« back to search

"By Arguments they could not convince me, for I was able to show greater absurdities in their Religion than they could prove in mine; and particularly, in their Doctrine of Transubstantiation; Against which I argu'd several ways: As, First from the Testimony of our Senses , viz. of seeing, feeling, tasting, all which do assure us, that it is Bread, which we receive in the Sacrament and not Flesh."

— Psalmanazar, George (1679?-1763)

Author

Psalmanazar, George (1679?-1763)

Work Title

An Historical and Geographical Description of Formosa: an Island Subject to the Emperor of Japan

Place of Publication

London

Publisher

Printed for Dan. Brown; G. Strahan, and W. Davis; Fran. Coggan; and Bernard Lintott

Date

1704

Metaphor

"By Arguments they could not convince me, for I was able to show greater absurdities in their Religion than they could prove in mine; and particularly, in their Doctrine of Transubstantiation; Against which I argu'd several ways: As, First from the Testimony of our Senses , viz. of seeing, feeling, tasting, all which do assure us, that it is Bread, which we receive in the Sacrament and not Flesh."

Metaphor in Context

There were only three ways by which they could hope to make a Convert of me, by Arguments and Demonstrative Proofs, by flattering Insinuations and fair Promises, or by Threats and Violence. By Arguments they could not convince me, for I was able to show greater absurdities in their Religion than they could prove in mine; and particularly, in their Doctrine of Transubstantiation; Against which I argu'd several ways: As, First from the Testimony of our Senses , viz. of seeing, feeling, tasting, all which do assure us, that it is Bread, which we receive in the Sacrament and not Flesh: If therefore we believe our Senses, we cannot believe that the Substance of the Bread is chang'd into the natural Flesh of Christ, which is corporally present in this Sacrament: And then I prov'd that we must believe the Testimony of our Senses; because upon them depends the certainty of the Relations we have concerning the Miracles wrought by Jesus Christ, for the confirmation of his Doctrine: For if those who were Eye-witnesses, could not be certain by their Senses , that such Miracles were wrought, as are related in the Life of Christ, than we have no certainty of the truth of these Relations which depends upon the Testimony of those Eye-witnesses, who affirm that they saw such Miracles wrought by Christ, and consequently all the Evidence for the truth of Christianity, from the Miracles pretended to be wrought in confirmation of it, is subverted and destroyed. Thus the belief of Transubstantiation is inconsistent with the Belief of these Miracles; for if we believe them we must allow the Testimony of Sense to be a sufficient proof of them; But if we believe Transubstantiation we must renounce our Senses , and deny them to be a certain proof of any thing we see or feel.
(pp. 16-18)