Absurdities She must therefore be deceived in the one or the other of these Judgments and thus neither the one nor the other of these wou'd be certain How wou'd it be then supposing all the advantage lay on one side as it wou'd plainly if what might be offered against Christianity has more evidence and certainty than what is used to establish the Divinity of it where shall we find that in this Supposition we must prefer what is less certain before what is more And who thinks if a man does this he deserves to be eternally miserable How then says Mr. N. Shall Reason prescribe us what we are to believe Shall she become the Rule yea and Judg of our Faith And do we not know that the truths of Christianity are infinitely above the Comprehension of human Reason You confound abundance of things which you shou'd distinguish repli'd I. First there 's a great deal of difference between discovering to us what we must believe as revealed of God and what we must reject as invented by Men. The first of these Duties contains two parts In effect One may make two sorts of enquiry after what one is to believe First In examining the Doctrine offered us and comparing it with the Maxims of Reason just as we do when we wou'd determine our selves on a question of Philosophy The second in examining purely whether this Doctrine has been revealed by God either by enquiring wherher it makes a part of a Religion supposed Divine or by enquiring whether the Religion of which we do not doubt but this Doctrine makes up a part has been revealed of God. It 's certain it cannot be expected from Reason to enquire in this first manner what we ought to believe and this for two Considerations First whatever attempts she may make she will never get the mastery the clearest wit and most piercing judgment not being in a capacity of raising it self of it self to the discovery of these sublime Truths which Faith comprehends And shou'd Reason discover some one the perswasion she could give us of it would not be a Divine Faith. It would be perhaps a Science an Opinion according as the proofs whereon this is grounded are probable or demonstrative But this wou'd never be a Divine Faith it being not possible for Divine Faith to have any other foundation than the authority of God. When we wou'd know whether a Doctrine makes part of a Religion of whose Divinity we are otherwise satisfied as when we wou'd enquire whether Christianity teaches Transubstantiation or the Real Presence this is certainly to be examin'd by Reason For how can we know this if we have lost our Reason Yet in this enquiry she does not so much keep the quality of a Rule as that of an Organ I would say we make this enquiry by means of this faculty call'd Reason yet this faculty does not then consult its own proper light and does not compare the Doctrine offered with its Notions She only compares it with the Rule which God has given her the Scripture alone according to us and the Scripture Tradition and Councils according to you It 's not the same when the question is to know whether a Religion be Divine for example when one deliberates whether one shall be a Christian Pagan or Mahometan In this enquiry Reason alone must be our guide and the best method it can take is to examine which of these different Religions which challenges our preference has the most visible Characters of Divinity which is it which appears most likely to have been revealed from God and which on the contrary is that which we have cause to think is a humane invention As to the rejecting of a Doctrine we have several different means If it be not conformable to the Rule we ought not to receive it we ought to refuse believing it with a Divine Faith. If it be contrary to the Rule we ought to do more we ought positively to reject it and believe it to be false In a word if our Senses or Reason expresly attest this Doctrine is not true we ought to perswade our selves not only that it is not true but that it has never been revealed of God. This last duty draws its Original from two different springs The first is the force of this great Maxim which is the foundation of Divine Faith to wit That whatever God has said is true Hence properly comes the obligation which we have to believe whatever God has revealed to us In effect why should we not believe it seeing its equally impossible that God shou'd be deceiv'd himself judging things to be what they are not as that he shou'd deceive others by telling them they be not what he knows they are And this is the true foundation of Divine Faith and the original of that right which our Reason has not to believe what is evidently false Divine Faith does thus Reason Whatever God has reveal'd is true God has reveal'd such and such a Doctrine Then this or that Doctrine is true Reason says for her part Whatever God has revealed is true Such or such a Doctrine is not true Therefore 't was not revealed by God. Shou'd it happen as you suppose that God shou'd reveal a Doctrine which appeared plainly false to Reason we shou'd find our selves in a dreadful difficulty or rather in the condition which Divines call a state of perplexity and which wou'd bring along with it shou'd it ever happen an absolute impossibility of knowing what we ought to do On one hand we should be bound to believe this Doctrine on the supposition God had revealed it and on the other we shou'd perswade our selves that God would not have revealed it because it appears evidently false and consequently is not to be believed So that were it only to hinder this from hapning we shou'd believe that God never reveals any thing which is apparently false to Reason at least to Reason rectifi'd and which uses all necessary precautions not to be deceiv'd for 't is of that alone whereof I speak Moreover were it possible for God to reveal a Doctrine evidently false evidence would be no longer the infallible note of Truth seeing in this supposition the evidence wou'd accompany this act of our Reason which wou'd judg this Doctrine to be false and which wou'd be false it self seeing this Doctrine being reveal'd of God wou'd hereby be necessarily true So that we ought no longer to reckon on the evidence of things and the Sceptics wou'd have Reason to doubt of every thing You see then Sir That this right of our Reason has most solid foundations And it is certain that it has been ever acknowledged and that all sorts of Authors both Ancient and Modern have always believed they might justly conclude a Doctrine was not revealed from God when they saw it contrary to the purest notices of Reason And thus on one hand the Fathers have done who wrote against the Pagans and Hereticks
