were not assured 't was he so that having no greater certainty than these Holy Men we have reason to doubt of this great Miracle which is the principal prop of our Faith. And these are the natural Consequences of Bellarmin's Argument I must acknowledg there 's no great reason to fear this should meet with belief in Mens Minds In effect you may as long as you please maintain we may be mistaken in the discerning of Substances You will not find any Body that will be perswaded of so absurd a Paradox All the World will believe their Sight and I am of Opinion whatever you may say That you little doubt but 't is I that have the honour of conversing with you now and I desire no other Judg but your own Conscience would you please to let it speak your sense in this Matter But though there be no danger of falling into Bellarmin's Opinion in this Point and admitting all the Consequences of the Principles which he establishes yet is it plain 't is not long of him we do not do it and hereby doubt of our Saviour's Resurrection as well as of a thousand other important Matters were his Answers and Arguments as solid as he would have him thought to be Moreover what I now said of our Saviour's Resurrection is applicable to all other Resurrections which have been wrought either by our Lord himself or his Apostles The truth of this Miracle and the force of the Proof drawn thence depend on the knowing whether those who were seen alive were really those who were dead a while before But the means of knowing it is whether any of our Faculties do precisely determine concerning Substances and whether it be an easy and common thing for them to be deceived When our Lord cured the Man born blind the Pharisees who found themselves so perplexed with the Proof which was drawn thence in favour of the Truth might easily clear themselves of it by supposing your Maxims They needed only to have said That he who saw and vaunted of the recovery of his Sight was not the Person who was blind a while before but rather an Impostor whom our Saviour had set up and though it seem'd to those who had known him that he was the same Person yet 't was not to be believed seeing our Senses have not the least shadow of certainty in the discerning of particular Substances When our Saviour multiplied the Bread to feed the multitude which followed him we may doubt of the Truth of this Miracle if we may believo what this Multitude eat was not Bread and we may doubt that it was Bread if we have not any Faculty to make us distinguish one thing from another When our Lord walked on the Sea he wrought without doubt a signal Miracle But this Miracle signifies nothing unless we be assured it was on the Water and not on a Plain that our Saviour walked of which we may doubt if we have not Faculties to discern certainly these Objects All the Miracles which have served only to transform Substances may be called into question if your Opinion be allowed For if our Senses tell us nothing certain touching Substances how shall we know there was ever made any real change And to what purpose was the changing of Moses his Rod to perswade either this Prophet to accept of the Calling God had offered him or Pharaoh to let the Children of Israel go To what purpose was the changing of the Waters of the River of Nile into Blood or that of Cana into Wine if those who saw all these Conversions might doubt whether they were true and whether they had any other place but in their abused Fancies The Prophecies are also another great source of Proofs to establish the Truth of Christian Religion Yet 't is certain that Prophecies prove nothing but by the conformity which they have with the Events But what certainty can we have of Events if we may be deceived in the discerning of Substances The Person of Jesus Christ that of his Holy Mother his Apostles his Cross his Sepulchre the People whom he converted the Sick he healed the Dead he raised up and an hundred other things which the Prophets foretold were Substances Whence it follows if those who have seen all these things may have been deceived there remains to us no more certainty touching the accomplishment of the Ancient Oracles and this great Proof of the Divinity of Christianity which gives such Perplexity to the Infidels and such great Consolation to the Faithful will be no more of any weight I told you Yesterday that one of the strongest Proofs of Christian Religion is the Truth of the Jewish Religion and that all the Miracles which authoriz'd the Vocation of Moses do highly establish that of our Saviour Jesus Christ But is it not true that almost all that God did to give credit and authority to this Prophet would have been fruitless if those who were the Spectators might been deceived in the Question of Substances The Author of the Discourse touching the Proofs of the Books of Moses (c) Disc c. pag. 123. affirms That 't is to attribute to all the People of the Jews the greatest extravagancy to believe they may have been deceived in these Matters It 's clear says he that we must suppose all these People mad and besides themselves to say they thought to pass through the Red Sea dry-shod when 't was no such matter in thinking they beheld a Mountain on fire when they saw no such thing That they fed on Manna when they had nothing but common Food in believing their Cloaths were not worn out altho they were obliged oftentimes to change them in their believing to have seen Moses strike the Rock whence flowed Water sufficient to satisfy the thirst of six hundred thousand Men when in truth there was no such thing But it 's plain all this might happen altho this People consisted only of wise and intelligent Persons if it be true there 's no certainty in the distinction we make of Substances seeing that the Sea the Mountain of Sinai the Fire which covered it the Manna the Jews Garments the Rock and the Waters which flowed thence were something more than Accidents This Author cannot comprehend there could be so general an Error and that it could infect six hundred thousand Men capable of bearing Arms. But that wherein one falls on the Subject of the Eucharist supposing this Sacrament not to be Bread and Wine will be more general seeing 't will be common to all Mankind without exception It 's then clear Sir that the Truth of the Facts which establish the Divinity of the Christian Religion depends on the Certitude whereby we distinguish the Substances from one another But this being granted my second Proof subsists and has its effect if not in the same form I gave it Yesterday yet at least in that I now give it However this concerns me but little and provided I
use them And therefore I must ingenuously confess to you That you cannot touch me in a more tender place But I must affirm at the same time you have undertaken what you will never be able to prove That Transubstantiation overthrows the Arguments of Mr. Huet even those which seem most likely to convert Unbelievers I do not doubt replied I but to make it plain to you and I am willing you should make no account of my Arguments if you your self do not find they carry along with them the clearest Evidence But if you please let me hear first which are the Arguments Mr. Huet has made use of for those are they which be in question between us The Proofs said he are certain undeniable historical Matters of Fact and which are moreover of such a nature That they cannot be true if Christian Religion be not of God and the Matters of Fact be these That long before our Saviour's Time the Jews had certain Books which they esteem'd Sacred and which they believed were written by Men inspired of God. That these Books have come down to us without alteration and that we have them such as they were before our Lord's Incarnation That they contain divers Prophecies which promise a Deliverer to the Jewish Nation whom they mention under the name of Messias distinctly denoting his Birth his actions his Death and Resurrection and in general the most remarkable Passages of his Life That under the Empire of Tiberius there appeared in Judea a Man called Jesus who said he was this Messias That there was seen in his Person whatever the Writings of the Prophets had foretold should be observable in the Messias That he moreover wrought several Miracles to prove his Mission That having been crucified by the Jews he after three days rose again and was carried up into Heaven To which we may add that after his Ascension his Apostles proclaimed his Resurrection throughout all the World and confirmed it by various and infinite Miracles That this Testimony which they gave drew on them a thousand cruel Persecutions and engaged them into the necessity of undergoing Poverty Contempt Imprisonments and the most cruel Punishments the World could inflict on them yet all this was not able to make them alter their course That their Preaching perswaded an infinite number of People of all Nations and especially great numbers of the Jews That the Church which they founded by this means suffered an uninterrupted Persecution for the space of 300 Years and yet daily encreased and spread it self over the whole World. 'T is true that Mr. Huet has not insisted on the last of these Facts but besides that they be of the same Order as the preceding I believe 't is fit they should be added as being of great use for the establishing of the Truth of Christian Religion In a word if both one and the other be true 't is not possible but the Christian Faith must come from God and he that denies so necessary a Consequence may deny the clearest Truths which have hap'ned in the World. These Facts being true the Birth of Jesus Christ his Actions his Death his Resurrection his Ascension and in general all the particulars of his Life have been foretold several Ages before they have happened and what is most considerable they have been foretold not by one or two particular Persons but by a long Train as I may say of Prophets who have succeeded one another in several Ages and who seem to have been chiefly rais'd up for this purpose by Prophets I say in whom were to be seen all the Marks which denote Persons inspired of God. If these Matters of Fact be true our Saviour himself has justified his Mission by a great number of Miracles all infinitely above the force of Nature and circumstanced in the likeliest manner in the World to persuade us they were the immediate Effects of an Almighty Power If these things be true the Eternal God has raised up his Son from the Grave took him up into Heaven and thereby declared in an unquestionable manner That he owned him not only for his great Prophet but for his only Son it not being to be supposed he would do all these things in favour of one that had falsly usurp'd that Title If these Facts be true Christianity has establish'd it self in the World in a manner wholly Divine and which shews with the greatest evidence That Heaven has concern'd it self in it the Powers thereof alone being able to triumph over the Resistances and Oppositions of the Earth So that I do not comprehend how a Man can acknowledg all these things and deny Christian Religion to be of God. You are in the right repli'd I but the difficulty if there be any consists in establishing the Truth of these things How will you prove them For you know the Infidels are not agreed in them The Infidels said he do not dony all of them They acknowledg several of them and which consequently there 's no need of justifying As to the rest in which they will not agree with us it 's no hard matter to establish the Truth of them But what Proofs said I must one use for this Such as are wont to be offered to prove these king of things answered he I know all sorts of Proofs are not proper to establish all kind of Truths Abstracted Verities such as are those which Metaphysicks teach us are not proved by the Senses nor by Authority but by Domonstrations Whereas on the contrary Matters of Fact do not shew themselves at least in this manner but if they be present we make People see or touch them whom we would convince of the truth of them and if they are past and at a distance we use the Testimony of those who have seen them or certainly known them Thus the Truths which serve for a Foundation to the Proofs of the Christian Religion consisting in Facts and those past and ancient enough you plainly see hence we must not expect to establish them by Metaphysical or Mathematical Demonstrations nor by the Depositions of Sense We must content our selves with the Testimony of those who have seen them with their own Eyes and who could not be deceived themselves nor have any design of deceiving others Is this sufficient repli'd I. A bare Testimony of Men can it produce any thing else than a Humane Faith And is Humane Faith a sufficient Foundation for Divine Faith Is not Humane Faith a kind of Opinion and can an Opinion uphold what the Scripture calls (e) Heb. xi i. the Substance of things hoped for and a demonstration of such as are not seen I am surpriz'd said he that so small a thing should stop you When we consider in the Testimony received only the bare Authority of him that speaketh when we attend to that alone and the Faith which is grounded thereon has no other Foundation than the esteem we have for the Probity and Sincerity of
what I do not know but by the relation of my Senses than of that which has the highest degree of moral Evidence But this is not all for I say but one half of what may be alledg'd The Example which you have made use of gives me occasion to add something stronger You ask me if it be more evident there 's a City called Rome than 't is evident that it 's now Day You do not consider That I do not only know by myown Senses it is Day but by those of others For were I in fine blind yet I might know this with certainty I need only to be led to the Exchange to Church to Dinner c. for this purpose And therefore I take it for granted That the blind Men about our Streets are as certain 't is Day as that there is such a place as Rome I believe then That the Evidence which arises from the relations of Sense considered alone is not greater than the moral Evidence being impossible to be less as I now proved I affirm That in this Supposition to demand whether 't is more evident it is Day than whether there be such a City as Rome is just as if you should ask whether two be more than one The Existence of Rome as to us has but one only Evidence and that a moral one Whereas it is now Day has two the Moral Evidence and the Evidence of Sense Each of these two is at least equal to that of the Existence of Rome It is at least then as much again evident it is Day as that there 's a City called Rome Yet is it true said I it 's more evident the Eucharist is Bread and Wine than that it is Day Only the Senses of those who live and are awake at present attest the latter whereas the Senses of all Men who live or have lived since the planting of the Gospel have affirm'd the former All our Senses do not attest it 's now Day only our Sight tells us so whereas all our Senses tell us That the Eucharist is Bread and Wine In effect take a consecrated Host take consesecrated Wine Ask your Eyes what they are Ask your Nose your Palat and your Hands Ask them ten thousand times the same Question they will ever answer you what they have always answer'd those who have consulted them on this Matter They will tell you 't is Bread and Wine In a word the Senses never attested any thing in a more clear expressive and authentic manner than what they depose on the Subject of the Eucharist And if they deceive us herein they are not to be believed in any thing whatever Grant we then the Proofs of Christianity do use the highest degree of Moral Evidence seeing the Testimony of our Senses circumstanc'd in the manner as that is which shew's us the Eucharist to be Bread and Wine hath at least twice as much evidence as that which has the highest degree of moral Evidence it 's beyond all question that this Testimony is twice again as evident as the Proofs of Christianity This is clear and I doe not believe you either will or can deny it Here then are three grand Conclusions which I draw from this Principle The first That if Transubstantiation were one of the Doctrins of Christianity as you pretend Christian Religion would be opposed with greater strength than Mr. Huet 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 I have now shew'd you one may oppose against Transubstantiation all the evidence of Sense One might offer all this same Evidence against Christianity were it true that Christianity comprehended Transubstantiation This is that which opposes Christianity in your Principles Let 's see now what Mr. Huet do's to maintain it He brings Arguments which as we have already observ'd are only grounded on moral Evidence which is never half so great as that of sense If then two be more than one it 's clear That granting Transubstantiation to be one of the Christian Doctrins Christianity is attack'd with greater strength than Mr. Huet can defend it with It is clear according to this Supposition an Infidel will more strongly prove That Christian Religion is false than Mr. Huet can prove it is true All which would never be were Transubstantiation put out of the number of Christian Doctrins By which means the Proofs of this Holy Religion would conserve all their strength and the Infidels would have nothing that 's rational to oppose against them These Proofs are most solid in themselves and capable of convincing every reasonable Body who searches the Truth and is disposed to follow it through all parts where he finds it There 's nothing but Transubstantiation which weakens them Granting Transubstantiation these Proofs will be of no validity Take away this Doctrine our Proofs subsist and have their effect It do's not belong then to your Doctors who hold Transubstantiation to defend Christianity The best Arguments will never be good ones in their Mouths Only we can propose them without weakning them So that I told you nothing but what you find true when I affirmed a while ago That Mr. Huet's Book which would be an excellent Work were it writ by a Protestant is without conviction coming from a Man of your Party And this is Sir my first Conclusion The second follows which is That whereas an Infidel to whom was offered Mr. Huet's Arguments without any mention of Transubstantiation or who should suppose that Christianity do's not oblige us to believe it would be irrational should he not embrace a Religion so well grounded so in like manner he would fall in to as great a fault and act as much against Reason if supposing the contrary and letting himself be perswaded one cannot be a Christian without believing Transubstantiation he should receive both Transubstantiation and Christian Religion What I have now been saying to you does necessarily draw along with it this Consequence But to remark more clearly the necessity of it be pleased to observe That what makes an Infidel a Christian are the Reasons which perswade him That the Christian Religion was revealed by God. In effect that which induces us to believe Things are the Reasons good or bad which seem to us to uphold the Opinion which we embrace So that should one Persuade ones self of any thing without Ground or Reason that Man will act foolishly and sottishly though the thing it self should be true So the Infidel who shall make himself a Christian without Reason would apparently offend against good Sense And this is the general Notion of your Divines which I need not alledg to you for having read them you must needs remember them A Man then never believes without Reason if he believes wisely and judiciously But it seldom hapning that the Reasons are all on one side there being commonly some for and some against
