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
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
yet I might find in their Writings wherewith to defend my self by what they answer to the direct Testimony of our Senses which your Authors have always objected I have enquired into what they have said on this Subject and found five different Solutions Some of them have absolutely denied without reserve that our Senses have any certainty Others acknowledg that these Faculties do not deceive us in the things comprehended in the order of Nature but they will not suffer us to consult them in Matters of Faith. Some allow them a certainty in Matters of Faith but say 't is a certainty inferior to that of Faith. Most of them assure us That the Senses do not perceive the Substance so that the Error wherein one falls by persuading one's self that the Eucharist is Bread and Wine is not in the Senses but in our Reason Others do in fine acknowledg that our Senses do well perceive the Substance but in an indirect manner and with great incertitude so that their report is not certain but in reference to the accidents I am well assured the two first Answers be false and should I not otherwise know it your second Reason would not permit me to doubt of it For in fine were our Senses without certainty whether in general or in particular in Matters of Faith the Proofs of Christian Religion would be but mere delusions as you sufficiently convinced me Yesterday The third of these Answers supposes a Thing which is false to wit That a Faculty which has certainty may ever have need of being corrected It supposes another which is very doubtful and in which our Divines are not agreed viz. That Faith has more certainty than the Testimony of our Senses Moreover granting all this to be true I know not whether one might make use of it against your Reasons You do not speak of the certainty which a Man that believes already may have of the Truths of Salvation but only of that which one might give an Infidel But the means to perswade an Infidel that the Senses may deceive must be by convincing him of the Divinity of our Religion which accuses the Senses of Infidelity And the way to convince him of the Divinity of this Religion must be by Reasons which suppose that these Faculties do not deceive us I do not then make any great reckoning of these three Answers and therefore I shall not oppose them against you But 't is not the same with the two last for if it be true that our Senses reach not so far as the Substance but perceive only the Accidents all that these Faculties learn us of the Eucharist is That this Sacrament still retains the Accidents of Bread and Wine which is a true Notion and contains nothing contrary to our belief Should we say moreover with those who make the second Answer That our Senses well perceive the Substance but yet in a manner indirect and subject to Error and Deceit one may truly say That Transubstantiation is contrary to the report of our Senses but not to this direct and certain report whence springs this firm perswasion called Experimental Knowledg It will be only contrary to this indirect and uncertain Report which can only establish a tottering Opinion which is almost as often false as true This being granted you cannot reestablish your Proofs unless you distinctly maintain these three things First That the Senses do perceive the very Substance it self either directly or indirectly however with certainty The second That this Certainty which our Senses give us touching the Substances is greater than that of the Facts whence are drawn the Proofs of Christianity The third That this Certainty is the ground of these Proofs and that they cannot subsist if our Senses may be deceived in the discerning of these kind of Objects ' I would be an easy matter for me said I to him to maintain this against all opposition But others (a) See the Treatise of the Authority of the Senses having already done it and this Discussion being likely to engage us into difficult Enquiries and the force of my Arguments not depending thereon I therefore am willing to wave that dispute and betake my self to what is so evident and undeniable as I am sure must satisfy you Will you not grant me Sir That we do every day discern one Substance from another Will you not grant me for Example that I now distinguish whatever is in this Chamber and that I can truly say This is a Table this is a Book this is a Bed this a Chair I do not say there 's certainty in these Judgments I make I do not determine which is the Faculty which makes me do it I only say I do do it Can you deny me this to be true or shall I set about the proving of it No answer'd he A Man must be void of Sense that requires it Will you then in the second place deny me pursued I that I make this judgment by some of the Faculties which God has given me I mean those Faculties purely natural which are common to all Men and perform their Functions without any supernatural assistance internal or external without any external Revelation without any inward illumination of the Spirit I am far from denying it answered he and I am perswaded there 's no Catholick that questions it This said I is enough and I need no more for the subsistence of my Proofs And to convince you of what I say I shall bring them to this Head I shall retrench whatever you dislike in them and instead of the Senses which trouble you I shall only speak of that natural Faculty which makes us distinguish one Substance from another You 'l see they will keep all their strength and be wholly sheltred from your Distinctions I begin with the second There being some necessity for it It consisted of these three Propositions 1. If Transubstantiation has place our Senses deceive us in the report they make of the Eucharist 2. If our Senses deceive us in the report which they make of the Eucharist they may as well deceive us in every thing else 3. If our Senses may deceive us in every thing the Proofs of Christianity are of no solidity This is the sum of my Second Proof which I offered you yesterday Now be pleas'd to observe how I further express it 1. If Transubstantiation has place the natural Faculty which God has given us whereby to distinguish one Substance from another this Faculty deceives us in the notice it gives us of the Eucharist 2. If the natural Faculty whereby we distinguish one Substance from another be mistaken on the Subject of the Eucharist nothing hinders but that it may be the fame on other Substances 3. If the natural Faculty whereby we discern the Substances has no certainty the Proofs for Christian Religion be of no weight You see Sir that forming my Argument in this manner your Distinctions are beside the purpose and
