The Catholic Doctrine of the Eucharist in All Ages, Book 1 · Chapter 4
CHAP. IV.
My fourth Obſervation Justifi'd; viz. That we need but oppoſe our Proofs of Fact against the Author of the Perpetuity's Arguments, to make them Invalid.
IT will be needleſs to prove this Obſervation, ſeeing Mr. Arnaud acknowledgeth enough to eſtabliſh the Truth and Juſtice of it. We do not in any wiſe pretend, ſaith he, to deny him (he means me) the uſe of his Proofs of Fact, (if he hath any) provided he makes a right uſe of them, and follows the Rules of Reaſon, in ſo doing. He may then Conclude Lib. 1. C. 2. P. 15.as long as he will, that the Alteration in Queſtion is poſſible, in making it appear if he can, That it hath actually hapned. He may deny the Impoſſibility of a thing, by proving its actual Exiſtence. All this is allowed him, neither are we ſo unreaſonable, to deprive him of theſe kind of Proofs. He wrongs the Author of the Perpetuity, in charging him with ſuch a Thought. This Acknowledgment is not of ſo ſmall Importance, but that it deſerves to be conſidered; for it perfectly overthrows the Author of the Perpetuity's real Deſign, and makes all thoſe great Hopes he conceived of his Method, to vaniſh away, in two or three Periods. We have allready ſeen that he hath offered it, as a ſufficient Means to convince us; and make us confeſs, by the Evidence of Truth, if we are not deſperately Obſtinate, that the Church of Rome's Belief touching the Myſtery of the Euchariſt, is the ſame with that of all Antiquity. But this Diſcourſe do's not well agree with that of Mr. Arnaud's. For, if this Method will lead us ſo far on one Hand, as the making of us come to this laſt Confeſſion, mentioned by the Author of the Perpetuity, the Diſpute ends there, and our Proofs of Fact are Inſignificant, ſeeing they are Succors which will ſtand us in no ſtead, being already overthrown. And on the other, if we may employ our Proofs of Fact againſt the Method, provided we make a right uſe of them; if we may deny the Impoſſibility of an Alteration, in ſhewing it hath actually hapned; we have at leaſt the Power to Suſpend this Acknowledgment, to which the Author of the Method would oblige us, until ſuch time as it is examined whether we make a right Uſe of our Proofs of Fact, and draw a true Concluſion from them. But how ſhall we make theſe two Gentlemen agree? Seeing one of 'em would have the Diſpute ended by his Arguments; and the other would have us keep it ſtill up by our Proofs of Fact. The one pretends, we ought to reckon our ſelves Vanquiſhed as ſoon as ever he has done ſpeaking, and the other gives us time, and allows us to produce our Paſſages. If we Expound the Author of the Perpetuity's Meaning by Mr. Arnaud, he hath undertaken no more than the bringing us to make this forementioned Acknowledgment, Excluſively; for between his Proofs and our Confeſſion, we may put in our Proofs of Fact, which is to ſay in ſhort, that he hath ſuppoſed his Method able to effect any thing, but what it ought. And if we expound Mr. Arnaud's Meaning, by that of the Author of the Perpetuity, he deſigns, that we ſhall not make uſe of our Proofs of Fact till ſuch time as we acknowledg there hath no Alteration hapned; which is to ſay, that he will not grant us the uſe of them, til we confeſs, they are of no uſe to us. So that ſhould we comply with both theſe Gentlemen, we oppoſe and contradict our ſelves; for we muſt then acknowledg that we have bin to blame, and yet at the ſame time maintain that the Reaſon is on our ſide: And ſo again we ſhall acknowledg, the Doctrine of the Church of Rome is the ſame with that of the Primitive Church, and yet ſtill prove that there hath bin made an eſſential Alteration. And thus are we guided by theſe Gentlemens Speculations.
TO ſpeak ingenuouſly, I take Mr. Arnaud to be a very bad defender of the Method; for he not only forſakes it in a Capital Queſtion, wherein its Honour is chiefly concerned, (which is to know whether it be ſufficient to Convince us in the State we are in, and make us confeſs the Truth of what it proves) but he moreover expoſes the Uſeleſneſs and Vanity of it; for if after all his Endeavours, we may ſtill return to our old Proofs of Fact, I ſee not any Uſe that can be made of it; unleſs it be to entangle and lengthen out our Debate, wherefore I think it may well be laid aſide, and the Author of it content himſelf with his Method of Diſcuſſion.
