what I say of rest and motion I mean it of all the other oppositions which I denoted to you a while ago And this is what the Jesuits have seen and which has made them abandon the opinion of the Thomists They perceiv'd it impossible to maintain That the Body of Christ is Sacramentally in several places at a time if he be not there circumscriptively They perceiv'd one or the other of these things must necessarily be said Either that a Body cannot be sacramentally nor circumscriptively in two places or that it may be there equally either in one or the other of these two manners They were forced to take one of these sides Had they been at liberty they would have taken the first But in taking it they must shock Transubstantiation which they would by no means discredit They have therefore taken hold of the second and affirmed That a Body may be both Sacramentally and Circumscriptively in two places For a proof of what I have said in reference to these Peoples interest in the Question be pleas'd to consider in what manner these same Jesuits have decided a Question very like the former but on a matter which does not seem to have any relation to the Eucharist Some followers of Aristotle both Greeks and Arabians have heretofore entertained a very foolish and ridiculous Opinion They affirm'd 't is not true That every man has a reasonable Soul particular to himself that there 's but one for all which is in all Bodies without losing its unity and without being any where than in these Bodies just as you will have the Body of Jesus Christ exist in the Eucharist without multiplying it self and without being elsewhere excepting in Heaven The Jesuits undertaking x to decide this Question and forgetting the Eucharist as in effect 't was troublesome to remember it have therefore positively asserted That the Opinion of these Philosophers is insupportable Having particularly affirmed that it implies a manifest contradiction because 't would happen hereupon That the same Soul should be at the same time knowing and ignorant good and bad happy and unhappy there being none of these qualities which agree not with several men and consequently with the same Soul if it be true there is but one for all men They are without doubt much in the right but if a Soul in two places which is united to two several Bodies cannot be at the same time knowing and ignorant good and bad happy and unhappy without a contradiction I would then know how one and the same Body can be without contradiction in motion and at rest cold and hot divisible and indivisible in two several places It is clear that one of these things is no less impossible nor less contradictory than the other And consequently it 's plain that when your Doctors affirm there 's no contradiction in saying That the same Body in two places may be at the same time at rest and in motion they do not speak according to their Conscience but according to the interest of the Cause which they have taken upon them to defend I should never have done should I undertake to particularize all the other contradictions which your Doctrine contains Those which I have already denoted are sufficient to shew you it absolutely destroys this great principle That the same thing cannot at the same time be and not be I pass on then to another Maxim which is no less evident than that which is That the whole is greater than a part Your Transubstantiation does plainly be-ly either this Maxim or that which says The thing contained is never greater than that which contains it To make this more apparent we must observe there are two different opinions in your Schools touching the extension of Christs Body in the Eucharist Most hold that it retains it Others that it loses it The Catechism of the Council of Trent seems to uphold the latter of these opinions And this is what it says * Cat. Trid. Part 2. Tit. de Euch. n. 43. Let the Curates take care to teach That Jesus Christ is not in the Sacrament as in a place for the place is as the things in as much as they have greatness and we do not say our Lord is in the Sacrament as being little or great not respecting the quantity but the substance For the substance of Bread is changed into the substance of Jesus Christ not into its greatness or quantity However if this Sentiment be granted it 's certain That the whole is not greater than its part Seeing neither the whole nor its parts have any greatness If on the contrary you follow the first opinion you overthrow this other Principle That the thing contained is never greater than that which contains it In effect Christs Body which according to this opinion has in the Eucharist all the extension which it has in its natural state will be contained in a space incomparably smaller than it is there being no space so small wherein one may not put some crumb of the Host or some drop of the Consecrated Wine and consequently all the Body of Jesus Christ This is moreover a Maxim which Philosophers and Divines do equally acknowledg for granted That nothing produces its self That nothing has relation to its self