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
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
and on the other all Authors of your Communion who have Treated on the Controversies which separates us For as to the First did not Justin Martyr Tertullian Minutius Felix Theophilus of Antioch Origen Arnobius Lactantius St. Augustin St. Cyril and a great many others oppose Paganism with the absurdities and extravagancies of its mysteries Did not the same Fathers writing against Hereticks use this very argument affirming the Chimera's and extravagancies which these people believ'd cou'd in no sort come from God being apparently false and contrary to all the lights of Reason Have not in sine all your Authors who write against us followed the same method tho with different success See Bellarmin Gregory de Valentia Richlieu the Author of Prejudices and generally all your Controvertists There 's not one of them but has pretended to shew our Doctrine is not of God because of the absurdities therein contained All these Authors argue on two Principles The one That God has revealed nothing which is false The other That whatever is contrary to Reason is thereby contrary to Truth Take away which of these Principles you will and all the Arguments of these Writers will be meer Sophisms St. Augustin proceeds farther He says we ought to forsake the Communion of the Orthodox Church and pass over into that of the Hereticks and despise whatever you respect as the foundations of your Faith cou'd it be made appear the most dangerous Hereticks such as were then the Manichees taught the Truth * Aug. cont Epist fund cap. 4. and this is what he teaches us in this famous passage which your Doctors have ever in their mouths and wherein he declares that several things retain him in the bosom of the Catholick Church The consent of all people The authority grounded on Miracles and confirm'd by Antiquity Succession and even the name of Catholick You affirm these are the props and foundations of the true Faith and I will not now set on shewing you the contrary We may do this another time if you think fitting At present I am willing to suppose what you say I pray then consider what Saint Augustin adds Amongst you says he where I see nothing like this we hear nothing on all hands but promises of Truth and I confess adds he That could you shew it me so clearly that I could not doubt of it I must prefer it before whatever withholds me in the Catholick Church You see here how St. Augustin acknowledges That the evidence which excludes doubtings is to be preferred before the motives of Faith. He does not say that if the Manichees had this evidence on their side we shou'd despise it and offer against it the certainty of Faith as you pretend He says the contrary He says we shou'd yield and that which hinder'd him from doing it was That whatever the Manichees said They had not this evidence which they vaunted of That they promised great matters but cou'd not shew them Bellarmin does something like this * Bell. de Motis Eccles l. 4. cap. 11. He reckons amongst the Notes of the Church the holiness of its Doctrine and makes this holiness consist in her teaching nothing which is false and imposing nothing which is unjust and will have us judg of this by the lights of Reason He afterwards makes the application of this to the Pagans Jews Mahometans ancient Hereticks and lastly to us He shews as to the first That they have taught things absurd and abominable and attempting afterwards to shew this on our Subject he thence concludes none of these Societies is the true Church By this way of disputing he plainly subjects your Church to this examination and tacitly implies she may be rejected provided she can be convinced of all which he accuses the others For besides that he cannot take it ill That the Infidels and Hereticks should treat him in the same manner as he uses them besides this his greatest pretension is That the Church must be known by his marks seeing then one of his marks is That she teaches nothing which is false he hereby consents to the rejection of your Church if it can be shew'd from Reason That she teaches things false and absurd It cannot be deny'd but Bellarmine has had some Reason to deal thus For 't wou'd certainly be a great scandal to the Faithful and much more to Infidels cou'd it be clearly and plainly shew'd That Christian Religion teaches things directly contrary to Reason In effect seeing we embrace this Religion only on the account of the proofs which authorize it and of whose goodness we cannot judg but by Reason shou'd this Reason meet with things evidently false in this Religion she wou'd hereby carry us off as far from it as she cou'd bring us near it by making us comprehend these proofs Moreover making two contrary judgments on the subject of Religion the one That it is true because the proofs which authorize it are good the other that it is false because it teaches things absurd she must of necessity be deceived in the one or the other and so neither is certain The Author of the Art of Thinking was not of this mind says Mr. N. It 's certain says he * Art of Thinking part 4. ch 11. That Divine Faith should have more force on our minds than our own Reason and this from Reason it self which shews us we should always prefer what is more certain to what is less It being more certain that what God says is true than what our Reason perswades us because 't is more impossible God shou'd deceive us than our Reason All this said I appears to me false and ill digested and 't is easie to observe herein such a slight of hand as shews little love to truth To see this more distinctly be pleas'd to consider That the certainty of every act of Faith depends on the perswasion which we have of two Truths which are in some sort their props and foundations The first That whatever God attests is true The second That God has attested the Doctrine which we believe You see that if we doubt of either of these two Truths it 's impossible our Faith can be firm To what purpose is it to know that God does not lye if we doubt God has not said a thing And granting he has said something if we doubt he has said in particular what 's proposed to us to believe And further what signifies it for us to know That God has reveal'd what 's offer'd us if we doubt whether all which God says be true It 's then equally necessary to know these two Truths but they be not always equally evident The first is ever incomparably more than the second It 's always highly evident That whatever God says is true and therefore no body differs about it no not the Athiests For tho the Atheists hold there 's no God yet they acknowledg if there were one he would never speak any thing but what
