Selected quad for the lemma: sense_n
Text snippets containing the quad
|
ID |
Title |
Author |
Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) |
STC |
Words |
Pages |
|
A40605
|
A Full answer to Dr. Tenison's conferences concerning the Eucharist
|
|
1687
(1687)
|
Wing F2341; ESTC R11371
|
3,729
|
2
|
a particular to an universal is to declare his own ignorance in Print We Papists then say when ever our Senses represent us an Object as such unless there intervene a proof more prevalent we may believe them as also whensoever our reason sticks to a principle as true and is drawn away by a no more forcible Argument we ought to conclude it is so but because we have Divine Revelation which is of a far greater force than either Sense or Reason tho' my Sense tells me when I see a Consecrated Host 't is Bread I must say 't is the Body of Christ altho' my Reason assures me this principle is evident that those things which are the same with a mean are the same with themselves I must Answer 't is not so because God has told me there is a Trinity which contradicts it But now I conceive 't is my duty to shew that the Divine Revelation we have for Transubstantiation is more prevalent than the Evidence of Sense which opposes it Let us come to our Infidel before I persuade him to embrace Christianity we must agree there is one God that this God is Infinite in every perfection therefore that he sees truths which we cannot understand otherwise he would not be Infinit in Knowledg that he can reveal those truths otherwise his Power would be limited that he can oblige his Creatures to believe them otherwise his Authority would not be Infinit This a Heathen must grant because 't is as evident as that there is a God then I would ask him what evidence he required to rest convinced that God revealed him the Mystery of Transubstantiation he would without doubt require such a one as no Man could prudently call in Question such as is all Moral Evidence which added to the forementioned principles is stronger than that of our Senses or Reason which we know may be deceived Now that this does not bring in Scepticism nor destroy all demonstration is evident because I am to follow the deposition of my Senses the light of my Reason where no Divine Revelation which is a more prevalent Argument does oppose them So that in other cases I am as sure I am not deceived as that I have no Divine Revelation we therefore first prove Divine Revelation and then the possibility of the thing revealed as for example whatever God reveals is true but God hath revealed Transubstantiation Ergo 'tis true The Dr. goes on otherwise Whatever says he is not true God has not revealed but the Doctrin of Transubstantiation is not true Ergo God has not revealed it according to this method he must first convince his Infidel Converts of all the strange truths in the Scripture for example that the World was Created of nothing that God is one in Nature three in persons that all the Sodomites Senses were deceived when they took the Angels for Young Men c. believe me the Philosophers would not so easily assent to these truths nor would they ever Anathematize their Books upon the Drs. Authority or Reason I must desire those who assist at the Drs. Pulpit heats against Popery and Transubstantiation to examin whether his passion against both be not greater than his Reasons and whether they may in Conscience tie their belief to the Authority of a Man who undermines his own Religion so Popery may be involved in the ruin but God be thanked our Church is too strong to waver at the blasts which flow from his mouth and will Triumph when perchance the Dr. may smart for having attempted it's destruction London Printed by Henry Hills Printer to the King 's Most Excellent Majesty for His Houshold and Chappel And are to be sold at his Printing-house on the Ditch-side in Black-Fryers 1687.