Hereby chiefly the Fathers were wont to oppose the extravagancy of Sabellius who acknowledg'd in the Divinity only one Person under three several Names and who was at the same time Father Son and Holy Ghost They closed his mouth with this Answer That the Father begetting the Son and the Holy Spirit proceeding from both these two Persons hereby these three have such Relations as must distinguish them and consequently will not suffer these to be one and the same Person Yet is it true That as in your Hypothesis the Body of Jesus Christ produces it self so it has a relation to it self like those which distinguish the Persons in the Trinity In effect you hold That the Transubstantiation is the work of Jesus Christ and what 's more particular you believe it to be the work of Jesus Christ Man. You believe that the Consecration is a Priestly act of our Saviour who immolates himself by the Ministry of the Priest reducing himself into a state of death under the species of Bread and Wine * Concil Trid. Sess 22. Cap. 2. you believe †See Merat de incom disp 1. Sect. 2. that Jesus Christ is a Priest only as Man. So that he as Man changing the Bread into his Body one may say his Humane Nature is his proper work That it creates it self produces it self and consequently that there 's a real Relation between Jesus Christ Man and Jesus Christ Man between Jesus Christ Priest or Sacrificer and Jesus Christ Sacrificed between Jesus Christ producing and Jesus Christ produced I suppose in effect that if Transubstantiation be granted it would be a real production of the Body of Jesus Christ For besides that your
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
Joan. tract 36. pronunciatur the body of Jesus Christ risen must be in one only place But why must it be so and why may he not be in several places at a time if he be there in effect as your Creed bears The most famous among the Fathers have used the same Arguments against the Macedonians These Hereticks affirmed the Holy Spirit to be but a Creature of a like nature to that of Angels The Holy Fathers to refute them alledge That an Angel cannot be in several places at a time whereas the Holy Spirit was in the same time in several places extream distant from one another seeing he never forsook the Apostles although for the Preaching of the Gospel they were dispersed over all the Earth Thus does St. Athanasius argue or one under his name in the dispute he is said to have against Arius (a) Apud Athan Didymus of Alexandria (b) Didym de Sp S. St. Basil (c) Basil de Sp. S. cap 2. St. Greg. Naz. (d) Naz. Orat. 3.7 St. Ambrose (e) Amb. de Sp. S. lib. 1. cap. 7. Pascasius Deacon of Rome (f) Pasc Rom. de Sp. S. lib. 1. cap. 12. Anastasius Sinait (g) Anast Sin. lib. 1. de dogm fid Rupert (h) Rup lib. 10. cap. 22. and others very ill as you see were it not supposed impossible for the same Body to be in several Places at a time Were not this held then for undeniable they would without doubt have been answered That there 's no more difficulty in supposing a Spirit in several Places than a material Body as that of our Saviour was But in effect it appears the Fathers have ever believed this could not be seeing hereby he refuted the exravagant Opinions of both Hereticks and Pagans Moreover your great evasion which consists in distinguishing what may naturally be and what may happen by an effect of the Almighty Power of God this evasion I say will not serve in this occasion for in fine the Question was not in these Disputes what might or what might not naturally be but what might absolutely be The Pagans did not pretend That by means of natural Causes the Gods were placed in Statues consecrated to them The Manichees did not subject our Saviour to the Laws of Nature The Macedonians did not believe the Holy Spirit was sent by some created Cause All these People made the Divine Power intervene in these occasions and consequently the Fathers affirming that what these extravagant People said was impossible they meant 't was so in all senses and that 't was a mere contradiction It appears then from all I have now said That according to the truest and best Reason according to your own Authors and according to the Fathers it 's a pure contradiction to suppose Christs Body in several places at a time But the contradiction will be still more manifest if we add That supposing this Divine Body in several places one may say of it things directly opposite to one another Considering it such as it is in Heaven you believe it has its three dimensions each of which you believe may be measured and compared with those of other Bodies which are greater or lesser You believe it has its parts one out of another That it possesses a place whose parts answer those of this sacred Body That he is therein visible and palpable acts c. You say the direct contrary of this same Body such as you suppose it in the Eucharist You believe it there exists after the manner of Spirits that it is therein reduced to one point that it has its parts one in another that 't is therein invisible and without action