consequitur veritatem regenerationis operetur Mary conceived by the Holy Ghost without the intervention of any Man as S. Matthew tells us She was found with Child of the Holy Ghost If then the Holy Spirit coming upon the Virgin made her to conceive c. we need not question but that the same Spirit coming upon the Water of Baptism or on him that is baptized do's produce true Regeneration And P. Leo Mag. †De Nativit Dom. Ser. 4. Christus dedit aquae quod dedit Matri Virtus enim Altissimi obumbratio Spiritus S. quae fecit ut Maria pareret Salvatorem eadem facit ut regeneret unda credentem Christ gave to the Water what he gave to his Mother for the Power of the most High and the Overshadowing of the H. Spirit which caused Mary to bring forth our Saviour the same causes the Water to regenerate a Believer Excepting therefore these Wonders of God's Grace the Fathers knew no other Miracles in the Sacraments and these Wonders are common to both the Sacraments and not peculiar to one of them only This even Card. Cajetan * In 3. part q. 75. art 1. Non est disputandum de divina potentia ubi de Sacramentis tractatur Ibid. art 2. Stultum est ponere in hoc argumento quicquid Deus potest facere was so sensible of that he tells us We must not dispute concerning God's Power when we treat of Sacraments And again It is a foolish thing to assert in this Argument whatsoever God can do He was not ignorant of what S. Austin had said long before †Lib. 3. de Trin. c. 10. Quia haec hominibus nota sunt quia per homines fiunt honorem tanquam religiosa possunt habere stuporem tanquam mira non possunt who speaking of Signs taken to signifie other things and instancing in the Bread taken and consumed in the Sacrament adds But because these things are known to men as being made by men they may have Honour given them for their relation to Religion but cannot raise Astonishment as Miracles or Wonders Which he could never have said if he had believed the Wonders and Miracles of Transubstantiation I 'le conclude this Head with another Saying of his * Lib. 3. cont Julian c. 3. Haec sunt sententiarum portenta vestrarum haec inopinata mysteria Dogmatum novorum haec paradoxa Pelagianorum haereticorum mirabiliora quà m Stoicorum Philosophorum Mira sunt quae dicitis nova sunt quae dicitis falsa sunt quae dicitis Mira stupemus nova cavemus falsa convincimus which may be as well applied to the absurd Paradoxes and Miracles which the Roman Church advances in this Case of the Eucharist as ever it was to those he there confutes about Baptism These are the Prodigies of your Opinions these are the uncouth Mysteries of New Dogma's these are the Paradoxes of Pelagian Hereticks more wonderful than those of the Stoick Philosophers The things you say are Wonderful the things you say are New the things you say are False We are amazed at your Wonders we are cautious against your Novelties and we confute your Falsities But this Difference being more general we go on to more particular ones CHAP. II. The Second Difference The Church of Rome differs from the Fathers in determining what that thing is which Christ calls MY BODY THE Trent Catechism (a) Ad Paroch part 2. n. 37. §. Haec vero Si panis substantia remaneret nullo modo dici videretur Hoc est Corpus meum tho' it do's not determine what the word THIS refers to only telling us that it must demonstrate the whole Substance of the thing present yet it expresly denies that it refers to the Substance of Bread for it adds If the Substance of Bread remained it seems no way possible to be said that THIS IS MY BODY So Bellarmine confesses (b) De Euchar. l. 1. c. 1. sec Nonus that this Proposition This Bread is my Body must be taken figuratively that the Bread is the Body of Christ by way of signification or else it is plainly absurd and impossible And he acknowledges (c) Ib. lib. 2. cap. 9. §. Observandum that this Proposition The Wine is the Lord's Blood teaches that Wine is Blood by similitude and likeness And elsewhere (d) Lib. 3. cap. 19. It cannot be a true Proposition in which the Subject is supposed to be Bread and the Predicate the Body of Christ for Bread and Christ's Body are res diversissimae things most different And a little after If we might affirm disparata de disparatis different things of one another you might as well affirm and say that something is nothing and nothing something that Light is Darkness and Darkness Light that Christ is Belial and Belial Christ neither do's our Faith oblige us to defend those things that evidently imply a Contradiction So also Vasquez (e) Disp 180. cap. 9. n. 91. Si pronomen Hoc in illis verbis demonstraret panem fatemur etiam toâ—e ut nulia conversio virtute illorum fieri possit quia panis de quo enunciatur manere debet If the Pronoun THIS in Christ's Words pointed at the Bread then we confess it would follow that no Conversion could be made by virtue of these Words because the Bread of which it is affirmed sc that it is Christ's Body ought to remain Now that which the present Roman Church dare not affirm because if it be taken properly it is untrue absurd impossible as implying a Contradiction we shall now shew that the Fathers plainly affirm it who yet could not be ignorant of this Absurdity From whence it necessarily follows that they took the whole words THIS IS MY BODY figuratively as the Protestants do since they cannot be taken otherwise if Bread be affirmed to be Christ's Body as the Romanists confess Now that the Fathers affirmed that Bread is Christ's Body is certain by these following Testimonies S. Irenaeus (f) Adv. Haeres l. 5. c. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Our Lord confessed the Cup which is of the Creature to be his Blood and the Bread which is of the Creature he confirmed it to be his Body Clement of Alexandria (g) Paedag. lib. 2. c. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Our Lord blessed the Wine saying Take drink this is my Blood the Blood of the Grape For the Holy River of Gladness so he calls the Wine do's allegorically signifie the Word i. e. the Blood of the Word shed for many for the remission of Sins Tertullian (h) Adv. Judaeos c. â—1 Panem corpus suum appellans Calling Bread his Body Speaking of Christ And against Marcion (i) Idem adv Marcion lib. 3. cap. 19. Panem corpus suum appellans ut hinc eum intelligas corporis sui figuram pani dedisse c. he says the same Calling Bread his Body that thou mayst know that
