Vnum quid as it were one and the same thing †Valen disput 6. in 3. Tho. punct 1. Sect. 19. Christum illa accidentia in Eucharistia vere proprie formaliter inter se uniri Greg. de Val. proves Christ and those Accidents to be truly properly formally united From hence as I said many inconveniences follow for what happens to the species must also to the body and blood of Christ Thirdly if we consider this with reference to the Sacrament we may well put the question how can Accidents of bread and wine be in the Sacrament without their proper subject how can they supply the purposes of the Sacrament as to the outward part of it without the substances of bread and wine or if the body and blood of Christ under the species must supply the defect of their proper subject or substances as his answering by the personality of our Saviour must imply then must the body and blood of Christ supply the place and property of the outward part of the Sacrament which is most absurd By this of the Personality of our Saviour he serves himself in answering the eight question and the three last But the disparity is evident for the personality of the divine nature may supply the defect of it in the humane by reason of the hypostatical union which joyns the humane nature to the divine But the body and blood of Christ can neither be united to the species of bread and wine in such a manner as to make it supply the defect of their proper subject neither is apt to supply the properties of that subject or outward element of the Sacrament as we noted above yet does Mr. Spencer by his answer suppose the body and blood of our Saviour to supply all and the Romish writers by that strict union which they suppose to be between his body and the Species make it subject to many inconveniences To the question how can the same body be in several places at once Same body in several places he returns this question as satisfactory how can the Soul or an Angel or God be at the same time in many places But any one may see the disparity between the properties and condition of a Body and of a Spirit and consequently the unsatisfactoriness of his Answer Nor is it true which he here must suppose that a Soul can be in several bodies distant one from other or an Angel in distant places at once therefore they are forced to take in Gods property of being present in many places l 3. c 4. de Enchar quomdo Deus est in Loco Mr. Spencer learnt it of the Cardinal affirming the body of Christ to be in place as God is To that of Penetration of parts if our Saviours body should be contained in the least part or crumb of the host Penetration of Dimensions he answers by our Saviours body passing through the doors and through his mothers womb both being shut But it s no where said they remained absolutely shut * in 4. sent dist in 44. qu. 6. Durand shews how with more reason it may be said our Saviour came in the doors opening to him unperceived by his Disciples for it is not said saith he that he came in per januas clausas but januis clausis not through the shut doors but the doors being shut And for his passage through his Mothers womb it being shut the Scripture puts him among the first born that opened the womb and though the Fathers often speak of the womb being shut yet is it only to deny such an opening of the womb as is injurious to her Virginity and much to this purpose Durand shews in the place above cited may be said of our Saviours coming out of the womb citing Saint Aug. Ambr. Greg. Another objection p. 308. If our Saviours flesh and blood be really in the Sacrament Our Saviours body exposed to indignities then may Catts and Rats eat it This objection is not carefully expressed for such inconveniences do not follow upon a Real presence but such a Presence as the Romanists fancy which binds his body and blood to the species and so makes it liable to all the indignities which happen to them But see how he would answer it by the like as he supposes If the flesh and blood of Christ saith he were really in the Passion then might dogs eat his blood that was shed As if it were alike what was done to his passible body appointed then to suffer and done now to his glorious body All the disgraces and indignities that were done or could happen unto him then were agreeable to the work he came about viz. to redeem us by suffering and whatever became of that precious blood that was shed it had notwithstanding its due effect for our Redemption but now to expose his glorious body to such indignities as they do by uniting it so to the species does not beseem Christians The next objection or question If there were so many miracles as you must hold wrought in the Sacrament Multiplying of miracles need lessy Why are none of them seen He answers by another question If there be so many miracles wrought in the incarnation of our Saviour why were none of them seen p. 309. But great disparity here for albeit the miraculous Incarnation of our Saviour was secret and unseen in the working of it yet seen and apparent enough in the effect wrought Again the nature of that mystery required it should be secret in the working but for our believing it the word doth sufficiently attest it and the thing or work wrought was sufficiently evident therefore S. Jo. saith c. 1.14 