perswasive to frequent Communion in the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper By John Tillotson Dean of Canterbury In Octavo Price 3 d A Discourse against Transubstantiation In Octavo Price 3 d. The State of the Church of Rome when the Reformation began as it appears by the Advices given to Paul III. and Julius III. by Creatures of their Own. With a Preface leading to the matter of the Book 40. A Letter to a Friend Reflecting on some Passages in a Letter to the D. of P. in Answer to the Arguing Part of his first Letter to Mr. G. The Reflecter's Defence of his Letter to a Friend against the Furious Assaults of Mr. I S. in his second Catholic Letter In four Dialogues 40. A Sermon Preached at the Funeral of the Reverend Benj. Calamy D.D. and late Minister of St. Lawrence Jury Lond. Jan. 7th 1686. By W. Sherlock D. D. Master of the Temple A Vindication of some Protestant Principles of Church-Unity and Catholick-Communion from the Charge of Agreement with the Church of Rome In Answer to a late Pamphlet Intituled An Agreement between the Church of England and the Church of Rome evinced from the Concertation of some of her Sons with their Brethren the Dissenters By William Sherlock D. D. Master of the Temple A Discourse concerning the Nature of Idolatry in which a late Author's true and only Notion of Idolatry is Considered and Confuted 40. The Protestant Resolv'd or a Discourse shewing the Vnreasonableness of his Tarning Roman Catholick for Salvation The 2d Edition A Discourse concerning the Nature of Idolatry In which the Bishop of Oxford's True and Only Notion of Idolatry is Considered and Confuted 40. A Preservative against Popery Being some Plain Directions to Unlearned Protestants how to Dispute with Romish Priests The First Part. By William Sherlock D. D. The 4th Edition
It may be whole in every Part of the Symbols But if the Parts be without Extension so is the Whole for the Whole is nothing else but all the Parts put together Now at this rate a Part is as big as the Whole and has as much Extension because either of them has none at all Is this indeed the Body which the Wonder-working Priest produces A Body without Extension is a mere Nothing and a perfect Contradiction in Terms for Extension is the very Essence of a Body and the Foundation of all the other Properties that are in it the 3 Dimensions as also Figure Divisibility and Impenetrability do all flow from it Again so much as you add to the Quantity of a Body so much you add to the Substance and so much of the Extension as you take away just so much of the Substance goes along with it In a word Body and Extension are Reciprocal for every Body is an extended Substance and every extended Substance is a Body so that they are but different Names for the same thing 2. This Body is whole in every part of the Symbols that is of the Elements of Bread and Wine But the Bread has suppose an Hundred distinct Parts one of which is not the other and therefore this Body being Whole in every distinct Part has an Hundred distinct Wholes one of which is not the other and yet is but One Body all the while which as I take it is Contradiction by whole-sale 3. This Body is not Obnoxious to any Corporeal Contingencies If it be a Body what may happen to one Body may happen to another To use Terence's words in this case Homo sum nihil Humanum a me alienum puto I am a Man and what is incident to a Man is incident to me And so if a Body could speak it would say Corpus sum nihil corporeum a me alienum puto I am a Body and what belongs to a Body belongs to me Whatever Body is subject to be eaten is subject to be pressed and grinded with the Teeth to be swallowed down and afterwards voided and I suppose this last Clause was added on purpose to avoid such Inconveniencies and to save the Honour of this Body which they call God's Body But in my Opinion it was a needless Clause for a Body without Extension can never take hurt nor come to any damage at all For a man may bite till his Jaws ake and grind all his Teeth out of his Head before he can fasten upon that whichis not and which never yet had any Existence in the world save in a parcel of insignificant words ill put together on purpose to amuse unwary people It is an endless thing to encounter shadows and to oppose these manifest Impossibilities which are so contrary to the Reason of Mankind that the Papists themselves own they would not hold them were it not for the sake of Revelation which is to be believed they say before Reason and ought to outweigh all other Reasons They are over-ruled they say in this case by the express words of our Saviour who in the same night in which he was Betrayed took Bread and said Take Eat This is my Body do this in Remembrance of me And who has all Power in Heaven and Earth to make his words good We allow these words to be our Saviour's neither do we question his Power but conclude That he accomplished all that he intended and did make the Bread his Body in that sense in which he meant it should be So far we are agreed on both sides The Question therefore in short is this What he did to the Bread when he said This is my Body Whether he Metamorphosed and changed the nature of it or only altered the use of it that it might be a Token of his Body and serve to remember him by to all those excellent purposes of Religion which