You also believe that to consider it only as 't is in the Eucharist it 's removed out of one place and let to rest in another here he is lifted up and there he is let down Are not these Sir so many contradictions Is not this to affirm and deny the same thing of the same Subject in relation to the same parts and time and what do you call contradictory if this be not so A Body in two places says Mr. N. is equivalent to two Bodies and one may say of it the most opposite things without contradiction I must acknowledge one cannot do it when we speak of a Body existing only in one place But when we speak of a Body or generally of a Subject which exists in diverse places at a time there 's no contradiction in affirming and denying the same things of it This is no new answer and I suppose you have read it in our Authors Your Authors I confess have made use of it repli'd I but I affirm their answer was insincere it being not what they thought but what the interest of their cause required And for a proof of what I say is it not true That when the Question was of things wherein they were not interessed and which they regarded as absolutely independent from the Eucharist they have not stuck to maintain 't was a contradiction to say things opposite of a Body in two places For example because it 's held among you that Christs Body is not circumscriptively that is to say after the manner of Bodies in such a manner that each of its parts answers to that of the place which it possesses because say I 't is believ'd that the Body of Jesus Christ is not in this manner but in Heaven and that 't is supposed in the Eucharist only Sacramentally which is to say after the manner of Spirits totum in toto totum in qualibet parte The Thomists * See Masius Phys lib. 4. cap. 5. quest 5. assert 3. have imagined That it mattered not as to the Eucharist to know whether a Body may be circumscriptively in two places They thought they might freely explain themselves on this Question without fearing the judgment they might make of it should prove of dangerous Consequence to the Doctrine of the Real Presence Being in this manner withheld by no consideration and applying themselves to nothing but what appeared to them to be true they pronounced it impossible for one Body to be circumscriptively in two places and their strongest reason is that hereby it might happen that this Body might be in motion in one of these places and at rest in another here it might be cold and there hot and so of the rest It 's according to them a pure contradiction to say That a Body which shall be circumscriptively in two places shall be at the same time at rest and in motion but if this be a contradiction why is it not as considerable a one to say these same things of a Body which is Sacramentally in two places or Sacramentally in one and circumscriptively in the other For in fine are not rest and motion as opposite and inconsistent when the Bodies which they affect are Sacramentally in two places as when they be therein circumscriptively Moreover
true nor yet whatever is opposed against them is false but that all the Objections brought against them include some Proposition which is not evident and which consequently may be deni'd Is not this to say our Reason cannot prove demonstratively the falsity of our Mysteries Does not this absolutely overthrow your Objection You will have the Arians and Socinians Objections to pass for a convincing Demonstration Yet your Divines affirm it 's impossible to make Demonstrations against the Truths of Faith. You say 't is impossible to answer any thing to this But your Divines affirm to you That this Objection and the rest like it do necessarily include something which may be deni'd and is not evident They pass further They say one may demonstrate this very thing Which is to say one may demonstrate That it is not possible to offer Demonstrations against us Which is what we may easily justifie by another consideration Which is to the end an Argument may pass for Demonstrative every term about it must be perfectly understood whereby there may arise a clear and distinct Idea in the mind of what it expresseth And therefore Geometricians use such clear terms in their Demonstrations that it is impossible but they must be understood or if any one offers it self clouded with the least obscurity they immediately carefully explain it And therefore they make no Demonstration but what is preceded by a great number of Definitions which explain the terms But how can this be in a Mystery so little known as that of the Trinity For who can pretend to have distinct Idea's either of the Divine Essence and its Unity or of the Persons which possess it and of their distinction When we are askt says St. Augustin * Aug. de Trin. lib. 5. cap. 9. what the three are the mind of man finds it self extream shallow and cannot express it self Yet it is said there are Three Persons not as if we cou'd define'em but we rather say so that we may not say nothing And in another place * Idem lib. 7. cap. 4. When 't is demanded of us what the