The word was made flesh and dwelt among us and we saw his glory c. Nothing like in the sacrament notwithstanding that the nature of sacraments requires all be done to the sense for confirmation and as nothing appears of all the supposed miracles so nor does the word of God plainly attest any of them so destitute is their way of Transubstantiation of any just proof or evidence CHAP. VIII Against Communion in one kinde THe Doctrine of the Church of Rome delivered in the Council of Trent and here prefixed by Mr. Spencer carries its Condemnation in the forehead The boldness of the Church of Rome in this point acknowledging that our Saviour instituted and administred in both kinds and that the use of both kinds was frequent might have said Constant in the beginning of Christian Religion might have said for 1200. years after the beginning of Christian Religion yet is not ashamed to approve the contrary practice and to plead for it an authority in the Church about the Sacraments to make a change Salvâ substantia that is the substance being preserved entire where again it speaks its own condemnation for how can the substance be preserved when half of that which our Saviour made the Sacrament is denied to the people He calls
Dialog 1. c. 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 changing saith he not the Nature of the Symbols or Elements but adding grace unto nature by which grace or blessing of consecration they become of holy use and divine vertue Again he saith Theod. Dial 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Symbols do not go out of their proper nature And this he spoke in answer to the Eutychian objecting the change made in the Sacrament as a proof or illustration of the change of the Humane Nature into the Divine asserted by those Hereticks In the place which the Cardinal alledged out of St. Cyprian in his Sermon de Caena is subjoyned the similitude of the Humanity and Divinity of Christ united together which very frequently is by the Fathers applied to the business of the Sacrament Omnipotentrâ Verbi carc factus The Cardinal opposes that St. Cyprian saith there The bread by the omnipotence of the Word is made his flesh Now what omnipotency is it saith he to make the Bread only signifie his body The Omnipotency say we is not in making the Bread a bare sign of his body as he would impose upon us nor yet in changing it substantially into the body of Christ as he would have us believe but in making the bread his body or communication of his body and yet to remain what it was the same in substance Ambr. de Sacram l. 4. c. 4. Vt sint quae erant in aliud commutentur as St. Ambrose expresses it That they be what they were and yet turned into another thing viz. into the body and bloud of Christ and this he affirms to be a greater work then that of Creation which made things to be which were not There is one place which the Cardinal cites out of St. Chrysostome de Euchar. in Encaeniis I could not finde it Num vides panem num vinum num ficut reliqui cibi in secessum vadunt absit ne Cogites but thus it speaks as he reports it Do'st thou see Bread or Wine do they go as other meats into the draught far be that from them do not think so Then followes for as Wax if it be held to the fire is assimulated to the fire or turned into a flame and nothing of the substance remains Sic hic puta Mysteria consumi Corporis substantia So also think here the Mysteries are consumed by the substance of the body Answ It is familiar with that father for better raising the thoughts from all earthly considerations in this Sacrament to use such manner of speeches Elsewhere he bids them not to think they are now on Earth but in Heaven and that they receive it from the hand of a Cherubim or Seraphim So here Do not think thou seest Bread and Wine c. and so think here the Mysteries are consumed as Wax turned into a flame to shew there is nothing of terrene or bodily consideration nothing for filling the belly intended or left in the use and purpose of this Sacrament and so neither should there be any thing of that concernment in our thoughts Now as to the point which the Romanists aim at the not remaining of the substance of Bread and Wine We may say in strict reasoning it would follow also that the Species of Bread and Wine do not remain for he saith the Mysteries are consumed and those according to the Romish doctrine are the Species after consecration But in all Reason we ought to have more regard to Fathers speaking punctually and properly in their Commentaries or disputes then loosly and and at large in their Rhetorical flourishes and perswasions as St. Chrysost often doth and most especially on this matter of the Sacrament We shall therefore now add some Testimonies of the Fathers speaking distinctly and properly to the point First of those that had to do with Hereticks Testimonies for remaining of the substance of the Elements and were in their disputes bound to speak properly and to the point Irenaeus dealt against such as denied our Saviour to be the Son of the God of the Old Testament or of the God that made and created all against whom he brings one argument from the Sacrament instituted by our Saviour saying Our sentence or doctrine is consonant to the Eucharist Iren. l. 4. c. 