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
is the Connection of Propertie's with one another and of all of 'em together with the Essence For might one separate all this and the Essence could be without the Properties or the Properties without the Essence or each of these Properties without any one of the others there could be no Demonstration made on this Subject and the Reasonings which shall be used to prove one of these things by the other would amount to no more than probable Arguments like those drawn from what they call common Accidents And therefore the Jesuits of Conimbre affirm * Conimb in lib. 1. post Anal. cap. 7. quaest 2. Art. 2. That the Connection of Properties with their Subjects is the true object of Sciences They say this Connection is indissoluble even in reference to the power of God and they prove it by this Reason That if God could separate these things Science might happen to be false which appear'd to them absurd and contradictory If then Transubstantiation do's actually separate the Properties from one another and altogether from the Essence if it grants some of these Properties without the others if it grants some one of 'em or all of 'em together without the Essence in sine if it grants the Essence without the Properties its clear it saps the Foundations of most Demonstrations and brings it to pass that nothing shall be more easie than to make great numbers of them according to all the Forms and Conditions which the Logicians do require yet which shall be all Fallacies and Deceits It 's certain your belief makes this great separation and your Doctors themselves do not deny it * Vasq in 3. disput 187. c. 2. n. 13. For example it 's commonly believ'd that the natural properties of a Body are Extension Division Motion Impenetration taking up a place c. All the Philosophers Books are full of this kind of stuff And therefore the knowledg of Physics which ought chiefly to endeavour at the discovery of the Properties of the Natural Body which is its Object makes of this very thing one of the considerable of its Treatises and never fails to bring it after that of its Principles which is the first We believe 't is the very essence of Accidents to be actually in their Subject You do not grant this yet you grant if this be not the essence of Accidents yet 't is at least a Property of them You believe it the Properties of Quantity to be measured to be equal and proportionable to the place it possesses Here are several Properties yet Sir you separate them all from their Subjects and consequently from the essence whence they flow Supposing as you do the existence of the Accidents of the Bread without a Subject you maintain something that has extent that is divisible moveable figured impenetrable and which possesses a place and yet this must not be Body all this while Which is to say you shall grant at once six different Properties of a Natural Body separated from this Body and consequently from its essence which is yet the only spring from whence they flow Establishing the Body of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist after the manner of Spirits you strip it of its divisibility its impenetrability and its locality which is to say you hereby affirm the Essence to be separated from three of its most Essential Properties Leaving to this Body its Quantity you separate this Quantity from the several Properties which accompany it every where else the divisibility impenetrability the aptitude to be measured to possess a place c. Supposing the Accidents of Bread and Wine without a Subject you do moreover suppose the Essence of these kind of Beings without the most Essential of their Properties You will have Christs Body in the Eucharist to retain some of the Properties of the Natural Body as Quantity Figure c. And lose others as Divisibility Impenetrability the manner of being circumscriptively in a place c. which is to say you separate the Properties from one another Hereby then you destroy the connexion of Properties between one another and with their Essence which as I said just now is the foundation of most Demonstrations So that all those which may be made on this Principle and which Aristotle would have lookt upon as convincing and unanswerable proofs are in our hands but trivial Conjectures and bare Probabilities Will you have besides this Examples which justifie this truth Shall I give you Demonstrations which all Philosophers even your own have ever respected as very solid ones which yet are but meer Sophisms granting Transubstantiation Is it not true that your Suarez * Suarez Met. disp 1. n. 4. proves there are Substances because there are Accidents There are Accidents says he there must then be Substances He says this is a necessary consequence and shews it to be so in the sequel by Considerations which perhaps I may hereafter mention But what can be falser than this if there can be Accidents without a Subject as your Transubstantiation supposes All Philosophers both Ancient and Modern Aristotelians and Cartesians * Arist Met. Lib 8 cap 1. Perer. Phys lib 5 