The author had, moreover, particular and weighty reasons inducing him to take pen in hand for discussion of this subject.  Conversations which he had concerning the same with literary and court personages, in Germany and in France, and especially with one of the greatest and most accomplished [63] of princesses, have repeatedly prompted him to this course.  He had had the honour of expressing his opinions to this Princess upon divers passages of the admirable Dictionary of M. Bayle, wherein religion and reason appear as adversaries, and where M. Bayle wishes to silence reason after having made it speak too loud:  which he calls the triumph of faith.  The present author declared there and then that he was of a different opinion, but that he was nevertheless well pleased that a man of such great genius had brought about an occasion for going deeply into these subjects, subjects as important as they are difficult.  He admitted having examined them also for some long time already, and having sometimes been minded to publish upon this matter some reflexions whose chief aim should be such knowledge of God as is needed to awaken piety and to foster virtue.  This Princess exhorted and urged him to carry out his long-cherished intention, and some friends added their persuasions.  He was all the more tempted to accede to their requests since he had reason to hope that in the sequel to his investigation M. Bayle’s genius would greatly aid him to give the subject such illumination as it might receive with his support.  But divers obstacles intervened, and the death of the incomparable Queen was not the least.  It happened, however, that M. Bayle was attacked by excellent men who set themselves to examine the same subject; he answered them fully and always ingeniously.  I followed their dispute, and was even on the point of being involved therein.  This is how it came about.

I had published a new system, which seemed well adapted to explain the union of the soul and the body:  it met with considerable applause even from those who were not in agreement with it, and certain competent persons testified that they had already been of my opinion, without having reached so distinct an explanation, before they saw what I had written on the matter.  M. Bayle examined it in his Historical and Critical Dictionary, article ‘Rorarius’.  He thought that my expositions were worthy of further development; he drew attention to their usefulness in various connexions, and he laid stress upon what might still cause difficulty.  I could not but reply in a suitable way to expressions so civil and to reflexions so instructive as his.  In order to turn them to greater account, I published some elucidations in the Histoire des Ouvrages des Savants, July 1698.  M. Bayle replied to them in the second edition of his Dictionary.  I sent[64] him a rejoinder which has not yet been published; I know not whether he ever made a further reply.