tam apertam tam manifestam c. Having said thus he ascended into Heaven and would precaution us against those that he foretold would arise in succeeding Ages and say Lo here is Christ or lo there whom he warned us not to believe And we shall have no Excuse if we shall believe them against this so clear open and manifest Voice of our Pastor c. And in his Book against Faustus (h) Lib. 20. cap. 11. Secundùm praesentiam corporalem simul in Sole in Luna in Cruce esse non posset he says That Christ according to his Corporal Presence cannot be at the same time in the Sun and in the Moon and on the Cross Lastly in another Tract (i) Tract 30. in Joan. Sursum est Dominus sed etiam hic est veritas Dominus Corpus enim Domini in quo resurrexit uno loco esse oportet the Printed Copies absurdly read potest veritas ejus ubique diffusa est Our Lord is above yet also Truth the Lord is here For the Body of our Lord in which he arose must be in one Place his Truth is diffused every where Neither do the rest of the Fathers differ from his Doctrine but give their full Consent to it Anastasius Nicaenus (k) In Collect. adv Severianos in Bibl. Patr. Tom. 4. Impossibile est cogitare corpus sine loco sine aliis extra quae esse non potest c. It is impossible to imagine a Body without a Place and other things without which it cannot be c. Didymus Alexandr (l) De Spiritu S. lib. 1. Ipse Spiritus S. si unus de creaturis esset saltem circumscriptam haberet substantiam sicut universae quae factae sunt Spiritus autem cùm in pluribus sit non habet substantiam circumscriptam proves the Holy Ghost to be God because he is in more Places than one The Holy Ghost himself if he were one of the Creatures would at least have a circumscribed or bounded Substance as all things have that are made But the Holy Spirit seeing he is in more than one has not a bounded Substance And afterwards he says That the Holy Ghost was present with the Apostles tho' dispersed to the ends of the Earth and adds Angelica virtus ab hoc prorsus aliena The Power of Angels is altogether a Stranger to this Theodoret (m) In Genes qu. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 makes this a Consequence from Angels being of a determinate Substance That then they require a Place to be in For only the Divinity says he as being undetermined is not in a Place And elsewhere (n) Dialog 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 speaking of Christ's Body after the Resurrection he says Still it is a Body having its former Circumscription Cyril of Alexandria (o) De S. Trinit Dial. 2. disputing against those that thought the Son was begotten of the Substance of the Father by a division of his Substance 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 says If the Divine Nature did admit of Section and Division then you conceive of it as a Body and if so then it must be in a Place and in Magnitude and Quantity and if endued with Quantity it could not avoid being circumscribed Fulgentius (p) Ad Trasimund lib. 2. c. 7. Quod aliquo circumscribitur fine necesse est ut loco teneatur aut tempore also That which is circumscribed by any End or Bound must be contained in a Place or in Time. And again (q) Io. c. 18. Si verum est corpus Christi loco utique oportet contineri The printed Copies read potest contineri without Sense speaking of Christ's Body If the Body of Christ be a true one it must be contained in a Place S. Greg. Nazianzen (r) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Orat. 34. makes it impossible for one Body to be in divers So do's Damascen (s) De Fide Orth. l. 1. c. 4. make it impossible that one Body should pass thro' another unless there be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that which divides and that which is divided Claud. Mamertus (t) De Statu Animae l. 2. c. 3. Nihil illocale corporeum omne illocale incorporeum quoque est Nothing illocal is corporeal every thing illocal is also incorporeal And again (u) Ibid. lib. 1. c. 18. Hinc patet omne corpus totum simul tangi non posse nec in uno loco esse quamlibet minimum totum posse Illic non habet inferiora sua ubi habet superiora sua nec illic dextra ubi sinistra nec anteriora illic ubi posteriora It is plain that no Body can be touched wholly together nor can the least Whole you can imagine be in one Place that is in one Point And he instances in a Grain of Poppy or the least part of it That it has not its lower Parts there where it has its upper Parts nor its right-hand Parts there where its left-hand Parts are nor its Parts before there where it has its Parts behind S. Hilary (x) In Psal 124. Spiritus namque est omnia penetâ—ans continens Non enim secundùm nos corporalis est ut cùm alicubi adsit absit aliunde c. speaking of Christ as God says He is a Spirit penetrating and containing all things For according to us he is not corporeal so that when he is present in one Place he should be absent from another c. And elsewhere (y) Lib. 8. de Trinitate Homo aut aliquid ei simile cùm alicubi erit tum alibi non erit quia illud quod est illic continctur ubi fuerit infirma ad id natura ejus ut ubique sit qui insistâ—us alicubi sit A Man or any thing like him when he is in a Place any where cannot then be elsewhere because that which is there is contained where it is and he that is placed any where his Nature is uncapable to be every where So also Nazianzen (z) Orat. 51. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A Vessel of the capacity of one Measure will not contain two Measures nor the Place that will hold one Body can receive two or more Bodies into it Again (a) Paulo post 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a little after This is the Nature of Intellectual Beings that incorporeally and indivisibly they mingle with one another and with Bodies And elsewhere (b) Orat. 37. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he proves the Deity of the Holy Ghost because he penetrates all intellectual pure and most subtile Spirits as the Angels and also Apostles and Prophets at the same time when they are not in the same places but dispersed severally which shews that the Holy Spirit is uncircumscribed S. Basil uses the same Argument (c) De Spir. S. cap. 14. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. to prove the same Every one of the other Powers we believe
aright and are of a confirmed Faith must be persuaded that tho' Christ he absent from us in the Flesh having undertaken a long Journey to God and the Father that yet he compasses all things by his Divine Power and is present to them that love him c. And again (e) Ibid. in v. 36. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It seemed to them intolerable to be separated from Christ tho' he was always present with them by the Power and Efficacy of the Spirit Elsewhere (f) In Joan. 14.27 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he lays it down as a Rule That Christ's Spirit dwelling in the Saints supplies the Presence and Power of Christ in his absence And many more Places I might name out of him Their Sense is well exprest in that short Saying of the Author under S. Cyprian's (g) De Vnct. Chrysmat Inest veritas signo Spiritus Sacramento Name which I 'le again repeat Truth is in the Sign and the Spirit in the Sacrament S. Ambrose (h) De Spir. Sanct. l. 1. c. 10. propè finem knows of no other Presence of Christ now but what makes the Father to be present with him too and that is the Presence of the Spirit and of Grace His Words are very remarkable The Spirit then so comes Sic ergo venit Spiritus quemadmodum venit Pater dixit enim Filius Ego Pater veniemus mansionem apud eum faciemus Nunquid corporaliter Pater venit Sic ergo Spiritus venit in quo cum venit Patris Filii plena praesentia est Paulo post Probavimus igitur unam praesentiam esse unam gratiam esse Patris Filius Spiritus Sancti quae tam coelestis divina est ut pro eagratias agat Patri Filius c. as the Father comes For the Son said I and my Father will come and make our abode with him What do's the Father come corporally And the same may be ask'd too of the Son by what follows The Spirit so comes as that in him when he comes is the full Presence of the Father and the Son. A little after We have therefore proved that there is one Presence and that there is one Grace which explains what the Presence is of the Father Son and Holy Ghost which is so Celestial and Divine that the Son gives thanks to the Father for it c. Bede (i) Hom. ast de temp feria 6. Pasch observing how many times Christ appeared to his Disciples after his Resurrection says Hac ergo frequentia corporalis suae manifestationis ostendere voluit Dominus ut diximus in omni loco se bonorum desideriis divinitùs esse praesentem Apparuit namque ad monumentum lugentibus aderit nobis absentiae ejus recordatione salubriter contristatis Apparuit in fractione panis his qui se peregrinum esse putantes ad hospitium vocaverunt aderit nobis cùm peregrinis pauperibus quaecunque possumus bona libenter impendimus Aderit nobis in fractione panis cùm Sacramenta corporis ejus videlicet panis vivi casta simplici conscientia sumimus He designed to shew by these frequent Appearances that he would be spiritually or divinely present in all Places at the Desire of the Faithful He appear'd to the Women that wept at the Sepulcher he will be likewise present with us when we grieve at the remembrance of his absence He appear'd whilst they broke Bread to those who taking him for a Stranger gave him entertainment he will be likewise with us whilst we liberally receive the Poor and Strangers He will be likewise with us in the Fraction of Bread when we receive the Sacraments of his Body which is the Living Bread with a pure and chaste Heart All this speaks only the Presence of his Divinity and no other For as Alcuinus (k) In Joan. lib. 6. cap. 35. Et idem ipse Christus homo Deus Ergo ibat per id quod homo erat manebat per id quod Deus erat Ibat per id quod in uno loco erat manebat per id quod ubique Deus erat says The same Christ who is Man is likewise God he left them as to his Manhood but remained with them as to his Godhead He went away with reference to that by which he is but in one place N. B. yet tarried with them by his Divinity which is every where All Liturgies when the Eucharist is celebrated call aloud 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sursum corda Lift up your Hearts The meaning of which we are told by S. Austin (l) De bono Persev l. 2. c. 13. Quod ergo in Sacramentis fidelium