and on the other all Authors of your Communion who have Treated on the Controversies which separates us For as to the First did not Justin Martyr Tertullian Minutius Felix Theophilus of Antioch Origen Arnobius Lactantius St. Augustin St. Cyril and a great many others oppose Paganism with the absurdities and extravagancies of its mysteries Did not the same Fathers writing against Hereticks use this very argument affirming the Chimera's and extravagancies which these people believ'd cou'd in no sort come from God being apparently false and contrary to all the lights of Reason Have not in sine all your Authors who write against us followed the same method tho with different success See Bellarmin Gregory de Valentia Richlieu the Author of Prejudices and generally all your Controvertists There 's not one of them but has pretended to shew our Doctrine is not of God because of the absurdities therein contained All these Authors argue on two Principles The one That God has revealed nothing which is false The other That whatever is contrary to Reason is thereby contrary to Truth Take away which of these Principles you will and all the Arguments of these Writers will be meer Sophisms St. Augustin proceeds farther He says we ought to forsake the Communion of the Orthodox Church and pass over into that of the Hereticks and despise whatever you respect as the foundations of your Faith cou'd it be made appear the most dangerous Hereticks such as were then the Manichees taught the Truth * Aug. cont Epist fund cap. 4. and this is what he teaches us in this famous passage which your Doctors have ever in their mouths and wherein he declares that several things retain him in the bosom of the Catholick Church The consent of all people The authority grounded on Miracles and confirm'd by Antiquity Succession and even the name of Catholick You affirm these are the props and foundations of the true Faith and I will not now set on shewing you the contrary We may do this another time if you think fitting At present I am willing to suppose what you say I pray then consider what Saint Augustin adds Amongst you says he where I see nothing like this we hear nothing on all hands but promises of Truth and I confess adds he That could you shew it me so clearly that I could not doubt of it I must prefer it before whatever withholds me in the Catholick Church You see here how St. Augustin acknowledges That the evidence which excludes doubtings is to be preferred before the motives of Faith. He does not say that if the Manichees had this evidence on their side we shou'd despise it and offer against it the certainty of Faith as you pretend He says the contrary He says we shou'd yield and that which hinder'd him from doing it was That whatever the Manichees said They had not this evidence which they vaunted of That they promised great matters but cou'd not shew them Bellarmin does something like this * Bell. de Motis Eccles l. 4. cap. 11. He reckons amongst the Notes of the Church the holiness of its Doctrine and makes this holiness consist in her teaching nothing which is false and imposing nothing which is unjust and will have us judg of this by the lights of Reason He afterwards makes the application of this to the Pagans Jews Mahometans ancient Hereticks and lastly to us He shews as to the first That they have taught things absurd and abominable and attempting afterwards to shew this on our Subject he thence concludes none of these Societies is the true Church By this way of disputing he plainly subjects your Church to this examination and tacitly implies she may be rejected provided she can be convinced of all which he accuses the others For besides that he cannot take it ill That the Infidels and Hereticks should treat him in the same manner as he uses them besides this his greatest pretension is That the Church must be known by his marks seeing then one of his marks is That she teaches nothing which is false he hereby consents to the rejection of your Church if it can be shew'd from Reason That she teaches things false and absurd It cannot be deny'd but Bellarmine has had some Reason to deal thus For 't wou'd certainly be a great scandal to the Faithful and much more to Infidels cou'd it be clearly and plainly shew'd That Christian Religion teaches things directly contrary to Reason In effect seeing we embrace this Religion only on the account of the proofs which authorize it and of whose goodness we cannot judg but by Reason shou'd this Reason meet with things evidently false in this Religion she wou'd hereby carry us off as far from it as she cou'd bring us near it by making us comprehend these proofs Moreover making two contrary judgments on the subject of Religion the one That it is true because the proofs which authorize it are good the other that it is false because it teaches things absurd she must of necessity be deceived in the one or the other and so neither is certain The Author of the Art of Thinking was not of this mind says Mr. N. It 's certain says he * Art of Thinking part 4. ch 11. That Divine Faith should have more force on our minds than our own Reason and this from Reason it self which shews us we should always prefer what is more certain to what is less It being more certain