form to ones self a distinct Idea of Bread and Wine without bringing in all the Modusses of these two Substances and distinctly conceiving the Mass of these Modusses without conceiving the Bread and Wine See now Sir if according to the Maxims of the Cartesians you dare affirm there 's Bread and Wine in the Eucharist as you say there 's that which makes the Essence of Bread and Wine Being not well versed in the new Philosophy saies Mr. N. I shall not undertake to answer what you now offered me But shall reserve my reply till you undertake to shew me our belief destroys the Principle of the Schools which tell us That two contradictory Propositions cannot be true And I am even impatient to see how you will prove this I will easily shew you said I That this Doctrine includes a great number of Contradictions and consequently of necessity either this Doctrine must be false or the contradictory Propositions may be true It 's certain if I undertake to shew you by Arguments that your belief is contradictory I shall I imagine be engaged in great contests with you We must run over all the knotty Questions of the Schools and examine their nicest Distinctions And this is as little pleasant to me as I believe 't is to you But I have another less tiresome way than this first Which is to shew you Sir That your Doctors agree 't is contradictory to say divers things which are the necessary consequences of your belief which they easily grant every time they think not of Transubstantiation and when the Idea of this Doctrine which commonly confounds their Senses leaves them some liberty of judging of things according to the light of nature Behold here an example of what I say Transubstantiation according to the common Sentiment of the Schools do's necessarily imply the Existence of Accidents without a Subject I affirm That this very thing is a pure Contradiction and here 's the manner how I shew it You will allow me it 's a Contradiction to affirm That an Accident is not an Accident 'T is your Suarez who teaches it in so many words If the Accident * Suar. Met. disp 32. sect 1. n. 4. says he has no Subject 't is not an Accident but a Substance You do not rightly comprehend this Author's meaning says Mr. N. The Essence of the Accident do's not consist to be actually in a Subject but only to may be therein to be proper to this 'T is this Disposition and this Aptitude which makes the Essence of the Accident and which never leaves it and this is whatever Suarez meant in the passage you have cited You deceive your self reply'd I Suarez sense is That Accidents will be Substances if they be not actually in some Subject To behold more distinctly this truth observe if you please that he does not say this but to prove there are Substances for thus he speaks He says it cannot be denied but there are Accidents seeing this is a thing which the Senses attest Whence he concludes there are Substances because if there were not Substances the Accidents would be without a Subject and if they had no Subject they would not be Accidents but Substances Had this Jesuit the Thought you impute to him his Argument would be reduced to this There are Accidents The Accidents are proper to have Subjects These Subjects must be Substances Then there are Substances But first if Suarez meant this 't is strange he did not say it He has spoken enough in his Life not to be to seek to express his Thoughts and not to use such uncouth ways as these would be Moreover in attributing to him this sense you make him make a ridiculous Argument For in fine what will this consequence be Accidents are proper to exist in SubSubstances There are then Substances This is just as if I should say The Fire is proper to melt Ice Therefore where ever there is Fire there must necessarily be Ice Water is proper to quench Fire Where ever then there is Water there is also Fire This may suffice on the Subject of your first Contradiction The second is a little more palpable It consists in your making the Body of Christ to be in several places at once without losing its Unity For in fine if it be in several places at once it 's separate from its self and if it be separate from it self 't is no longer one only Body All Philosophers agree there 's no certainer mark of a real distinction than separation especially that which they call mutual and which they say consists in separate things subsisting each apart after the Separation The mutual separation of two Extreams saith Suarez * Suar. Met. in indice voce distinctio is an evident sign they be really distinguisht Elsewhere he says this is the principal sign †Idem Met. disp 7. Sect. 2. n. 9 10. He also affirms it matters not to know Whether the separation be made naturally or supernaturally and that all one can say of it is That when the separation is made naturally the distinction is more visibly and apparently known than when God does does it by Miracle Yet he affirms it to be then no less real And of this he gives us a considerable example He says if we consult only natural reason we shall be apt to doubt whether Quantity be distinct from Matter because in effect these two things do never subsist without one another in the order of Nature But he adds That the Mystery of the Eucharist does not permit us to doubt of their distinction seeing that Quantity does therein Miraculously subsist without Matter On this same Principle Suarez and all your other Doctors affirm it impossible that the Modusses should subsist without the things Modifide no not by an effect of Infinite power because say they there being no real distinction between the Modus and the thing Modifide it 's impossible the Modus should subsist without the thing Modifide There cannot then be a real separation between that which is not really distinct and to suppose such a separation is a manifest contradiction Yet your belief supposes this It supposes the Body of Jesus Christ in several places at a time I mean in several separate places which have no contiguity between them but are distinguished by considerable spaces and by a great number of Bodies which lye between them Let 's imagine three Consecrated Hosts one here the other in China and the third in America The Body of Christ is in all these three places and at the same time in Heaven It 's perfectly entire in each of these four places It 's then separate and far distant from it self Pray tell me Sir is not this fair reasoning to say The body and the soul of a child of God are two distinct Substances for after death the body remains in the Sepulchre and the soul goes to Heaven This is what cannot be denied But if this reasoning