we acknowledg to be design'd by him This latter is undoubtedly the true sense considering all the circumstances of the place As 1st considering that our Saviour was upon his Departure at which time men use to leave Memorials of themselves with their Friends to be Remembred by in their Absence 2ly Considering that the frequent use of the word Is imports no more than Signifies As in very many Places where the Scripture says one thing is another it means only that that thing must be Expounded by the Other it signifies or stands for the other And consequently This is my Body i. e. This signifies my Body is the Literal sense And 3ly considering that Clause which shews the end and meaning of this whole passage and is the very Key to unlock it Do this in Remembrance of me For it is an absurd speech to say Take my Body in Remembrance of my Body Take me for a Token to Remember me by So that if there were not one Contradiction or Impossibility or any such Rock to be shunned in the Doctrine of Transubstantiation yet every thing in the Text leads us into this sense which I have now delivered We are plainly determined to this sense by reasons taken out of the very bowels of the Text the Text expounds its self But still the Papists are very urgent and pressing upon us and say That unless we believe the Bread to be changed into Christ's Real and Natural Body when he says it Is his Body we make him a Lyar. Take heed of that For our Saviour calls many things by the name of those things into which they never were substantially changed He called his Body a Temple when he said Destroy this Temple and in three days I will rear it up And yet his Body was never substantially changed into a Pile of Building And so likewise when that Temple was in destroying and our Blessed Redeemer was hanging upon the Cross we have a marvellous tender passage of his dutiful care to provide for his Mother when he was in the extremity of his sufferings Joh. 19.26 27. seeing his Mother and his Disciple John standing together by the Cross he said to her Woman behold thy Son. Which was equivalent to this Proposition That Man is thy Son. And he said to John Behold thy Mother wherein he calls the Virgin Mary John's Mother which she was not But upon this John took her for his Mother and carried her home to his own House And so in this present case This is my Body Look not upon this as common Bread for it stands for my Body consider it under that notion and remember me by it Behold thy Mother Repute her as such But if it be a Reflection upon our Saviour to say that it is Bread when he calls it his Body is it not the same Reflection upon Saint Paul to say That it is not Bread when he calls it Bread three or four times over 1 Cor. 11. No no it was not Scripture which led the Papists into the Doctrine of Transubstantiation but by engaging themselves in
Imprimatur Liber cui Titulus The Absolute Impossibility of Transubstantiation Demonstrated Maij 3. 1688. Guil. Needham RR. in Christo P. ac D. D. Wilhelmo Archiep Cant. a Sacr. Dom. THE Absolute Impossibility OF Transubstantiation DEMONSTRATED LONDON Printed for William Rogers at the Sun over-against St. Dunstan's Church in Fleetstreet MDCLXXXVIII THE PREFACE UPON a careful Review of this ensuing Discourse I find no cause to make any abatement from the Title of it which promises to the Reader no less than strict Demonstration If any of the following Arguments should happen to fall short of these pretensions to the highest and clearest sort of Proof that can be it is wholly My fault and I will mend it upon the first Notice of it For I am sure that the Subject-matter is capable of the most rigorous Demonstration that ever was and it has always been held That the Essential Properties and Affections of a Body such as Quantity Figure and its relation to Place c. are the Proper Subject of Demonstration And let me here add That such a Doctrine as Transubstantiation neither is nor can be a Matter of Revelation For Scripture was given us Either 1st to Reveal things which were unknown to us by Natural Light Such as the manner of the Creation of the World and the greater and more amazing Secret of the Redemption of it wherein all Heaven was engaged the Father sent the Son and the Son afterwards sent the Holy Ghost upon which occasion we have a clear and manifest declaration of that Doctrine which is commonly called the Trinity of Persons in the Godhead which was not so express before under the Old Testament To these may be added the assurance which is given us of a Resurrection and of a future Judgment and of the different portion of good and bad men of the one in Happiness with all the blessed Company of Heaven and of the other in Eternal Torments prepared for the Devil and his Angels Now these are things which were Vndiscoverable by Natural Light but being Revealed are very agreeable to it and in nowise contradict it Or 2dly To furnish us with an History of Providence and of God's government of the World Wherein most of the Divine Attributes are visibly displayed His Holiness and Justice are to be seen in his Judgments his Mercy in Deliverances his Power in Miracles his Knowledg Faithfulness and Truth in Prophesies and the like Now this part of Scripture does only clear up and exemplify our Natural Knowledg of God and our Reason is so far from being distressed