Wine in a Cup and said Drink ye all of this This is my Blood which is shed for many for the Remission of Sins The Apostles did as Christ commanded they consecrated Bread and Wine for the Eucharist And to his memory also afterward every one of their Successors and all Christ's Priests According to Christ's Command by the Apostolical Benediction did consecrate Bread and Wine in his Name Now Men have often disputed P. 470. and do it still How that Bread which is prepared of Corn and is baked by the heat of Fire can be changed into Christ's Body and how that Wine which is pressed out of many Grapes by any blessing of it can be changed into our Lord's Blood Now to such Men I answer that some things are spoken of Christ by signification some others by a known thing It is a true thing and known that Christ was born of a Virgin and voluntarily suffered Death and was buried and this Day rose from the Dead He is called Bread and a Lamb and a Lion and otherwise by signification He is called Bread because he is our Life and the Life of Angels He is called a Lamb for his Innocency A Lion for his Strength whereby he overcame the strong Devil Yet notwithstanding according to true Nature Christ is neither Bread nor a Lamb nor a Lion. Wherefore then is that Holy Eucharist called Christ's Body or his Blood if it be not truly what it is called Truly the Bread and Wine which are consecrated by the Mass of the Priests show one thing outwardly to Mens Senses and another thing they declare inwardly to believing Minds Outwardly Bread and Wine are seen both in appearance and in tast yet they are truly after Consecration Christ's Body and Blood by a Spiritual Sacrament An Heathen Child is Baptized yet he altereth not his outward shape though he be changed within He is brought to the Font full of Sin through Adam's Disobedience but he is washed from all his Sins inwardly tho' he has not changed his outward Shape So also that Holy Font-Water which is called the Well-spring of Life is like in Nature in specie to other Waters and is subject to corruption but the Power of the Holy Ghost by the Priest's Blessing comes upon that corruptible Water and after that it can wash both Body and Soul from all Sins P. 471. by spiritual Power We see now in this one Creature two things that whereby according to true Nature it is corruptible Water and that whereby according to the Spiritual Mystery it has a saving Power So also if we look upon that Holy Eucharist according to a corporeal Sense then we see that it is a Creature corruptible and changeable but if we own a spiritual Power there then we understand that Life is in it and that it confers Immortality on those that tast it by Faith. There is a great difference betwixt the insible Vertue and Power of this Holy Eucharist and the visible appearance of its proper Nature By its Nature it is corruptible Bread and corruptible Wine and by the Virtue of the Divine Word it is truly the Body and Blood of Christ yet not corporally so but spiritually There is much differencce betwixt that Body which Christ suffer'd in and that Body which is consecrated for the Eucharist The Body that Christ suffer'd in was Born of the Flesh of Mary with Blood and Bones with Skin and Nerves animated by a rational Spirit in humane Members but his Spiritual Body which we call the Eucharist is collected from many grains of Corn without Blood and Bone without Member or Soul wherefore there is nothing in it to be understood Corporeally but all is to be understood Spiritually Whatsoever is in that Eucharist which restores Life to us this is from Spiritual Virtue and from invisible Operation Therefore that Holy Eucharist is called a Sacrament because one thing is there seen and another thing understood that which is there seen has a bodily Nature that which we understand in it has a spiritual Virtue The Body of Christ that suffered Death P. 472. and rose from the Dead henceforth dies no more but is eternal and impassible That Eucharist is Temporary not Eternal it is corruptible and capable of division into minute Parts it is chewed with the Teeth and sent into the draught yet it will be true that according to spiritual Virtue it is whole in every part Many receive that Holy Body yet according to the spiritual Mystery it will be whole in every part Tho' some receive a lesser part of it yet there will not be more virtue in the greater part than in the lesser because it will be whole in all Men according to the invisible virtue This Sacrament is a Pledg and a Type the Body of Christ is the Truth We keep this Pledg Sacramentally till we come to the Truth it self and then is the Pledg at an end It is indeed as we said before Christ's Body and his Blood but not Corporally but Spiritually Do not dispute how this