altogether fruitless Wherefore you cannot defend your self but in denying some of the Propositions of which it consists but which of the three can you deny Not the first I suppose For in fine if Transubstantiation has place The Sacrament of the Eucharist is not Bread nor Wine but our Saviour's proper Body and Blood. Yet the natural Faculty whereby we discern the Substances from one another whatever that is and whatever name we give it this Faculty tells us that 't is not the Body and Blood of Christ but Bread and Wine If you doubt of this shew this Sacrament to a Man indued only with those Faculties which Nature has given us and who has never received any supernatural assistance to a Jew or to a Mahometan or Pagan Ask him what it is and you 'l see how little he will hesitate to answer you it 's Bread and Wine If you still doubt of this desire a Priest to mix a consecrated Host amongst others unconsecrated Employ then all your natural Faculties to distinguish that which is the Body of Christ from the rest which is mere Bread You 'l find all your care here to no purpose It 's then certain that the natural Faculty whereby we discern Substances affirms plainly the Eucharist to be Bread and Wine and therefore deceives us if your Belief be true Thus my first Proposition labours under no difficulty And the second is no less certain than the first For in fine if the natural Faculty whereby we distinguish one Substance from another may take the Body of Christ for Bread and Wine there will be no deceit of which 't will not be capable there being nothing in the World more discernable and subject to less mistakes than an human Body on one hand and a morsel of Bread and some drops of Wine on the other I have only then to prove my third Proposition which is in effect the only one which appears to have need Yet is it certain I shall have little trouble to make you agree with me in it It saith That the certainty with accompanies the Acts of the natural Faculty and makes us distinguish the Substances That this Certitude I say is the Foundation of the Proofs of Christianity and that we cannot solidly establish the truth of this Holy Religion if the Senses may deceive us in the reports they make of these kind of Objects I conceive nothing more certain than this Proposition In effect we agreed in our first Conference That the Proofs of Christian Religion depends on the Truth of certain Facts which we never saw but which are attested to us by Persons whose Testimony ought not to be suspected by us Yet it will reasonably be so if we be not in a capacity to discern certainly particular Substances And this will clearly appear if we run through the most important of these Facts The most considerable and the most decisive is without difficulty being our Saviour's Resurrection for the whole depends hereon If this Fact be false the Gospel is but a mere Romance and if it be true it cannot be deni'd but God has declar'd himself hereby in the most authentic manner in the World in favour of our Holy Religion And the Apostles were chiefly sent to attest the Truth of this Fact and hence it is That they so often seem to affect as it were the title of Witnesses of their Master's Resurrection But 't is very considerable That the Apostles were not present at our Lord's Resurrection He was not in the Sepulchre when these holy Men arrived there and they found only the Funeral Linen wherewith his Body was wrapped They knew not then our Saviour was risen by seeing him come out of the Tomb and as they beheld Lazarus but they gathered it from two other Facts of which they were certain having already seen the first and seeing then actually the second The one was his Death and the other his Life They were sure our Lord had expired on the Cross That his Side was pierced with a Spear that they might be certain of his Death They knew that he was buried and consequently could not have the least suspicion that he was not really dead They saw him afterwards alive and walking acting and speaking whence they concluded in the clearest manner in the World and the least liable to mistake that he was effectually risen It 's then plain that the Truth of Christ's Resurrection depends on one hand in knowing whether he died and on the other whether he liv'd after his Death But what certainty can there be of either of these two Facts if there be none in the judgment we make of Substances These two Facts are equally contested The Basilidians denied heretofore the first and the Mahometans deny it to this day both affirming 't was not our Saviour Christ but Simon the Cyrenian that was crucified by the Jews The Jews have ever denied the second They say it 's very true our Saviour died on the Cross but that he never rose again and that what the Apostles related of it was a mere Fable If we may be deceived in these kind of Objects what can we oppose to either of these Enemies of the Truth How shall we convince either the Basilidians or Mahometans That it was Jesus and not Simon who expired on the Cross How shall we perswade the Jews the Apostles were not deceived in imagining they saw him alive and risen Will not both one and the other have grounds to tell us we have no certainty for what we affirm The Turks will tell us That seeing we may be so easily deceived in the discerning of Substances it 's very likely the Jews took Simon for Jesus Christ The Jews will answer the Error was not theirs but that the Apostles took some Spirit or living Man for their Master And as to us we have nothing convincing to oppose against one or the other And here Sir let me entreat you to consider the imprudence of Bellarmine Amongst other Reasons he uses to shew the Senses have no certainty when the Question is about discerning the Substances he particularly cites (b) Bell. de Euch. lib. 3. cap. 24. the Instance of Mary Magdalen who took our Saviour risen for the Gardiner I shall not stand to shew here the weakness of this Argument nor say 't was scarcely then light when Mary came into the Garden where our Saviour was buried Neither shall I use long Discourses to prove That her trouble grief or perhaps modesty would not let her look directly on a Man whom she did not know But that which I would entreat you to consider is the stroak which this Argument of Bellarmine might give to the certainty of our Faith were it as solid as he pretends it to be It proves nothing or it proves one might take our Saviour risen for another Man and consequently that one might take another Man for Jesus Christ risen and so when the Apostles saw our Lord risen they