NOW to clear up this Diſpute, it will not be amiſs to examine here, what Mr. Arnaud tells us touching theſe two ſorts of Methods of Preſcription, and Diſcuſſion. The Method of Preſcription, ſaith he, is that in which, by the Examination of certain principal Points, the Controverſy is decided, Lib. 1. C. 3. P. 16.the other is that in which is particularly laid down the Proofs of all the Matters debated, and all the Objections againſt them anſwered, From thence he takes occaſion to diſcourſe of the Advantages which the Church hath over us by theſe Methods of Preſcription; and afterwards coming to a Concluſion, It is neceſſary addeth he, For the Method of the Preſcriptions keeping its Advantages, and producing the Benefit expected from it, that it remain ſeparate from the Method of Diſcuſſion, becauſe otherwiſe we ſhould inevitably fall into Prolixity, and the Perplexity of particular Examinations, which we intend to avoid. So that, whereas the Diſcourſes deſigned for the Diſcuſſion of particular Matters, ought to be written with the greateſt Exactneſs, no difficulty, which may perplex the Mind being omitted in them; So on the contrary, thoſe which are made according to the Method of Preſcription, ought preciſely to contain no more than may ſerve to illuſtrate the Proof which a Man intends to make uſe of, and it would certainly be a great Defect to joyn thereunto the Examination of particular Queſtions, which do but confound the Mind by their Multiplicity. At length he concludes, That the Author of the Perpetuity could not with Prudence undertake to anſwer Mr. Aubertin's chief Difficulties in his Treatiſe. That had this Treatiſe bin made according to the Method of Diſcuſſion, he had bin in a manner obliged thereunto, but being a Method of Preſcription he could not do it without ſpoiling his Deſign, and evidencing he underſtood not the Nature and Advantage of the Method he followed, which was ſhort, perſpicuous, and accommodated to all Capacities.
ALL this Diſcourſe is nothing to the Purpoſe, for by it we underſtand no more than this, that when men conſent to make uſe of the Method of Preſcription, they muſt only ſerve themſelves with it according to the Rules which it enjoyneth. Very good! But this decides nothing if we are not agreed, but on the contrary, diſpute againſt it, for then the Queſtion is no longer, how we ought to uſe the Method of Preſcription, nor whether it ought to be joyned with that of Diſcuſſion, this is no longer the Point, but the Queſtion is only whether we ought to uſe it or not. Mr. Arnaud perpetually impoſes on his Readers, he carries them off from one place to another, from the matter in Queſtion, to that which does not concern it, and thereupon entertains them at his Eaſe. We do not diſpute the manner after which the Author of the Perpetuity ought to have ordered his Method of Preſcription, ſuppoſing this were a proper Place for it, this is one of Mr. Arnaud's Deluſions; but our Diſpute lies, whether he could reaſonably uſe it againſt our Proofs, even ſo far as to promiſe the Effect which he hath pretended to draw from thence. Now this is a Difference which hath bin already diſpatched by what I repreſented in the foregoing Chapters. And in effect, ſeeing he would convince us there hath bin no Alteration made touching the Euchariſt, notwithſtanding we are prepoſſeſſed to the Contrary, by literal Proofs, how can he, I ſay, take from us this Perſwaſion, and give us another quite contrary to it, unleſs his Method of Preſcription hath an Evidence and Certainty beyond that of the Proofs aforementioned? This he ought to ſhew us, and not ſtraggle into the common place of Methods of Preſcription. But this would be to undertake to ſhew a thing impoſſible; for a Method made up of Proofs taken from Arguments: all of 'em drawn from a genere probabili, as the Schools term them, could not ſurmount the ſtrength of our Proofs of Fact, which depend on the ſight of our Eyes and common Senſe, a great part of which propoſe the thing imediately in it ſelf.