that it is very much strengthened and confirmed by it As to compare great things with small the Grammar Rule is proved and confirmed by the Example Or 3dly It was given us to improve our Natural Notices and inforce our Natural Obligations to those Duties which we owe to God our Neighbour and our selves And here our Reason triumphs and is made perfect Or 4thly To establish certain Religious Ordinances and Institutions such as are the Sacraments Religious Assemblies Preaching and the like which our very Reason dâ—es subscribe and approve as wise and holy Appointments and as highly Instrumental to a good Life Now these are matters worthy of God and such as all the Wisdom in the World would expect should be the Contents of a Divine Revelation If God should vouchsafe to make new Discoveries to the World a man would look for somewhat of this nature which should improve us and supply the defects of Humane Vnderstanding and tend to the perfecting of our Nature But no man would expect that God should send after us from Heaven to unteach us all that ever he had taught us in the day of our Creation and to bless us with such Discoveries as these That the same Body is in the same Place and is not in the same Place at the same time That the Duration of 24 Hours is the Duration of 1688 Years That a Miles Distance and the Distance of 10000 Miles is Equal That the same thing may Exist and not Exist at once That the self-same single thing may have two contrary Natures at the same time and not be what it is together with the rest of the Mysteries of Transubstantiation We are sure that a Divine Revelation cannot contradict the Common Sense and Reason of Mankind for that would be to pronounce them False Witnesses of God when by these alone we know that there is a God and are led to the discovery of his Eternal Power and Godhead which must be known before we can think of Revelation For it is in vain to talk of the Word of God till we know that there is a God whose Word this Revelation is In short If any supposed Revelation should contradict the plain Principles of Reason it would be the same thing or rather worse than if that Revelation should contradict it self For if a Revelation should contradict it self we could not indeed receive it upon those terms because we should be bound to believe it and disbelieve it at once and therefore we could not believe it at all But if this Revelation should contradict the plain Principles of Reason then it would overthrow that Vnderstanding which we are sure we received from the hands of God And therefore if we should renounce our Reason to believe such a Revelation we must in that case part with a Certainty for an Vncertainty For we cannot know unless we will receive it blindfold and then we know nothing That ever any Revelation came from God till our Reason has made it out to us that it did And therefore to abandon our Reason for the sake of any Revelation is to make our selves surer of the thing proved than of the Proof it self which is very absurd for that which makes us certain of another thing must needs be first and best known to us I should not have put such a Case as this for it is an impossible Case but that the Papists themselves have put it and have decided it the wrong way and have made Axiomes and self-evident Principles out of the false determination of it So Cartes concludes his First Book of Principles That we must fix this in our minds as the chief and principal Rule That those things which are revealed to us by God are to be believed as the most certain of all others And altho perchance the most clear and evident Light of Reason that can be should seem to suggest to us the contrary yet we must believe Divine Authority alone rather than our own Judgment Now this I say is an impossible Case for we have not a more clear and evident proof than the most clear and most evident Light of Reason that can be Either that God has revealed any one Doctrine in particular Or made any Revelation at all Or that there is a God. And therefore if any revealed Doctrine in particular can be supposed to contradict the most clear and and most evident
Light of Reason that can be so that it ought to be set aside and disbelieved as False Then that Doctrine does therein overthrow both its own Credit and the belief of a Revelation in general and even of a Deity And consequently it is as I said an Impossible Case and a perfect Inconsistency for at once it supposes the belief of a Divine Revelation and yet destroys the belief of any such thing The Gentlemen of the Port Royal in their Logick or Art of Thinking have advanced this Rule of Cartes to the state and degree of an Axiome or undoubted Principle For in Part 4. Chap. 7. they make this together with two other Axiomes which usher it in to be the Foundation of Faith. I shall consider them all three AXIOME VIII A Man ought not to deny that which is clear and evident for not being able to comprehend that which is obscure This is but a lame Axiome for tho it be Truth yet it is not the whole Truth in this matter For a Man ought not to deny that which is clear and evident upon any account whatsoever He ought not to go against known Truth for that is the English of what is clear and evident for the sake of any thing either known or unknown AXIOME IX It is of the nature of a Finite mind not to be able