be good why in the same manner is not this other which is so like it also good The body of Jesus Christ is really distinct from the substance which is between the Priests hands for the one is in Heaven the other on Earth What difference can there be between these two reasonings which shall make the first good and not the latter But here 's an instance which I think comes nearer yet you know the Father's Argument against the Pagans There were Pagans who imagin'd their gods dwelt properly and really in the Statues Consecrated to them And there being not one of these gods to whom they did not Consecrate a great number of these Representations in several parts of the World hence it manifestly follow'd That they were in several places at a time And the Fathers treated this as contradictory and ridiculous They maintain'd that each of these gods could not be but in one place at a time because if he were in several he must of necessity be divided or multiply'd Each of these Statues must contain but a small bit of this god or else there must be as many gods as many Jupiters as many Mercuries as many Vnlcans as there were Statues Consecrated to these false Divinities And this is precisely Arnobius his Argument * Arnob. adver Gentes lib. 6. pag. 89. Edit Prior. in a most excellent passage which I Translated this Morning to read to you I thereupon drew a Paper out of my Pocket in which were these following words The Gods dwell in their Representations But do they dwell there in such a manner that each of them is entire in each Statue Or are they there divided and by parts Certainly neither one and the same God can be at the same time in several Statues neither can he be cut into parts by division Suppose we in effect there are in the world ten thousand Representations of Vulcan can this God be as I have already said in these ten thousand places at a time I do not believe it Why not Because that which of its own nature is singular cannot multiply it self in conserving its simplicity and unity much less if what you believe be true That the Gods have a humane shape For neither the hand separated from the head nor the foot divided from the rest of the body does make the whole person for you must not say the parts have the same effect as the whole seeing the whole cannot subsist but by the union of its parts Now if it be said that this God is wholly entire in each Statue the truth loses all its strength seeing it 's supposed the same thing may be every where at the same time Or else it must be said That each God separates himself in such a manner from himself that he is at the same time himself and another not that he is separated but in such a manner that he is at the same time the same and another quite different This then being abhorrent to nature we must say one or the other of these two things Either that there 's an infinity of Vulcans if we will have this God to reside in all the Statues which represent him or that he is not in one of them seeing his nature will not suffer him to be divided Is it not true Sir pursued I that I can bring the same Argument against you I need only change one word in Arnobius and instead of Vulcan say the Body of Jesus Christ The Body of Christ I may say exists according to you in the Eucharist But does it exist therein in such a manner that 't is entire in each Consecrated Host or is it therein divided and in parts Certainly neither one and the same Body can be at the same time in several Hosts neither can it be divided into parts Suppose in effect there be in the world ten thousand Conscrated Hosts can as I have already observ'd one and the same Body be in these ten thousand places at a time I do not believe it Why not Because that which of its own nature is singular cannot be multiplied in conserving its simplicity and unity and so much the less in this occasion because the question is touching a Body like ours For neither the Hand separated from the Head nor the Foot divided from the rest of the Body does make the whole Person Now if it be said the Body is quite entire in each of these Hosts the Truth loses all its force seeing we suppose the same thing may be in all places at the same time Or else you must say That this Body separates it self in such a manner from it self that it is at the same time the same and another quite different This then being abhorrent to nature you must say one or the other of these two things Either that there 's an infinity of Christs Body if you will have this Sacred Body resident in all the Consecrated Hosts or else that it is not one seeing Nature suffers it not to be divided into several You see Sir I only copy out Arnobous and faithfully Cite his Words Yet this is not the only Father who has argued in this manner St Austin imitated him in his time and what is most considerable he makes the whole application of it to the Body of Jesus Christ. You know the Manichees believ'd our Saviour was at the same time on the Cross in the Sun and in the Moon which they ridiculously term'd his Ships St. Austin affirms to them that this is impossible and these are his Words * Aug. contr Faust lib. 26. cap. 11. Tell us I pray you how many Christs you believe there are He whom the Earth brought forth after he was conceived by the Holy Spirit and which not only hangs on every Tree but is moreover fixed to every Herb does he differ from the other whom the Jews Crucified under Pontius Pilate and from this third who is stretched out in the Moon and in the Sun Or is it the same Saviour fix'd on the Trees by one part of him and free in the rest to come to the assistance of that which is fixed If it be this last he that suffered according to you under Pontius Pilate how in the first place could he endure this kind of Death having no flesh as you pretend And then again to whom did he leave these ships to come and undergo those pains which none but Bodies were capable of In effect he could not endure those things in reference to his spiritual Presence and according to the corporal one he could not be at the same time in the Sun and in the Moon and on the Cross He could not says St. Austin but why could he not Is it more difficult for a Body to be at the same time on the Cross in the Moon and in the Sun than in Heaven and an infinite number of places on the Earth Of necessity said he in another place †Aug in