BUT how then? may we never eſtabliſh our Sentiments by a Method of Preſcription? We do not ſay ſo. We only mean thus much, that when the Sentiments of Perſons are oppoſed, which are grounded on Proofs of Fact, and which they believe to be (as I have already ſaid) as certain as any thing which falls under the Judgments of their Senſes, it is then I ſay an unreaſonable thing, to pretend to make them alter their Opinion by a Method of Preſcription, grounded on moral Impoſſibilities. This is the Knot of the Queſtion. If a man hath to do only with People prepoſſeſſed in favour of his Opinion, he may then uſe his Method of Preſcription, to confirm them in the thoughts they have already entertained. There could nothing be alledged againſt his manner of Proceeding, the ſtrength of his Proofs are in that Caſe only to be conſidered. If he has to do with indifferent Perſons, that is to ſay, with ſuch who have not yet taken any ſide, and deſire to be inſtructed, he might then likewiſe uſe a Method of Preſcription, provided his Principles be well grounded, and his Concluſions more deciſive, than any thing which can be alledged againſt them; There need then be nothing to be replied, unleſs there were ſomething indirect in his Method; but this could do no more at fartheſt, but only oblige People to examine with greater Care the Truth of his Principles, and that of its Conſequences, and not make them reject them; for indirect Arguments conclude ſometimes with as great Evidence as direct ones. Nay I will not fear to ſay, that when he ſhould have to do with Perſons prepoſſeſſed with Opinions contrary to what he would perſwade them, he might then lawfully uſe a Method of Preſcription, for it would not be ſufficient to ſay that a man is prepoſſeſſed by another Method, nor object that that of Preſcription proceedeth indirectly, or follows not the Order of Nature, theſe kind of Objections may cauſe Suſpicion; but they ought not to proceed ſo far, as to make men abſolutely reject Arguments, which perhaps, are attended with a greater Perſpicuity and Certitude, than thoſe which have occaſioned the Prejudice. But as to what concerns us, againſt whom the Author of the Perpetuity hath written, we are in none of theſe Circumſtances; being not only led by a natural and direct Way in my Hypotheſis, and by Proofs which propoſe us the Point in Queſtion immediately in it ſelf; but by Proofs which we believe to be above all Contradiction, and yet he would have us change our Minds, by Proofs which are not only indirect and mediate ones, and which at fartheſt can amount to no more but meer Probabilities, being applied to the Subject in hand. We have then Reaſon to ſay, that theſe are mear Chimeras in our reſpect, and that without conſidering them any otherwiſe than in their own kind, and in the matter on which they treat, they cannot make ſuch a ſtrong Impreſſion on us, as to deface that which we have already received; for 'tis not likely that any rational Man will be more affected with Probabilities, than with ſolid Proofs which are grounded on common Senſe.
MOREOVER this is not the proper Place to make Compariſons, of the Methods of Proteſtants with them of the Church of Rome. It may be made apparent that we have ſurer and ſhorter ones than thoſe which it propoſeth. But this is not our Queſtion, and I am reſolved not to follow all Mr. Arnauds fruitleſs Digreſſions. His Words coſt him nothing, and People are diſpoſed to receive them, be they what they will, as Oracles. But 'tis not the ſame with me, for, ſhould I wander from my Subject as often as he does, there would be few Readers who would not be tired with our Debate. I ſhall only tell him, he is miſtaken when he imagines that to be of our Communion, a man is obliged to an examination of all the Controverſies which to this day have perplexed the Chriſtian Religion. We have the holy Scriptures which every man may read, or hear them read publickly: Which do fully and clearly contain whatſoever is neceſſary to Salvation, and by the Concurrence of Gods Grace, even the moſt illiterate may judge whether the Miniſter, under whom they live, is able and willing to ſhew them the way of Life, and whether our Society be the true Church. For in this Caſe we need but examine two things. The firſt whether we are taught in it all things clearly contained in the Word of God, and ſecondly, if there be nothing taught which corrupteth the Strength and Efficacy of theſe things; for if we find in this Communion wherewithal to ſatisfy our Conſciences, and to live in the fear of God, and to aſcertain our ſelves in our Saviours Promiſes: and moreover, if nothing be taught or practiſed which overthroweth the fundamental Doctrines of Chriſtianity. For if nothing doth offend the Conſcience, we ought to be perſwaded, we are in the true Church, it being needleſs for us to enter into a Diſcuſſion of all the Errors which have troubled, or ſtill perplex the Chriſtian Religion. After the ſame manner as 'tis not neceſſary to Salvation, for a man to know all the particular Hereſies which have troubled the Peace of the Church, nor to make a formal and poſitive Renunciation of them, for it is ſufficient that we are not tainted with any of them, and firmly to believe the fundamental Truths of Religion, neither is it likewiſe neceſſary to aſſure our ſelves, we are in the true Church, that we inform our ſelves of the ſeveral Opinions of men: It may ſuffice us to know that the Church of which we are Members, teacheth what it ought, concerning Gods Glory and our Souls Edification, and maintains nothing which doth not anſwer theſe Ends. Now this every man may find in our Church, for if he compare his Miniſters Doctrine with the Word of God, he will be ſatisfied that what he teacheth is exactly contained therein, he ſhall perceive likewiſe that we mix no Doctrines of men with it, which overthrow its Foundation. This way of Examination is ſhort, eaſy, and proportionable to the Capacity of all People, and thereupon there may be made a Judgment, as certain as if every ſingle Controverſy had bin examined apart.