that what God says is true than what our Reason perswades us because 't is more impossible God shou'd deceive us than our Reason All this said I appears to me false and ill digested and 't is easie to observe herein such a slight of hand as shews little love to truth To see this more distinctly be pleas'd to consider That the certainty of every act of Faith depends on the perswasion which we have of two Truths which are in some sort their props and foundations The first That whatever God attests is true The second That God has attested the Doctrine which we believe You see that if we doubt of either of these two Truths it 's impossible our Faith can be firm To what purpose is it to know that God does not lye if we doubt God has not said a thing And granting he has said something if we doubt he has said in particular what 's proposed to us to believe And further what signifies it for us to know That God has reveal'd what 's offer'd us if we doubt whether all which God says be true It 's then equally necessary to know these two Truths but they be not always equally evident The first is ever incomparably more than the second It 's always highly evident That whatever God says is true and therefore no body differs about it no not the Athiests For tho the Atheists hold there 's no God yet they acknowledg if there were one he would never speak any thing but what
use them And therefore I must ingenuously confess to you That you cannot touch me in a more tender place But I must affirm at the same time you have undertaken what you will never be able to prove That Transubstantiation overthrows the Arguments of Mr. Huet even those which seem most likely to convert Unbelievers I do not doubt replied I but to make it plain to you and I am willing you should make no account of my Arguments if you your self do not find they carry along with them the clearest Evidence But if you please let me hear first which are the Arguments Mr. Huet has made use of for those are they which be in question between us The Proofs said he are certain undeniable historical Matters of Fact and which are moreover of such a nature That they cannot be true if Christian Religion be not of God and the Matters of Fact be these That long before our Saviour's Time the Jews had certain Books which they esteem'd Sacred and which they believed were written by Men inspired of God. That these Books have come down to us without alteration and that we have them such as they were before our Lord's Incarnation That they contain divers Prophecies which promise a Deliverer to the Jewish Nation whom they mention under the name of Messias distinctly denoting his Birth his actions his Death and Resurrection and in general the most remarkable Passages of his Life That under the Empire of Tiberius there appeared in Judea a Man called Jesus who said he was this Messias That there was seen in his Person whatever the Writings of the Prophets had foretold should be observable in the Messias That he moreover wrought several Miracles to prove his Mission That having been crucified by the Jews he after three days rose again and was carried up into Heaven To which we may add that after his Ascension his Apostles proclaimed his Resurrection throughout all the World and confirmed it by various and infinite Miracles That this Testimony which they gave drew on them a thousand cruel Persecutions and engaged them into the necessity of undergoing Poverty Contempt Imprisonments and the most cruel Punishments the World could inflict on them yet all this was not able to make them alter their course That their Preaching perswaded an infinite number of People of all Nations and especially great numbers of the Jews That the Church which they founded by this means suffered an uninterrupted Persecution for the space of 300 Years and yet daily encreased and spread it self over the whole World. 'T is true that Mr. Huet has not insisted on the last of these Facts but besides that they be of the same Order as the preceding I believe 't is fit they should be added as being of great use for the establishing of the Truth of Christian Religion In a word if both one and the other be true 't is not possible but the Christian Faith must come from God and he that denies so necessary a Consequence may deny the clearest Truths which have hap'ned in the World. These Facts being true the Birth of Jesus Christ his Actions his Death his Resurrection his Ascension and in general all the particulars of his Life have been foretold several Ages before they have happened and what is most considerable they have been foretold not by one or two particular Persons but by a long Train as I may say of Prophets who have succeeded one another in several Ages and who seem to have been chiefly rais'd up for this purpose by Prophets I say in whom were to be seen all the Marks which denote Persons inspired of God. If these Matters of Fact be true our Saviour himself has justified his Mission by a great number of Miracles all infinitely above the force of Nature and circumstanced in the likeliest manner in the World to persuade us they were the immediate Effects of an Almighty Power If these things be true the Eternal God has raised up his Son from the Grave took him up into Heaven and