bereaved of all his five Senses or only of the two principal ones Sight and Hearing suppose him at the same time both Deaf and Blind how will you make him understand the solidity of these Proofs You may speak to him long enough of the Prophecies of the Old Testament of our Saviour's and Moses his Miracles and other things which establish the Truth of Christian Religion This will be just the same as if you discoursed to a Stone It 's only our Senses then which make us receive these Proofs So that should we know That those of the Apostles and other Witnesses of the Truth could not deceive them this would signify nothing to us should we have just reason to believe we might be deceived by ours By consequence the certainty of Sense is doubly necessary to establish the solidity of the Proofs of Christianity and these Proofs will be two ways uncertain if the report of our Senses be not to be trusted See now Sir if there be any thing more true than what I told you a while ago That Transubstantiation absolutely destroys these Proofs and takes from them all their Validity See whether in supposing this Doctrine one may hinder Libertines from using this arguing It 's contrary to good Sense to receive this Revelation which destroys it self which overthrows its own Foundations which annuls and discredit's the means by which it endeavours to establish it self and whose Proofs cannot be true without being false nor assured without being uncertain This is what may be said of Christianity if it be true it teaches things contrary to the relation of our Senses For in fine Christianity has hitherto establish'd it self only on the depositions of these Faculties Hereby it has met with belief in the Minds of Men. If then one of its Maxims be we must not trust any of our Senses it 's evident and unquestionable we may say of it what we now affirmed It 's evident it is self-contradictory enjoining us on one hand to believe the report of our Senses when they instruct us in what should induce us to receive it and forbidding us at the same time to hearken to them in one of its chiefest Doctrines It overthrows its own Foundations seeing it destroys the faithfulness of our Senses on which the persuasion which we have of its truth is grounded Hereby it annuls and discredits the means by which it endeavours to set up it self and this is so visible that we need not undertake to shew it In a word its Proofs cannot be true without being false nor certain without being uncertain In effect if the Proofs of Christianity be good whatever it say's is true and if whatever it says be true these Proofs be nothing worth seeing one of the things which it affirms is That the report of our Senses whence these Proofs be taken is uncertain Is it not true Sir That setting up Transubstantiation the Infidels would on very good grounds use this Arguing In particular would they not have reason to complain that they are not sincerely dealt with seeing we pretend to convince them by the Depositions of Witnesses which we do not produce till we have strip'd them of all their Authority and declared them unfaithful and deceivers After this great Interest I see nothing which is worth contending for and if our Faith loses the means of establishing it self in the World as she do's lose it in losing her Proofs It 's not worth the while to demonstrate the other Consequences of your Doctrine nor particularly the Disorders which the uncertainty of our Senses once establish'd would infallibly bring forth into the World. They are both infinite and inexplicable because that in effect our Senses are almost the only Guides which we follow and their Fidelity is the chief Foundation of all the certainty we can have therein Your abstracted Truths which are perceivable only to the Understanding and which are so useful in Sciences are of little use in the Commerce of the World wherein Men apply themselves to things which be singular which are not known but by the interposition of the Senses So that to ruin the certainty of our Senses is to turn all into confusion and reduce Men to such a condition that they shall not take a step without being troubled with some Scruple But as I have already observ'd this is not the Point 'T is sufficient I have shew'd That the solidity of the Proofs which establish the Truth of Christian Religion depends on the certainty of our Senses so that Transubstantiation absolutely destroying this certainty invalidates these Proofs and stops the Mouths of those who undertake the Conversion of the Infidels This single Consequence is dreadful enough and we need not draw any other to shew the falsity of the Principle whence it flows It 's better to pass to my third Proof which is to shew That your Doctrine overthrows the certainty of our Reason as well as that of our Senses and gives such an establishment to Scepticism as bereaves us of all means of finding out the Truth And this is what I intend to make clear to you if I have not already tired your patience I shall hear you with all my Heart answer'd he but I must tell you That before I hear your third Argument I should be very glad to examine the two you have already offered me for I see abundance of things which I might oppose against what you have said but they lying something obscurely and confusedly in my Mind I must beg time of you to bring them into some clearness and order which as soon as I have done I shall not fail to wait on you with an account of them I easily consented to what he desired telling him I wish'd every Body would as maturely examine these great Points before they determin'd themselves I blam'd the rashness of those whose Eyes are dazl'd with the first glance of an Argument whereby they fall into a ridiculous lightness or an insupportable obstinacy Mr. N. spake to the same purpose and our conversation having for some time been on this Point I took my leave of him and departed CONFERENCE III. Wherein are confirmed the two Proofs contained in the two preceding Discourses THE next Day Mr. N. took the pains to come to me and immediately told me he had carefully appli'd himself to examine my Reasons and believed he had found a solution of them I have observed said he to me that both your Propositions depend on the same Supposition to wit That Transubstantiation is directly contrary to the reports of our Senses and that whereas this Doctrine tells us the Eucharist is no longer Bread nor Wine but the proper Body and Blood of our Saviour our Senses on the contrary tell us That this Sacrament is not the Body and Blood of our Saviour but real Bread and Wine This has inclined me to think That tho our Divines have not considered your Proofs in the same manner you have proposed them
yet I might find in their Writings wherewith to defend my self by what they answer to the direct Testimony of our Senses which your Authors have always objected I have enquired into what they have said on this Subject and found five different Solutions Some of them have absolutely denied without reserve that our Senses have any certainty Others acknowledg that these Faculties do not deceive us in the things comprehended in the order of Nature but they will not suffer us to consult them in Matters of Faith. Some allow them a certainty in Matters of Faith but say 't is a certainty inferior to that of Faith. Most of them assure us That the Senses do not perceive the Substance so that the Error wherein one falls by persuading one's self that the Eucharist is Bread and Wine is not in the Senses but in our Reason Others do in fine acknowledg that our Senses do well perceive the Substance but in an indirect manner and with great incertitude so that their report is not certain but in reference to the accidents I am well assured the two first Answers be false and should I not otherwise know it your second Reason would not permit me to doubt of it For in fine were our Senses without certainty whether in general or in particular in Matters of Faith the Proofs of Christian Religion would be but mere delusions as you sufficiently convinced me Yesterday The third of these Answers supposes a Thing which is false to wit That a Faculty which has certainty may ever have need of being corrected It supposes another which is very doubtful and in which our Divines are not agreed viz. That Faith has more certainty than the Testimony of our Senses Moreover granting all this to be true I know not whether one might make use of it against your Reasons You do not speak of the certainty which a Man that believes already may have of the Truths of Salvation but only of that which one might give an Infidel But the means to perswade an Infidel that the Senses may deceive must be by convincing him of the Divinity of our Religion which accuses the Senses of Infidelity And the way to convince him of the Divinity of this Religion must be by Reasons which suppose that these Faculties do not deceive us I do not then make any great reckoning of these three Answers and therefore I shall not oppose them against you But 't is not the same with the two last for if it be true that our Senses reach not so far as the Substance but perceive only the Accidents all that these Faculties learn us of the Eucharist is That this Sacrament still retains the Accidents of Bread and Wine which is a true Notion and contains nothing contrary to our belief Should we say moreover with those who make the second Answer That our Senses well perceive the Substance but yet in a manner indirect and subject to Error and Deceit one may truly say That Transubstantiation is contrary to the report of our Senses but not to this direct and certain report whence springs this firm perswasion called Experimental Knowledg It will be only contrary to this indirect and uncertain Report which can only establish a tottering Opinion which is almost as often false as true This being granted you cannot reestablish your Proofs unless you distinctly maintain these three things First That the Senses do perceive the very Substance it self either directly or indirectly however with certainty The second That this Certainty which our Senses give us touching the Substances is greater than that of the Facts whence are drawn the Proofs of Christianity The third That this Certainty is the ground of these Proofs and that they cannot subsist if our Senses may be deceived in the discerning of these kind of Objects ' I would be an easy matter for me said I to him to maintain this against all opposition But others (a) See the Treatise of the Authority of the Senses having already done it and this Discussion being likely to engage us into difficult Enquiries and the force of my Arguments not depending thereon I therefore am willing to wave that dispute and betake my self to what is so evident and undeniable as I am sure must satisfy you Will you not grant me Sir That we do every day discern one Substance from another Will you not grant me for Example that I now distinguish whatever is in this Chamber and that I can truly say This is a Table this is a Book this is a Bed this a Chair I do not say there 's certainty in these Judgments I make I do not determine which is the Faculty which makes me do it I only say I do do it Can you deny me this to be true or shall I set about the proving of it No answer'd he A Man must be void of Sense that requires it Will you then in the second place deny me pursued I that I make this judgment by some of the Faculties which God has given me I mean those Faculties purely natural which are common to all Men and perform their Functions without any supernatural assistance internal or external without any external Revelation without any inward illumination of the Spirit I am far from denying it answered he and I am perswaded there 's no Catholick that questions it This said I is enough and I need no more for the subsistence of my Proofs And to convince you of what I say I shall bring them to this Head I shall retrench whatever you dislike in them and instead of the Senses which trouble you I shall only speak of that natural Faculty which makes us distinguish one Substance from another You 'l see they will keep all their strength and be wholly sheltred from your Distinctions I begin with the second There being some necessity for it It consisted of these three Propositions 1. If Transubstantiation has place our Senses deceive us in the report they make of the Eucharist 2. If our Senses deceive us in the report which they make of the Eucharist they may as well deceive us in every thing else 3. If our Senses may deceive us in every thing the Proofs of Christianity are of no solidity This is the sum of my Second Proof which I offered you yesterday Now be pleas'd to observe how I further express it 1. If Transubstantiation has place the natural Faculty which God has given us whereby to distinguish one Substance from another this Faculty deceives us in the notice it gives us of the Eucharist 2. If the natural Faculty whereby we distinguish one Substance from another be mistaken on the Subject of the Eucharist nothing hinders but that it may be the fame on other Substances 3. If the natural Faculty whereby we discern the Substances has no certainty the Proofs for Christian Religion be of no weight You see Sir that forming my Argument in this manner your Distinctions are beside the purpose and
