The Catholick doctrine of the Eucharist in all ages in answer to what H. Arnaud, Doctor of the Sorbon alledges, touching the belief of the Greek, Moscovite, Armenian, Jacobite, Nestorian, Coptic, Maronite, and other eastern churches : whereunto is added an account of the Book of the body and blood of our Lord published under the name of Bertram : in six books.

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 ac∣knowledgeth 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 Con∣clude * 1.1 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 Impossibi∣lity of a thing, by proving its actual Existence. All this is allowed him, nei∣ther 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 re∣al 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 Insig∣nificant, seeing they are Succors which will stand us in no stead, being al∣ready 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 Gentle∣men agree? Seeing one of 'em would have the Dispute ended by his Ar∣guments; 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 Alterati∣on. 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 length∣en out our Debate, wherefore I think it may well be laid aside, and the Au∣thor 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 Prescrip∣tion, and Discussion. The Method of Prescription, saith he, is that in which, by the Examination of certain principal Points, the Controversy is decided, * 1.2 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 Advan∣tages, and producing the Benefit expected from it, that it remain separate from the Method of Discussion, because otherwise we should inevitably fall into Pro∣lixity, 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 ac∣cording 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 particu∣lar Questions, which do but confound the Mind by their Multiplicity. At length he concludes, That the Author of the Perpetuity could not with Pru∣dence 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 Na∣ture 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 a∣greed, 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 per∣petually

imposes on his Readers, he carries them off from one place to ano∣ther, 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 Con∣trary, 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 Me∣thod 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 con∣firm them in the thoughts they have already entertained. There could no∣thing 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 indiffe∣rent 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 Prescripti∣on, 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 Me∣thod; 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 Consequen∣ces, and not make them reject them; for indirect Arguments conclude some∣times 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 contra∣ry 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 indi∣rectly, 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 appli∣ed 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 o∣therwise 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 pro∣poseth. But this is not our Question, and I am resolved not to follow all Mr. Arnauds fruitless Digressions. His Words cost him nothing, and Peo∣ple 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 De∣bate. 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 Controver∣sies which to this day have perplexed the Christian Religion. We have the holy Scriptures which every man may read, or hear them read pub∣lickly: Which do fully and clearly contain whatsoever is necessary to Sal∣vation, and by the Concurrence of Gods Grace, even the most illiterate may judge whether the Minister, under whom they live, is able and wil∣ling 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. Af∣ter 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 fundamen∣tal 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 Opi∣nions 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 Mi∣nisters 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, menti∣oned 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 represen∣tative 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 Or∣der. 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 dif∣ficult 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 re∣cieve by way of Illustration or Addition, Articles which they knew not be∣fore, 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 ex∣amined 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 Autho∣rity, 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 Con∣clusion. 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 af∣firmeth 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 con∣vinced

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 Judg∣ment. 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 parti∣cular 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 Pro∣lixities, and Difficulties, which surpass ordinary Apprehensions. In a word Mr. Arnaud doth himself decide the Question. This Infallibility, saith he, * 1.3 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 (mean∣ing the Author of the Perpetuity) being desirous to ground his Arguments on * 1.4 a Principle of Reason and humane Evidence, and not on a Principle of Iraditi∣on and Authority, or on abstracted and remote Arguings, he must then necessa∣rily 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 imme∣diately apparent to Sense, there needs more abstracted and remote Argu∣ments 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 no∣thing.

IT is then manifest, that common Apprehensions not being able to as∣certain 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 them∣selves 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 more∣over, 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 de∣nyed 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 them∣selves to the Consideration of them, with a pure Heart and unspotted Con∣science. 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 Im∣piety 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 Dis∣pute, 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 promi∣sed himself from his Method, which is, to make us confess if we are not ex∣tream Obstinate, that the Doctrine of the Church of Rome, touching the Sacra∣ment, 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 con∣cealed all those which might be opposed, and understood. But this Com∣plaint 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 Rela∣tion 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 con∣clude 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 Princi∣ples 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, * 1.5 that there are Difficulties in the Doctrine of the Eucharist, for we may ea∣sily 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 Abridg∣ments, which allways refer to another work, in supposing that the Princi∣ples 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 esteem∣ed 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 Ob∣jections which are formed against a Doctrine, without examining either the Grounds on which this Doctrine is established, nor the Proofs or Argu∣ments 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 ano∣ther, 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 Trea∣tise of the Perpetuity, from that just Title I have given it of a Heap of Diffi∣culties. 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 Pro∣testant Books, and I send all Persons to them; Our Readers without Questi∣on would be very well informed and edifyed.

BUT saies Mr. Arnaud, People do not use to call Matters which are per∣fectly handled, a Heap of Difficulties, but those things which are hard to be * 1.6 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 im∣perfectly handles what respects his Design in General, which is to make us forsake our Belief, concerning the Church of Rome's changing the Primi∣tive 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 Vo∣lums 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 promi∣sed 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 Per∣petuity's * 1.7 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 Argu∣ment, 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 in∣directly. Whence it follows that he ought at least to have begun by the Ex∣amination of our Proofs.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Lib. 1. C. 2. P. 15.
• * 1.2

  Lib. 1. C. 3. P. 16.
• * 1.3

  Lib. 1. C. 7. P. 66.
• * 1.4

  Lib. 1. C. 7. Pag. 68.
• * 1.5

  Lib. 1. C. 4. P. 30.
• * 1.6

  Lib. 1. C. 4. P. 31.
• * 1.7

  Lib. 1. C. 3. P. 24.