to comprehend that which is Infinite This is an undoubted Truth and no man can gainsay it only it has the misfortune to be found here in bad company and to be applied to false purposes as we shall see by and by AXIOME X. The Testimony of a Person infinitely powerful infinitely wise infinitely good and infinitely true ought to have more force to persuade our Minds than the most convincing Reasons But I ask again Have we any more than the most convincing Reasons to persuade us that there is any such Person thus qualified Or that this Infinitely Credible and Adorable Being has given any Testimony at all If not Then I say that this Axiome is an Inconsistency it supplants it self and undermines the very ground on which it stands That must needs be a very tottering and ruinous foundation of Faith which is established upon a contrariety and opposition to the Most Convincing Reasons But an absurd Religion may be glad of such Axiomes as it can get and must be content to be served with an absurd Logic. The Messieurs promise us here to say somewhat more of Faith afterwards which accordingly they do Chap. 11. and therefore thither we will follow them and see how they apply these Axiomes to establish Transubstantiation Where first they inculcate their former Axiome in those words Il est certain c. It is certain that Divine Faith ought to have more power over our Minds than our own Reason And this is certain even by Reason it self which shews us that we ought always to prefer that which is more certain before that which is less certain and that it is more certain that what God says is true than what our Reason persuades us because God is more uncapable of Deceiving us than our Reason of being Deceived Now if what Reason persuades us be not certain when for instance it persuades us that there is a God then there is no possible certainty of a Revelation which shall stand in competition with Reason and be preferred before it And therefore this is the the old Enchantment over again which perfectly turns the Reason of Mankind into a Stone so that it cannot move one step either forward or backward For if the most clear and evident light of Reason that can be as Cartes's word is if the most convincing Reasons as the Port-Royal word is may be false Then it is impossible for us to know any thing Nay it is impossible for us so much as to know that we know nothing But in the very next words they relent and tell us quite another story Neanmoins a considerer c. Nevertheless to consider things exactly that which we evidently perceive both by Reason or by the faithful report of our Senses is never contrary to that which Divine Faith teaches us But that which makes us believe so is that we take no heed where it is that the evidence of our Reason and of our Senses ought to stop and to go no further Methinks men should consider things exactly before they lay down Axiomes and first Principles and not after For now it seems that Revelation is never contrary to the evidence of Reason or the faithful report of our Senses for if they are never contrary to that then that is never contrary to them and therefore the opposition which was supposed to be betwixt them and the renouncing of Reason and cleaving to Faith which followed thereupon proves to be wholly a mistake So that they have plainly given up their 10th Axiome for Nonsense and now they are upon a new question which is concerning the just bounds and full extent of Sense and Reason and to shew how short sighted they both are in discerning a bit of Bread. Their next words are these Par exemple c. For Example Our Senses shew us clearly in the Sacrament some roundness and whiteness but our Senses do not teach us whether it be the substance of Bread which causes our eyes to perceive this Roundness and Whiteness And thus Faith is not contrary to the evidence of our Senses when it tells us that this is not the substance of Bread which is abolished having been changed into the Body of Jesus Christ by the Mystery of Transubstantiation and that we see nothing more than the species and appearances of Bread which still remain although the substance be abolished and be no more When the Papists are disposed to make themselves merry with the follies of us poor Hereticks there is no such happy subject of their Drollery as this That we pretend to see Substances and have such exquisite Senses as will penetrate farther and deeper than all other mens Now on the other hand we can tell them very seriously that we never saw Roundness or Whiteness in our lives nor can any of our Senses shew us any such rarities We cannot deny but that we have seen Round and White Substances or Bodies or pieces of Matter call them what you will but as for Roundness and Whiteness we believe them to be objects so dazling that they would certainly blind us The roundness and whiteness and sweetness which they see and tast in the Sacrament without a Subject are the round and white and sweet nothings which we never yet saw nor tasted tho we sometimes promise them to our Children for Fairings But Substances we continually see and cannot look beside them For every thing which is seen heard smelt tasted or felt is a Substance and which is more it is a gross material Substance or else it could not affect and make an impression upon such gross material organs of Sense as ours are