34. Nostra sententia est consonans Eucharistiae Eucharistia confirmat nostram sententiam and the Eucharist confirmeth our Doctrine Why because Christ as the Son of God took of his Creatures Bread and Wine to apply them to his own use and purpose So his making an Eucharist of those Creatures or fruits of the earth made against the vanity of that Heretical assertion In like manner the Eucharist or that which Irenaeus saith of it here confirms our Doctrine against the Romanists For there he saith The Bread after consecration is not now common bread but an Eucharist Panis non jam communis panis est sed Eucharistia ex duabus rebus constans terrena coelesti Iren. ibid. consisting of two things the terrene and the Heavenly If not common bread yet bread still and if it consists of these two then is bread still in it for else it could not consist of it And this is according to the Cardinals own reasoning who intending by this place to prove a Real presence of Christs body and bloud in the Sacrament argueth thus Bel. de Euch. l. 2. c. 6. Nihil constare dicitur ex eo quod in ipso non est Irenaeus saith It consists of the Earthly and the Heavenly part but nothing can consist saith the Cardinal of that which is not in it not observing that it equally proves the substantial presence of the Bread for it consists of the terrene as of the coelestial Now we can say the coelestial part the substance of Christs body and bloud is given in the Sacrament they dare not say it of the substance of the Terrene part but betake them to the species of bread and wine when as Irenaeus speaks of the substantial creatures and fruits of the earth and it concerned him to mean so else those Hereticks might have said our Saviour took those Creatures to destroy them and leaves only the appearance and species of those things which the God of the Old Testament had made Again the Cardinal makes another argument from those words of Irenaeus Our bodies receiving the Eucharist jam non sunt corruptibilia spem resurrectionis habentia Iren. ibid. are not now corruptible as having the hope of a resurrection wherein he abuses that good Father and himself For thus he argues from that saying Corpora nostra reipsa fient immortalia ergo panis terrenus reipsa fit corpus Christi Bel. ibid. Our bodies shall be truly indeed incorruptible therefore the terrene bread is truly indeed made the body of Christ Whereas that Father speaks of the present Our bodies are not now corruptible which
the Cardinal turns into shall be incorruptible because he could not say they are now truly and indeed incorruptible So that according to this Father the Argument would stand thus As our bodies now are incorruptible not because they are so according to nature and substance but in as much as they have the hope of a resurrection so the Bread is the body of Christ not because changed in nature and substance but in as much as by the grace of consecration it is the communion of his body Tertullian had to do with Marcion and such Hereticks that denied Christ had a true and solid body And he proves the contrary by Bread the figure of his body Tertul. contra Marcion lib. 4. c. 40. Non fuisset figura nisi veritatis esset corpus both in the Old Testament and in the Eucharist Now saith he it could not be the figure of his body if his body were not a true body And if there be force in this Reason then should Marcion supposing Transubstantiation have great advantage upon a phantastical figure that had no substance of bread but only the Accidents and appearances and upon such a phantastical mode of a Body Si proprereas panem sibi corpus sinxit quia corporis carebat veritate Tert. ibid. as the Romish doctrine puts our Saviours body into Also the words following If he took bread as those Hereticks said to make it his body because he wanted a true body then it would follow that Bread was given and crucified for us These words I say do necessarily suppose the substance of Bread to remain for how could that be said if the Bread also should want the truth of a body remaining only in shew and appearance which would much have confirmed Marcion in his misbelief of the reality of Christs body of which there should be so phantastical a figure or sign This is so evident and convincing that Beatus Rhenanus in his Annotations acknowledges Tertullian of this judgment That Bread is so the figure of Christs body that it still remains the same in substance as it was before Add to this what he saith elsewhere Tertul. de anima c. 17. Sensus non falli circa objecta ne hinc aliquid procuretur Haereticis de Christo phantasma credentibus Non est gustus Discipulorum Iudificatus The senses are not deceived in their own objects lest thereby something of advantage might be yielded to the Hereticks making but a phantasm of Christ The tast of the disciples was not deceived when in the marriage of Cana they drank wine made of Water nor was the Feeling of Thomas abused when he put his finger in our Saviours side Nor are our senses may we say abused or deceived when they tell us this is true bread which is in the Sacrament Theodoret had to do with the Eutychian Hereticks that held our Saviours humanity swallowed up in the Divine Nature for which they made Argument from the Sacrament Theod. Dâ—â— al. 