thereby declared in an unquestionable manner That he owned him not only for his great Prophet but for his only Son it not being to be supposed he would do all these things in favour of one that had falsly usurp'd that Title If these Facts be true Christianity has establish'd it self in the World in a manner wholly Divine and which shews with the greatest evidence That Heaven has concern'd it self in it the Powers thereof alone being able to triumph over the Resistances and Oppositions of the Earth So that I do not comprehend how a Man can acknowledg all these things and deny Christian Religion to be of God. You are in the right repli'd I but the difficulty if there be any consists in establishing the Truth of these things How will you prove them For you know the Infidels are not agreed in them The Infidels said he do not dony all of them They acknowledg several of them and which consequently there 's no need of justifying As to the rest in which they will not agree with us it 's no hard matter to establish the Truth of them But what Proofs said I must one use for this Such as are wont to be offered to prove these king of things answered he I know all sorts of Proofs are not proper to establish all kind of Truths Abstracted Verities such as are those which Metaphysicks teach us are not proved by the Senses nor by Authority but by Domonstrations Whereas on the contrary Matters of Fact do not shew themselves at least in this manner but if they be present we make People see or touch them whom we would convince of the truth of them and if they are past and at a distance we use the Testimony of those who have seen them or certainly known them Thus the Truths which serve for a Foundation to the Proofs of the Christian Religion consisting in Facts and those past and ancient enough you plainly see hence we must not expect to establish them by Metaphysical or Mathematical Demonstrations nor by the Depositions of Sense We must content our selves with the Testimony of those who have seen them with their own Eyes and who could not be deceived themselves nor have any design of deceiving others Is this sufficient repli'd I. A bare Testimony of Men can it produce any thing else than a Humane Faith And is Humane Faith a sufficient Foundation for Divine Faith Is not Humane Faith a kind of Opinion and can an Opinion uphold what the Scripture calls (e) Heb. xi i. the Substance of things hoped for and a demonstration of such as are not seen I am surpriz'd said he that so small a thing should stop you When we consider in the Testimony received only the bare Authority of him that speaketh when we attend to that alone and the Faith which is grounded thereon has no other Foundation than the esteem we have for the Probity and Sincerity of
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
effect these People agreeing in nothing and it being in the mean time imimpossible to reason without laying down something it 's clear there 's no reasoning against them without granting what 's in question which is one of the greatest saults a Man that argues can fall into It 's then impossible fairly to deny what I said when I affirm'd That Transubstantiation opens a door to Scepticism and puts men into a necessity of denying every thing What I said at first is a small matter that it makes void Mr. Huet's proofs it spares none overthrowing generally and without exception whatever establishes the truth of Christian Religion So that if I justifie this as I am perswaded I easily can I shall be sorry to add any thing to the proof which this alone surnishes me with In effect those who shall be capable of digesting this may digest every thing I believe you are in the right said Mr. N. and I do acknowledg if you can convince me Transubstantiation draws along with it Scepticism you will make me suspect it In effect I conceive nothing more dangerous nor at the same time so ridiculous as Scepticism and you can never speak any thing too bad of it which I will not subscribe to But I do not much fear your proving what you talk of And I for my part said I do not doubt but I shall do it Shall I not do it if I convince you that in admitting Transubstantiation one is engaged not to rely on any evidence be it of what kind it will. For in short Sir you know the whole dispute with the Sceptics is to know Whether there be any thing certain The Sceptics absolutely deny this We as to our parts affirm That as there are things doubtful and uncertain so there are some we are sure of and which one may and ought to believe and when we be asked what those things be we answer they are precisely those which are evident Because that in effect according to us the evidence of a thing is the foundation of its certainty and infallible mark of its truth The Sceptics on the contrary say that evidence and falsity have nothing inconsistent that they may be found together and therefore to conclude a thing to be true because of its being evident is ill reasoning and an exposing of ones self to manifest danger of being deceiv'd So that the whole amounts to this Whether one may or ought to rely on the evidence of a thing as an infallible mark of truth For if we cannot the Sceptics have reason and we can offer nothing against them And consequently