The purpose of which discourse is this: that no notices are more evident and more certain than the notices of sense; but if we conclude contrary to the true dictate of senses, the fault is in the understanding, collecting false conclusions from right premises. It follows, therefore, that in the matter of the Eucharist we ought to judge that which our senses tell us.
Very unusually lax reasoning for Jeremy Taylor, whose logic is commonly legitimate even where his metaphysic is unsatisfactory. What Romanist ever asserted that a communicant's palate deceived him, when it reported the taste of bread or of wine in the elements?
Ib.
s. i. p. 16.
When we discourse of mysteries of faith and articles of religion, it is certain that the greatest reason in the world, to which all other reasons must yield, is this — 'God hath said it, therefore it is true.'
Doubtless: it is a syllogism demonstrative. All that God says is truth, is necessarily true. But God hath said this;
ergo,
&c. But how is the
minor
to be proved, that God hath said this? By reason? But it is against reason. By the senses? But it is against the senses.