can be effected but believe it firmly that so it is Here follow some idle Visions which that credulous Age were fond of but are nothing to the purpose and therefore I omit them Paul the Apostle speaketh of the old Israelites writing thus in his Epistle to the Faithful P. 473. All our Fore-fathers were baptized in the Cloud and in the Sea and all ate the same spiritual Meat and all drank the same spiritual Drink for they drank of that spiritual Rock and that Rock was Christ That Rock from whence the Water then flowed was not Christ in a Corporal Sense but it signified Christ who declared thus to the Faithful Whosoever thirsteth let him come to me and drink and from his belly shall flow living Water This he said of the Holy Ghost which they that Believed on him should receive The Apostle Paul said that the People of Israel ate the same spiritual Meat and drank the same Spiritual Drink because the heavenly Food that fed them for forty Years and that Water that flowed from the Rock signified Christ's Body and Blood which are now dayly offered in the Church of God. It was the same which we offer to day not corporally but spiritually We told you before that Christ consecrated Bread and Wine for the Eucharist before his Passion and said This is my Body and my Blood he had not yet suffered and yet he changed by his invisible Power that Bread into his Body and that Wine into his Blood as he did before in the Wilderness before he was born Man when he turned the heavenly Food into his Flesh and that Water flowing from the Rock into his Blood. P. 474. Many Persons ate of the Heavenly Food in the Desart and drank of the Spiritual Drink and yet as Christ said are dead Christ meant not that Death which no Man can avoid but he understood eternal Death which several of
say (n) Author Libr. cui tit Celebres Opiniones de Anima c. 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That it is impossible for one Body to penetrate another Body And the same Author says (o) Ibid. cap. ult Sic dici posset in milii grano coelum contineri That if this were possible you might then say That Heaven it self might be contained in a Grain of Millet The Fathers argue against Marcion upon this Rule That whatsoever contains another thing is greater than that which is contained in it So do's Epiphanius (p) Haeres 42. sec 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So do's Tertullian (q) Contr. Marcion l. 1. c. 15. Irenaeus (r) Adv. Haer. l. 2. c. 1. has the same Rule and laughs at Marcion's God upon that account Greg. Nyssen (s) De Vita Mosis proves that the Deity has no Bounds by this Argument That otherwise what contains would be greater than the Deity contained therein Theophylus Antioch (t) Ad Autolycum l. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 says This is the Property of the Almighty and True God not only to be every where but to inspect and hear all things Neither is he contained in a Place for else the containing Place would be greater than himself for that which contains is greater than that which is contained in it I will conclude this Chapter with the remarkable Words of Fulgentius (u) De Fide ad Petr. c. 3. Unaquaeque res ita permanet sicut à Deo accepit ut esset alia quidem sic alia autem sic Neque enim sic datum est corporibus ut sint sicut spiritus acceperunt c. Every thing so remains as it has received of God that it should be one on this manner and another on that For it is not given to Bodies to exist after such a manner as is granted unto Spirits c. CHAP. VI. The Sixth Difference The Church of Rome suitably to the strange Doctrine it teaches about Christ's Body and Blood teaches us not to believe the Report our Senses make That the Substance of Bread and Wine remain in the Sacrament but to pass a contrary Judgment to what they inform us herein But the Fathers teach the contrary That we may securely relie upon the Evidence of our Senses as to any Body even as to the true Body of Christ THat the Church of Rome would not have us in this Matter to attend to the Evidence of Sense is needless to prove since nothing is more common than to hear them call upon us to distrust them and to believe against their Report Thus the Trent Catechism * Ad Paroch de Euchar. part 2. num 25. Nullam Elementorum substantiam remanere quamvis nihil magis à sensibus alienum remotum videri possit teaches us to believe That no Substance of the Elements remains in the Eucharist tho' nothing seems more strange and remote from our Senses than this And again †Ib. n. 46. Corpus sanguinem Domini ita sumimus ut tamen quod verè sit sensibus percipi non potest We so receive the Body and Blood of Christ that yet we cannot perceive by our Senses that it is truly so As for the Fathers they are Strangers to this