if I shew you that in granting Transubstantiation there is no evidence of whatever rank it may be which does not consist very well with error and falsity Now shall I not hereby shew you that this Doctrine draws after it the whole train of Sceptical doubts I suppose then a man must be a perfect Sceptic or none at all For the mitigations which some would introduce be absolutely ridiculous For in fine we must assure our selves of whatever is evident or assure our selves of nothing seeing we cannot assure our selves of any thing but on the account of its evidence And consequently if evidence be the lawful ground of certitude we must be sure of whatever is evident and put away all Scepticism without reserve On the contrary if the evidence of a thing be not sufficient to produce a certainty of it we can be sure of nothing we must be perfect Sceptics and never believe or do any thing So that all those who are not perfect and compleat Sceptics are not Sceptics at all seeing they part with the fundamental maxim of their ridiculous System I agree with you in all this says Mr. N. and will acquit you of your promise if you show me that Transubstantiation separates Evidence from Truth This is no hard matter to do reply'd I for in effect I know but two sorts of evidences the one which strikes the senses the other which is perceiv'd by the mind I have shew'd you that if Transubstantiation takes place the first is a most unfaithful Note of the Truth I have shew'd you that amongst this great multitude of things which strike the senses there is not perhaps one which they do more distinctly perceive than the matter of the Eucharist I have shew'd you that 't is an object which shews it self not only to one or two of our senses as most of those things do which make us apprehend them but generally and without exception all those which God has given us I have shew'd you That they all unanimously do depose that 't is Bread and Wine and that whatever precaution they use to hinder themselves from being deceived they all find the same thing and never change their language This then being a thing which you do believe to be false and in effect it cannot be true if your Transubstantiation be receiv'd you see my only task is to convince you That according to your Principles this first kind of evidence may lead us into error I am not agreed in that reply'd he For tho our senses may deceive us in the Eucharist they deceive us only in respect of the substance therein contained but will make us faithful reports on the accidents And you know our Divines and Philosophers confine the certainty of the senses to the bare accidents By which means there lyes open a large field for these saculties to exercise their functions in without running a risk of being mistaken This field said I to him is not so vast as it appears to you Your Authors and especially Bellarmin * Bell de Euch. lib. 3. cap. 24. do not pretend the senses have certainty in respect of all sorts of accidents without exception They count two different ranks the one which are only perceiv'd by one sense as Colours by the Sight Sounds by the Ear Scents by the Smell The others which are perceiv'd by more than one sense as Greatness Scituation Figure Motion They call the first proper Objects and the second common ones They add that the report of our senses is not certain but only in respect of their proper Objects but as to the common ones they may easily be déceived Here 's then the certainty of the Senses reduced to half the size you gave it But this is not all for Bellarmin stops not here He moreover distinguishes the judgments we may make on the proper Objects of our Senses in Generals and in Particulars For example when we see a Colour we may say first in general of it This is a colour not a scent or savour We may say likewise in particular This is such a colour 't is white or red not green or black He tells us the Senses are not certain but in the first of these judgments they often deceiving us in the second See Sir whereunto this Doctrine reduces the certainty of the Senses For my part I could like as
is true But it 's commonly far less evident That God has reveal'd what he has in effect reveal'd Whence it happens men are so divided about the things which are pretended to be revealed from God. Yet this Author says nothing of this second perswasion He speaks only of the first He conceals the weak side and shews only the strongest It 's certainer says he that what God says is true than what our Reason perswades us Be it so But is it certainer that God has revealed such and such a Doctrine than 't is certain one and two are three and that if I think I am This he will not say Yet if he does not say it he must acknowledg he has ill reasoned For if what Reason says be more certain than it 's certain God has reveal'd the Doctrine of which one is perswaded he shall have far less certainty of the Truth of this Doctrine than of what Reason sees distinctly But let us stop a while at what this Author has chosen and which he has made his strong hold It 's certainer says he That what God says is true than what our Reason perswades us He makes Reason to say this and consequently his sense is that this act of Reason which perswades us That what God says is