which follow'd him and who hereby in some sort shew'd their readiness to receive his Doctrine Believe me (a) John xiv for my Works said he to them And in another place (b) St. John v. 36. The Works which I do bear testimony of me He used them to confirm the Faith of his Disciples and opposes this alone to the Temptations which shook them (c) Luke 24.25 26 27. O fools and flow of heart to believe all that the Prophets have spoken Ought not Christ to have suffered these things and to enter into his Glory Then says St. Luke beginning at Moses and all the Prophets he expounded to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself And when St. John the Baptist sent to him his Disciples to demand of him whether he was the Messias he gave them for his full answer these words (d) Mat. xi 4 5. Go and tell John what you see and hear The Blind recover their sight the Lame walk the Lepers are cleans'd the Deaf hear the Dead are risen and the Gospel is preached to the Poor The Apostles have herein imitated their Master as well as in other things one of them declaring at the end of his Gospel (e) John x◠That he wrote the Miracles of the Son of God that we might believe that Jesus is the the Christ the Son of God and that believing we might have Life through his Name The Fathers have followed these incomparable Guides The modern Authors have trod in their steps Ask me now Sir then no more what hurt there is in saying Mr. Huet's Proofs be of no weight I dare say they be not only valid but that he can not be a Christian who naturally denies them Your Answer is also attended with this Vexation that 't is equally injurious to the Wisdom of God and to the Memory of those who have hitherto embraced the Profession of the Truth For as to the first if the accomplishment of the ancient Prophecies the Miracles of our Saviour and his Apostles do prove nothing Wherefore did God take that care to perform them And whom will you perswade that he rais'd up such a long train of Prophets so many times forced Nature and overthrew the ancientest and firmest of its Laws and that he did all this I say for nothing without any Necessity any Reaor Profit Is this the Character of the Divine Wisdom which commonly arriving at the greatest Ends by the smallest and most contemptible Means in appearance must needs be far from using such great ones and setting at work such Machins to do nothing I say moreover that your Answer is injurious to an infinite number of Christians How many have there been since the Birth of Christianity who have embraced this Holy Religion by being convinc'd of its truth by proofs of the same nature of Mr. Huet's I mean by the consideration of the Prophecies of the Old and New Testament and the Miracles of Christ and his Apostles If what you say be true they have been simple and foolish People who have yielded to such things as they ought to have despised Their Faith was not a solid Perswasion but a fond Belief more worthy of blame than praise and thus lightly believing they have shew'd themselves of the number of those mention'd by the Son of Sirach Qui citò credunt leves sunt corde And further If Miracles be of no value why do you require them of us Why will you have our first Reformers rejected for this very Reason Why do you reject People and reject them without hearing them as they think they ought to be and that for this only reason that they wanted an unnecessary thing and a Proof which concludes nothing Is not this I appeal to your self very strange In a word Sir if Mr. Huet's Proofs be not good where shall we find better What can we say to the Insidels to bring them to the knowledg of the Truth And with what success shall we labour for their conversion We shall not want Prooss nor Means said Mr. N. we shall have the Proofs of Reason taken from the nature of the Christian Doctrine it self the Truth Sublimity and Purity of its Precepts and from the conformity it has with the common notions which the corruption of our Nature has left us and some other such like Considerations which do not depend on Arguments of Sense Who has told you Sir replied I that these kind of Proofs are proper to convert all sorts of Infidels without exception Can you deny what even those who would make the best of them have expresly remark'd (f) Cloistian Convers That they are a little abstracted and require not only some application of Mind but morcover greater light and penetration of thought than the Vulgar is commonly endued with Yet we must convert the Laplanders the wild Irish and Cannibals which is to say brutish People and such about whom it has been disputed in the Schools of Spain whether they have the use of Reason and whether they be of the same kind with other Men. What way then have you for the instructing them in things which surpass the Capacity of our Tradesinen and Peasants But what will you say if I shew you That your Transubstantiation destroys these kind of Proofs as well as Mr. Huet's Will you not grant me after this that this is a very dangerous Doctrine and that you cannot soon enough retrench it from the number of those Truths which are taught by Christianity Yet I can establish more than this For I can shew that your Belief banishes Certainty from the Acts of Reason as well as from those of Sense I can shew you it sets open a large Door to Pyrrhonism whereby it may absolutely reign in the World there being nothing which can be reasonably opposed against it You see Sir 't is impossible to say any thing of greater force against your Doctrine For Scepticism is the last and greatest irregularity whereinto Reason can throw it self All others appear to me slight in comparison of this And so much the rather because all others may be cured whereas this is without remedy In effect the Sceptics doubting of every thing and agreeing in nothing they give no hold to those whose who would reduce them So that 't is impossible to dispute regularly with them For as Motion cannot be made but upon something that 's immovable so a Dispute must turn on something which is indisputable What way is there then to dispute against a Man who doubts of all and not only doubts whether what you tell him be true but doubts moreover whether you do tell him of it whether he hears it yea whether he doubts of it As for my part I regard all the reasonings of those who undertake to convince Sceptics as a perpetual begging of the Question For in fine 't is impossible to reason against them without laying down something which they will not grant because that in
things if it may deceive us in all things the proofs of Christianity are of no validity Even your third proof cannot escape the being appli'd to the Mystery of the Trinity In effect its observable That the Maxim I now alledg'd to you is not only a Metaphysical principle but the foundation of all affirmatory Syllogisms which prove one cannot joyn two terms by the affirmation but by shewing one may joyn them both to a third term'd a mean. By consequence if this Maxim be false as it must of necessity be if the Mystery of the Trinity be true we must no longer think of arguing but yield up the certainty of this sort of knowledg to the Sceptics And here 's Sir the natural use of your Method if it be follow'd we must retrench from our Religion whatever our reason will not suffer and as soon as ever she shall see any opposition to arise between her Maxims and our Mysteries we have no other party to betake our selves to but that of disowning these Mysteries and rejecting them as so many Errors Thus Faith shall depend on our Capricio and we shall henceforward believe not what it shall please God to reveal to us but whatever it shall please us to imagin Would you have me to take this course or to become an Arian or Socinian and do you think we ought to yield up every Article of our Faith as soon as ever we shall find any repugnance in them to the deceitful Maxims of our wretched reason which oftner serves to lead us out than in the way and to blind us than to enlighten us Far am I repli'd I from this and tho I am perswaded of the innocency of my Method I should be the first to condemn it did I believe 't would produce such pernicious effects But it s certainly an offering of great violence to make it serve for the drawing from it such dangerous Conclusions Pray let me justifie it and for this purpose give me your attention for some minutes It 's first very strange you should reject Arguments wherein you cannot remark the least defect They consist of sundry Propositions amongst which there 's not one but what is not only true but moreover evident Moreover they be strictly alli'd and their Conclusions are drawn in the most natural manner in the world Ought they then to be rejected on vain suspicions and uncertain apprehensions Is not this proceeding injurious to faith For what would she be might her Doctrines be combated by Reasons which suffer no reply and from which there 's no defence but by saying We wont examine them Is not this formally to accuse her That she will not endure the light Should all the world follow your example what shall we answer to the Libertins of the Age how would they triumph over our Religion Moreover let me entreat you to consider there 's great difference between your two first proofs and my two first yours are drawn from Reason and mine from Sense You say 't is evident to Reason there are three Essences in the Trinity or that there 's only one Person Whereas I say it 's evident not only to Reason but to Sense That the Eucharist is Bread and Wine What matter is it said Mr. N. that the Evidence which you oppose to that of the Proofs of Christianity is that which is perceiv'd by Reason or that which strikes the Senses seeing the first is no less than the second or to speak better seeing that is far greater than this It 's of great concern answer'd I and that on divers accounts First because the Supposition you make is not certain You suppose That the certainty of the acts of reason such as that is which springs from Demonstration is greater than that which arises from the report of the Senses I confess this is the Cartesians opinion But you know the Gassendists hold the contrary These last which are certainly not to be contemn'd hold there 's no greater certainty than that of the Senses They tell us They are the Senses which perswade us of the truth of the first Principles and that we know not for example The whole is greater than a part but by observing in all the Objects which have struck our Senses that the part was always lesser than the whole They are not only the Gassendists which are of this opinion The Vulgar and generally all those who are not Philosophers are herein of their opinion and if you will have them comprehend there are certain things of which they ought to be more strongly perswaded than of what they see they will presently believe you are not in earnest with them This appears considerable to me for you know neither Faith nor Salvation are the portion only of Philosophers the ordinary people having as great a right to them as the most Learned So that my Proofs have this advantage That they be convincing according to the Hypothesis of all the world whereas yours suppose things which few know and concerning which all those who are capacitated to judg are not agreed Especially the first of yours supposes a thing which Mr. Huet opposes with all his strength * Huetii Demonst Evang. pag. 3 4. That Physical Demonstrations have greater evidence and certitude than Moral ones He affirms on the contrary That Moral Demonstrations are the most convincing of all and that neither Physics nor Metaphysics nor Geometry has one to be parallel'd with them whether in general with those which perswade us of most matters of fact or in particular with those which he makes use of to establish the truth of Christian Religion He hereupon sufficiently enlarges himself and I doubt not but you have remarkt that place as well as I. I may then deny your Supposition which if I should I shall have very able persons for my Abettors But I 'le grant what you say to be true and suppose all the world of your opinion I know another way to solve your Objection which is Sir That should I agree with you That considering things in general the evidence of Reason is greater than that which offers it self to the Senses this will not hinder me from maintaining That in particularising things we shall find incomparably fewer things evident to Reason than of such as are perceived by the Senses In effect how few are the Truths which are perceiv'd by reason alone * Dogmatists such as maintain against the Sceptics the certainty of Sciences wherein not only the Sceptics but the Dogmatists do agree Scarcely is there one which has not been debated Pro Con. It 's not the same of those which are perceiv'd by the Senses For excepting the Sceptics whom you cannot bring in against the Senses seeing they are as bad friends to Reason Scarce will you find one who will not allow what the Senses discover to us at least in gross and popular Objects if I may say so and which are the only ones we now speak of
Consult all the Sects of the Philosophers all the people in the Universe to know whether it be now day or whether an Horse be greater than an Ant you will find I do not say not a Sect or Nation but not any one particular person that denies this The light of Sense has moreover this advantage over that of Reason that it 's less liable to be disordered by prejudices Prejudices make people doubt who are strongly possessed by them of Truths which a free Reason and a disengaged mind clearly perceives What is there for example which my reason perceives more distinctly than the impossibility of a Body's being in two places without division Yet your Reason imagines to see the contrary Whence comes this but from the prejudice wherewith one of us is possess'd But 't is not the same with the Senses There 's no prejudice which hinders them from seeing Objects such as they are which we must always understand of the most apparent and grossest Objects There are two sorts of clearness says an Author much esteem'd among you * Lawful Prejudices chap. 14. the one so lively and piercing that it 's impossible for men not to see it and which is such as cannot be darkned by any cloud of Prejudices or Passions whereby it shews it self uniformly to all men of this kind adds he are things exposed to the Senses In a word It 's a thousand times easier to deceive our Reason than our Senses There 's no truth so certain which a Sophister will not render doubtful by his Subtilties and Artifices Even the most learned People are sometimes deceived and we have seen but too many Examples of this in all Ages But deceive my Senses if you can on Objects as familiar as those we now spake of Go and inform any one That the food he commonly uses is not Bread and Beer The evidence of Sense then has great advantages over that which is perceiv'd only by Reason whence appears the Possibility of my Proofs being good and your two first objections being not so Nay the thing is not only possible but true and I hope to convince you of it with little trouble Whatever you have hitherto said to me turns on these two Suppositions The first That Reason sees evidently on one hand the truth of this maxim of the Philosophers That when two Subjects be not distinct from a third they are not so from one another The second That there 's more evidence in this than there is in the Reasons which establish the Truth of Christian Religion But I first affirm to you It 's impossible these two Suppositions can be true And if they were the Arians and Socinians wou'd have good grounds to deny the Mystery of the Trinity For first if our Reason evidently saw the Truth of the Maxim you bring against me we must necessarily say one of these two things Either that in effect this Maxim is true or that Evidence is not a certain mark of Truth Here 's no medium You must of necessity take one of these sides The second differs in nothing from Scepticism you must therefore take the first It must be said that according to you the Maxim of the Philosophers is true That 's my thought says Mr. N. Are you of the same mind repli'd I on the subject of the Opposition which you think you evidently see between this Maxim and the Mystery of the Trinity Do you think this to be a true and real Opposition Or do you believe it to be false altho you evidently see it Should I say it 's false answer'd he you wou'd make me the same Objection you have already made you will tell me there may be error in things most evident seeing I might evidently see Opposition where there is none and that thus Evidence wou'd not be the mark of Truth and consequently That the Sceptics wou'd have Reason to doubt of every thing To avoid such dangerous Extremities I had rather tell you that this Opposition is as true as 't is evident You believe then said I to him that effectively and in the Truth of the thing the Mystery of the Trinity is directly against an unquestionable Maxim. You believe there 's a real Contradiction between these two things and that 't is impossible to make them agree This is certainly true answer'd he Then said I the Sceptics must have good grounds seeing Contradiction is not the note of Falsity What is there more unquestionable than this Maxim That if a Proposition be true that which contradicts it must necessarily be false Is not this the Foundation of certainty You now see Sir on what precipices you cast your selves and what are the unavoidable Consequences of your Suppositions Hence you see the necessity of acknowledging there are some false and that in effect if the Philosophers Maxim be true it 's not contrary to the Mystery of the Trinity or if there be any Opposition between this Mystery and this Maxim we must not conclude the Maxim to be false seeing it's impossible the Mystery shou'd be so But this is not all I wish you wou'd explain your self on Mr. Huets Sentiment I lately mention'd to you Which Demonstrations do you believe most certain Physical or Moral ones Or to speak more precisely wherein think you lies most certainty and evidence in the Demonstration you brought against me in the name or the Socinians and Arians or in those Mr. Huet makes use of to prove the Truth of the Christian Religion Take which side you will you cannot escape me If you say the advantage lies on the side of Mr. Huets Proofs you deliver up to me your Objection In this Supposition right Reason will have us believe the Trinity notwithstanding the difficulties therein seeing nothing's more conformable to her Maxims than always to prefer that which is more evident before that which is less But if you say on the contrary That the Arians and Socinians Objection has more strength than Mr. Huets Proofs You hereby acknowledg That the Doctrine of the Trinity is contrary to good Sence and ought therefore to be rejected whether by retrenching of it from the number of the Doctrines which Christianity teaches supposing it can be separated from it or by rejecting the whole of Christianity supposing this Doctrine be inseparable from the rest In effect were these Proofs and this Objection of an equal force they wou'd bring the mind into suspence whence right Reason cou'd not draw it out She wou'd not know on which side to determine her self and finding at bottom of this Religion things which will appear to her evidently false She wou'd carry us as far off from it as She wou'd bring us near it in making us comprehend the force of the Proofs which authorize it Moreover making two contrary Judgments on the Subject of Religion one that it is true because the Proofs produced in its favour are good the other that it is false because it teaches