A Full Answer to Dr. Tenisons Conferences concerning the EUCHARIST I Could not but wonder whilst I perused the Drs. Conferences why he was pleased to term himself rather the Publisher than Author of the Book Some assured me the Dr. was too wise to think his Reader so foolish as not to perceive he had borrowed matter from his Brethren to swell his Pamphlet into fifteen sheets and indeed I my self was soon convinced that if any thing appeared new it pag. 26. arose from a certain Air of Novelty which might be in the manner of proposing it but then why the Dr. should engage himself in a new Conference seeing that of Michaelmas proved so unsuccessful I understood not But a friend very lucky in guessing told me that the Dr. being in the last meeting too weak to grapple with Five Jesuits Armed with Yellow Peruques and little Bands he was resolved to venture the second cast with N. alone a Papist of his own Coyning yet some are of opinion that the Dr. turned Dialoger to shew the World he could Complement a Papist tho' the loss of his Fathers Benefice gave him no Heart to use such Ceremonies with a Jesuit now whether these Men have hit the Nail on the head I know not so that I will Appeal to the Dr. if he says no let him be assured I shall not call him to the Bar. I come to his Conclusions and Proofs First then he affirms pag. 5. that Transubstantiation absolutly destroys the certainty of our Senses which is the Foundation of the strongest proofs of Christianity After some Complements with N. he comes to some Postulatas of which some are false others doubtful and then proceeds to three grand Conclusions as he terms them The first is that if pag. 19. Transubstantiation were one of the Doctrins of Christianity Christian Religion would be opposed with greater strength than Mr. Huet or any one else could bring forth to maintain it in effect did Transubstantiation make a part of Christian Religion one might oppose against it whatever is offered against Transubstantiation which are Physical Evidences whereas the Evidences for Christian Religion are only Moral ones I Confess poor N. is at a Non-plus and therefore I think my self obliged to help him For my part I am of opinion the Drs. Argument even in his principles wounds as deep Christianity as in ours I suppose he believes Abraham saw an Angel and I am sure the Dr. must grant his Senses were all deceived for had any person then present bid him Ask your Eyes ask your Nose ask your Hands ask them Ten Thousand times the same question they will ever Answer you what they have ever Answered those who have consulted them in this matter 't is a Man you see Now I argue thus if the belief of the Holy Scriptures pag. 19. be one of the Doctrins of Christianity Christian Religion would be opposed with greater strength than the Dr. or any one else ibid. could bring forth to maintain it because did the belief of Holy Scriptures make a part of Christian Religion one might oppose against it whatever is offered against the belief of the Holy Scriptures but more can be brought against the belief of Holy Scriptures than the Dr. can bring to maintain Christianity Ergo. The Dr. cannot deny the Major without undermining his own Foundation I prove therefore the Minor. No Insidel can give assent to the Scripture without believing all Abrahams Senses were deceived this he cannot do unless he believes his own may be mistaken this in the Drs. Language is impossible For the Arguments the Dr. can propose to an Insidel to convince him of the truths of Christianity pag. 19. are only grounded on a Moral Evidence which is never half so great as that of Sense The Evidence which assures an Insidel Abrahams Senses and by consequence his own could not be deceived is grounded on Sense and he is pag. 17. more assured of what he does not know but by the Revelation of his Senses than of that which has the highest degree of Moral Evidence pag. 19. Therefore if two be more than one 't is clear that granting the belief of Scripture to be one of the Christian Doctrins Christianity is attacked with greater strength than the Dr. can defend it with Hence it is clear the Dart shot at Papists has rebounded on St. Martins Church and hit the Minister If he please to Answer my Reply he will see his first Objection fall to the ground as well as his other two which therefore I shall not mention The Subject of the second Conference is that pa. 27. Transubstantiation discrediting the Testimony of our Senses does absolutely overthrow the principal Reasons which confirm the truth of Christian Religion The proposition he proves thus pa. 29. 1. If Transubstantiation takes place our Senses are deceived in taking for Bread and Wine what is not so 2. If our Senses may be mistaken in the Eucharist they may be as well mistaken in any thing else 3. If our Senses may be mistaken in the discovery of their Objects be they what they will the proofs of Christian Religion are of no value I Answer as before If the deceptio visus of Abraham takes place his Senses were deceived in taking for a Man him who was not so if his Senses might be mistaken in the Angel they might be as well mistaken in every thing else if his Senses might be mistaken in the discovery of their Objects be they what they will the proofs of Christianity are of no value because as I told you before an Infidel in the Drs. principles cannot believe Abrahams Senses were deceived without granting his own may be mistaken the Drs. Argument then proves too much and therefore according to good Philosophy nothing The third Conference being but a repetition of the former I pass it by but because the second proposition is the chief ground of the fourth and fifth Conference and indeed of all the Book in which the Dr. pretends to prove that Transubstantiation pa. 60. opens a gate to scepticism in its full perfection and especially destroys the certainty of demonstration I will give it a full Answer and then shall suppose I have performed my promise The proposition runs thus pa. 45. if our Senses deceive us in the report which they make of the Eucharist they may as well deceive us in every thing else By the Drs. leave he is grosly mistaken in the first Rudiments of Logic and therefore I will take the pains to teach him how he should have framed his Argument if he intended to conclude any thing If our Senses deceive us in the report which they make of the Eucharist they may as well deceive us in every thing else in the same circumstances This without doubt his adversary N. would have granted and not thought he had either banisht the proofs of Christianity out of the World on brought Scepticism into it but for a Dr. to argue from