cap 4. Suar. Met Disp 13. Sect. 1. Conimb in 1. Phys cap 9. Quaest 1. Ar. 1. Masius ibidem Quaest 1. Petit de raref Cond pag. 172. Rohauz Phys part 1. cap 6. intending to advance surther and prove the existence of Matter or Corporal Substance propose three things observable in nature The first that there happens in it Accidental changes that that which was black becomes white what was cold becomes hot and the second that there happen Substantial changes there being of wood made fire and that from a Seed springs up a Tree and the third That all this is done by Natural Agents whose forces are limited Whence they conclude There must be necessarily some matter which is the Subject of all these several changes and on which the Natural causes may act They pretend this proof is demonstrative and that nothing can be offered against it But all this having place in the Eucharist it 's clear there must be said one of these two things Either that this proof is not good or that the Substance of the Bread and Wine remains in the Sacrament The Cartesians pretend to demonstrate the Immortality of the Soul by shewing it to be distinct from the Body and they imagine to prove this distinction by saying that Thought which is a modification of the Soul is no Material thing Which they afterwards prove by this reason That one may deny Thought whatever appertains to the Body as to be long large and deep to be of such and such a figure to be divisible c. yet without destroying for this the notion we have of Thought But can we not deny all this of the Body of Christ in the Eucharist though it be Material and not a Spirit Here 's then another deceitful Demonstration if your Transubstantiation has place
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
These Philosophers make great reckoning of a proof which they use against the Vacuum of the Epicureans They affirm that to suppose a Vacuum is to contradict ones self because say they that a Vacuum if there be one must be extensive in length largeness and depth But supposing it this would be a Body for a Body according to them is nothing else but that which is extended in length largeness and depth So that were it a Body 't would not be a Vacuum To suppose then a Vacuum is to contradict ones own Supposition The Cartesians affirm nothing can oppose this proof yet is it false if Transubstantiation be true For there is according to you in the Eucharist something extensive something that is long large and deep and yet not a Body The Peripatetics says Mr. N. admit not of this proof and it does not oppose the manner in which the Cartesians explain Transubstantiation for you know they will not grant That the Accidents of Bread and Wine subsist without a Subject This is true reply'd I to him But first the existence of Accidents without a Subject is however opposed by a proof which the Cartesians respect as demonstrative And then the manner in which the Cartesians explain what you say God does in the Eucharist ruins the most part of their Physical Demonstrations as others have observed * See the Treatise of the authority of the Senses before me So that you cannot deny but this Doctrine overthrows the certainty of Demonstrations But this ought not much to surprize you seeing your Belief overthrows the chiefest and most unquestionable of all Principles I was about proving this when I was hindred by a Message from a Gentleman I desired Mr. N. to permit me to write an Answer to it who yielding to my request our conversation was by this means interrupted for some short time CONFERENCE V. Wherein is sinally shew'd That Transubstantiation establishes Scepticism and absolutely destroys the certainty of first Principles AS soon as I had ended my Answer I rejoyn'd Mr. N. and reassumed our former Discourse You have not forgotten where we left off said I to him presently I had undertook to shew you That Transubstantiation establishes Scepticism at its full length and absolutely overthrows the certainty of our Notices I have shew'd it in respect of those which arise from our senses I afterwards justified it on the subject of Demonstrations so that I have only now to shew you That this Doctrine does not spare the clearest and most unquestionable of all the Principles I shall now prove to you That if your Belief takes place the most certain of these Maxims will be found false and consequently the rest which depend thereon and which at most have not more evidence than this first will be doubtful and uncertain This surprises you without doubt and you imagine I undertake a strange task Yet I hope easily to acquit my self of it Only inform me which of those great Truths you may make most account of This has been a matter of some contest replied he to me I was taught in the Colledge that the first and the most certain of all the Principles is this great Maxim That it is impossible the same thing can be and cannot be Or to express it in another manner That it is impossible for two contradictory Propositions to be true at the same time I have been always told this is the first step our mind takes in the search