and on the other all Authors of your Communion who have Treated on the Controversies which separates us For as to the First did not Justin Martyr Tertullian Minutius Felix Theophilus of Antioch Origen Arnobius Lactantius St. Augustin St. Cyril and a great many others oppose Paganism with the absurdities and extravagancies of its mysteries Did not the same Fathers writing against Hereticks use this very argument affirming the Chimera's and extravagancies which these people believ'd cou'd in no sort come from God being apparently false and contrary to all the lights of Reason Have not in sine all your Authors who write against us followed the same method tho with different success See Bellarmin Gregory de Valentia Richlieu the Author of Prejudices and generally all your Controvertists There 's not one of them but has pretended to shew our Doctrine is not of God because of the absurdities therein contained All these Authors argue on two Principles The one That God has revealed nothing which is false The other That whatever is contrary to Reason is thereby contrary to Truth Take away which of these Principles you will and all the Arguments of these Writers will be meer Sophisms St. Augustin proceeds farther He says we ought to forsake the Communion of the Orthodox Church and pass over into that of the Hereticks and despise whatever you respect as the foundations of your Faith cou'd it be made appear the most dangerous Hereticks such as were then the Manichees taught the Truth * Aug. cont Epist fund cap. 4. and this is what he teaches us in this famous passage which your Doctors have ever in their mouths and wherein he declares that several things retain him in the bosom of the Catholick Church The consent of all people The authority grounded on Miracles and confirm'd by Antiquity Succession and even the name of Catholick You affirm these are the props and foundations of the true Faith and I will not now set on shewing you the contrary We may do this another time if you think fitting At present I am willing to suppose what you say I pray then consider what Saint Augustin adds Amongst you says he where I see nothing like this we hear nothing on all hands but promises of Truth and I confess adds he That could you shew it me so clearly that I could not doubt of it I must prefer it before whatever withholds me in the Catholick Church You see here how St. Augustin acknowledges That the evidence which excludes doubtings is to be preferred before the motives of Faith. He does not say that if the Manichees had this evidence on their side we shou'd despise it and offer against it the certainty of Faith as you pretend He says the contrary He says we shou'd yield and that which hinder'd him from doing it was That whatever the Manichees said They had not this evidence which they vaunted of That they promised great matters but cou'd not shew them Bellarmin does something like this * Bell. de Motis Eccles l. 4. cap. 11. He reckons amongst the Notes of the Church the holiness of its Doctrine and makes this holiness consist in her teaching nothing which is false and imposing nothing which is unjust and will have us judg of this by the lights of Reason He afterwards makes the application of this to the Pagans Jews Mahometans ancient Hereticks and lastly to us He shews as to the first That they have taught things absurd and abominable and attempting afterwards to shew this on our Subject he thence concludes none of these Societies is the true Church By this way of disputing he plainly subjects your Church to this examination and tacitly implies she may be rejected provided she can be convinced of all which he accuses the others For besides that he cannot take it ill That the Infidels and Hereticks should treat him in the same manner as he uses them besides this his greatest pretension is That the Church must be known by his marks seeing then one of his marks is That she teaches nothing which is false he hereby consents to the rejection of your Church if it can be shew'd from Reason That she teaches things false and absurd It cannot be deny'd but Bellarmine has had some Reason to deal thus For 't wou'd certainly be a great scandal to the Faithful and much more to Infidels cou'd it be clearly and plainly shew'd That Christian Religion teaches things directly contrary to Reason In effect seeing we embrace this Religion only on the account of the proofs which authorize it and of whose goodness we cannot judg but by Reason shou'd this Reason meet with things evidently false in this Religion she wou'd hereby carry us off as far from it as she cou'd bring us near it by making us comprehend these proofs Moreover making two contrary judgments on the subject of Religion the one That it is true because the proofs which authorize it are good the other that it is false because it teaches things absurd she must of necessity be deceived in the one or the other and so neither is certain The Author of the Art of Thinking was not of this mind says Mr. N. It 's certain says he * Art of Thinking part 4. ch 11. That Divine Faith should have more force on our minds than our own Reason and this from Reason it self which shews us we should always prefer what is more certain to what is less It being more certain that what God says is true than what our Reason perswades us because 't is more impossible God shou'd deceive us than our Reason All this said I appears to me false and ill digested and 't is easie to observe herein such a slight of hand as shews little love to truth To see this more distinctly be pleas'd to consider That the certainty of every act of Faith depends on the perswasion which we have of two Truths which are in some sort their props and foundations The first That whatever God attests is true The second That God has attested the Doctrine which we believe You see that if we doubt of either of these two Truths it 's impossible our Faith can be firm To what purpose is it to know that God does not lye if we doubt God has not said a thing And granting he has said something if we doubt he has said in particular what 's proposed to us to believe And further what signifies it for us to know That God has reveal'd what 's offer'd us if we doubt whether all which God says be true It 's then equally necessary to know these two Truths but they be not always equally evident The first is ever incomparably more than the second It 's always highly evident That whatever God says is true and therefore no body differs about it no not the Athiests For tho the Atheists hold there 's no God yet they acknowledg if there were one he would never speak any thing but what
is true But it 's commonly far less evident That God has reveal'd what he has in effect reveal'd Whence it happens men are so divided about the things which are pretended to be revealed from God. Yet this Author says nothing of this second perswasion He speaks only of the first He conceals the weak side and shews only the strongest It 's certainer says he that what God says is true than what our Reason perswades us Be it so But is it certainer that God has revealed such and such a Doctrine than 't is certain one and two are three and that if I think I am This he will not say Yet if he does not say it he must acknowledg he has ill reasoned For if what Reason says be more certain than it 's certain God has reveal'd the Doctrine of which one is perswaded he shall have far less certainty of the Truth of this Doctrine than of what Reason sees distinctly But let us stop a while at what this Author has chosen and which he has made his strong hold It 's certainer says he That what God says is true than what our Reason perswades us He makes Reason to say this and consequently his sense is that this act of Reason which perswades us That what God says is true is more certain than what our Reason perswades us But what does he mean Does he mean that this act is more certain than any act of Reason whatever If this be so he contradicts himself For this very act being an act of Reason if it has more certainty than any act of Reason 't will be more certain than it self Does he mean that this act is the certainest of all and that there 's no other which equals the certainty of this If this be his sense 't is easie to shew him his mistake First is this act more certain than that which perswades us of the existence of God Let him say which he will he cannot escape me For to what purpose is it to know That Truth is essential to God supposing he exists if it be less certain that he does exist If on the contrary these two acts be equally certain and if the actual existence be as clearly comprehended in the Idea we have of God as the unquestionable truth of what he attests the perswasion we have of this second Truth is not the certainest of all those perceived by Reason seeing the perswasion of Gods existence is no less certain Is it more certain That whatever God says is true than it 's certain That nothing of what appears to us is false This no man will say seeing we judg neither that God exists nor that whatever he says is true nor that we can affirm of each thing whatever is contain'd in the distinct Idea we have of it but because all this appears evident So that here we have a third perswasion which is no less certain than that which we were to think to be the most infallible But says this Author God is more uncapable of deceiving us than our Reason is of being deceived I grant it But how do we know this but by our Reason and consequently we have only a certitude of Reason and we are not more certain of it than that we are certain That our Reason does not deceive us whether in this or other things which be as evident as this This little subtilty might pass did we not fear being mistaken in matters of Faith without accusing even God himself of deceiving us But a man must be a fool that has such an irrational thought When we do doubt of matters of Faith this doubt does never tend to perswade us God has deceiv'd us in revealing to us what is hard to be believ'd but rather perswades us we are mistaken in taking that for a Divine Revelation which is only a Doctrine of men So those who doubt do never compare the certitude of their Reason with the certainty of Gods Testimony Neither have they ever the least temptation to imagin the first greater than the second But they always compare this act of their Reason which has perswaded them God has revealed to 'em what appears to them incredible with this other act of their Reason which makes them find incredible what they believ'd God had revealed to them And therefore we may cease to believe without imagining God has deceiv'd us or that our Reason is more incapable of being deceiv'd than God of deceiving us And consequently from Gods being more incapable of deceiving us than our Reason of being deceiv'd does in no wise follow That Faith has greater certainty than Reason Let this Author then pardon me if I say ' Twou'd be a grievous scandal to Infidels were it so That Christian Religion taught things directly contrary to Reason and which shou'd appear such not at first sight but on mature deliberation after all possible care to prevent being deceived and after long and serious reflexions which will not at all permit doubtings of the matter 's being what it appears But it is also true Christian Religion has not a Doctrine which is in this sort contrary to the lights of Reason and this cannot be denied without contradicting all your School-Divines For first if it be true Christianity teaches things contrary to Reason what will become of what Cardinal Richlieu and the Author of the Art of Thinking say The first affirms (a) Richl method Book 1. ch 1. That natural light deceives no body and the other says (b) Art of Thinking part 4. ch 11. That things exactly consider'd what we see evidently and from Reason or from the faithful report of our Senses is never contrary to what is taught us by Divine Faith. What will become of what all your Divines say (c) Vasq in 1. disp 123. cap. 1 Valent Tom. 3. disp 1 quaest 1 Punct 4 Bell. de Not. Eccles cap. 11. Maerat de fid disp 16 Sect. 5. That the Mystery of the Trinity is far above Reason but not contrary to it Wou'd it not be contrary to Reason if being true it shou'd appear to it evidently false What will you think of what these same Divines teach after your Angelical Doctor (d) Tho. Aqu. part 1. quaest 1. art 8. That 't is impossible to make Demonstrations against the Truths of Salvation As Faith says he is grounded on infallible Truth and it being impossible to shew that which is contrary to Truth so it is clear that the proofs made use of against Faith are not Demonstrations but Objections which are solvible What will become of what passes for unquestionable in your Schools (e) Cajet in 1 quaest 1 art 8 Vasq in 1 disp 11 cap. 2 3. Valent. ubi seq Conint de act sup disp ii dub ii Rhod. Tom. 1 disp 6 quaest 1. Sect. 3. Mart. de fid disp 5 Sect. 4. That one may Demonstratively prove not in truth That the Mystery of the Trinity and all the others are
SIX CONFERRENCES Concerning The Eucharist Novemb. 5. 1678. MR. A. Pulton Jesuit having in his Remarks published Novemb. 4. declared in efféct in P. 29 30. that the Principles of Philosophy which contradict the Doctrine of Transubstantiation are to be renounc'd and that Christians have the same ground to believe Transubstantiation as the Blessed Trinity and demanding How great the Confusion of Dr. T. will be at the Day of Judgment when he shall find that Teâ—â— true The sid Dr. Tenison the Publisher of THIS BOOK does so far as concerns these Particulars refer Mr. Pulton to IT and for the rest of his Remarks he will in due time give a very just Answer to them Books lately printed for Richard Chiswell A Dissertation concerning the Government of the Ancient Church more particularly of the Encroachments of the Bishops of Rome upon other Sus. By WILLIAM CAVE D. D. Octavo An Answer to Mr. Serjeant's Sure Footing in Christianity concerning the Rule of Faith With some other Discourses By WILLIAM FALKNER D. D. 40. A Vindication of the Ordinations of the Church of England in Answer to a Paper written by one of the Church of Rome to prove the Nullity of our Orders By GILBERT BVRNET D. D. Octavo An Abridgment of the History of the Reformation of the Church of England By GILB BVRNET D. D. Octavo The APOLOGY of the Church of England and an Epistle to one Signior Scipio a Venetian Gentleman concerning the Council of Trent Written both in Latin by the Right Reverend Father in God JOHN JEWEL Lord Bishop of Salisbury Made English by a Person of Quality To which is added The Life of the said Bishop Collected and written by the same Hand Octavo The Life of WILLIAM BEDEL D. D. Bishop of Kilmore in Ireland Together with Certain Letters which passed betwixt him and James Waddesworth a late Pensioner of the Holy Inquisition of Sevil in Matter of Religion concerning the General Motives to the Roman Obedience Octavo The Decree made at ROME the Second of March 1679. condemning some Opinions of the Jesuits and other Casuists Quarto A Discourse concerning the Necessity of Reformation with respect to the Errors and Corruptions of the Church of Rome Quarto First and Second Parts A Discourse concerning the Celebration of Divine Service in an Unknown Tongue Quarto A Papist nor Misrepresented by Protestants Being a Reply to the Reflections upon the Answer to A Papist Misrepresented and Represented Quarto An Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of England in the several Articles proposed by the late BISHOP of CONDOM in his Exposition of the Doctrine of the Catholick Church Quarto A Defence of the Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of England against the Exceptions of Monsieur de Mâ—aâ—â— late Bishop of Condon and his Vindicator 40. A CATECHISM explaining the Doctrine and Practices of the Church of Rome With an Answer thereunto By a Protestant of the Church of England 80. A Papist Represented and not Misrepresented being an Answer to the First Second Fifth and Sixth Sheets of the Second Part of the Papist Misrepresented and Represented and for a further Vindication of the GATEGHISM truly representing the Doctrines and Practices of the Church of Rome Quarto The Lay-Christian's Obligation to read the Holy Scriptures Quarto The Plain Man's Reply to the Catholick Missionaries 240. An Answer to THREE PAPERS lately printed concerning the Authority of the Catholick Church in Matters of Faith and the Reformation of the Church of England Quarto A Vindication of the Answer to THREE PAPERS concerning the Unity and Authority of the Catholick Church and the Reformation of the Church of England Quarto THE Pillar and Ground of Truth A Treatise shewing that the Roman Church falsly claims to be That Church and the Pillar of That Truth mentioned by S. Paul in his first Epistle to Timothy Chap. 3. Vers 15. 