true is more certain than what our Reason perswades us But what does he mean Does he mean that this act is more certain than any act of Reason whatever If this be so he contradicts himself For this very act being an act of Reason if it has more certainty than any act of Reason 't will be more certain than it self Does he mean that this act is the certainest of all and that there 's no other which equals the certainty of this If this be his sense 't is easie to shew him his mistake First is this act more certain than that which perswades us of the existence of God Let him say which he will he cannot escape me For to what purpose is it to know That Truth is essential to God supposing he exists if it be less certain that he does exist If on the contrary these two acts be equally certain and if the actual existence be as clearly comprehended in the Idea we have of God as the unquestionable truth of what he attests the perswasion we have of this second Truth is not the certainest of all those perceived by Reason seeing the perswasion of Gods existence is no less certain Is it more certain That whatever God says is true than it 's certain That nothing of what appears to us is false This no man will say seeing we judg neither that God exists nor that whatever he says is true nor that we can affirm of each thing whatever is contain'd in the distinct Idea we have of it but because all this appears evident So that here we have a third perswasion which is no less certain than that which we were to think to be the most infallible But says this Author God is more uncapable of deceiving us than our Reason is of being deceived I grant it But how do we know this but by our Reason and consequently we have only a certitude of Reason and we are not more certain of it than that we are certain That our Reason does not deceive us whether in this or other things which be as evident as this This little subtilty might pass did we not fear being mistaken in matters of Faith without accusing even God himself of deceiving us But a man must be a fool that has such an irrational thought When we do doubt of matters of Faith this doubt does never tend to perswade us God has deceiv'd us in revealing to us what is hard to be believ'd but rather perswades us we are mistaken in taking that for a Divine Revelation which is only a Doctrine of men So those who doubt do never compare the certitude of their Reason with the certainty of Gods Testimony Neither have they ever the least temptation to imagin the first greater than the second But they always compare this act of their Reason which has perswaded them God has revealed to 'em what appears to them incredible with this other act of their Reason which makes them find incredible what they believ'd God had revealed to them And therefore we may cease to believe without imagining God has deceiv'd us or that our Reason is more incapable of being deceiv'd than God of deceiving us And consequently from Gods being more incapable of deceiving us than our Reason of being deceiv'd does in no wise follow That Faith has greater certainty than Reason Let this Author then pardon me if I say ' Twou'd be a grievous scandal to Infidels were it so That Christian Religion taught things directly contrary to Reason and which shou'd appear such not at first sight but on mature deliberation after all possible care to prevent being deceived and after long and serious reflexions which will not at all permit doubtings of the matter 's being what it appears But it is also true Christian Religion has not a Doctrine which is in this sort contrary to the lights of Reason and this cannot be denied without contradicting all your School-Divines For first if it be true Christianity teaches things contrary to Reason what will become of what Cardinal Richlieu and the Author of the Art of Thinking say The first affirms (a) Richl method Book 1. ch 1. That natural light deceives no body and the other says (b) Art of Thinking part 4. ch 11. That things exactly consider'd what we see evidently and from Reason or from the faithful report of our Senses is never contrary to what is taught us by Divine Faith. What will become of what all your Divines say (c) Vasq in 1. disp 123. cap. 1 Valent Tom. 3. disp 1 quaest 1 Punct 4 Bell. de Not. Eccles cap. 11. Maerat de fid disp 16 Sect. 5. That the Mystery of the Trinity is far above Reason but not contrary to it Wou'd it not be contrary to Reason if being true it shou'd appear to it evidently false What will you think of what these same Divines teach after your Angelical Doctor (d) Tho. Aqu. part 1. quaest 1. art 8. That 't is impossible to make Demonstrations against the Truths of Salvation As Faith says he is grounded on infallible Truth and it being impossible to shew that which is contrary to Truth so it is clear that the proofs made use of against Faith are not Demonstrations but Objections which are solvible What will become of what passes for unquestionable in your Schools (e) Cajet in 1 quaest 1 art 8 Vasq in 1 disp 11 cap. 2 3. Valent. ubi seq Conint de act sup disp ii dub ii Rhod. Tom. 1 disp 6 quaest 1. Sect. 3. Mart. de fid disp 5 Sect. 4. That one may Demonstratively prove not in truth That the Mystery of the Trinity and all the others are