SIX CONFERRENCES Concerning The Eucharist Novemb. 5. 1678. MR. A. Pulton Jesuit having in his Remarks published Novemb. 4. declared in efféct in P. 29 30. that the Principles of Philosophy which contradict the Doctrine of Transubstantiation are to be renounc'd and that Christians have the same ground to believe Transubstantiation as the Blessed Trinity and demanding How great the Confusion of Dr. T. will be at the Day of Judgment when he shall find that Teâ—â— true The sid Dr. Tenison the Publisher of THIS BOOK does so far as concerns these Particulars refer Mr. Pulton to IT and for the rest of his Remarks he will in due time give a very just Answer to them Books lately printed for Richard Chiswell A Dissertation concerning the Government of the Ancient Church more particularly of the Encroachments of the Bishops of Rome upon other Sus. By WILLIAM CAVE D. D. Octavo An Answer to Mr. Serjeant's Sure Footing in Christianity concerning the Rule of Faith With some other Discourses By WILLIAM FALKNER D. D. 40. A Vindication of the Ordinations of the Church of England in Answer to a Paper written by one of the Church of Rome to prove the Nullity of our Orders By GILBERT BVRNET D. D. Octavo An Abridgment of the History of the Reformation of the Church of England By GILB BVRNET D. D. Octavo The APOLOGY of the Church of England and an Epistle to one Signior Scipio a Venetian Gentleman concerning the Council of Trent Written both in Latin by the Right Reverend Father in God JOHN JEWEL Lord Bishop of Salisbury Made English by a Person of Quality To which is added The Life of the said Bishop Collected and written by the same Hand Octavo The Life of WILLIAM BEDEL D. D. Bishop of Kilmore in Ireland Together with Certain Letters which passed betwixt him and James Waddesworth a late Pensioner of the Holy Inquisition of Sevil in Matter of Religion concerning the General Motives to the Roman Obedience Octavo The Decree made at ROME the Second of March 1679. condemning some Opinions of the Jesuits and other Casuists Quarto A Discourse concerning the Necessity of Reformation with respect to the Errors and Corruptions of the Church of Rome Quarto First and Second Parts A Discourse concerning the Celebration of Divine Service in an Unknown Tongue Quarto A Papist nor Misrepresented by Protestants Being a Reply to the Reflections upon the Answer to A Papist Misrepresented and Represented Quarto An Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of England in the several Articles proposed by the late BISHOP of CONDOM in his Exposition of the Doctrine of the Catholick Church Quarto A Defence of the Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of England against the Exceptions of Monsieur de Mâ—aâ—â— late Bishop of Condon and his Vindicator 40. A CATECHISM explaining the Doctrine and Practices of the Church of Rome With an Answer thereunto By a Protestant of the Church of England 80. A Papist Represented and not Misrepresented being an Answer to the First Second Fifth and Sixth Sheets of the Second Part of the Papist Misrepresented and Represented and for a further Vindication of the GATEGHISM truly representing the Doctrines and Practices of the Church of Rome Quarto The Lay-Christian's Obligation to read the Holy Scriptures Quarto The Plain Man's Reply to the Catholick Missionaries 240. An Answer to THREE PAPERS lately printed concerning the Authority of the Catholick Church in Matters of Faith and the Reformation of the Church of England Quarto A Vindication of the Answer to THREE PAPERS concerning the Unity and Authority of the Catholick Church and the Reformation of the Church of England Quarto THE Pillar and Ground of Truth A Treatise shewing that the Roman Church falsly claims to be That Church and the Pillar of That Truth mentioned by S. Paul in his first Epistle to Timothy Chap. 3. Vers 15. 4o. The Peoples Right to read the Holy Scripture Asserted 4o. A Short Summary of the principal Controversies between the Church of England and the Church of Rome being a Vindication of several Protestant Doctrines in Answer to a Late Pamphlet Intituled Protestancy destitute of Scripture Proofs 4o. Two Discourses Of Purgatory and Prayers for the Dead An Answer to a Lato Pamphlet Intituled The Judgment and Doctrine of the Clergy of the Church of England concerning one Special Branch of the King's Prerogative viz. In dispensing with the Penal Laws 4o. The Notes of the Church as laid down by Cardinal Bellarmin examined and confuted 4o. Preparation for Death Being a Letter sent to a young Gentlewoman in France in a dangerous Distemper of which