4o. The Peoples Right to read the Holy Scripture Asserted 4o. A Short Summary of the principal Controversies between the Church of England and the Church of Rome being a Vindication of several Protestant Doctrines in Answer to a Late Pamphlet Intituled Protestancy destitute of Scripture Proofs 4o. Two Discourses Of Purgatory and Prayers for the Dead An Answer to a Lato Pamphlet Intituled The Judgment and Doctrine of the Clergy of the Church of England concerning one Special Branch of the King's Prerogative viz. In dispensing with the Penal Laws 4o. The Notes of the Church as laid down by Cardinal Bellarmin examined and confuted 4o. Preparation for Death Being a Letter sent to a young Gentlewoman in France in a dangerous Distemper of which she died The Difference between the Church of England and the Church of Rome in opposition to a late Book Intituled An Agreement between the Church of England and Church of Rome A PRIVATE FRATER to be used in Difficult Times A True Account of a Conference held about Religion at London Sept. 29 1687 between A. Pulton Jesuit and Tho. Tennison D. D. as also of that which led to it and followed after it 4o. The Vindication of A. Cressener Schoolmaster in Long-Acre from the Aspersions of A. Pulton Jesuit Schoolmaster in the Savoy together with some Account of his Discourse with Mr. Meredith A Discourse shewing that Protestants are on the safer Side notwithstanding the uncharitable Judgment of their Adversaries and that Their Religion is the surest Way to Heaven 4o. Six Conferences concerning the Eucharist wherein is shewed that the Doctrine of Transubstantiation overthrows the Proofs of Christian Religion A Discourse concerning the pretended Sacrament of Extreme Vnction with an account of the Occasions and Beginnings of it in the Western Church In Three Parts With a Letter to the Vindicator of the Bishop of Condom SIX CONFERENCES CONCERNING The Eucharist Wherein is shewed That the Doctrine of Transubstantiation overthrows the Proofs of Christian Religion Imprimatur Septemb. 12. 1687. Jo. BATTELY LONDON Printed for Richard Chiswell at the Rose and Crown in St. Paul's Church-yard MDCLXXXVII The CONTENTS Of the Six Conferences concerning the EUCHARIST CONFERENCE I. THe First Proof That Transubstantiation absolutely destroys the certainty of our Senses which is the Foundation of the strongest Proofs of Christianity CONF. II. The Second Proof That Transubstantiation discrediting the Testimony of our Senses does absolutely overthrow the principal Reasons which confirm the Truth of Christian Religion CONF. III. Wherein are confirmed the two Proofs contained in the two preceding Discourses CONF. IV. The Third Proof That Transubstantiation establishes Scepticism in its full perfection and especially destroys the certainty of Demonstration CONF. V. Wherein is finally shew'd That Transubstantiation establishes Scepticism and absolutely destroys the certainty of First Principles CONF. VI. Wherein the Proofs contained in the foregoing Discourses are defended and the impossibility of using them against the Doctrine fo the Trinity is demonstrated SIX CONFERENCES Concerning the EUCHARIST CONFERENCE I. That Transubstantiation absolutely destroys the certainty of
our Senses which is the Foundation of the strongest Proofs of Christianity IT 's not many days since I came to Mr. N. and found him in his Study having his Eyes fix'd on a Book with the reading of which he seem'd to be so taken up as made me think I should do him wrong to interrupt him Intending therefore to withdraw without his seeing me I could not do it without some small disturbance which made him turn his Head towards the place where I was and hastily arise towards me You shall not be gone said he for I prize your Company at another rate than thus to lose it The loss repli'd I would rather be mine and I am afraid lest I should deprive you of the pleasure of some delightful reading as knowing by experience how vexatious it is to be disturb'd at such a time What you say answered he after he had made me sit down is very true I am not a little pleas'd with reading good Books and I doubt not but this which lies before me is of that number But you have wherewith to make me amends for this Interruption for I doubt not but before we part you will increase the Pleasure which this reading afforded me and approving this Book as I dare say you will you 'l not a little confirm me in the good Opinion I have of it and make me read it henceforward with greater earnestness Your esteem of the Book repli'd I is enough to gain my approbation I am not wont to make Appeals from your Judgment having been always so pleas'd in following it that 't is now become a kind of Law which I never violate But perhaps I never saw this Book That can't be answer'd he this Book has been too famous for you not to see it especially considering it's some Years since 't was publish'd In a word 't is the Book which the Ingenious Mr. Huet has written to establish the Truth of Christian Religion (a) P. Dan. Huetii demonstratio Evangelica I do not repent said I of my engagement to approve of it for I have read it with great delight not to mention the Style which is delicate and want's no Ornaments I sind it replenish'd with judicious Observations and such as lie out of the common Road full of great sense and plainness In short 't is a Work worthy its Author who hold's a considerable Place amongst Learned Men. I have only one thing to say against the Book and that with regret because I know you will not herein agree with me Let 's hear it however said he It is repli'd I That this Book was made by one of your Party If that be all the fault answer'd he I am much mistaken if Mr. Huet ever corrects it You may judg what you please of it replied I my Opinion is That this is a capital Fault and spoil's the whole Work. For whereas this would have been an excellent Piece had it been wrote by a Protestant coming from a Person of your Communion it loses all its Force and Conviction and overthrows its own Arguments and should it fall into the hands of a knowing Infidel he could with one word answer it This is very surprising says Mr. N. and you must be a very great Bigot in your Religion to offer such a strange and incredible Paradox Has your Belief the priviledg of making bad Arguments good Ones and is ours so unhappy as to corrupt the best Things and change Demonstrations into Sophisms as oft as they pass through our hands There may be repli'd I some Truth in what you now say and I give an Instance of this from one of your Authors (b) Education of a Prince who shews That the greatest part of Seneca's Maxims are false and ridiculous in the Writings of That Philosopher whereas they would be very proper and excellent in the Writings of a Christian The same may I say of Mr. Huet and the rest of your Authors who undertake this Subject The best Proofs become Paralogisms in their Writings and 't is by passing over into ours that they resume their strength and due efficacy And this is one of the Effects which your Transubstantiation operates destroying the most convincing Arguments you can offer the Infidels and giving them an infallible means to defend themselves and right to maintain That if these Proofs be good Transubstantiation is not a part of the Christian Religion or if Transubstantiation be a part of the Christian Religion these Proofs he of no validity It 's certian if they be Men endued with sense they will lay hold of the first of these Propositions In effect it 's apparent That Mr. Huet's Proof are valid and good in themselves whereas 't is not certain That Transubstantiation is one of the Doctrines which Christianity teaches not to say that it ought to be taken for granted that it is not one of them It is so strange and offensive and so little agrees with the whole Body of reveal'd Truths either in general or particular that a Man needs only the use of his Senses free from all prejudices to perceive That this comes not from the same Spring and that the Author of Christianity is a very different Person from the Author of Transubstantiation Such Infidels then that are discerning Men will separate what 's offered to them jointly They will embrace Christianity and reject Transubstantiation They will receive this Holy Religion as coming from the Spirit of God and put from them your Doctrine as a humane Invention However 't is not long of you That they cast not themselves into the other aforementioned extremity I mean the persuading themselves that the Proofs of the Christian Religion be invalid Yet you are for persuading them not only That Transubstantiation is one of the Doctrines which the Gospel teaches but moreover one of its principal ones one of the most essential Points of Christian Religion and that which can be least spared And consequently if these Infidels be simple enough to believe this and after such an Error have any reason left they will only make use of it to perswade themselves That that Religion which teaches such an incredible Doctrine could not have been revealed by the Spirit of Truth and that the Proofs which were made use of to establish the Divinity of it are of no validity I am so strongly possessed with the belief of Transubstantiation said Mr. N. That I believe no Objections in the World are capable to make me doubt one minute of the truth of it Yet I must acknowledg 't would be a terrible Temptation to me could you convince me of what you say It does so highly concern us That the Proofs of Christianity be valid That there are few Things but what ought to be sacrific'd to so great an Interest and I know no greater prejudice against a Doctrine than to shew that it weakens these Proofs and gives advantage to such dangerous Adversaries as those are against whom we
you will not deny but every time when this happens it 's the duty of a wise Man and of such a one who will not be mistaken to take the Ballance if I may so speak and exactly weigh these Reasons to give the preference to those which appear to him of greatest weight I do not know whether any Body uses to do otherwise One may I confess prefer Reasons which in truth and reality are of less force than the contrary ones But this is when a Man deceives himself Ex duobus credibilibus non tenetur homo credere alterum quod est minus vel equaliter credibile Bannez 22. Quast 10. Art. 1. Concl. 3. Non est prudentis hominis alteram partem assentire prae alterâ si pari vel sere pari momento rationes utrinque urgeant Censeo ad haec neque fieri omnino posse ut eam partem quis approbet assensu suo in quam nihil inclinat majoris ponderis quam in adversam Rationis utrinque pares rationes sunt nullae Multo minus fieri potest ut alteram partem quis approbet si in alteram inclinet pondus majus Est Dilucid Communis doctrinae Theol. n. 22 23. by taking the weakest Arguments for the strongest For in fine I am persuaded That a Man convinced of the weakness of a Reason will never after value that as he do's another which appears stronger to him seeing to yield to a Reason is to judg it stronger than that which opposes it It 's the same with Reasons or Arguments as 't is with Weights put two Weights in a pair of Scales and if they be equal the Scales shall stand at an equal ballance if they be unequal the Scale will immediately incline downwards wherein is the greatest weight In the same manner offer a rational Man Arguments which maintain an Opinion and others which oppose it If after all things well considered he finds these Opinions of equal force he will encline to neither side But for the smallest advantage which those of one side have over those of the other the Mind determines it self for the strongest Or at least it do's not determine it self for the weakest and it is every whit as impossible it should do it as 't is impossible a lesser Weight should weigh down a greater But whether this be so or not you will at least allow me this That it ought not to be and that 't is contrary to good sense to determine ones self in favour of an Opinion which we see grounded on Reasons less strong than those which oppose it And this is what your Authors do acknowledg (h) Martinon de fide Disp 5. Sect. 7. n. 42. and in effect were it otherwise one might innocently leave a good Religion and take up a bad one although we saw the Religion we leave more firmly grounded than that we take up But this being ridiculous it must be acknowledged that good Sense will not let a Man embrace an Opinion which he sees is more strongly opposed than maintained This being granted Sir Let 's suppose an Infidel to whom is offered Mr. Huet's Arguments if he be wise he will not yield to them till he has seen whether there be any thing which opposes these Arguments which counterballances them or dissipates them Imagine we afterwards the Christian Doctrine to be proposed to him discharged of Transubstantiation 'T is clear he will find nothing which shall counterpoise these Reasons So that these Reasons being good and nothing being able to diminish the solidity of them if he be wise he will embrace them Let us on the contrary imagine that by an Illusion of which we have seen a thousand Examples he is made believe That Transubstantiation is inseparable from Christianity What will he do If he be rational he will take the Ballance and weigh on one hand Mr. Huet's Arguments and on the other those which combat Transubstantiation and consequently Christianity in the supposition he is in that they are inseparable If he holds the Ballance even he will find That the Reasons which oppose Transubstantiation weigh more than those which favour Christianity He will find that the first weigh two and the second but one In effect the weight of Reasons is their Evidence The Reasons which oppose Transubstantiation have all the evidence of Sense those of Mr. Huet have only a moral Evidence which at most have but half of that of Sense The first then weigh as much again as the second This being so how can you expect the Infidel should give the preference to the second over the first and whom will you perswade that if he does do it he will act regularly Do you know what right Reason will suggest to him That Transubstantiation is not one of the Doctrines which Christianity teaches He will say it is impossible Mr. Huet's Reasons should be valid if Christianity comprehends Transubstantiation and it must necessarily be either that this Doctrine has been added to the Christian Religion contrary to the intention of its Founder or that these Reasons be false Yet it 's apparent these Reasons are not false seeing they are evident and that the more they are considered the greater impression they make We must then believe that Transubstantiation which would destroy them should it take place is not one of the Christian Doctrines He will confirm himself in this Opinion by this Consideration That the Author of Christianity whoever he was having form'd his Religion with a design to make it be embraced by all Men and being able to make it very fit to be universally received by not burdening it with Transubstantiation it is not to be supposed he introduced this Doctrine which is likely only to make it be rejected by judicious Men. This will more especially appear to him inconceivable in respect of God whom he will acknowledg for the true Author of this Holy Religion if he well comprehends the force of Mr. Huet's Reasons So good and wise a God could nto on one hand require Men should embrace the Revelation he offered them and on the other lay an invincible opposition between this Revelation and the purest notices of Reason which he himself had given them to be their Rule in all Cases he could not on one hand oblige them to be Christians under pain of eternal damnation and on the other so order things that they could not be such without violating all the Maxims of good Sense and all the Rules of Prudence And this is Sir what the Insidel will say if he be a rational Person But if he has not understanding enough to perceive all this yet at least he will see That right Reason will not let him embrace the Christian Religion such as it is offered him I add in the Third place That not only he ought not to embrace it but that it is impossible he should Which is easy to be proved from the principles of your own Divines All of