Doctrine nor did they betray the Christian Cause in this manner by taking away all Certainty from the Testimony of our Senses They on the contrary proved the Truth of Christ's Body against the Valentinians the Marcionites and other Hereticks by this Argument which the Church of Rome rejects they made their Appeals frequently as S. John had done before them to what had been seen with Mens Eyes to what their Ears had heard and their Hands had handled without any suspicion of their being deceived Thus Irenaeus (a) Lib. 3. adv Haeres c. 20. Hoc autem illis occurrit qui dicunt eum putativè passum Si enim non verè passus est nulla gratia ei cùm nulla fuerit passio Et nos cùm incipiemus verè pati seducens videbitur adhortans nos vapulare alteram praebere maxillam si ipse illud non prior in veritate passus est Et quemadmodum illos seduxit ut videretur ipse hoc quod non erat nos seducit adhortans perferre ea quae ipse non pertulit This meets with them who say That Christ suffered only seemingly For if he did not truly suffer no Thanks are due to him when there was no Passion And when he shall begin truly to suffer he will seem a Seducer when he exhorts us to suffer Stripes and to turn the other Cheek if he first did not suffer this in truth And as he seduced them in seeming to be that which he was not so he seduces us whilst he exhorts us to suffer the things which he did not suffer Again (b) Id. lib. 5. cap. 1. citante Theodoreto Dial. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 These things were not done seemingly only but in reality of truth for if he appeared to be a Man when he was not so he neither did remain the Spirit of God which he truly was since a Spirit is invisible nor was there any Truth in him for he was not that which he appeared to be He thought it you see absurdity enough to say That Christ appeared what he was not But what absurdity can this be to them that say it is constantly so in the Sacrament where that appears so and so which is not so as the Bread and Wine according to them do's Again (c) Id. lib. 5. cap. 7. Quomodo igitur Christus in carnis substantia resurrexit ostendit discipulis figuram clavorum apertionem lateris haec autem sunt indicia carnis ejus quae surrexit à mortuis sic nos inquit suscitabit per virtutem suam As Christ therefore rose again in the Substance of our Flesh and shewed to his Disciples the Print of the Nails and the Opening of his Side and these are Indications of his Flesh which arose from the Dead so also he says he will raise us up by his Power Tertullian also argues thus against Marcion (d) De carne Christi c. 5. Maluit crede nasci quam aliqua ex parte mentiri quidem in semetipsum ut carnem gestaret sine ossibus duram sine musculis solidam sine sanguine cruentam sine tunica vestitam sine fame esurientem sine dentibus edentem sine lingua loquentem ut phantasma auribus fuerit sermo ejus per imaginem vocis Believe it he chose rather to be born which Marcion thought absurd than in any respect to lie and that against himself so as to carry Flesh about him hard without Bones solid without Muscles bloody without Blood cloathed without a Garment craving Food without Hunger eating without Teeth speaking without a Tongue so that his Speech was a Phantasm to Mens Ears
by the image only of a Voice Then he instances in Christ's shewing his Hands and Feet to his Disciples after his Resurrection Behold says he it is I my self for a Spirit has not Flesh and Bones But as he goes on Ecce fallit decipit circumvenit omnium oculos omnium sensus omnium accessus contactus Ergo jam Christum non de coelo delerre debueras sed de aliquo circulatorio coetu c. according to Marcion's Interpretation Behold he cozens and deceives and circumvents all Mens Eyes all Mens Senses all their Approaches and Touches Thou therefore shouldst not have brought down Christ from Heaven but from some Society of Juglers c. Again (e) Idem adv Marcion l. 3. c. 8. Jam nunc cùm mendacium deprehenditur Christi caro sequitur ut omnia quae per carnem Christi gesta sunt mendacio gesta sunt congressus contactus convictus ipsae quoque virtutes Ibid. An credam ei de interiore substantiae qui sit de excetiore frustratus Quomodo verax habebitur in occulto qui fallax repertus in aperto Now when the Flesh of Christ is found to be a Falsity it follows also That all the things done by the Flesh of Christ are falsly acted such as his meeting Persons his touching them his Conversation and even his Miracles themselves c. And when Marcion had instanced in the Appearances of Angels to Abraham and to Lot like Men meeting with them and eating and doing that they were commanded Tertullian answers (f) Ibid. c 9. Scito nec illud concedi tibi ut putativa fuerit in Angelis caro sed verae solidae substantiae