THE moſt ſimple then among us may live in perfect Peace; But it is not ſo in the Church of Rome; for theſe Methods of Preſcription, mentioned by Mr. Arnaud, are not built but upon one of theſe two Principles, either that the Church, which is to ſay, the Body of the People, cannot err, nor ceaſe to be the true Church, in ceaſing to believe what it believes, or in beginning to believe that which it did not believe; or that the repreſentative Church, that is to ſay, the Councils, or the Pope, cannot err. The firſt of theſe two Principles is natural; the ſecond is of a Supernatural Order. I handle not at preſent this Point, whether they are falſe or true at the Bottom, it ſufficeth me to ſay that they are in their own Nature ſo difficult and require ſo much time, that to expect ordinary Apprehenſions to examine them, is plainly to deride them: I ſhall ſpeak of the firſt of theſe in the ſixth Chapter: where I ſhall make it appear that 'tis impoſſible for a man to extricate himſelf out of thoſe Perplexities wherein the Author of the Perpetuity engages him, or to reſt ſecure on the Grounds on which it's built. It ſuffices me to ſay, that People are not commonly ſo regular in things, which they believe by a diſtinct Faith, but that they are willing likewiſe to receive new Doctrines, and enlarge by this means the number of popular Myſteries. The Author of the Perpetuity tells us, that the Truths of Divine Grace were never popular in all the Conſequences drawn from Theology: and yet we know that all imaginable care has bin taken to make theſe Conſequences popular. There has bin made on this Subject, I know not how many Books adapted to Womens Capacity; there have bin Catechiſms compiled, intit'led Catechiſms of Grace. Which evidently ſhew, it has bin believed, that it was not impoſſible to make the People recieve by way of Illuſtration or Addition, Articles which they knew not before, whence it follows it has bin ſuppoſed they are capable of Change; for elſe to what purpoſe ſerve theſe Catechiſms, if the People cannot of themſelves, either diminiſh, or augment the number of Myſteries which they hold by a diſtinct Faith. This Principle is not then ſo certain, but that it may be doubted of, nor ſo clear, or evident in it ſelf, that the moſt ſimple may be aſcertained in it, having before their Eyes a Matter which appeareth ſo contrary to it.
AS to the ſecond, it is evident that the Queſtion of the Infallibility of Councils, or Popes, is not ſo eaſie, that the moſt ſimple People may maſter it. All Societies ſeparate from the Church of Rome oppoſe it. If this Church hath this, ſhe hath it by a particular Priviledg, which muſt be examined before it be received. For it cannot be entertained on the bare word of this Church, without falling into an extravagancy and ridiculous Circle, which is, that we believe the Church of Rome to be Infallible, becauſe ſhe ſaies ſo; and we believe what ſhe ſaies in this matter to be true, becauſe ſhe is infallible. Before that the moſt ſimple People can acquieſce in its Authority, this Authority muſt alſo appear to them to be undeniable, by things independent on the Church of Rome, and which may be judged of diſtinctly by themſelves. Otherwiſe this would be to begin an Argument by its Concluſion. For this would be near the matter ſuch a kind of reaſoning as this is. That the Church of Rome is Infallible in what ſhe ſaith; now ſhe affirmeth ſhe is infallible, from whence it follows that ſhe is ſo. A perſon in whom we ſuppoſe there is the leaſt Dram of Senſe, will never be convinced by this Argument. The Church of Rome then muſt firſt make out its priviledge of Infallibility to the moſt ſimple man living, before it can be ſuppoſed that ſuch a one, or any other will receive its Doctrine, founded on this Principle. Now I affirm that this Diſquiſition is beyond the reach of mean Capacities, for if it be proved by way of Scripture, it is not ſo plainly deſcribed therein, but that the Places on which it is grounded may be capable of another Senſe. They are controverted Places, and a man muſt read whole Volums to prevent his being raſh or paſſionate in his Judgment. Now if a man be able to make ſuch a Diſquiſition, and a Judgment accordingly, he will then be able to enter upon the Examination of particular Doctrines, and to diſcern the Conformity which each of 'em hath with the Scripture, in relation to what is produced on either ſide.