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
Joan. tract 36. pronunciatur the body of Jesus Christ risen must be in one only place But why must it be so and why may he not be in several places at a time if he be there in effect as your Creed bears The most famous among the Fathers have used the same Arguments against the Macedonians These Hereticks affirmed the Holy Spirit to be but a Creature of a like nature to that of Angels The Holy Fathers to refute them alledge That an Angel cannot be in several places at a time whereas the Holy Spirit was in the same time in several places extream distant from one another seeing he never forsook the Apostles although for the Preaching of the Gospel they were dispersed over all the Earth Thus does St. Athanasius argue or one under his name in the dispute he is said to have against Arius (a) Apud Athan Didymus of Alexandria (b) Didym de Sp S. St. Basil (c) Basil de Sp. S. cap 2. St. Greg. Naz. (d) Naz. Orat. 3.7 St. Ambrose (e) Amb. de Sp. S. lib. 1. cap. 7. Pascasius Deacon of Rome (f) Pasc Rom. de Sp. S. lib. 1. cap. 12. Anastasius Sinait (g) Anast Sin. lib. 1. de dogm fid Rupert (h) Rup lib. 10. cap. 22. and others very ill as you see were it not supposed impossible for the same Body to be in several Places at a time Were not this held then for undeniable they would without doubt have been answered That there 's no more difficulty in supposing a Spirit in several Places than a material Body as that of our Saviour was But in effect it appears the Fathers have ever believed this could not be seeing hereby he refuted the exravagant Opinions of both Hereticks and Pagans Moreover your great evasion which consists in distinguishing what may naturally be and what may happen by an effect of the Almighty Power of God this evasion I say will not serve in this occasion for in fine the Question was not in these Disputes what might or what might not naturally be but what might absolutely be The Pagans did not pretend That by means of natural Causes the Gods were placed in Statues consecrated to them The Manichees did not subject our Saviour to the Laws of Nature The Macedonians did not believe the Holy Spirit was sent by some created Cause All these People made the Divine Power intervene in these occasions and consequently the Fathers affirming that what these extravagant People said was impossible they meant 't was so in all senses and that 't was a mere contradiction It appears then from all I have now said That according to the truest and best Reason according to your own Authors and according to the Fathers it 's a pure contradiction to suppose Christs Body in several places at a time But the contradiction will be still more manifest if we add That supposing this Divine Body in several places one may say of it things directly opposite to one another Considering it such as it is in Heaven you believe it has its three dimensions each of which you believe may be measured and compared with those of other Bodies which are greater or lesser You believe it has its parts one out of another That it possesses a place whose parts answer those of this sacred Body That he is therein visible and palpable acts c. You say the direct contrary of this same Body such as you suppose it in the Eucharist You believe it there exists after the manner of Spirits that it is therein reduced to one point that it has its parts one in another that 't is therein invisible and without action You also believe that to consider it only as 't is in the Eucharist it 's removed out of one place and let to rest in another here he is lifted up and there he is let down Are not these Sir so many contradictions Is not this to affirm and deny the same thing of the same Subject in relation to the same parts and time and what do you call contradictory if this be not so A Body in two places says Mr. N. is equivalent to two Bodies and one may say of it the most opposite things without contradiction I must acknowledge one cannot do it when we speak of a Body existing only in one place But when we speak of a Body or generally of a Subject which exists in diverse places at a time there 's no contradiction in affirming and denying the same things of it This is no new answer and I suppose you have read it in our Authors Your Authors I confess have made use of it repli'd I but I affirm their answer was insincere it being not what they thought but what the interest of their cause required And for a proof of what I say is it not true That when the Question was of things wherein they were not interessed and which they regarded as absolutely independent from the Eucharist they have not stuck to maintain 't was a contradiction to say things opposite of a Body in two places For example because it 's held among you that Christs Body is not circumscriptively that is to say after the manner of Bodies in such a manner that each of its parts answers to that of the place which it possesses because say I 't is believ'd that the Body of Jesus Christ is not in this manner but in Heaven and that 't is supposed in the Eucharist only Sacramentally which is to say after the manner of Spirits totum in toto totum in qualibet parte The Thomists * See Masius Phys lib. 4. cap. 5. quest 5. assert 3. have imagined That it mattered not as to the Eucharist to know whether a Body may be circumscriptively in two places They thought they might freely explain themselves on this Question without fearing the judgment they might make of it should prove of dangerous Consequence to the Doctrine of the Real Presence Being in this manner withheld by no consideration and applying themselves to nothing but what appeared to them to be true they pronounced it impossible for one Body to be circumscriptively in two places and their strongest reason is that hereby it might happen that this Body might be in motion in one of these places and at rest in another here it might be cold and there hot and so of the rest It 's according to them a pure contradiction to say That a Body which shall be circumscriptively in two places shall be at the same time at rest and in motion but if this be a contradiction why is it not as considerable a one to say these same things of a Body which is Sacramentally in two places or Sacramentally in one and circumscriptively in the other For in fine are not rest and motion as opposite and inconsistent when the Bodies which they affect are Sacramentally in two places as when they be therein circumscriptively Moreover