but of Baptism also where yet none assert any Conversion of the Substance of Water into any other thing Thus S. Ambrose * De in qui initiantur c. 9. ad finem Si ergo superveniens Spiritus S. in Virginem conceptionem operatus esf generationis munus implevit Non utique dubitandum est quod superveniens in fontem vel super eum qui baptismum 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 fcolish 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 2.37 §. 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 fore ut nulla conversio virtute illorum â—â—eri 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
three more out of S. Austin who seems to speak Prophetically (g) De Vnit Eccles c. 10. His dictis mox ascendit in coelum praemunire voluit aures nostras adversus eos qui procedentibus temporibus exsurrecturos esse praedixerat dicturos Ecce hic Christus ecce illic Quibus nec crederemus admonuit Nec ulla nobis excusatio est si crediderimus contra vocem Pastoris nostri tam claram 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) Ib. 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 penetrans 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 continetur ubi fuerit infirma ad id natura ejus ut ubique sit qui insistens 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 to be in a circumscribed Place for the Angel that was present to Cornelius was not in the same place that he was in when he was present to Philip nor the Angel that talked with Zacharias at the Atar did at the same time fulfil his Station in Heaven But the Spirit we believe could at the same time act both in Abaccuk and in Daniel when he was in Babylon c. For the Spirit of the Lord filled the Universe Which is an ill Argument 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if Christ's Body could be in more Places at the same time Arnobius (d) Lib. 6. contra Gentes In simulachris Dii habitant singuline in singulis toti an partiliter atque in membra divisi Nam neque unus Deus in compluribus potis est uno tempore inesse simulachris neque rursus in partes sectione interveniente divisus Constituamus enim decem millia simulachrorum toto esse in orbe Vulcani nunquid esse ut dixi decem omnibus in millibus potis est unus uno in tempore Non opinor Qua causa Quia quae sunt privata singulariaque naturâ multa fieri nequeunt simplicitatis suae integritate servata Si hoc fuerit sumptum posse unum in omnibus eodem tempore permanere aut Deorum unusquisque dicendus ita ipsum semet ab ipso se dividere ut ipse sit alter non aliquo discrimine separatus sed ipse idem alius quod quoniam recusar respuit aspernaturque natura aut innumeros dicendum est confitendumque esse Vulcanos si in cunctis volumus eum degere atque inesse simulachris aut crit in nullo quia esse divisus natura prohibetur in plurimis disputing against the Heathens who said that their Gods did inhabit their Statues whom yet they believed to be finite and bounded urges them thus The Gods that inhabit in Statues are they single Gods that are in single Statues whole or divided into several parts For one God finite as theirs were cannot be in many Statues at the same time nor again exist divided into Parts by being cut asunder For let us suppose that there are ten thousand Statues of Vulcan all the World over can one at one time be in all those ten thousand Statues I think not If you ask Why so Even because those things that are of a particular and singular Nature cannot be made many retaining the entireness of their simplicity Again If this be supposed that one Deity can dwell in them all at one time then you must either say of every God that he can divide himself from himself so as to be the same and another too not separated by any difference but that he shall be the very same and yet another which because Nature refuses and rejects you must say and confess That there are innumerable Vulcans if we will suppose him to be and to dwell in all his Statues or else that he is in none of them because Nature prohibits his division among many All this would be very ill Reasoning if he believed that which the Church of Rome does That all this which he disputes against is done in the Eucharist S. Ambrose (e) Lib. de Spir. S. c. 7. Cùm omnis creatura certis suae naturae sit circumscripta limitibus c. quomodo quis audeat creaturam appellare Spiritum S. qui non habeat circumscriptam determinatamque virtutem quia in omnibus ubique semper est quod utique Divinitatis Dominationis est proprium De quo hoc Angelo Scriptura dicit de qua Dominatione de qua Potestate Cujus invenimus Angeli virtutem per plurimos effe diffusam Quis ergo dubitet quin divinum sit quod infunditur simul pluribus nec videtur corporeum autem quod videtur à singulis tenetur Since every Creature is bounded within certain Limits of its Nature c. how dare any one call the Holy Ghost a Creature who has not a limited and determined Virtue For he is always in all things and in all places which is the Property of the Divinity and of Supreme Rule And afterwards mentioning that place of the Psalmist Whither shall I go from thy Spirit he adds Of what Angel do's the Scripture say thus of what Principality of what Power What Angel's Virtue do we find diffused among many Who can doubt then that to be Divine that is at once infused into more and is not seen and that to be Corporeal which is seen of every one and held by them Noâ—â—aâ—ian (f) Lib. de Trinitate Si homo tantummodo Christus quomodo adest ubique invocaturis cùm haec non hominis natura est sed Dei ut adesse in omni loco possit also proves the Deity of Christ by his Presence in every place If Christ be only Man how is be every where present with those that call upon him seeing this is not the Nature of Man but of God to be present in every place Author Quaest ad Antioch (g) Quaest 26. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 denies that Angels can be present in many places at once and adds That it's God's Property only to be found in two places and in the whole World at the same moment of time In consequence of this Doctrine of theirs about Bodies the Fathers in the last place assert 3 Assertion That is it impossible for one to dwell in himself or to partake of and have ones own Body in himself because whatsoever contains must be greater than that which is contained in it and there would be a Penetration of Dimensions which they deny Cyril of Alex. (h) De Trin. Dialog 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 lays it down as a Rule that Nothing can partake of it self And elsewhere (i) Ibid. Dial. 5. 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Seeing nothing can partake of it self but this is with relation to another it is altogether necessary to affirm That that which partakes should be different in nature from that which is partaked of And again (k) Idem in Joan. lib. 2. c. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he says That to partake of ones self is absurd so much as to imagine it S. Chrysostom (l) Hom. 10. in Joan. citat à Theodoret. Dial. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 says He that dwells in the Tabernacle and the Tabernacle it self are not the same but one thing dwells in another thing for nothing dwells in