NOW if this Doctrine be attempted to be proved by Arguments: he that endeavours to do this, engageth himſelf yet farther into tedious Prolixities, and Difficulties, which ſurpaſs ordinary Apprehenſions. In a word Mr. Arnaud doth himſelf decide the Queſtion. This Infallibility, ſaith he, Lib. 1. C. 7. P. 66.is not a thing clear in it ſelf, ſeeing it dependeth only on the Will of God, which he hath made known unto us by the Scripture. The Church not being naturally Infallible, we muſt prove that it is ſupernaturally ſo, either by the Principles of Faith, or by a long Series of Arguments. Ordinary Capacities are not able to examine this long ſequel of Arguments, nor ſufficiently to diſcuſs the Principles of Faith, to diſcern if this pretended Infallibility may be drawn thence. And 'tis for this Reaſon, that the Author of the Perpetuity hath choſen rather to take the popular Infallibility for his Principle, than that of Priviledge. Mr. Arnaud teſtifies as much; for ſpeaking of the Impoſſibility of the Churches altering its Belief on the Articles which are not popular, that is to ſay, of this Infallibility of Priviledg now in Queſtion. Reaſon, ſaith he, doth not clearly ſhew us this Impoſſibility. So that this Author (meaning the Author of the Perpetuity) being deſirous to ground his Arguments on Lib. 1. C. 7. Pag. 68.a Principle of Reaſon and humane Evidence, and not on a Principle of Iradition and Authority, or on abſtracted and remote Arguings, he muſt then neceſſarily contain himſelf within the reach of things, in which the Impoſſibility of a Change appeareth plainly by Reaſon. There are particular ways of proving that the Church never fell into an Error, on any Point which it propoſeth. But it's evident to Senſe, that the whole Church cannot fall into Errors, relating to matters of Faith, ſeeing they are diſtinctly known and understood by all the Faithful. The Infallibility then of Priviledge is not a thing which is immediately apparent to Senſe, there needs more abſtracted and remote Arguments to prove it, whence it appears that Perſons of ordinary Capacities are not able to do this. Much leſs are they fit for this, ſhould this Point be undertaken to be proved by the way of Tradition, for it would be to ſend them far enough, in obliging them to read the Fathers and Councils, to be informed in this matter; beſides that the Fathers and Councils are themſelves the repreſentative Church, and whoſe Authority is now in Queſtion and ſo conſequently, their Teſtimony upon this account would ſignify nothing.