is true But it 's commonly far less evident That God has reveal'd what he has in effect reveal'd Whence it happens men are so divided about the things which are pretended to be revealed from God. Yet this Author says nothing of this second perswasion He speaks only of the first He conceals the weak side and shews only the strongest It 's certainer says he that what God says is true than what our Reason perswades us Be it so But is it certainer that God has revealed such and such a Doctrine than 't is certain one and two are three and that if I think I am This he will not say Yet if he does not say it he must acknowledg he has ill reasoned For if what Reason says be more certain than it 's certain God has reveal'd the Doctrine of which one is perswaded he shall have far less certainty of the Truth of this Doctrine than of what Reason sees distinctly But let us stop a while at what this Author has chosen and which he has made his strong hold It 's certainer says he That what God says is true than what our Reason perswades us He makes Reason to say this and consequently his sense is that this act of Reason which perswades us That what God says is true is more certain than what our Reason perswades us But what does he mean Does he mean that this act is more certain than any act of Reason whatever If this be so he contradicts himself For this very act being an act of Reason if it has more certainty than any act of Reason 't will be more certain than it self Does he mean that this act is the certainest of all and that there 's no other which equals the certainty of this If this be his sense 't is easie to shew him his mistake First is this act more certain than that which perswades us of the existence of God Let him say which he will he cannot escape me For to what purpose is it to know That Truth is essential to God supposing he exists if it be less certain that he does exist If on the contrary these two acts be equally certain and if the actual existence be as clearly comprehended in the Idea we have of God as the unquestionable truth of what he attests the perswasion we have of this second Truth is not the certainest of all those perceived by Reason seeing the perswasion of Gods existence is no less certain Is it more certain That whatever God says is true than it 's certain That nothing of what appears to us is false This no man will say seeing we judg neither that God exists nor that whatever he says is true nor that we can affirm of each thing whatever is contain'd in the distinct Idea we have of it but because all this appears evident So that here we have a third perswasion which is no less certain than that which we were to think to be the most infallible But says this Author God is more uncapable of deceiving us than our Reason is of being deceived I grant it But how do we know this but by our Reason and consequently we have only a certitude of Reason and we are not more certain of it than that we are certain That our Reason does not deceive us whether in this or other things which be as evident as this This little subtilty might pass did we not fear being mistaken in matters of Faith without accusing even God himself of deceiving us But a man must be a fool that has such an irrational thought When we do doubt of matters of Faith this doubt does never tend to perswade us God has deceiv'd us in revealing to us what is hard to be believ'd but rather perswades us we are mistaken in taking that for a Divine Revelation which is only a Doctrine of men So those who doubt do never compare the certitude of their Reason with the certainty of Gods Testimony Neither have they ever the least temptation to imagin the first greater than the second But they always compare this act of their Reason which has perswaded them God has revealed to 'em what appears to them incredible with this other act of their Reason which makes them find incredible what they believ'd God had revealed to them And therefore we may cease to believe without imagining God has deceiv'd us or that our Reason is more incapable of being deceiv'd than God of deceiving us And consequently from Gods being more incapable of deceiving us than our Reason of being deceiv'd does in no wise follow That Faith has greater certainty than Reason Let this Author then pardon me if I say ' Twou'd be a grievous scandal to Infidels were it so That Christian Religion taught things directly contrary to Reason and which shou'd appear such not at first sight but on mature deliberation after all possible care to prevent being deceived and after long and serious reflexions which will not at all permit doubtings of the matter 's being what it appears But it is also true Christian Religion has not a Doctrine which is in this sort contrary to the lights of Reason and this cannot be denied without contradicting all your School-Divines For first if it be true Christianity teaches things contrary to Reason what will become of what Cardinal Richlieu and the Author of the Art of Thinking say The first affirms (a) Richl method Book 1. ch 1. That natural light deceives no body and the other says (b) Art of Thinking part 4. ch 11. That things exactly consider'd what we see evidently and from Reason or from the faithful report of our Senses is never contrary to what is taught us by Divine Faith. What will become of what all your Divines say (c) Vasq in 1. disp 123. cap. 1 Valent Tom. 3. disp 1 quaest 1 Punct 4 Bell. de Not. Eccles cap. 11. Maerat de fid disp 16 Sect. 5. That the Mystery of the Trinity is far above Reason but not contrary to it Wou'd it not be contrary to Reason if being true it shou'd appear to it evidently false What will you think of what these same Divines teach after your Angelical Doctor (d) Tho. Aqu. part 1. quaest 1. art 8. That 't is impossible to make Demonstrations against the Truths of Salvation As Faith says he is grounded on infallible Truth and it being impossible to shew that which is contrary to Truth so it is clear that the proofs made use of against Faith are not Demonstrations but Objections which are solvible What will become of what passes for unquestionable in your Schools (e) Cajet in 1 quaest 1 art 8 Vasq in 1 disp 11 cap. 2 3. Valent. ubi seq Conint de act sup disp ii dub ii Rhod. Tom. 1 disp 6 quaest 1. Sect. 3. Mart. de fid disp 5 Sect. 4. That one may Demonstratively prove not in truth That the Mystery of the Trinity and all the others are