dicitur ut sursum corda habeamus ad Dominum munus est Domini ut ascendat quae sursum sunt sapiat ubi Christus est in dextra Dei sedens non quae super terram c. What therefore is said in the Sacraments of the Faithful that we should lift up our Hearts to the Lord it is a Gift of the Lord. And he explains it That by the Divine Aid the Soul is helped to ascend and set its Affections upon things above where Christ is sitting at God's right Hand and not upon things on the Earth S. Jerom's Words (m) Ad Hedybiam qu. 2. Ascendamus cum Domino coenaculum magnum stratum mundatum accipiamus ab eo sursum calicem N. Testamenti ibique cum eo Pascha celebrantes inebriemur ab eo vino sobrietatis are very emphatical Let us with our Lord ascend the great upper Room prepared and made clean and receive from him above the Cup of the New Testament and there celebrating the Passover with him be inebriated by him with the Wine of Sobriety All you see is above and our Presence too with him there S. Chrysostome (n) Hom. 24. in 1 Cor. 10. speaking how we ought to approach to the tremendous Sacrifice with Concord and ardent Charity says From thence we become Eagles and so fly to Heaven it self For where the Carcase is thither will the Eagles come 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He calls his Body the Carcase because of his Death and he calls them Eagles shewing that he who comes to this Body ought to be sublime and have nothing common with Earth nor be drawn downward and creep but continually fly upward and look to the Sun of Righteousness and to have the Eye of his Mind quick-sighted For this is a Table for Eagles not for Jackdaws Gr. Nazianzen (o) Orat. 28. contr Maxim. speaking of his Adversaries says Will they drive me from the Altars I know another Altar 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whose Types the things now seen are upon which no Ax has been lift up no Iron Tool or other Instrument has been heard but is wholly a Work of the Mind 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and
Non debetis aquas illas oculis aestimare sed mente You ought not to make an Estimate of those Waters with your Eyes but with your Mind Thus also S. Ambrose (q) De his qui initiantur c. 3. Quod vidisti aquas utique sed non solas Levitas illic ministrantes summum Sacerdotem interrogantem consecrantem Primo omnium docuit te Apostolus non ea contemplanda nobis quae videntur sed quae non videntur c. Non ergo solis corporis tui oculis credas Magis videtur quod non videtur quia istud temporale illud aeternum aspicitur quod oculis non comprehenditur animo autem mente cernitur speaking of Baptism As to what thou hast seen to wit the Waters and not those alone but Levites there ministring and the Bishop asking Questions and Consecrating First of all the Apostle has taught thee That we are not to look upon the things that are seen but on the things that are not seen c. Do not therefore only believe thy bodily Eyes That is rather seen which is not seen because that is Temporal this is Eternal which is not comprehended by our Eyes but is seen by our Mind and Understanding S. Chrysostom (r) In Joan. Hom. 24. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 speaking also of Baptism thus breaks out Let us believe God's Affirmation for this is more faithful than our Sight for our Sight often is deceived that is impossible to fall to the Ground It is so frequent an Expression of S. Chrysostome That God's Word is more to be credited than our Eyes that he applies it not only to the Sacraments but even to the Case of Alms-giving For thus he says (s) Hom. 89. in Matth. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let us be so affected when we give Alms to the Poor as if we gave them to Christ himself For his Words are more sure than our Sight Therefore when thou seest a poor Man remember the Words whereby Christ signified that he himself is fed For tho' what is seen is not Christ yet under this shape he receives thy Alms and asks it Ans 3. The Fathers in the matter of Signs and Sacraments therefore call upon us not to listen to our Senses and credit them because in such Cases they would have us to consider things beyond and above their information such as relate to their Use and Efficacy these being spiritual things signified by what is visible wherein they place the Mystery and which Sense can neither discover nor judge of S. Austin has a Rule (t) De Doctr. Christ l. 2. c. 1. De signis disserens hoc dico ne quis in eis attendat quod sunt sed potius quod signa sunt id est quod significant Signum est enim res praeter speciem quam ingerit sensibus aliud aliquid ex se faciens in cogitationem venire in this Case I say this treating of Signs in which none ought to attend to what they are but rather that they are Signs that is that they signifie For a Sign is a thing which besides what appears affecting the Senses do's of it self make somewhat else to come into our thoughts So also Origen (u) In Joan. tom 18. ad finem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 describes a Sign to be a Note of another thing besides that which the Sense gives testimony to But none has so fully declared this Matter and answered the former Objection as S. Chrysostome in the place forecited whose Words deserve to be set down at large (x) In 1 Cor. Hom. 7. Edit Savil. Tom. 3. p. 280. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Where treating of Baptism the Eucharist and other Mysteries after he has told us as we heard before what a Mystery is viz. When we do not meerly believe what we see but see one thing and believe another he goes on thus I and an Infidel are diversly affected with them I hear that Christ was crucified I presently admire his Benignity He hears the same and he counts it Infirmity I hear that he was made a Servant and I admire his Care He when he hears the same counts it Infamy And so he goes on with his Death and Resurrection and the different Judgment is made of them and proceeds to speak of the Sacraments The Infidel hearing of the Laver of Baptism esteems it simply Water 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. but I do not look meerly upon what I see but regard the cleansing of the Soul by the Spirit He thinks that my Body only is washed but I believe that my Soul is made clean and holy I reckon the Burial Resurrection Sanctification Righteousness Redemption Adoption of Sons the Inheritance the Kingdom of Heaven the Supply of the Spirit For I do not judge of the things that appear by my Sight 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but by the Eyes of my Mind I hear of the Body of Christ I understand what is said one way an Infidel another Which he further illustrates admirably thus As Children looking upon Books know not the Power of Letters understand not what they look upon nay even to a grown Man that is unlearned it will be the same when a Man of Skill will find out much hidden Virtue Lives and Histories contained therein And if one of no skill receive a Letter he will judge it only to be Paper and Ink but he that has Skill hears an absent Person speak 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and discourses with him and speaks what he pleases to him again by his Letters Just thus it is in a Mystery Unbelievers hearing seem not to hear but the Believers being taught Skill by the Spirit perceive the Power of the hidden things This Discourse of S. Chrysostome's explains a Place of S. Cyril of Jerusalem (y) Catech. 4. Mystag 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. and teaches us how to understand it where speaking of the Eucharist he says Do not consider it as bare Bread and Wine for it is the Body and Blood of Christ according to our Lord's Affirmation And altho Sense suggests this to thee let Faith confirm thee Do not judge of the Matter by thy Taste but by Faith be undoubtedly persuaded that thou art honoured with the Body and Blood of Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And afterwards Being fully persuaded that the visible Bread is not Bread tho' the Taste perceive it such but the Body of Christ and the visible Wine is not Wine tho' the Taste would have it so but the Blood of Christ All which must be only understood of the Sacramental Relation that the Bread and Wine have to the Body and Blood of Christ which the Sense of Tasting acquaints us nothing at all with and therefore is not a fit Judge of this but we are to believe and not doubt of its Truth It will also help us to understand another Place of S. Chrysostome Homil. 83. in
the other But Transubstantiation supposes the Elements as to the Matter and Substance of them to perish and to be destroyed when they are said to be changed You cannot well imagine that the Fathers if they thought of Miracles wrought in the Sacrament yet should ever dream of any such as had no agreement with all the Miracles that God ever wrought before They well knew and our Adversaries do not deny it that in all other Supernatural Changes there was only the introducing of a new Form the Materia substrata the common Matter remaining So it was when Moses's Rod was turned into a Serpent when the Waters were turned into Blood Lot's Wife into a Pillar of Salt the Wine in Cana of Galilee changed into Water in all these neither the old Matter was lost nor new Matter created The Fathers therefore laugh at any such Change where the Things changed utterly perish Tertullian (n) De Resurrect Carn c 55. Quasi demutari sit in totum de pristino perire charges it as a great Absurdity against the Marcionites that according to them To be changed was to perish wholly and as to what they were before He has many smart Sayings against them for denying the same Bodies to appear and rise at the Resurrection and urges that of 1 Cor. 15. shewing that there will be a Change not a Destruction of our Flesh For says he Aliud est demutatio aliud perditio Peribit autem demutata si non ipsa permanserit in demutatione quae exhibita fuerit in resurrectione Quomodò ergo quod perditum est mutatum non est ita quod mutatum est perditum non est Perisse enim est in totum non esse quod fuerit mutatum esse aliter esse est Sed porrò dum aliter est id ipsum potest esse habet enim esse quod non perit mutationem enim passum est non perditionem A Change is one thing and Destruction is another But it will perish in the Change if that Flesh do not remain in the Change which shall be exhibited at the Resurrection As therefore that which is destroyed is not changed so that which is changed is not destroyed For to perish is wholly not to be what it had been but to be changed is to be otherwise than it was Moreover by being otherwise the thing may still be for it has a Being which perishes not for it only suffered a Change not a Destruction Gelasius (o) De duabus Naturis also disputing against the Eutychians who thought that the Humanity was converted into the Divinity so that nothing of the other remained just as with them the Bread is converted into Christ's Body Nec videatur glorificata nostra conditio unione Deitatis sed potius esse consumpta si non eadem subsistit in gloria sed solâ existente Deitate humanitas illic esse jam destitit c. Per hoc non sublimata sed abolita potius invenitur nothing of its Substance remaining says thus Neither do's our Condition by the Union of the Deity seem to be glorified but rather to be consumed if it do's not subsist the same in Glory but the Deity existing alone the Humanity now ceases to be there c. By this way it will not be found to be sublimated but abolish'd The thing is so clear against Transubstantiation that Scotus (p) In 4. dist 11. art 1. sec ad propositum Dico proprie loquendo quod transubstantiatio non est mutatio confesses it I say properly speaking That Transubstantiation is not a Change. 