of Truth and at the same time the last thing we find when we search after the foundations of our Perswasions Yet the Cartesians do not grant this * See the Art of Thinking part 4. chap. 5 c. they are agreed indeed that this Maxim is certain and unquestionable for who dares deny it But they affirm 't is of no great use and however not the first of all Principles They prefer this other Maxim before it One may affirm of each thing whatever is contain'd in the distinct Idea we have of it For my part I think it an easy thing to agree them The Cartesians Principle is undoubtedly the first of Affirmatives and the fittest to prove Positive Truths But that of the Schools is the first of the Negatives and the properest to destroy Errors and Falsity I am easily of your mind replied I. But I must add That Transubstantiation do's absolutely overthrow both one and the other of these two Axioms as well as a great many others whose certainty is very near that of theirs Which I shall now prove to you beginning at the Principle of the Cartesians on which I shall not long insist Mr. Rohaut shews in the beginning of his Treatise of Physics * Roh Phys part 1. chap. 7. That 't is impossible to conceive distinctly matter without conceiving 't is extended in length largeness and depth that it is figured and impenetrable I relate not his Words to you you may read them in his Chapter of Matter Yet you do not believe our Saviours Body is impenetrable in the Eucharist You believe 't is there after the manner of Spirits totum in toto totum in qualibet parte For thus has the Council of Trent defined it As to Figure I do not know how it can be given to a Body whose parts are penetrable and enter into one another In sine I do not understand how length can be attributed to it or largeness or depth for what wou'd be the length largeness and depth which wou'd be in it Will it be what it has in its natural Estate Our Senses attest sufficiently the contrary Will it be that of Bread and Wine This cannot be For were this so the Body of Christ might be divided into two halfs into three thirds into four parts c. seeing all these Divisions may be made of the Host Here 's then three things which are clearly comprehended in the Idea a man has of a Body and which yet one cannot affirm of that of Jesus Christ And consequently here are three Proofs of the falsity of the Cartesians great Principle Here 's now a fourth These Philosophers will not deny that that which makes the Essence of each thing is comprehended in the distinct Idea which one has of that thing and that the thing is comprehended in the distinct Idea which we have of that which makes its Essence For example if extension be the Essence of Matter as they pretend they will acknowledg that Extension is comprised in the Idea of Matter and the Matter in the Idea of the Extension and thus as one may affirm of Matter that it is Extensive so one may affirm of that which is Extensive that it is Matter They will as little deny that the Mass or Collection of Modusses is not that which makes the particular Essence of every thing for every Body knows the Aversion they have to substantial Forms so much mention'd in the Colledg By consequence 't will be equally impossible to
what I say of rest and motion I mean it of all the other oppositions which I denoted to you a while ago And this is what the Jesuits have seen and which has made them abandon the opinion of the Thomists They perceiv'd it impossible to maintain That the Body of Christ is Sacramentally in several places at a time if he be not there circumscriptively They perceiv'd one or the other of these things must necessarily be said Either that a Body cannot be sacramentally nor circumscriptively in two places or that it may be there equally either in one or the other of these two manners They were forced to take one of these sides Had they been at liberty they would have taken the first But in taking it they must shock Transubstantiation which they would by no means discredit They have therefore taken hold of the second and affirmed That a Body may be both Sacramentally and Circumscriptively in two places For a proof of what I have said in reference to these Peoples interest in the Question be pleas'd to consider in what manner these same Jesuits have decided a Question very like the former but on a matter which does not seem to have any relation to the Eucharist Some followers of Aristotle both Greeks and Arabians have heretofore entertained a very foolish and ridiculous Opinion They affirm'd 't is not true That every man has a reasonable Soul particular to himself that there 's but one for all which is in all Bodies without losing its unity and without being any where than in these Bodies just as you will have the Body of Jesus Christ exist in the Eucharist without multiplying it self and without being elsewhere excepting in Heaven The Jesuits undertaking x to decide this Question and forgetting the Eucharist as in effect 't was troublesome to remember it have therefore positively asserted That the Opinion of these Philosophers is insupportable