them hold (i) Greg. de Val. Tom. 3. Disp 1. Quest 1. Punct 1. §. 7. Coninte de actib sup disp 13. dub 1. Maerat de fid disp 16. Sect. 3 Goner de fid disp 1. art 8. Rhod. de fid quest 2. Sect. 4. §. 2. That the first Act of Divine Faith is always preceded by a Judgment morally evident which shew's That what one is going to believe is worthy to be believed They affirm That without this Judgment Faith can never be form'd in the Soul. They say moreover That this Judgment is only grounded on what they call Reasons of Belief or Motives of Credibility which are at bottom the Proofs of Christianity They say That the Infidel weighing these Reasons and finding them good and solid he concludes that the Doctrine which they maintain ought to be received I now ask you How the Infidel can form this inward Judgment and pronounce that Christian Religion deserves to be received in the time wherein he sees that the Reasons which induce him to embrace it are opposed by other Reasons stronger and clearer I demand of you if in case this can be Whether such a Judgment would not be apparently false For how in effect can one say a thing is worthy to be believed when one has more reason to think it salfe than to believe it's true Do we call such a thing credible Is' t not rather incredible I might drive on these Consequences father I could shew you that Transubstantiation hath other Consequences which are no less vexatious But this not appearing necessary I shall content my self at this time with asking you Whether these three Consequences which I have taken from your Belief are not very terrible and whether it be not better to renounce the Doctrine which draws them oafter it than to admit them Yet they be necessary and you must receive them unless you 'l deny some of the Propositions which you have granted me Neither will this much help you because that in effect whatever you have granted me is most certain and when you would have this brought into question I 'le not fear the making you grant it again there being nothing in all this but what is highly evident What you now said to me at length answer'd Mr. N. is plausible enough and I must confess I did not believe your Cause could be pleaded so strongly And yet I am perswaded that this is not solid and I hope to answer all you have said when I have thought more of it Pray let me sleep upon it and I 'le give you an account to morrow morning of what has come into my mind I was far from denying so reasonable a request I only told him before I went away That if this Proof appear'd to him stronger than those we are wont to use in this matter this only arose from a certain Air of Novelty which might be in the manner of proposing it and that in the main the common Proofs are no less convincing than those and if they did not appear so this only proceeded from our being insensibly accustomed to believe them false there having been a thousand things invented to clude the force of them It being long since said I that they have been opposed against you your Doctors therefore have left no Stone unturn'd to lessen the value of them To this end they have sorg'd a thousand Distinctions sought a thousand Subterfuges and have wanted no Artifice nor Colour to make them pass in the World. And therefore when we offer them against you we find you always ready to slight them It would have been the same with what I just now offer'd you had you foreseen the course of my Objections and you would have taken care not to say several things with which your Books are full and which should be henceforward left out unless you are minded to shew the World how you condemn your own Principles I hereupon took my leave of him and withdrew praying God from the bottom of my Heart to bless my Endeavours and so to prosper this Seed which was sown as it were unawares that it might one day bring forth Fruit to his Glory CONFERENCE II. The Second Proof That Transubstantiation discrediting the Testimony of our Senses does absolutely overthrow the principal Reasons which confirm the Truth of Christian Religion WHEN I parted from Mr. N. there was no mention made of the Place where we were to meet which made me believe knowing his obliging temper he would come the next day to me But being unwilling he should give himself that trouble I was resolved to prevent him by being with him first He told me he was troubled he could not be as diligent as I was for immediately after I had left him a Business came upon him of great Importance which had employed his Thoughts to that very time but having ended that Affair he hoped he should now have an opportunity of acquitting himself of the Engagement he was in Will you said I to him let me impart to you another Thought which has great conformity with that which was the Subject of our Yesterday's Discourse By which means you may examine both these Arguments at a time and perhaps the one will hinder you from stopping at things which will appear to you proper to get rid of the other I am of your mind said he but I desire you would propose this second Proof all at once For in sine there 's oft more artifice than sincerity in discovering what one has to say by pieces He that answers and knows not where his Adversary will lead him takes many times fruitless Precautions and sometimes neglects necessary Ones He le ts pass certain things which strike deepest and amuses himself with others which are of no effect And therefore I think it best That the Respondent should see at once the Difficulty proposed to him and know at first what he is to take care of and therefore I pray you henceforward to deal in this manner with me What you say would be necessary repli'd I had you an Adversary who sought only to surprize and who more regarded Victory than Truth But I must tell you plainly this Artifice appears so inconsiderable and unworthy of an honest Man especially of a Christian that I cannot but be troubled at your suspicion Pray therefore believe this is not my intention for if I have followed in our preceding Discourse such a method as you do not like 't was because I thought it the fittest to lead those insensibly to the Truth who are farthest from it You know the greatest Men among the Ancients have been of this Sentiment and that it was perticularly the Method of Socrates and his famous Disciple Plato Yet seeing you will have me take another course I shall reduce my second Argument to three Propositions all three being so evidently certain that I cannot see how they can be overthrown The first is That if Transubstantiation takes place our
Senses are deceived in taking for Bread and Wine what is not so The second is That if our Senses may be mistaken in the Eucharist they may be as well mistaken in every thing else so that their Depositions have nothing certain The third is That 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 The better to comprehend the Force of this Argument I believe 't will not be amiss to pass over it again and carefully to examine its Propositions The first appears to me very evident for I have always taken Error to be the persuading of a Man's self That a thing is what it is not or to judg that it is not what it is This being granted it cannot be denied but that our Senses do deceive us in the Eucharist if they attempt the perswading us That it is any other thing than what it is Yet this they do if Transubstantiation takes place For in fine if this Doctrine were true the Eucharist would not be Bread and Wine but our Saviour's proper Body and Blood. And yet our Senses attest the contrary they all unanimously say with one Voice that it is not our Lord's Body and Blood but Bread and Wine To prove what I say Shew the Eucharist to an Infidel who has no knowledg of your Mystery and ask him what it is He 'l answer without hesitation 't is Bread and Wine Ask a Child the same question he will return you the same answer In fine offer it to a Brute and he will do what he is wont when ordinary Bread and Wine is set before him Now what is the common light to this Infidel this Child and brute Beast nothing else but that of Sense whereupon it cannot be denied but our senses tell us that the Eucharist is Bread and Wine and it appears impossible to affirm that it is not so without giving the lye to these Faculties This will appear more clearly if you please to consider That the Faculty which tells us that the Eucharist is Bread and Wine is the same which makes us discern other Objects and makes us say of each of them This is such a thing Who will deny that 't is by means of the Senses we discover what is present to us In effect those who have lost the use of their Senses do discern nothing and those who are not absolutely deprived of these Faculties yet have them weak'ned through defect of the Organs are easily mistaken Lead a blind Man within some paces of a Statue and ask him what that is which stands before him He will answer you he do's not know offer the same question to another that is not quite blind but yet has bad Eyes He 'l tel you perhaps 't is a Man. Whereas on the contrary a Man whose sight is good will tell you presently 't is a Statue Is it not plain then That 't is the Sight which discerns this Object When then we see the Eucharist and we touch and taste it we say it's Bread and Wine it 's clear we say it from the relation of our Eyes our Hands and our Mouths And consequently if it be found that 't is not Bread and Wine it cannot be denied but that 't is our Senses which have cheated and deceived us It is not worth the while to set upon the proving of a thing which your Divines willingly grant One might produce some hundred's of places in their Works where they affirm what I say (a) See the Treatise of the Authority of the Senses Chap. 6. They maintain that the Fathers (b) Bell. de Euch. lib. 3. cap. 24. have strictly charged their People not to trust their Senses in this occasion extreamly blaming those who suffer themselves to be guided by these Faculties in a matter wherein according to them we should follow no other Light than that of Faith and Revelation They pretend nothing do's more enhance the merit of this Faith Than her raising her self above the Senses and perswading her self of the contrary of what these Faculties do witness to us I doe not doubt Sir but you have observ'd all this in the reading of your Authors It 's true answer'd he and I will not contest with you about this first Proposition But I will not grant you the second For in fine what necessity is there that the Senses deceiving us in this Object they cannot faithfully instruct us in any other Is it not very likely that this is a single Error and without any consequence May they not deceive us in this occasion and in some others without extending this to all In effect the greatest Lyars do sometimes tell true and perhaps there is not one amongst this sort of People but speaks more Truth than Lies Why may we not then say the same thing of our Senses You have not well comprehended my meaning rerepli'd I for I did not say That if our Senses be deceived in the Eucharist they must necessarily be deceived in every thing else But only that they may be so that the thing is not impossible and we shall never be certain of the contrary unless we know it by some other way This is all I say and I hope to shew you in what follows that I need no more In the mean time my Proposition thus exprest is undenyable In effect he that deceives once may deceive always and 't is sufficient a Witness be once detected of Falsity to be suspected all his Life Thus the Senses according to you making untrue reports on the Eucharist we may as well suspect them to do the same on other things This is clear but to make it more unquestionable be pleased to consider That if the Senses do once deceive their relation is no longer a certain Mark and an unquestionable Proof of Truth For how can we look on that to be a certain Mark of Truth which is sometimes joyn'd with Error And consequently To have no other Foundation for ones Perwasions than the relations of our Senses this would be to rest on uncertain and doubtful Marks and to expose ones self to the greatest likelihood of being deceived To say the same thing in another manner let me Sir ask you Whether the bare relation of our Senses without any other Succours be a sufficient Motive to persuade us what they attest or not If it be 't is not possible our Senses can once deceive us for if they should we should have a sufficient Motive to persuade us of a thing which is false which we must be far from saying For were this so we should be bound to deceive our selves and this Error would not only be excusable but necessary there would be an Obligation of falling into it and 't would be a fault if we did not But this is intollerably absurd Now if the Testimony of our Senses be not a sufficient Foundation whereon to ground a solid
Porswasion 'T is plain there 's no certainty in resting on their Testimony and that 't is imprudent to rely on them So that we must say one of these two things either that the Senses do never deceive no not in the Eucharist or if that they do deceive in the Eucharist they may always deceive and that their report is never certain And so much the more seeing there was never any occasion wherein one has more reason to perswade ones self That our senses do not deceive us than in this 'T is not only one of our senses which shews us the Eucharist to be Bread and Wine as it happens in infinite occasions where the single testimony of one of these Faculties suffices to make us strongly believe things But all the Senses wherewith Nature has provided us Not the Senses of one or two particular Persons as yours or mine but those of all Men in the World not excepting one These Senses make not their Reports of a strange and foreign Matter but of one of the most ordinary and familiar things they are conversant about So that if they may be deceived herein they may be deceiv'd in every thing else for I know not in what occasion they may be certain if not in this I do in effect acknowledg it somtimes happens our Senses do deceive us whether through defect of the Organ which is out of order or through the failure of the Medium which is not simple and uniform or by reason of the distance or disproportion of the Object But this hinders me not from saying you cannot alledg me any Example which shews us these Faculties abuse us in Circumstances like those which are to be found in the report they make of the Eucharist and wherein not only none of those different Springs of our aforemention'd Errors have any place but wherein a Man may use all imaginable precautions to assure himself he is not mistaken For in fine let not a Man content himself with the bare looking on and viewing the Symbols of this Sacrament but use all his other Senses and those of all the Men in the world Let a Man apply himself thereto with all possible attention make all tryals and proofs which he can yet still will his Senses hold the same Language ever saying 't is Bread and Wine So that if they may deceive us in such an occasion as this we have nothing left to oppose the Academics who have been at such pains to shew these Faculties are not to be trusted In effect this Proof would be in a different manner convincing than that which these Philosophers were wont to use They tell us all Objects appear yellow to Ichterical People and all Meats bitter to those whose Tongues are full of Bile that a Stick half plung'd into the Water seems either broken or crooked though it be streight and entire That a square Spire appears round to those who look on it at a distance But 't is clear all this proves nothing against those who grant That our Senses deceive us when the Organ is out of order when the Medium is not simple when the Object is not placed at a just distance and who only pretend the report of these Faculties is faithful out of the cafe mark'd by these Exceptions and some others such like But if it were not in the Eucharist where 't is clear one cannot apply either this Exception or any other the cause of these Faculties would be absolutely desperate and we should have nothing left to defend it Yet there must be something that is weighty produced in its favour for were it otherwise the Proofs of Christian Religion would be of no solidity And this is as you see my third Proposition and if I prove it as strongly as I have proved the two former I need add nothing to the Conclusion of my Argument to make you acknowledg what I just now offered That your Transubstantiation do's absolutely overthrow our strongest Arguments against Infidelity In the mean time this Proposition is so evident that I don't believe there 's a Disputant in the World obstinate enough to contend it with me First the Proofs of our Religion are drawn from the Matters of Fact you mention'd Yesterday and from the assurance which those who delivered them to us had of their reality Those that attested them knew them only by the means of their Senses not from Arguments or Reasonings for they saw them with their own Eyes and by consequence if their Eyes and other Organs of their Senses might be therein deceived they had in proper speaking no certainty of them and if they had no certainty we are to blame in making account of their Testimony For example We believe Jesus Christ is risen because the Apostles have highly attested this Matter of Fact and that we have just occasion to believe they were strongly persuaded of the truth of what they said But what perswasion could they have of this if the Senses are not to be trusted And in effect ask them how they knew their Master is risen They will only alledg the testimony of their Senses They will tell you their Eyes have seen him their Ears have heard him speak their Hands have touched him But if both Eyes Hands yea and Ears if all their Senses are deceivers who can assure us they did not cheat the Apostles who will assure us that these Holy Men have effectually seen touch'd and heard what they imagin'd they saw touch'd and heard The same I say of the Proofs of the Jewish Religion the truth of which is one of the principal Foundations of the Christian Faith. What is the strongest Proof of this Holy Religion Is it not that which is taken from the Prodigy which Moses shew'd to the Jews when he brought it to them from God But what certainty can there be of all these Prodigies if the Senses of those who have been Witnesses of them may have been deceived How could they persuade themselves of the reality of them had they only for a Foundation of their Persuasion the uncertain report of some Faculties liable to infinite Errors and Delusions Were they not very silly People to expose themselves to so many dangers on so slight grounds And are not we also very credulous to build our Faith on the Persuasion which these People had of these Facts This Faith I say whereby we steer our Lives and on which we advance so many fine Hopes and magnificent Pretensions This is not all both one and the other of these Proofs do moreover suppose in another manner the certitude of the Senses Which is That 't is only the Senses which instruct in the Testimony which these Faculties have given whether to the Ancient Jews or the Apostles and which both one and the other have given to the Truth For in fine how can we know that neither the Jews nor the Apostles did attest all these Facts but by means of their Senses Imagine a Man