humanae Know that this is not granted neither that those Angels had only seeming Flesh but of a true solid humane Substance He adds afterwards (g) Ibid. c. 10. Sufficit mihi hoc definire quod Deo congruit veritatem scilicet illius rei quam tribus testibus sensibus objecit visui tactui auditui It suffices me to define that which is agreeable to God viz. the truth of that thing which he has made the Object of three Senses that testifie it viz. Sight Touch and Hearing And again (h) Ibid. c. 11. Jam Deum tuum honoras fallaciae titulo si aliud se esse sciebat quam quod homines fecerat opinari Thou now honourest thy God with the Title of Fallaciousness if he knew himself to be another thing than what he made Men to believe he was And in his next Book against Marcion (i) Lib. 4. c. 18. Illius peccatricis feminae argumentum eò pertinebit ut cùm pedes Domini osculis figeret lacrymis inundaret crinibus detergeret unguento perduceret solidi corporis veritatem non phantasma inane tractaverit The Argument of the Woman that was a Sinner belongs to this to prove that when she kissed our Lord's Feet watred them with her Tears wiped them with her Hairs and anointed them she then handled the Truth of a solid Body and not an empty Phantôme Again in the last Chapter (k) Ibid. c. 43. Cur autem inspectui eorum manus pedes suos offert quae membra ex ossibus constant si ossa non habebat Cur adjecit scitote quod ego sum quem scilicet corporeum retro noverant Why do's he offer to their inspection his Hands and his Feet which are Members consisting of Bones if he had no Bones Why did he add and know that it is I my self to wit whom they had known before to have had a Body May not we ask agreeably to this Reasoning of Tertullian Why do's Christ offer to our sight the Accidents of Bread and Wine if there be no Bread and Wine remaining in the Eucharist especially when what we see we knew to be Bread and Wine before But the most remarkable Testimony of Tertullian's is in his Book de Anima (l) De Anima cap. 17. where on set purpose he opposes the Academicks that would not have Men give credit to their Senses He urges against them Nulla sensuum frustratio causâ caret quod si causae fallunt sensus per sensus opiniones jam nec in sensibus constituenda fallacia est qui causas sequuntur nec in opinionibus qui sensibus diriguntur sequentibus causas Quid agis Academia procacissima Totum vitae statum evertis omnem naturae ordinem turbas ipsius Dei providentiam excoecas qui cunctis operibus suis intelligendis incolendis dispensandis fruendisque fallaces mendaces Dominos praefecerit sensus c. That there is no Abuse of the Senses but has a Cause of it and if those Causes deceive the Senses and our Opinions by them the Fallacy is not to be charged upon our Senses that follow those Causes nor upon our Opinions that are directed by our Senses which follow those Causes And aftewards he cries out O thou malapert Academy what dost thou do in charging Deceit upon the Senses Thou overturnest the whole State of Life thou disturbest all the Order of Nature thou blindest the Providence of God himself who according to thee has set lying and deceitful Senses as Lords over all his Works for to understand inhabit dispense and enjoy them c. Non licet non licet nobis in dubium sensus istos devocare ne in Christo de fide eorum deliberetur nè fortè dicatur quod falsò Satanam prospectarit de coelo praecipitatum aut falsò vocem Patris audierit de ipso testificatam aut deceptus sit cùm Petri socrum tetigit aut alium posteà unguenti spiritum senserit quod in sepulturam suam acceptavit alium posteà vini saporem quod in sanguinis sui memoriam consecravit Atqui nè in Apostolis quidem ejus ludificata natura est Fidelis fuit visus auditus in monte fidelis gustus vini illius licet aquae ante in nuptiis Galilaeae fidelis tactus exinde creduli Thomae It is no ways lawful and fit to call those Senses in question lest we should doubt of their Credit even in Christ himself lest it should be said that he falsly saw Satan thrown down from Heaven or falsly heard his Fathers Voice testifying concerning him or was deceived when he touched Peter 's Wives Mother or perceived afterwards a different Scent of the Ointment which he accepted for his Burial and afterwards a different Taste of the Wine which he consecrated in memory of his Blood. Neither was Nature abused in his Apostles Faithful was their Sight and Hearing in the Mount faithful and true was the Taste of that Wine which was Water before at the Marriage in Galilee faithful was Thomas 's Touch who thereupon believed Recite John 's Testimony Recita Johannis testationem Quod vidimus inquit quod audivimus oculis nostris vidimus manus nostrae contrectaverunt
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