2. That even as the Symbols or Elements were after consecration changed into another thing for such was the common phrase of that Time when speech was of the Sacrament so is the humane Nature or body of the Lord after assumption changed into the divine substance This Argument had been unanswerable had Transubstantiation been then the Doctrine of the Church But Theodoret answers him that makes this Argument Thou art taken in thy own Net for the Symbols do not go out of their proper nature 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but remain in ther former substance and figure and shape That the words Nature and Substance must be here taken properly and not confounded as in the Romanists irrational answer they are with the Accidents or Species of the Bread and Wine is clearly evinced both by the absurdity of putting Substance for Accidents and by the very reason of the Argument here made which supposeth Nature and Substance properly taken on the Eutychian part and so must be meant in Theodorets Reply to the plain exclusion of a Substantial change The like demonstration is made by Gelasius in his * In Biblioth Patrum To. 5. parte 3. Book of the two Natures of Christ against Eutyches Nestorius Of which Book the †Bel. de Euch. l. 2. c. 27. Idem prorsùs docet quod Theodoretus ad eandem rem confirmandam Cardinal acknowledgeth that Gelasius taught the same with Theodoret and for confirming of the very same thing It being familiar with the Catholick writers of those Times to use the instance of the Eucharist against the Eutychian Heresie which did necessarily infer the remaining of the substance of the Elements to shew the remaining of the humane Nature of Christ after its assumption Nay before that Heresie appeared some of the Ancients did make use of the same Instance arguing from the Union of the two Natures in Christ to shew the Sacramental Union as they that wrote against Eutyches did from the Sacrament borrow a demonstration or illustration for the two Natures united in our Saviour Christ Justin Martyr saith thus We take these not as common bread or common drink Just Apol. 2. ad Anton. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but even as Jesus Christ being made Flesh by the Word of God had flesh and bloud for our salvation * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So we learn also that the meat or food which by the prayer of his Word is blessed and made an Eucharist by which our flesh and bloud through the change of it are nourished is the flesh and bloud of the same incarned Jesus Here is Bread though not common bread after consecration and Bread remaining in Substance for it nourishes our bodies by a change into our flesh and it must answer to our Saviours flesh remaining in substance after the Incarnation notwithstanding that it is made the body of Christ so far as the reason and purpose of the Eucharist requires St. Cyprian or the Author of that Sermon de Coena of the Lords Supper saith Even as in the Person of Christ Sicut in persona Christi Humanitas apparebat latebat Divinitas ità sacro visibili divina se ineffabiliter infundit essentia the humanity appeared and the Divinity laid hid So doth the divine essence ineffably insinuate itself into the visible sacred Element This place is cited for a Real Presence by the Cardinal but he should have considered it cannot be such a Real Presence as will serve his turn For the substantial presence of the visible outward element is equally proved by this saying of the Father and a dangerous thing it is to make the bread and wine remain as the Cardinal doth in shew and appearance only which renders this instance of the Sacrament held altogether useless against those Hereticks which held our Saviours body or humanity was but such in appearance only not substance Thus the Fathers that dealt with Hereticks were bound to speak
the speech will bear another more agreeable to the purpose of the place and to impose upon omnipotencie a necessitie of making it good what is it but to tempt God And here we may mind him again of the other proposition this cup is the new Testament in my blood which we found him above loath to speak to but desire him here to examine whether this Scripture can be taken in a literal proper sense He can not say it many things compel to the contrary then is it a figurative speech and that in the words of institution as well as this is my body The last objection is from Jo. 6. the Capernaites conceit of eating our Saviours flesh and his saying the flesh profiteth nothing some indeed will apply this against the Romish doctrine but I will not quarrel with him about the force of it The Protestant doctrine rests not upon this place of Scipture we say the true flesh of Christ profiteth where ever it is really given and received or eaten and let the Romanists consider whether they must not say the flesh of Christ profiteth nothing when they say the wicked really eat the true flesh of Christ It is plain by what our Saviour saith in that Chapter of eating his flesh that albeit the Sacramental eating of his flesh may profit nothing as in them that receive unworthily yet is there no real eating of our Saviours flesh but what profiteth St. Paul might say He that eateth that bread unworthily but could