she died The Difference between the Church of England and the Church of Rome in opposition to a late Book Intituled An Agreement between the Church of England and Church of Rome A PRIVATE FRATER to be used in Difficult Times A True Account of a Conference held about Religion at London Sept. 29 1687 between A. Pulton Jesuit and Tho. Tennison D. D. as also of that which led to it and followed after it 4o. The Vindication of A. Cressener Schoolmaster in Long-Acre from the Aspersions of A. Pulton Jesuit Schoolmaster in the Savoy together with some Account of his Discourse with Mr. Meredith A Discourse shewing that Protestants are on the safer Side notwithstanding the uncharitable Judgment of their Adversaries and that Their Religion is the surest Way to Heaven 4o. Six Conferences concerning the Eucharist wherein is shewed that the Doctrine of Transubstantiation overthrows the Proofs of Christian Religion A Discourse concerning the pretended Sacrament of Extreme Vnction with an account of the Occasions and Beginnings of it in the Western Church In Three Parts With a Letter to the Vindicator of the Bishop of Condom SIX CONFERENCES CONCERNING The Eucharist Wherein is shewed That the Doctrine of Transubstantiation overthrows the Proofs of Christian Religion Imprimatur Septemb. 12. 1687. Jo. BATTELY LONDON Printed for Richard Chiswell at the Rose and Crown in St. Paul's Church-yard MDCLXXXVII The CONTENTS Of the Six Conferences concerning the EUCHARIST CONFERENCE I. THe First Proof That Transubstantiation absolutely destroys the certainty of our Senses which is the Foundation of the strongest Proofs of Christianity CONF. II. The Second Proof That Transubstantiation discrediting the Testimony of our Senses does absolutely overthrow the principal Reasons which confirm the Truth of Christian Religion CONF. III. Wherein are confirmed the two Proofs contained in the two preceding Discourses CONF. IV. The Third Proof That Transubstantiation establishes Scepticism in its full perfection and especially destroys the certainty of Demonstration CONF. V. Wherein is finally shew'd That Transubstantiation establishes Scepticism and absolutely destroys the certainty of First Principles CONF. VI. Wherein the Proofs contained in the foregoing Discourses are defended and the impossibility of using them against the Doctrine fo the Trinity is demonstrated SIX CONFERENCES Concerning the EUCHARIST CONFERENCE I. That Transubstantiation absolutely destroys the certainty of
the Functions of the natural Faculty which discovers to us the difference of Substances If I do this Sir will you not be satisfied I shall be fully so answered he and I promise you that if you prove it me clearly I shall not trouble my self nor you with a Reply I can easily do it said I For is it not true that when any one would make us conceive a moral Certainty in the highest Point of its Perfection the commonest Examples which are produced are those of the Existence of the City of Rome to those who have never been there that of the Pope Grand Signior or Emperor to those that have never feen them and as to the past that of Alexander the Great Cesar Pompey and other Hero's of Antiquity Scarcely any Author that treats of this Suject but alledges one or the other of these Instances Yet the City of Rome is a Substance or to speak more exactly an heap of Substances of several kinds Alexander Caesar Pompey and all the rest of the ancient Hero's were something more than Accidents And consequently had not God given us a Faculty capable of discerning the Substances with certainty there would be no assurance from the Testimony of those who have seen this and instead of a moral Certainty the greatest which can be imagin'd we should only have a slight Opinion and without Foundation Is it not true Sir that we are morally assured there was heretofore at Rhodes a great Colossus of Brass that there was a stately Temple at Ephesus consecrated to Diana and at Rome another dedicated to Jupiter Have we not the like certainty that there are still Pyramids of Stone in Egypt of excessive heights that there 's a Mount in Sicily which vomits Fire that there are Elephants in the Indies Lions in Africk Crocodiles in the Nile Yet this Colossus these Temples Pyramids Mountain Lions and Crocodils what are these but Substances whose Existence is not known to us but by the Testimony of those who have seen them with their own Eyes or to say nothing which may move you who perceived them by means of the Faculty which God has given us to know these kind of Objects But not to go so far I now shew'd you that the Truth