2 Assertion When the Fathers speak of converting a thing into another thing that was before they suppose an Accession and an Augmentation made to that into which the Conversion is made Just as it is in Nourishment of our Bodies the Food converted into them makes an Increase of them Cyril of Alexandr (q) Epist 1. ad Succensum arguing against those Hereticks who thought the glorified Body of Christ was converted into his Divinity he says Thus we derogate from the Divinity 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as if it were made and as receiving something into it self which is not proper to its Nature And he makes this Conversion to be impossible upon this account Gelasius (r) De duabus Naturis Accesserit accreveritque Deitati transfusione humanitatis adjectae velut aucta videatur uses the same Phrases of Accession and Increase to the Deity and that by the transfusion of the Humanity added to it the Divinity would seem to be increased Thus the later Greeks thought it was in Christ's Body into which the Bread was changed Damascen (s) Epist ad Zachariam in Hom. de Corp. Sang. Domini speaking of the Body of Christ which we partake of I declare says he it cannot be said there are two Bodies of Jesus Christ there being but one alone 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For as the Child as soon as it is born is compleat but receives his growth from eating and drinking and tho' he grows thereby yet cannot be said to have two Bodies but only one so by greater reason the Bread and Wine by the Descent of the Holy Spirit are made one only Body and not two by the Augmentation of the Body of Christ Theophylact (t) In cap. 6. Joan. expresses it thus The Bread is changed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 into the Flesh of Christ by the ineffable Words the mystical Benediction and coming of the Holy Spirit upon it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 No Man ought to be troubled in being obliged to believe that Bread becomes Flesh For when our Lord was conversant in Flesh and received his Nourishment from Bread this Bread he did eat was changed into his Body being made like to his holy Flesh 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and contributed to augment and sustain it after a humane manner And thus now is the Bread changed into our Lord's Flesh See more Testimonies of the following Greeks in Monsieur Claude's Catholick Doctrine of the Eucharist in answer to Monsieur Arnaud Lib. 3. cap. 13. pag. 228 229. in Fol. 3 Assertion and the most remarkable is this The Fathers use the same Terms of passing into being changed converted becoming another thing c. in other Cases besides the Eucharist wherein all agree there is no Change of Substances made Therefore there is no Argument can be drawn from such Expressions in favour of Transubstantiation no not when the Word Nature or Substance is exprest in the Change. Tertullian (u) De Resur Carn c. 55. Si transfigurationem conversionem in transitum substantiae cujusque defendis ergo Saul in alium virum conversus de corpore suo excessit c. has dashed this out of countenance when he says to Marcion If thou defendest a Transfiguration and Conversion as far as the passing of the Substance of a
thing into another then Saul who was turned into another Man went out of his Body c. Again It 's possible to be changed says he Ibid. Ita in resurrectionis eventum mutari converti reformari licebit cum salute substantiae to be converted and reformed into what shall happen at the Resurrection and yet the Substance be preserved But this will more fully appear by the Axioms the Fathers lay down and by the Instances they give Their Axioms are such as these Cyril of Alexandr (x) Thesaur Assert 20. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For a thing to be made do's not always signifie a change of Nature Cyril of Jerus (y) Catech. Mystag 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Whatsoever the Holy Spirit touches that is always sanctified and changed S. Jerome (z) In cap. 43. Ezekiel Per ignem Spiritus sancti omnia quae cogitamus loquimur ac facimus in spiritualem substantiam convertuntur By the Fire of the Holy Spirit all that we think speak and act are changed into a Spiritual Substance If these Sayings be strictly scann'd they will amount to no more than a producing new Vertues and Qualities which were not before Their Instances also shew the same 1. Of Miraculous Changes in Nature S. Ambrose (a) In Heâ—em l. 3. c. 2. Discant naturam posse converti quando petra aquas fluxit ferrum aquae supernatavit Let them learn that Nature may be converted when the Rock flowed out Waters and Iron swam above Water Again (b) Lib. de iis qui initiant c. 9. Nonne claret naturam vel maritimorum fluctuum vel fluvialis cursus esse mutatam Misit Moyses lignum in aquam amaritudinem suam aquarum natura deposuit Misit etiam Elisaeus lignum in aquam ferrum natavit utique hoc praeter naturam factum esse cognoscimus speaking of Changes in the Red Sea and Jordan when the Waters stood on an heap Is it not clear says he that the Nature of the Sea-waves and the Rivers Current was changed Moses threw Wood into the Water and the Nature of the Waters lost its Bitterness Elisha also threw Wood into the Water and Iron swam and this we know was done besides Nature Epiphanius (c) Haeres 64. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 says The Hand of Moses was changed into Snow S. Chrysostome (d) In Psal 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 speaking of the Babylonian Furnace says The Elements forgetting their proper Nature were changed to become profitable to them and the very Beasts were no longer Beasts nor the Furnace a Furnace 2. Of the Change by the Fall. S. Austin says (e) In Psal 68. Conc. 1. Per iniquitatem homo lapsus est à substantâ in qua factus est By Sin Man fell from the Substance in which he was made 3. Of the Change by Regeneration Gr. Nyssen (f) In Cantic Hom. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 says That by the Discipline of Christ Men are changed into a Nature that is more Divine And again (g) In Cantic Hom. 9. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Having divested themselves of Flesh and Blood and being changed into a Spiritual Nature Macarius (h) Hom. 44. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 says Our Souls must be altered and changed from their present Condition into another Condition and into a Divine Nature Cyril of Alexandria (i) De S. Trin. Dial. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 speaks of Regeneration as that which transmutes and changes us into the Son of God. 4. Of the Change in the Incarnation of Christ and the Resurrection Gr. Nyssen (k) Câ—ntr Eunom l. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 speaking of Christ whom he calls our First-fruits says That by his mixing with God he is changed into a Divine Nature And again (l) Ibid. l. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he uses this Phrase of Christ's Flesh That this is also changed into the Deity Chrysologus (m) Serm. 45. Deus in hominem convertitur of the Incarnation God is changed into Man. The Author under the Name of Eusebius Emissenus (n) Hom. de Pasch 3. Quid est Virga in Serpentem Deus in hominem commutatus asks What is the Rod turned into a Serpent He answers God changed into Man. Tertullian (o) Demutati in atomo erimus in Angelicam substantiam Contr. Marc. l. 3. c. ult speaking of the Resurrection We shall be changed in a moment into an Angelical Substance S. Hilary's (p) In Psal 138. Demutatio terrenorum corporum in spiritualem aethereamque naturam Phrase of it is A Change of Earthly Bodies into a Spiritual and Ethereal Nature Macarius (q) Hom. 34. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 speaking of the Saints They are all changed into a Divine Nature Chrysologus (r) Serm. 45. Veniat veniat ut carnem reparet animam innovet ipsam naturam in coelestem commutet substantiam speaking of Christ Let him come let him come to repair our Flesh make our Souls new change our Nature into a Celestial Substance Cyril of Alexand. says (s) Orat. in Resurr Christi 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 At the Resurrection there will be another kind of Life and a Change of our very Nature S. Austin (t) Serm. 12. de 40. à Sirmond Edit Caro mortalis convertitur in corpus Angeli Ille qui potens fuit mutare aquam in vinum potens est mutare foenum in aurum de carne facere Angelum Si de fordibus fecit hominem de homine non faciet Angelum says Our mortal Fesh is converted into the Body of an Angel. He that could change Water into Wine is able to change Hay so he calls our Bodies that are Grass into Gold and of Flesh make an Angel. If he made of Filth a Man can he not make of Man an Angel And elsewhere (u) Cont. Adimant c. 12. Cùm induerit incorruptionem immortalitatem jam non caro sanguis erit sed in corpus coeleste mutabitur speaking of our Bodies When it shall put on Incorruption and Immortality now it will be no longer Flesh and Blood but be changed into a celestial Body Cassian (x) De Incarn l. 3. c. 3. Natura carnis in spiritualem est translata substantiam speaking of Christ's Flesh after the Resurrection The Nature of his Flesh is changed into a spiritual Substance 5. Of the Change in Baptism S Chrysostome (y) In Acta Hom. 23. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Verily the Power of Baptism is great c. it do's not suffer Men to be any longer Man. Nazianzen (z) Orat. 40. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I am changed into Christ in Baptism Cyril of Alexandr (a) In Joan. 3.5 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 By the energy of the Spirit the sensible Water is changed into a kind of divine and unspeakable Power Again (b) Idem Epist
with them for the honour of thy Christ c. Would it not run finely to pray that God would be well pleased with Christ for the honour of his Christ But besides the Petition that God would look propitiously upon them it follows in the Canon That God would accept them as he did the Gifts of Abel and Abraham and Melchisedeck How unagreeable is this if Christ himself be understood here to make the Comparison for acceptance betwixt a Lamb and a Calf or Bread and Wine and Christ the Son of God with whom he was always highly pleased But then what follows still entangles Matters more in the Church of Rome's Sense The Prayer That God would command these things to be carried by the hands of his Holy Angel to the High Altar above For how can the Body of Christ be carried by Angels to Heaven which never left it since his Ascension but is always there Besides the High Altar above in the Sense of the Ancients is Christ himself And Remigius