IT is then manifeſt, that common Apprehenſions not being able to aſcertain themſelves in the Infallibility of Priviledge, as I come now from proving, nor in the Point of popular Infallibility, as I have already hinted, and which I ſhall do more fully in the end, they cannot remain in the Church of Rome, with a ſafe Conſcience, there being nothing which holds them in it but deceitful Bands, ſuch as are, Birth, Education, Intereſt, Cuſtom, and the Example of others, which are things very unproper to determine an honeſt Mind in matters of Salvation. They are then obliged to range themſelves on the ſide of the Reformiſts, from whom they receive for a Rule, things clearly contained in the Holy Scripture, and where they may be aſſured there is none of them withheld in the publick Miniſtry, and moreover, where there is nothing taught which corrupteth the Efficacy of Gods Grace. If it be replied, that we muſt firſt, ſatisfy ſuch Perſons by proving the Divinity of the Scriptures. I anſwer firſt, that this Principle doth not fall under Debate, ſeeing the matter in hand relates not to the ſeveral Religions in the World, but only to the particular Opinions of Chriſtians, for they all in general acknowledg the Divine Authority of the Holy Scriptures. Secondly, I anſwer, that the Church of Rome is no leſs obliged to prove this Authority of the Scriptures, than other Churches, ſeeing that before ſhe can make her ſelf acknowledged as Infallible, ſhe muſt evidence her ſelf to be a Church, which ſhe cannot do, if the Divinity of the Scripture be denyed her, and ſhe will not take the Pains to prove it; beſides that all the Proofs by which ſhe pretends to eſtabliſh her Infallibility, depend either mediately or immediately on the Scripture, and conſequently they ſuppoſe its Divinity. But in fine, I ſay the Characters of Divinity, which ſhine in all parts of theſe Writings, are ſo lively, and ſo many in Number, that the moſt ordinary Capacities cannot but be affected with them, if they apply themſelves to the Conſideration of them, with a pure Heart and unſpotted Conſcience. Now this is it, to which the meaneſt Capacity is obliged, as well as the greateſt, and if they do it not, their Damnation is juſt, and their Impiety without Excuſe.
AND this is what I thought I was obliged to ſpeak, briefly on theſe pretended Methods of Preſcription, this not being a proper Place to handle this Point more largly. But to return to the principal Subject of our Diſpute, we are obliged to Mr. Arnaud, in that he takes it not ill, I endeavour to prove by ſeveral Paſſages, that the Alteration pretended to be impoſſible, is real and true. The Author of the Perpetuity muſt likewiſe conſent to this, ſeeing Mr. Arnaud hath ſaid it; and if he doth agree to it, he muſt ſuffer me to draw this Conſequence, that I could have hindred the Effect he promiſed himſelf from his Method, which is, to make us confeſs if we are not extream Obſtinate, that the Doctrine of the Church of Rome, touching the Sacrament, is the ſame with that of all Antiquity. This Confeſſion cannot be juſtly extorted from us, as long as there ſhall be any reaſonable Occaſion of diſputing this Point between us, and the Production of ſome Paſſages of my Writings, ſtarteth a particular Debate, which Mr. Arnaud approveth, for he only complains, I have not produced them in a right manner, but mained, and diſlocated from their Conſequences, and that I have concealed all thoſe which might be oppoſed, and underſtood. But this Complaint is Unjuſt, and he ſhould not conceal the Reaſon I alleaged to juſtify the form of my Abridgment, which is, That that Book was made in Relation to that of Mr. Aubertins, whoſe Proofs I take upon me to defend. If he did not like to inſert two large Volums in Folio, into a Preface, neither have I liked to put a great Volum into a ſhort Anſwer, which contains no more than thirty Pages.
I never pretended that my Abridgment alone, ſhould abſolutely determine his Thoughts. I know this cannot be expected; but I was willing to ſhew the way which muſt be taken for the finding out of the Truth, which is to make an exact Search into the Belief of the Fathers; I deſign'd to ſhew them of my Communion, what might be objected againſt the Author of the Perpetuity's Arguments, and thereby obliged him to diſpute henceforward in a regular manner, we may be permitted to make Abridgments of this kind, and that of mine hath nothing but what diſtinguiſheth it from that which we call A Heap of Difficulties, the matters of Proof with which it is furniſhed, their Nature and Force, do contribute that Truth to it, which an Abridgment ought to have, and the relation it hath to Mr. Aubertin's Book makes it evident and certain. There can be nothing more required to conclude that the Doctrine of the Church of Rome, is not the ſame with that of the Fathers, and that there has bin made an Alteration, for the Principles of this are marked out, and their Conſequence doth plainly appear, that exact perſpicuity which ought ever to accompany Arguments is in the Book to which we refer the Reader; Mr. Arnaud need not conclude then, Lib. 1. C. 4. P. 30.that there are Difficulties in the Doctrine of the Euchariſt, for we may eaſily conclude from what I ſaid, that the Doctrine of the Antient Church hath not bin the ſame with that which is taught at this Day by the Church of Rome. His Miſtake lies in that he has only read theſe kind of Abridgments, which allways refer to another work, in ſuppoſing that the Principles they mark out are clearly eſtabliſhed in that Book, to which they refer, and from whence they draw their Concluſion. And this is all that can be deſired in this matter, but yet this is a way of concluding; and concluding too quite another thing than what Mr. Arnaud imagined, viz. That there are Difficulties in the Euchariſt. I confeſs that to determine his Judgment, we muſt not regulate our ſelves only by this Concluſion, we muſt go to the Spring, and ſee whether what is ſuppoſed iſſues thence; but it doth not thence follow, that the Abridgment is in fault, nor that it ſhould be eſteemed as a Heap of Difficulties; and indeed it would not be an Abridgment, if in effect it did not abridge ſome other work, wherein the Matter is handled at large.