of the Facts whence are taken the Proofs which establish the Divinity of the Christian Religion and even of the Jewish depends on the faithfulness of the Report which this natural Faculty has made of several Substances and that if this Faculty may be herein mistaken these Proofs are in no wise convincing It being then certain that we are morally assured of the Truth of these Facts it cannot be denied we have a moral Certainty of several Substances and that those who were inform'd of them by themselves have a greater certainty than we Can you Sir now doubt I have not made good my word Will you not grant me that the discerning of Substances whatever the Faculty is whereby this is done is attended with a greater certainty that the moral one Thus this Faculty telling me the Eucharist is Bread and Wine and telling it me with all the force and constancy it is able is it not apparent there 's a clearness in its Evidence far greater than that in the Proofs of Christianity Do's not my Proof then return with its full strength and convictions May I not always say That Transubstantiation is opposed with greater strength of Argument than the Christian Religion is defended with We are agreed that the Proofs for Christianity have only a moral Evidence and I now shewed you That that which perswades us the Eucharist is Bread and Wine is far more certain than what is morally so Can you after this deny that there is not greater certainty in what combats Transubstantiation than in what establishes the Truth of Christian Religion Can you deny that that which is more than sufficient to establish the Truth of Christian Religion discharged of Transubstantiation is too weak to maintain it granting Transubstantiation to be one of the Doctrines which she requires to be believed You see then Sir the fruitlessness of your Answer you see it lets my two Proofs subsist in their full strength you see that whether it be the Senses or Reason which make us know and discern the Substances we have still cause to believe the Eucharist is Bread and Wine and that this Perswasion cannot be rendred doubtful and uncertain without shaking the whole Foundation of Christianity and without giving the Infidels an infallible means of triumphing over this Holy Religion Mr. N. was about forming an Answer when he was hindred by the arrival of one of my Friends who came from a long Voyage and whose return was a surprize to me I was much joyed to see him But Mr. N. to whom he was a Stranger took hence an occasion to be gone without informing me of his thoughts on what I told him CONFERENCE IV. The Third Proof That Transubstantiation establishes Scepticism in its full perfection and especially destroys the certainty of Demonstration I Was very desirous to know what effect my last conference had on Mr. N. I was moreover willing to shew him my third Proof Whereupon I went to his House where he received me with his usual civility and our Discourse having insensibly led us to Matters of Religion I took the liberty to ask him Whether he had throughly considered what had past in our foregoing Debates He hereupon ingenuously acknowledg'd He could find no means to defend against my Instances the Answer he had made me nor how to offer me better Yet he added he was so perswaded of the truth of his Belief That he would rather yield up to me Mr. Huet's Proofs than to imagin the whole Church could be deceived in so important a Matter as that of the Sacrament In effect said he to me What hurt can there be in saying this Author has ill defended a good Cause and made use of false reasonings for the maintaining of the Truth What do you say Sir said I you ask me What hurt there can be in what you say I affirm to you that nothing can be worse For Sir I would not have you mistaken Mr. Huet's Proofs are not of his invention he only digested them into order strengthened and illustrated them with curious Remarks and pressing Considerations and as to the main of them he has taken them out of Authors that have wrote on that Subject before him and indeed he has also commendably taken them from the discourses of the Prophets and the Son of God himself and his Apostles Christ himself is the first that has used these Proofs He several times alledg'd the Predictions of the Prophets and as oft did cite his Miracles He alledg'd his Resurrection and these were his strongest Arms his greatest Arguments He made use of them to stop the mouths of the Scribes and Pharisees whom he look'd upon as his profest Enemies He used them to perswade the multitudes
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