not say he that eateth Christs flesh unworthily taking it not for the bare Sacramental eating but for real participation of his very flesh which the Romanists allow unto the wicked The cause of this and many more and greater incongruities is that gross kind of Real Presence which puts our Saviours body in stead of the substantial bread fixing it under those species or qualities of bread making it unum quid as we noted above one thing with them and so carryed whither soever they are given to whom soever and received by whomsoever they are Having done with these objections which he calls the chief arguments of protestants from Scripture Considerations of Transubstantiation as to natural reason he tells us there are other drawn from Natural Reason fitter for Heathens then Christians p. 306. If we do but speak the horrid inconveniences and indignities that the blessed and glorious body of our Saviour is or may be exposed to by this gross way of presence or binding his body under to the species they presently cry this is fitter to be spoken by Infidels then Christians we may not so much as utter the ill consequences of their belief without note of infidelity So if inquiring a Reason of this their belief and not finding in Scripture any express witness of Gods will nor any example of the like conversion but finding many things that compel to the contrary from the reason of a body and of a Sacrament we profess that we cannot see how it should be and that we have no reason to make it an Article of our belief then are such arguments or questionings of it fitter for Heathens then Christians so unwilling is that Church to have any thing questioned or searched into that it propounds as Article of Faith St. Chrysostome speaking of that questioning of the Resurrection 1 Cor. 15.35 how are the dead raised and with what body do they come saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To be asking still how shall this be is the part of one that believes not and it was well said supposing the Article or thing to be believed clearly expressed in Scripture as the Resurrection of the dead Incarnation Birth of our Saviour and the like when God Almighty has expresly declared these then to ask how this shall be sounds unbelief it s more fit for a Heathen then Christian therefore we believing the Sacrament is his body and blood or as S. Paul the communication of his body blood and consequently his body and blood really present in the Sacrament we do not question nor define the Modus how this is done but challenge the boldness of the Church of Rome that has determined the Modus by transubstantiation that is by destroying one essential part of the Sacrament the outward Element Bread and Wine and would impose this upon the world as an Article of Faith These arguments from Reason as he calls them he will undertake to answer and because he deals with such as profess themselves to be Christians he will endeavour it by giving clear instances in some Article of Christian faith which they believe wherein they must solve the like difficulties to those they urge from natural Reason against this mystery p. 306. This is fair and will be satisfactory if he can make it good But still we must remember if he could make it good it evinces but the possibility of the thing which is needless in this point to contend much about and does acknowledge a needless multiplying of miracles and engaging of Gods omnipotency where he has made no express declaration of his will or evidence of the thing The Arguments as he calls them are propounded here by way of question and he answers by other questions which binds him to see to it that there be no disparity between the reason of the one and of the other or that the like difficulty as he undertook above must be solved in that Instance he gives But this is not likely to be done if we observe the doubts proceed upon our Saviours body considered not onely simply in it self or nature of a body but also as concerned in this business in the nature of a Sacrament also if we observe his way of proceeding for he is fain still to serve himself of the capacity of a spirit as Soul Angel God himself to shew the possible conditions a Body may be put under or of the mystery of the hypostatical union to shew the like supply of defects in nature here now this at first sight presents a great disparity between the things The first question enquires how can Accidents the species of bread and wine exist without a subject This question Accidents without a subject although we will not dispute it to the denying of Gods omnipotency in sustaining Accidents without a Subject yet may it be put to the prejudice of Romish Transubstantiation many wayes First because it implies a needless multiplying of miracles in the Sacrament Secondly because it binds the body and blood of Christ to and under those Accidents or Species upon which many inconveniences follow Mr. Spencers answering this question by the humane nature in Christ which subsists without its proper personality and receives it from the divine nature must suppose that Christs body and blood in the Eucharist does supply the defect of the proper subject of those species * Bell. l. 4. de Euchar. c. 29. Sect. sed haec Bellarm. makes them and Christs body