A Heap of Difficulties, to ſpeak properly, is a Collection of ſeveral Objections which are formed againſt a Doctrine, without examining either the Grounds on which this Doctrine is eſtabliſhed, nor the Proofs or Arguments by which it is recommended, nor the Anſwers which may be made againſt theſe Objections, and in ſhort, without ſuppoſing any other work wherein all theſe things are handled. It is certain that in a Controverſy, this manner of proceeding is confuſed and captious, and ought not to make any Impreſſion on a rational Mind. But it belongs to Mr. Arnaud, to ſay whether the Treatiſe of the Perpetuity is not of this Kind; for as to my part, I find that it hath all the Characters of it. For being a Collection of Objections againſt our Belief, touching the Change which hath happ'ned concerning the Euchariſt, of moral Impoſſibilities heaped up one upon another, without any examination of the Grounds or Proofs of our Belief, nor of the Anſwers which may be made concerning theſe Impoſſibilities, and without any Suppoſition of another Work. For to tell us, as Mr. Arnaud doth, that he ſends us back to all the Catholick Books, this methinks, ſeems to be a kind of ſhifting and evading, and is not ſufficient to protect the Treatiſe of the Perpetuity, from that juſt Title I have given it of a Heap of Difficulties. Now if this Author meaneth all the Books written by Catholicks, when ſhall I be able to judge of them? This will be perhaps when I have run thro above two hundred Volums. And if I ſhould ſay on the other ſide, that my Abridgment after the ſame manner, ſuppoſeth all the Proteſtant Books, and I ſend all Perſons to them; Our Readers without Queſtion would be very well informed and edifyed.
BUT ſaies Mr. Arnaud, People do not uſe to call Matters which are perfectly handled, a Heap of Difficulties, but thoſe things which are hard to be Lib. 1. C. 4. P. 31.judged of, whereas the Author of the Perpetuity hath handled whatſoever relates to his Deſign in an orderly length. I anſwer firſt that this Author very imperfectly handles what reſpects his Deſign in General, which is to make us forſake our Belief, concerning the Church of Rome's changing the Primitive Doctrine: And ſecondly that he yet more imperfectly handles what reſpects his Deſign in particular, which is to ſhew the Impoſſibility of a Change; for he does not conſider of any Anſwer which may be given his Arguments: ſo that to ſpeak truly, it is nothing elſe but a Heap of Difficulties. It can bear no other Title until ſuch time as ſhall be publiſhed the two Volums in Folio, which Mr. Arnaud mentions to us. We will receive them whenſoever he will pleaſe to give 'em us; but we ſhall not be in haſte to make that Confeſſion, to which the Author of the Perpetuity hath promiſed to oblige us, till we have ſeen them; and in the mean time, becauſe Mr. Arnaud will have it ſo, we will have once more the Pleaſure, or rather the Pain of examining (altho it be needleſs) the Author of the Perpetuity's Proofs. I ſay becauſe Mr. Arnaud would have it ſo, and not becauſe the reaſon of the thing requires it; for what he alleageth concerning the Paſſages of my Book, that they contain but an indirect Anſwer to the Author of the Perpetuity's Lib. 1. C. 3. P. 24.Argument, and therefore it is neceſſary immediately to examine what I have anſwered directly. This I ſay is not a ſufficient Cauſe, we ought to ſee rather which of us two is firſt found in the Poſſeſſion of this Argument, that is to ſay, which of us has bin firſt anſwered indirectly, and it will appear without doubt that it hath bin my ſelf, ſeeing the Author of the Perpetuity hath aſſaulted Mr. Aubertin's Book, and that he hath aſſaulted it indirectly. Whence it follows that he ought at leaſt to have begun by the Examination of our Proofs.