of Auxerre tells us (s) De celebrat Missae in Bibl. Pat. 2dae Edit Tom. 6. p. 1164. In Coelo rapitur ministerio Angelorum consociandum corpori Christi That S. Gregory's Opinion of the Sacrament was That it was snatched into Heaven by Angels to be joined to the Body of Christ there But then in the sense of Transubstantiation what absurd stuff is here to pray that Christ's Body may be joined to his own Body So that there can be no sense in the Prayer but ours to understand it of the Elements offered devoutly first at this Altar below which by being blessed become Christ's Representative Body and obtain acceptance above through his Intercession there And thus it is fully explained by the Author of the Constitutions (t) Lib. 8. c. 13. in initio 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let us entreat God through his Christ for the Gift offered to the Lord God that the good God by the mediation of his Christ would receive it to his Coelestial Altar for a sweet smelling Savour To put the Matter further out of all doubt it is observable that the Liturgies that go under the name of S. James and S. Mark do both of them mention the acceptance of the Gifts of Abel and Abraham and the admitting them to the Celestial Altar before the reciting the words of the Institution or Consecration as the Roman Church calls them by which they say the Change is made That the Liturgy of S. Chrysostom prays That God would receive the Oblations proposed to his Supercelestial Altar almost in the same words both before and after Consecration and that he look'd upon them to be the same in substance that they were before plainly appears by an expression after all where he prays (u) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That the Lord would make an equal division of the proposed Gifts to every one for good according to every Man 's particular need Which cannot be understood of Christ's proper Body but of the consecrated Bread and Wine which cannot admit of shares or Portions equal or unequal Lastly That S. Basil's Liturgy also before the Consecration prays That the Oblations may be carried unto the supercelestial Altar and be accepted as the Gifts of Abel Noah Abraham c. And to shew that even after the words of Institution he did not believe them to be other things than they were before he still calls them the Antitypes (x) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. of the Body and Blood of Christ and prays That the Spirit may come upon us and upon the Gifts proposed to bless and sanctify them and to make this Bread the venerable Body of our Lord God and Saviour Jesus Christ and this Cup his Blood the Spirit working the change And afterwards the Priest prays (y) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That by reason of his Sins he would not divert the Grace of his Holy Spirit from the proposed Gifts A needless fear if the Gifts were already Christ's Body that the Spirit should be hindred from coming upon that where all the Fulness of the God-head dwells bodily by any Man's Sins The next Passage of the Canon increases still the difficulty to them that believe Transubstantiation When it says Through Jesus Christ our Lord by whom O Lord thou dost always create sanctify quicken bless and bestow all these good things on us If there be no good thing remaining in the Eucharist besides Christ when these words are said What Sense or Truth is there in them Can Christ or his Body that already exists be created anew and be always created Can that be always sanctified that was never common Or is he to be raised and quickned anew daily that once being so raised can die no more c. But that which makes the Absurdity of this Interpretation the greater is that they say that all this is done to Christ by Christ himself as if God by Christ did create Christ and by Christ did bless and quicken and sanctify Christ which none but he that is forsaken of common Sense can affirm The old Interpreters of the Canon made other work of it and supposed that the Creatures offered to God remained Creatures still for thus the forecited Remigius (z) In Bibl. Patr. Tom. 6. p. 1165. Per Christum Deus Pater haec omnia non solum in exordio creavit condendo sed etiam semper creat praeparando reparando bona quia omnia à Deo creata valdè bona creata suis conspectibus oblata sanctificat ut quae erant simplex creatura fiant Sacramenta vivificat ut sint mysteria vitae Benedicit quia omni benedictione coelesti gratiâ accumulat Praestat nobis per eundem secum sanctificantem qui de corpore suo sanguine suo nobis tam salubrem dedit refectionem comments upon them God the Father not only in the beginning created all these things by Christ but also always creates them by preparing and repairing them Good because all things created by Good are very good He sanctifies those things so created and offered in his sight when the things that were a simple Creature are made Sacraments he quickens them so that they become Mysteries of Life He blesses them because he heaps all Celestial Benediction and Grace on them He bestows them on us by the same Christ sanctifying them with him who has given to us so wholsom a repast from his Body and Blood. What can be also more plain than the words of the next Prayer I mentioned That what we have taken with our Mouth may of a Temporal Gift be made an Eternal Remedy Did ever any one call Christ a Temporal Gift in distinction from an Eternal Remedy Is it not certain that the Oblata the things offered are the Temporal Gift which by our due receiving them become eternally beneficial to us The last Prayer also which beg That the Body and Blood of Christ may