altogether fruitless Wherefore you cannot defend your self but in denying some of the Propositions of which it consists but which of the three can you deny Not the first I suppose For in fine if Transubstantiation has place The Sacrament of the Eucharist is not Bread nor Wine but our Saviour's proper Body and Blood. Yet the natural Faculty whereby we discern the Substances from one another whatever that is and whatever name we give it this Faculty tells us that 't is not the Body and Blood of Christ but Bread and Wine If you doubt of this shew this Sacrament to a Man indued only with those Faculties which Nature has given us and who has never received any supernatural assistance to a Jew or to a Mahometan or Pagan Ask him what it is and you 'l see how little he will hesitate to answer you it 's Bread and Wine If you still doubt of this desire a Priest to mix a consecrated Host amongst others unconsecrated Employ then all your natural Faculties to distinguish that which is the Body of Christ from the rest which is mere Bread You 'l find all your care here to no purpose It 's then certain that the natural Faculty whereby we discern Substances affirms plainly the Eucharist to be Bread and Wine and therefore deceives us if your Belief be true Thus my first Proposition labours under no difficulty And the second is no less certain than the first For in fine if the natural Faculty whereby we distinguish one Substance from another may take the Body of Christ for Bread and Wine there will be no deceit of which 't will not be capable there being nothing in the World more discernable and subject to less mistakes than an human Body on one hand and a morsel of Bread and some drops of Wine on the other I have only then to prove my third Proposition which is in effect the only one which appears to have need Yet is it certain I shall have little trouble to make you agree with me in it It saith That the certainty with accompanies the Acts of the natural Faculty and makes us distinguish the Substances That this Certitude I say is the Foundation of the Proofs of Christianity and that we cannot solidly establish the truth of this Holy Religion if the Senses may deceive us in the reports they make of these kind of Objects I conceive nothing more certain than this Proposition In effect we agreed in our first Conference That the Proofs of Christian Religion depends on the Truth of certain Facts which we never saw but which are attested to us by Persons whose Testimony ought not to be suspected by us Yet it will reasonably be so if we be not in a capacity to discern certainly particular Substances And this will clearly appear if we run through the most important of these Facts The most considerable and the most decisive is without difficulty being our Saviour's Resurrection for the whole depends hereon If this Fact be false the Gospel is but a mere Romance and if it be true it cannot be deni'd but God has declar'd himself hereby in the most authentic manner in the World in favour of our Holy Religion And the Apostles were chiefly sent to attest the Truth of this Fact and hence it is That they so often seem to affect as it were the title of Witnesses of their Master's Resurrection But 't is very considerable That the Apostles were not present at our Lord's Resurrection He was not in the Sepulchre when these holy Men arrived there and they found only the Funeral Linen wherewith his Body was wrapped They knew not then our Saviour was risen by seeing him come out of the Tomb and as they beheld Lazarus but they gathered it from two other Facts of which they were certain having already seen the first and seeing then actually the second The one was his Death and the other his Life They were sure our Lord had expired on the Cross That his Side was pierced with a Spear that they might be certain of his Death They knew that he was buried and consequently could not have the least suspicion that he was not really dead They saw him afterwards alive and walking acting and speaking whence they concluded in the clearest manner in the World and the least liable to mistake that he was effectually risen It 's then plain that the Truth of Christ's Resurrection depends on one hand in knowing whether he died and on the other whether he liv'd after his Death But what certainty can there be of either of these two Facts if there be none in the judgment we make of Substances These two Facts are equally contested The Basilidians denied heretofore the first and the Mahometans deny it to this day both affirming 't was not our Saviour Christ but Simon the Cyrenian that was crucified by the Jews The Jews have ever denied the second They say it 's very true our Saviour died on the Cross but that he never rose again and that what the Apostles related of it was a mere Fable If we may be deceived in these kind of Objects what can we oppose to either of these Enemies of the Truth How shall we convince either the Basilidians or Mahometans That it was Jesus and not Simon who expired on the Cross How shall we perswade the Jews the Apostles were not deceived in imagining they saw him alive and risen Will not both one and the other have grounds to tell us we have no certainty for what we affirm The Turks will tell us That seeing we may be so easily deceived in the discerning of Substances it 's very likely the Jews took Simon for Jesus Christ The Jews will answer the Error was not theirs but that the Apostles took some Spirit or living Man for their Master And as to us we have nothing convincing to oppose against one or the other And here Sir let me entreat you to consider the imprudence of Bellarmine Amongst other Reasons he uses to shew the Senses have no certainty when the Question is about discerning the Substances he particularly cites (b) Bell. de Euch. lib. 3. cap. 24. the Instance of Mary Magdalen who took our Saviour risen for the Gardiner I shall not stand to shew here the weakness of this Argument nor say 't was scarcely then light when Mary came into the Garden where our Saviour was buried Neither shall I use long Discourses to prove That her trouble grief or perhaps modesty would not let her look directly on a Man whom she did not know But that which I would entreat you to consider is the stroak which this Argument of Bellarmine might give to the certainty of our Faith were it as solid as he pretends it to be It proves nothing or it proves one might take our Saviour risen for another Man and consequently that one might take another Man for Jesus Christ risen and so when the Apostles saw our Lord risen they
the Functions of the natural Faculty which discovers to us the difference of Substances If I do this Sir will you not be satisfied I shall be fully so answered he and I promise you that if you prove it me clearly I shall not trouble my self nor you with a Reply I can easily do it said I For is it not true that when any one would make us conceive a moral Certainty in the highest Point of its Perfection the commonest Examples which are produced are those of the Existence of the City of Rome to those who have never been there that of the Pope Grand Signior or Emperor to those that have never feen them and as to the past that of Alexander the Great Cesar Pompey and other Hero's of Antiquity Scarcely any Author that treats of this Suject but alledges one or the other of these Instances Yet the City of Rome is a Substance or to speak more exactly an heap of Substances of several kinds Alexander Caesar Pompey and all the rest of the ancient Hero's were something more than Accidents And consequently had not God given us a Faculty capable of discerning the Substances with certainty there would be no assurance from the Testimony of those who have seen this and instead of a moral Certainty the greatest which can be imagin'd we should only have a slight Opinion and without Foundation Is it not true Sir that we are morally assured there was heretofore at Rhodes a great Colossus of Brass that there was a stately Temple at Ephesus consecrated to Diana and at Rome another dedicated to Jupiter Have we not the like certainty that there are still Pyramids of Stone in Egypt of excessive heights that there 's a Mount in Sicily which vomits Fire that there are Elephants in the Indies Lions in Africk Crocodiles in the Nile Yet this Colossus these Temples Pyramids Mountain Lions and Crocodils what are these but Substances whose Existence is not known to us but by the Testimony of those who have seen them with their own Eyes or to say nothing which may move you who perceived them by means of the Faculty which God has given us to know these kind of Objects But not to go so far I now shew'd you that the Truth of the Facts whence are taken the Proofs which establish the Divinity of the Christian Religion and even of the Jewish depends on the faithfulness of the Report which this natural Faculty has made of several Substances and that if this Faculty may be herein mistaken these Proofs are in no wise convincing It being then certain that we are morally assured of the Truth of these Facts it cannot be denied we have a moral Certainty of several Substances and that those who were inform'd of them by themselves have a greater certainty than we Can you Sir now doubt I have not made good my word Will you not grant me that the discerning of Substances whatever the Faculty is whereby this is done is attended with a greater certainty that the moral one Thus this Faculty telling me the Eucharist is Bread and Wine and telling it me with all the force and constancy it is able is it not apparent there 's a clearness in its Evidence far greater than that in the Proofs of Christianity Do's not my Proof then return with its full strength and convictions May I not always say That Transubstantiation is opposed with greater strength of Argument than the Christian Religion is defended with We are agreed that the Proofs for Christianity have only a moral Evidence and I now shewed you That that which perswades us the Eucharist is Bread and Wine is far more certain than what is morally so Can you after this deny that there is not greater certainty in what combats Transubstantiation than in what establishes the Truth of Christian Religion Can you deny that that which is more than sufficient to establish the Truth of Christian Religion discharged of Transubstantiation is too weak to maintain it granting Transubstantiation to be one of the Doctrines which she requires to be believed You see then Sir the fruitlessness of your Answer you see it lets my two Proofs subsist in their full strength you see that whether it be the Senses or Reason which make us know and discern the Substances we have still cause to believe the Eucharist is Bread and Wine and that this Perswasion cannot be rendred doubtful and uncertain without shaking the whole Foundation of Christianity and without giving the Infidels an infallible means of triumphing over this Holy Religion Mr. N. was about forming an Answer when he was hindred by the arrival of one of my Friends who came from a long Voyage and whose return was a surprize to me I was much joyed to see him But Mr. N. to whom he was a Stranger took hence an occasion to be gone without informing me of his thoughts on what I told him CONFERENCE IV. The Third Proof That Transubstantiation establishes Scepticism in its full perfection and especially destroys the certainty of Demonstration I Was very desirous to know what effect my last conference had on Mr. N. I was moreover willing to shew him my third Proof Whereupon I went to his House where he received me with his usual civility and our Discourse having insensibly led us to Matters of Religion I took the liberty to ask him Whether he had throughly considered what had past in our foregoing Debates He hereupon ingenuously acknowledg'd He could find no means to defend against my Instances the Answer he had made me nor how to offer me better Yet he added he was so perswaded of the truth of his Belief That he would rather yield up to me Mr. Huet's Proofs than to imagin the whole Church could be deceived in so important a Matter as that of the Sacrament In effect said he to me What hurt can there be in saying this Author has ill defended a good Cause and made use of false reasonings for the maintaining of the Truth What do you say Sir said I you ask me What hurt there can be in what you say I affirm to you that nothing can be worse For Sir I would not have you mistaken Mr. Huet's Proofs are not of his invention he only digested them into order strengthened and illustrated them with curious Remarks and pressing Considerations and as to the main of them he has taken them out of Authors that have wrote on that Subject before him and indeed he has also commendably taken them from the discourses of the Prophets and the Son of God himself and his Apostles Christ himself is the first that has used these Proofs He several times alledg'd the Predictions of the Prophets and as oft did cite his Miracles He alledg'd his Resurrection and these were his strongest Arms his greatest Arguments He made use of them to stop the mouths of the Scribes and Pharisees whom he look'd upon as his profest Enemies He used them to perswade the multitudes
effect these People agreeing in nothing and it being in the mean time imimpossible to reason without laying down something it 's clear there 's no reasoning against them without granting what 's in question which is one of the greatest saults a Man that argues can fall into It 's then impossible fairly to deny what I said when I affirm'd That Transubstantiation opens a door to Scepticism and puts men into a necessity of denying every thing What I said at first is a small matter that it makes void Mr. Huet's proofs it spares none overthrowing generally and without exception whatever establishes the truth of Christian Religion So that if I justifie this as I am perswaded I easily can I shall be sorry to add any thing to the proof which this alone surnishes me with In effect those who shall be capable of digesting this may digest every thing I believe you are in the right said Mr. N. and I do acknowledg if you can convince me Transubstantiation draws along with it Scepticism you will make me suspect it In effect I conceive nothing more dangerous nor at the same time so ridiculous as Scepticism and you can never speak any thing too bad of it which I will not subscribe to But I do not much fear your proving what you talk of And I for my part said I do not doubt but I shall do it Shall I not do it if I convince you that in admitting Transubstantiation one is engaged not to rely on any evidence be it of what kind it will. For in short Sir you know the whole dispute with the Sceptics is to know Whether there be any thing certain The Sceptics absolutely deny this We as to our parts affirm That as there are things doubtful and uncertain so there are some we are sure of and which one may and ought to believe and when we be asked what those things be we answer they are precisely those which are evident Because that in effect according to us the evidence of a thing is the foundation of its certainty and infallible mark of its truth The Sceptics on the contrary say that evidence and falsity have nothing inconsistent that they may be found together and therefore to conclude a thing to be true because of its being evident is ill reasoning and an exposing of ones self to manifest danger of being deceiv'd So that the whole amounts to this Whether one may or ought to rely on the evidence of a thing as an infallible mark of truth For if we cannot the Sceptics have reason and we can offer nothing against them And consequently if I shew you that in granting Transubstantiation there is no evidence of whatever rank it may be which does not consist very well with error and falsity Now shall I not hereby shew you that this Doctrine draws after it the whole train of Sceptical doubts I suppose then a man must be a perfect Sceptic or none at all For the mitigations which some would introduce be absolutely ridiculous For in fine we must assure our selves of whatever is evident or