Having particularly affirmed that it implies a manifest contradiction because 't would happen hereupon That the same Soul should be at the same time knowing and ignorant good and bad happy and unhappy there being none of these qualities which agree not with several men and consequently with the same Soul if it be true there is but one for all men They are without doubt much in the right but if a Soul in two places which is united to two several Bodies cannot be at the same time knowing and ignorant good and bad happy and unhappy without a contradiction I would then know how one and the same Body can be without contradiction in motion and at rest cold and hot divisible and indivisible in two several places It is clear that one of these things is no less impossible nor less contradictory than the other And consequently it 's plain that when your Doctors affirm there 's no contradiction in saying That the same Body in two places may be at the same time at rest and in motion they do not speak according to their Conscience but according to the interest of the Cause which they have taken upon them to defend I should never have done should I undertake to particularize all the other contradictions which your Doctrine contains Those which I have already denoted are sufficient to shew you it absolutely destroys this great principle That the same thing cannot at the same time be and not be I pass on then to another Maxim which is no less evident than that which is That the whole is greater than a part Your Transubstantiation does plainly be-ly either this Maxim or that which says The thing contained is never greater than that which contains it To make this more apparent we must observe there are two different opinions in your Schools touching the extension of Christs Body in the Eucharist Most hold that it retains it Others that it loses it The Catechism of the Council of Trent seems to uphold the latter of these opinions And this is what it says * Cat. Trid. Part 2. Tit. de Euch. n. 43. Let the Curates take care to teach That Jesus Christ is not in the Sacrament as in a place for the place is as the things in as much as they have greatness and we do not say our Lord is in the Sacrament as being little or great not respecting the quantity but the substance For the substance of Bread is changed into the substance of Jesus Christ not into its greatness or quantity However if this Sentiment be granted it 's certain That the whole is not greater than its part Seeing neither the whole nor its parts have any greatness If on the contrary you follow the first opinion you overthrow this other Principle That the thing contained is never greater than that which contains it In effect Christs Body which according to this opinion has in the Eucharist all the extension which it has in its natural state will be contained in a space incomparably smaller than it is there being no space so small wherein one may not put some crumb of the Host or some drop of the Consecrated Wine and consequently all the Body of Jesus Christ This is moreover a Maxim which Philosophers and Divines do equally acknowledg for granted That nothing produces its self That nothing has relation to its self Hereby chiefly the Fathers were wont to oppose the extravagancy of Sabellius who acknowledg'd in the Divinity only one Person under three several Names and who was at the same time Father Son and Holy Ghost They closed his mouth with this Answer That the Father begetting the Son and the Holy Spirit proceeding from both these two Persons hereby these three have such Relations as must distinguish them and consequently will not suffer these to be one and the same Person Yet is it true That as in your Hypothesis the Body of Jesus Christ produces it self so it has a relation to it self like those which distinguish the Persons in the Trinity In effect you hold That the Transubstantiation is the work of Jesus Christ and what 's more particular you believe it to be the work of Jesus Christ Man. You believe that the Consecration is a Priestly act of our Saviour who immolates himself by the Ministry of the Priest reducing himself into a state of death under the species of Bread and Wine * Concil Trid. Sess 22. Cap. 2. you believe †See Merat de incom disp 1. Sect. 2. that Jesus Christ is a Priest only as Man. So that he as Man changing the Bread into his Body one may say his Humane Nature is his proper work That it creates it self produces it self and consequently that there 's a real Relation between Jesus Christ Man and Jesus Christ Man between Jesus Christ Priest or Sacrificer and Jesus Christ Sacrificed between Jesus Christ producing and Jesus Christ produced I suppose in effect that if Transubstantiation be granted it would be a real production of the Body of Jesus Christ For besides that your
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
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
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
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
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