Three are we set our selves on seeking some general or particular term because the excellency of Divine things is beyond the strength of our expressions For there 's more truth in what we think than in what we say of God and more in reality than in thought I say the same thing of other terms used on this great Subject They raise in our minds only confused and muddy Ideas How then will these afford us Demonstrations What do you answer then directly to my Objection says Mr. N. What do you your self answer reply'd I. For in fine considering what I have said you see our interest is the same In effect it must be said we have no rational Argument to offer against the Arians or Socinians This last refuge seems to me intollerable and I shou'd as soon say they have the Reason on their side and we are possess'd with absurd prejudices We must then say these peoples Objections may be solidly answer'd and do you think Sir none of your Divines not to speak now of ours have not done it Were this the case this truth must have been very unfortunate to have met with no Defender for so many ages able to repel the attacks of its adversaries Moreover I do not see how you can extol so much as you commonly do the learning wisdom yea and Infallibility of your Church seeing it seems she has nothing but blind Answers and vain Tergiversations to refute these Erroneous persons Objections For my part I am of a very different opinion and believe your Schoolmen have solidly answer'd this Objection First you know That several of 'em have deni'd this Philosophical Maxim which implies That two Subjects cannot be distinguisht from one another when they are not so by a third You know there are several considerable instances offer'd as is that of length largeness and depth which are very different from one another altho they all differ not from extension Whereunto we may add that of the Modusses which are not distinct from the things they modify altho distinguish'd from one another As for instance when I shut my hand I give it a quite different manner of being from that it has when open and stretched out Of necessity these two manners of being must be different from one another seeing it 's not only easie to separate them and to make 'em subsist one without another but it 's impossible to make 'em subsist together being opposite and inconsistent Yet 't is commonly held That the Modusses be not really distinguishable from the things they modifie I say the same thing of the actions of the Soul there are some of 'em inconsistent For example to judg a proposition is true and to judg that it 's false To will and not to will the same Object To love and hate the same person The same soul does this at several times And consequently does very different acts Yet these acts tho different from one another do not really differ from the substance of the soul but are only mere modifications of it One may then deny your Maxim or restrain it and bring exceptions against it You know your Divines have made several and shew'd That either of 'em secures the Mystery before us I suppose you do not expect I shou'd recite them seeing you may find 'em in Father Vincent's Logick in George Rhodes Theology and in several other of your Authors Were there not any thing in all this which satisfy'd me I shou'd not be much perplex'd about it I shou'd content my self with what I now told you That all the Objections which can be made against the Mystery of the Trinity consist of several improper and obscure terms and such as are incapable of causing distinct Idea's of what is pretended to be signifi'd by ' em To shew then That this Doctrine does not include Contradictions as you wou'd insinuate by the Objection I examin consider the main or bottom of this great Mystery what makes for and against it we shou'd conceive in a just and precise manner what 's therein inconsistent and see clearly these inconsistencies and oppositions But we being far from such a knowledg of this great Truth it 's then clear no one can shew it includes any thing contradictory But it 's not the same with Transubstantiation What you say of that includes a great number of palpable and manifest Contradictions and shocks directly all the notices of Sense and Reason So that you cannot make too much hast to retrench it from the body of Christian Religion and remove it out of a place which it so ill supplies A body wou'd think answer'd he to hear you speak That we might form Christian Religion to our minds and as soon as a Doctrine is not to our fancy we may put it our of our Creed This without doubt wou'd be very agreeable But Sir in excluding Transubstantiation from the number of the Articles of Faith will you thereby blot it out of Holy Writ wherein the Divine Spirit has inserted it in such clear and full terms You know Heaven Earth shall sooner pass away than the least iota of this holy Word Never fear repli'd I my blotting it out It never was there And this I wou'd now make apparent to you did I not fear we have walkt and talk'd so long that both your legs and ears are tired FINIS