assure our selves of nothing seeing we cannot assure our selves of any thing but on the account of its evidence And consequently if evidence be the lawful ground of certitude we must be sure of whatever is evident and put away all Scepticism without reserve On the contrary if the evidence of a thing be not sufficient to produce a certainty of it we can be sure of nothing we must be perfect Sceptics and never believe or do any thing So that all those who are not perfect and compleat Sceptics are not Sceptics at all seeing they part with the fundamental maxim of their ridiculous System I agree with you in all this says Mr. N. and will acquit you of your promise if you show me that Transubstantiation separates Evidence from Truth This is no hard matter to do reply'd I for in effect I know but two sorts of evidences the one which strikes the senses the other which is perceiv'd by the mind I have shew'd you that if Transubstantiation takes place the first is a most unfaithful Note of the Truth I have shew'd you that amongst this great multitude of things which strike the senses there is not perhaps one which they do more distinctly perceive than the matter of the Eucharist I have shew'd you that 't is an object which shews it self not only to one or two of our senses as most of those things do which make us apprehend them but generally and without exception all those which God has given us I have shew'd you That they all unanimously do depose that 't is Bread and Wine and that whatever precaution they use to hinder themselves from being deceived they all find the same thing and never change their language This then being a thing which you do believe to be false and in effect it cannot be true if your Transubstantiation be receiv'd you see my only task is to convince you That according to your Principles this first kind of evidence may lead us into error I am not agreed in that reply'd he For tho our senses may deceive us in the Eucharist they deceive us only in respect of the substance therein contained but will make us faithful reports on the accidents And you know our Divines and Philosophers confine the certainty of the senses to the bare accidents By which means there lyes open a large field for these saculties to exercise their functions in without running a risk of being mistaken This field said I to him is not so vast as it appears to you Your Authors and especially Bellarmin * Bell de Euch. lib. 3. cap. 24. do not pretend the senses have certainty in respect of all sorts of accidents without exception They count two different ranks the one which are only perceiv'd by one sense as Colours by the Sight Sounds by the Ear Scents by the Smell The others which are perceiv'd by more than one sense as Greatness Scituation Figure Motion They call the first proper Objects and the second common ones They add that the report of our senses is not certain but only in respect of their proper Objects but as to the common ones they may easily be déceived Here 's then the certainty of the Senses reduced to half the size you gave it But this is not all for Bellarmin stops not here He moreover distinguishes the judgments we may make on the proper Objects of our Senses in Generals and in Particulars For example when we see a Colour we may say first in general of it This is a colour not a scent or savour We may say likewise in particular This is such a colour 't is white or red not green or black He tells us the Senses are not certain but in the first of these judgments they often deceiving us in the second See Sir whereunto this Doctrine reduces the certainty of the Senses For my part I could like as
most famous Divines acknowledg it we know it essential to all changes to have two different Terms one of which is destroy'd and the other produced and you 'l agree with me herein if you run over all the changes remarkt hitherto whether Substantial or Accidental Natural or Supernatural You 'l see there 's always an Accident if the change be accidental or a Substance if it be substantial which ceases to exist and another Accident or another Substance which begins to exist and takes the place of the Accident or Substance which is destroy'd And consequently if the Bread were chang'd into the Body of Jesus Christ the Body of Christ must necessarily be produced by this change And as it would be produced by it self it would have a real relation to its self contrary to that Maxim which implies That nothing produces it self and That nothing relates to its self In fine Sir this is a constant Maxim and ever suppos'd tho it be never exprest That whatever has all the sensible marks of a thing is that thing That having the essence of it it ought to bear its name Hereon depends the certainty of discerning whether of single things or Species For in fine our judgments cannot pierce into the bottom of things or discover their essence by this sort of knowledg call'd intuitive in the Schools We only know them by the help of the sensible marks which distinguish them So that to overthrow this Maxim is to render the discerning of things absolutely impossible or at least doubtful and uncertain And yet this is the effect of Transubstantiation It places the Body of Christ in the Eucharst under the sensible marks of Bread and Wine where there 's none of these two Substances and you believe our Lords Body exists in a place where it has none of the marks which are wont to make it known and to distinguish it from the rest of things This Sir may suffice to shew you That Transubstantiation absolutely overthrows the certitude of our Notices I believe you perceive That if it subsists the first Principles be false Demonstrations themselves deceive us our Senses are subject to a thousand delusions and in a word we ought to doubt of whatever we have hitherto held for most certain and we have nothing else to do but to plunge our selves into Scepticism which I reckon to be the most deplorable condition in the world seeing 't is the total annihilation of our reason Mr. N. was about answering me but was hindred by the coming in of one of his Friends who had business with him We having been a great while together I laid hold on this occasion to take my leave of him CONFERENCE VI. Wherein the Proofs contained in the foregoing Discourses are defended and the impossibility of using them against the Doctrine of the Trinity is Demonstrated AFTER this last Conversation there past some days before I saw Mr. N. again He came not to me and I was unwilling to force a visit on him but having at length by good hap met with him alone in his usual Walks I joyn'd my self to him We fell at first into several Discourses and at length on Matters of Religion when I made bold to ask him Whether he had thought on what had past in our former Conferences He answer'd That he had in truth ruminated thereon after I had left him but he was resolved to disturb himself no more with those Matters For to what purpose said he unless to shake a mans faith and discompose his mind For I am so perswaded of the truth of Transubstantiation and I find it has such strong tyes with the Principles of Christianity that I do not at all doubt but it makes up a part of this holy Religion So that your reasons tending only to shew me that if Transubstantiation be a Doctrine of Christianity we are to blame in being Christians I not doubting of the first must insensibly doubt of the second Wherefore I had rather once for all to banish these thoughts out of my head and remain in the state wherein I have hitherto lived than to run the risk of turning Libertin which is the thing in the world I most hate In effect continued he without giving me time to answer If your way of arguing be good I could make use of it against the Mystery of the Trinity and easily direct your proofs against this Capital Truth and that with the same success as you have done against Transubstantiation Take for example the most specious Objection of the Arrians and Socinians They affirm this great Mystery absolutely ruins one of the most certain Principles of Sciences What we believe reduces it self to two Heads First That the Persons of the Trinity are really distinct from one another the Father is not the Son and the Holy Spirit is neither the Father nor the Son. The other That neither of these Persons is really distinguisht from the Divine Essence which they possess That the Father is God the Son God and the Holy Ghost God and what is more That the Father Son and Holy Ghost are but one God possessing only one Divinity so that the Divinity of the Father is the same with that of the Son and that of the Father and the Son is not different from that of the Holy Ghost Pray Sir now inform me how to accord all this with the principle which passes for unquestionable in Metaphysics to wit That if two Subjects be not distinct from a third they cannot be distinguisht between themselves How can this principle subsist if it be true that the Divine Persons which are most distinct in themselves are not at all from the Essence which is common to them what can you say in this Demonstration When two Subjects do not really differ from a third They differ not really from one another The Persons of the Trinity differ not really from the Divine Essence which they possess Then they differ not really from one another You will grant me that this is a Physical Demonstration and otherwise evident than those call'd Moral May I not then apply to the Trinity the first proof you have used against Transubstantiation and say That if this Mystery made part of the Christian Religion the Objections the Insidels bring to oppose it would have more force than the proofs which establish the Divinity of it seeing these proofs have only a Moral evidence and the Objections which might be brought against them have all the evidence term'd Physical I say the same thing of your second proof I need only change therein two words and instead of Sense and Transubstantiation say Reason and the Trinity I need only say If the Mystery of the Trinity be true our Reason deceives us in the judgment she makes of it in thinking to see clearly and distinctly That the persons of the Divinity are not different from one another If our Reason deceives us in this it may as well deceive us in all other
true nor yet whatever is opposed against them is false but that all the Objections brought against them include some Proposition which is not evident and which consequently may be deni'd Is not this to say our Reason cannot prove demonstratively the falsity of our Mysteries Does not this absolutely overthrow your Objection You will have the Arians and Socinians Objections to pass for a convincing Demonstration Yet your Divines affirm it 's impossible to make Demonstrations against the Truths of Faith. You say 't is impossible to answer any thing to this But your Divines affirm to you That this Objection and the rest like it do necessarily include something which may be deni'd and is not evident They pass further They say one may demonstrate this very thing Which is to say one may demonstrate That it is not possible to offer Demonstrations against us Which is what we may easily justifie by another consideration Which is to the end an Argument may pass for Demonstrative every term about it must be perfectly understood whereby there may arise a clear and distinct Idea in the mind of what it expresseth And therefore Geometricians use such clear terms in their Demonstrations that it is impossible but they must be understood or if any one offers it self clouded with the least obscurity they immediately carefully explain it And therefore they make no Demonstration but what is preceded by a great number of Definitions which explain the terms But how can this be in a Mystery so little known as that of the Trinity For who can pretend to have distinct Idea's either of the Divine Essence and its Unity or of the Persons which possess it and of their distinction When we are askt says St. Augustin * Aug. de Trin. lib. 5. cap. 9. what the three are the mind of man finds it self extream shallow and cannot express it self Yet it is said there are Three Persons not as if we cou'd define'em but we rather say so that we may not say nothing And in another place * Idem lib. 7. cap. 4. When 't is demanded of us what the Three are we set our selves on seeking some general or particular term because the excellency of Divine things is beyond the strength of our expressions For there 's more truth in what we think than in what we say of God and more in reality than in thought I say the same thing of other terms used on this great Subject They raise in our minds only confused and muddy Ideas How then will these afford us Demonstrations What do you answer then directly to my Objection says Mr. N. What do you your self answer reply'd I. For in fine considering what I have said you see our interest is the same In effect it must be said we have no rational Argument to offer against the Arians or Socinians This last refuge seems to me intollerable and I shou'd as soon say they have the Reason on their side and we are possess'd with absurd prejudices We must then say these peoples Objections may be solidly answer'd and do you think Sir none of your Divines not to speak now of ours have not done it Were this the case this truth must have been very unfortunate to have met with no Defender for so many ages able to repel the attacks of its adversaries Moreover I do not see how you can extol so much as you commonly do the learning wisdom yea and Infallibility of your Church seeing it seems she has nothing but blind Answers and vain Tergiversations to refute these Erroneous persons Objections For my part I am of a very different opinion and believe your Schoolmen have solidly answer'd this Objection First you know That several of 'em have deni'd this Philosophical Maxim which implies That two Subjects cannot be distinguisht from one another when they are not so by a third You know there are several considerable instances offer'd as is that of length largeness and depth which are very different from one another altho they all differ not from extension Whereunto we may add that of the Modusses which are not distinct from the things they modify altho distinguish'd from one another As for instance when I shut my hand I give it a quite different manner of being from that it has when open and stretched out Of necessity these two manners of being must be different from one another seeing it 's not only easie to separate them and to make 'em subsist one without another but it 's impossible to make 'em subsist together being opposite and inconsistent Yet 't is commonly held That the Modusses be not really distinguishable from the things they modifie I say the same thing of the actions of the Soul there are some of 'em inconsistent For example to judg a proposition is true and to judg that it 's false To will and not to will the same Object To love and hate the same person The same soul does this at several times And consequently does very different acts Yet these acts tho different from one another do not really differ from the substance of the soul but are only mere modifications of it One may then deny your Maxim or restrain it and bring exceptions against it You know your Divines have made several and shew'd That either of 'em secures the Mystery before us I suppose you do not expect I shou'd recite them seeing you may find 'em in Father Vincent's Logick in George Rhodes Theology and in several other of your Authors Were there not any thing in all this which satisfy'd me I shou'd not be much perplex'd about it I shou'd content my self with what I now told you That all the Objections which can be made against the Mystery of the Trinity consist of several improper and obscure terms and such as are incapable of causing distinct Idea's of what is pretended to be signifi'd by ' em To shew then That this Doctrine does not include Contradictions as you wou'd insinuate by the Objection I examin consider the main or bottom of this great Mystery what makes for and against it we shou'd conceive in a just and precise manner what 's therein inconsistent and see clearly these inconsistencies and oppositions But we being far from such a knowledg of this great Truth it 's then clear no one can shew it includes any thing contradictory But it 's not the same with Transubstantiation What you say of that includes a great number of palpable and manifest Contradictions and shocks directly all the notices of Sense and Reason So that you cannot make too much hast to retrench it from the body of Christian Religion and remove it out of a place which it so ill supplies A body wou'd think answer'd he to hear you speak That we might form Christian Religion to our minds and as soon as a Doctrine is not to our fancy we may put it our of our Creed This without doubt wou'd be very agreeable But Sir in excluding Transubstantiation from the number of the Articles of Faith will you thereby blot it out of Holy Writ wherein the Divine Spirit has inserted it in such clear and full terms You know Heaven Earth shall sooner pass away than the least iota of this holy Word Never fear repli'd I my blotting it out It never was there And this I wou'd now make apparent to you did I not fear we have walkt and talk'd so long that both your legs and ears are tired FINIS