as proper to propose the Example of the Jews themselves to the Romanists to provoke their Emulation whom they may see better explaining as blind as they are Christ's words of Institution and agreeing better with the Ancient Church in the matter of the Eucharist than themselves and raising such Arguments and Objections against the Transubstantiating Doctrine as can never to any purpose be answered The Instances of this are very remarkable in a Book called Fortalitium Fidei contra Judeos c. printed An. 1494. but written as the Author himself tells us fol. 61. in the Year 1458. where he gives us the Arguments of a Jew against Transubstantiation some of which I shall out of him faithfully translate The Jew (g) Vid. l. 3. consid 6. sol 130 impossibl 10. begins with Christ's words of Institution and shows that they cannot be interpreted otherwise than figuratively and significatively as the Fathers we have heard have asserted 1. Vos Christiani dicitis c. Ye Christians say in that Sacrament of the Eucharist there is really the Body and Blood of Christ This is impossible Because when your Christ showing the Bread said This is my Body he spake significatively and not really as if he had said this is the Sign or Figure of my Body After which way of speaking Paul said 1 Cor. 10. The Rock was Christ that is a Figure of Christ And it appears evidently that this was the Intention of your Christ because when he had discoursed about the eating his Body and drinking his Blood to lay the offence that rose upon it among the Disciples he says as it were expounding himself The words that I have spoken to you are Spirit and Life denoting that what he had said was to be understood not according to the Letter but according to the Spiritual Sence And when Christ said This is my Body holding Bread in his Hands he meant that that Bread was his Body in potentia propinqua in a near possibility viz. after he had eaten it for then it would be turned into his Body or into his Flesh and so likewise the Wine And after this manner we Jews do on the day of Unleavened Bread for we take unleavened Bread in memory of that time when our Fathers were brought out of the Land of Egypt and were not permitted to stay so long there as whilst the Bread might be leavened that was the Bread of the Passover and we say This is the Bread which our Fathers ate though that be not present since it is past and gone and so this unleavened Bread minds us of the Bread of Egypt and this Bread is not that so is that Bread of which the Sacrifice of the Altar is made It is sufficient for Christians to say that it is in memory of that Bread of Christ though this Bread be not that And because it was impossible that one Bit of his Flesh should be preserved in memory of him he commanded that that Bread should be made and that Wine which was his Flesh and Blood in the next remove to come into act as we Jews do and Christ borrowed his Phrases and the Elements from their Supper at the Passover with the unleavened Bread as we said before When therefore your Christ at the Table took Bread and the Cup and gave them to his Disciples he did not bid them believe that the Bread and Wine were turned into his Body and Blood but that as often as they did that they should do it in remembrance of him viz. in memory of that past Bread and if you Christians did understand it so no impossibility would follow but to say the contrary as you assert is to say an impossible thing and against the intention of your Christ as we have show'd This is what the Jew urges with great reason But the Catholick Author makes a poor Answer to it and has nothing to say in effect but this That the Tradition of the Catholick Church concerning this Sacrament is true viz. That in this Sacrament there is really and not by way of Signification the True Body and True Blood of Christ 2. Whereas the Roman Church flies to Miracles in this case of Transubstantiation the Jew encounters that next of all thus You Christians say that the Body and Blood of Christ is in the Sacrament of the Altar by a Miracle Ibid. 11. Impossib p. 131. this I prove to be impossible Because if there were any Miracle in the case it would appear to the Eye as when Moses turned the Rod into a Serpent that was performed evidently to the Eye though Men knew not how it was done So also in the case of the Ark of the Covenant of Old mighty Miracles were wrought and those not only sensible Miracles but also publick and apparent to all the People insomuch that Infidels were terrifyed at the very report of such Miracles Men seeing before their Eyes the Divine Power brightly shining in Reverence of the Ark of his Covenant as appears in his Dividing the Waters of Jordan while the People of Israel passed over dry-shod the Waters on one side swelling like a Mountain and on the other flowing down as far as the dead Sea till the Priests with the Ark went over the Chanel of Jordan and then Jordan returned to its wonted course But the Kings of the Amorites and Canaanites hearing of so great and publick a Miracle were so confounded with the terror of God that no Spirit remained in them Josu c. 4. 5. and so I might instance in many other Evident Miracles which to avoid tediousness I omit And yet in that Ark neither God nor Christ was really contained but only the Tables of Stone containing the Precepts of the Decalogue and the Pot of Manna c. Exod. 16. and the Rod of Aaron that flourished in the House of Levi Numb 17. If therefore by the Ark that carried only the foresaid Bodies that were inanimate how sacred soever they were God wrought in Honour of it such evident far-spreading and publick Miracles how much more powerfully should they have been wrought by him if it were true that in your Sacrament of the Altar the true God or Christ were really contained whom you affirm that he ought to be worshipped and venerated infinitely above all Since therefore no such thing do's appear there to the Eye it follows that it is impossible for any Miracle to be done there since this is against the Nature of a Miracle The answer to this is so weak and so the rest are generally such an unintelligible School-jargon that I shall not tire the Reader with them But shall go on with the Jew 3. Ibid. 12. Impossib fol. 132. You Christians do assert that the true Body of Christ begins to be on the Altar This seems to be impossible For a thing begins to be where it was not before two ways Either by Local Motion or by the conversion of another thing into it as appears