The Novelty of Popery Opposed to the Antiquity of True Christianity, Book 7 · Controversy 11 · Chapter 11
CHAP. XI. That the Fathers did not believe accidents without a ſubject in the Euchariſt.
ONe of the products of Tranſubſtantiation, is, that it puts accidents without a ſubject. The Roman Church did not only put in the Euchariſt an humane body, which keeps no place, a body(a)Bel. lib. 1. de Euchariſt. cap. 2. Sect. Secunda. Dicemus quidem corpus Chriſti quantum, &c. ut non dicemus extenſum. without extent, without length, without diverſe ſituation of parts, as being whole in every crum of the Hoſt, and having head and feet under the ſame point. A body which being contained in no place, is nevertheleſs in a million of ſeveral places at the ſame time, and by conſequent is far from it ſelf, and both higher and lower then it ſelf. But they added beſides to raiſe error to the higheſt enormity, that(b)Catech. Trid. cap. de Euchar. Accidentia ipſa ſe nulla alia re niſa ſuſtentant. in the hoſt, the accidents, that is breadth, length, figure, colour, and taſte, are without ſubject.
1. So that in the hoſt,(c)Innoc. III. de de Myſteriis Miſſal 4. cap. 11. Eſt enim hic color, & ſapor, quantitas, & qualitas, cum nihil alterutro ſit coloratum, aut ſapidum, quantum aut quale. there is whiteneſs, but no white thing; roundneſs, but no round thing; ſavour, but nothing ſavoury; length and breadth, but nothing long or large, as Pope Innocent ſpeaks.
2. The Schoolmen ſpeak much like that, ſaying that accidentia non accidunt, albentia non albent, and that they are qualities which qualifie nothing, and are qualities of nothing.
3. By their doctrine, if the hoſt fall into the mire, then the accidents bear the mire that ſticks to it, and are the ſubject of the ſubſtance.
4. If the hoſt or chalice be poiſoned,(d)Platina in Victore III. Victor Henrici fraude, ut Martinus ſcribit, veneno in calicem injecto, dum ſacrificat necatur. Naucler. gener. 4. Aventinus l. 7. p. 598. Trithemius Abbas Chronico Hirſauſienſi. as when Pope Victor the third, and(e)Matth. Paris An. Chr. 1154. Cum Archiepiſcopus in ſua reverſus divina celebraret myſteria, hauſto in ipſo calice, ut aiunt, veneno obiit. Henry Arch-biſhop of York, and the Emperour Henry the VII. were poiſoned in the chalice, we muſt ſay that lines and colours are poiſoned, or that Chriſt is poiſoned.
5. Readers of the loweſt capacity may comprehend that which I will ſay now. That a legg is a ſubſtance, but lameneſs is an accident: The eye is a ſubſtance, but the ſight is an accident or a quality of the eye: and a ſick body is a ſubſtance, but the ſickneſs of that body is an accident which happens to that body. Theſe Doctors then with their ſubtilty forging accidents without a ſubject, do as if they ſaid that there is halting without a legg, ſight without an eye, Sickneſs without a ſick body, a race without a runner, an Ecclipſe without Sun and Moon, heat and nothing hot.
6. Truly ruining the definition of a thing is ruining the thing; ruining the reaſonable animal, is ruining man; taking away roundneſs, is taking away the circle or the globe. Now the ſubſtance or ſubject is of the definition of an accident. Accidens eſt quod accidit ſubjecto; An accident is that which happens to a ſubject. Then the accident is no more when the ſubject is no more; the bread being no more bread, the whiteneſs of the bread is taken away, and the length of bread, and the taſte of bread.
7. The quantity(f)Ariſtot. in Categ. Quantitatis. foreign. (ſay the Philoſophers) is that whereby things are ſaid to be ſo many, great or ſmall. Now here they forge us a quantity whereby nothing is great, or long or broad.
8. Alſo the accidents according to this doctrine, are forms which inform nothing, and qualities which qualifie nothing.
9. Then it is evident, that one cannot aboliſh a relative, without aboliſhing the other. Where there is no Father, there is no Son. Where there is no right ſide there, there is no left ſide. Now the accident and the ſubject are relative terms; Of which nevertheleſs theſe men will aboliſh the one which is the ſubject, without aboliſhing the other; and the ſubſtance of the bread being aboliſht, they will have the taſte, the length, and the roundneſs of the bread to remain.
10. If the chalice be frozen, or the hoſt mouldy, then is their Chriſt frozen or mouldy. Or if that be diſpleaſing to theſe Gentlemen, they muſt admit a Mathematical length and breadth frozen and mouldy, as if one ſaid that the triangles and pentagones of Euclides are frozen and mouldy.
That prodigious doctrine was unknown to the antient Fathers, and the leaſt trace of it is not found in the whole Antiquity. Had that been the belief of the antient Church, ſo many Pagans and hereticks who have ſtudied to diſgrace Chriſtian Religion, and ſought to pick holes in it, would not have omitted that point, which brings ſuch a ſwarm of abſurdities along with it, giving the lye to our eyes and our hands, and overthrowing common ſenſe.
Auſtin ſpeaks of accidents without a ſubject, as of an impoſſible and contradictory thing; and of the union of a body with his proper qualities, as of an inſeparable thing. In the Epiſtle to Dardanus, which is the fifty ſeventh,(g)Tolle ipſa corpora qualitatibus corporum, non erit ubi ſint, et ideo neceſſe eſt ut non ſint. Take away the bodies from the qualities of the bodies, the qualities ſhall not have where to be, and therefore of neceſſity they ſhall not be.
And a little after,(h)Si moles ipſa corporis penitus auſeratur, qualitates ejus non erit ubi ſint, et ideo neceſſe eſt ut non ſint. If the maſs of the body be quite taken away, there will be no place left for the qualities: Let us ſay then after this good Doctor, If the maſs or ſubſtance of bread be totally taken away, the qualities or accidents of the bread ſhall be no more.
The ſame Father in the ſecond book of Soliloquies,(i)Illud vero quod interrogaſti quis conceſſerit aut qui poſſe fieri videatur ut id quod in ſubjecto eſt maneat, ipſo intereunte ſubjecto? Monſtroſum enim eſt et à veritate alieniſſimum ut id quod non eſſet niſi in ipſo eſſet, etiam cum id non fuerit poſſit eſſe. Who can grant that which thou haſt asked me, that the thing which is in the ſubject, (that is the accident) can remain, if the ſubject be aboliſhed? It is a prodigious thing, and far from truth, that a thing which could not be, if it were not in the ſubject, can ſubſiſt when that ſubject is no more. What can be ſaid more expreſs? If Auſtin had believed Tranſubſtantiation, would he not have added that exception, that this rule hath no place in the Euchariſt? Would he have thus juſtled againſt the f…undation of the holy Sacrament by a general rule, and declaimed againſt it as a monſtrous and ridiculous thing?
In the ſame fore-alledged Epiſtle to Dardanus, he rejecteth it as an abſurdity that a body may have parts not diſtant the one from the other, and not diſtinct in ſituation, ſaying that(k)Non e…go potuit obtinere quantitas corpori… quod potuit qualitas. Nam ita diſtantibus partibus quae ſimul eſſe non poſſunt, quoniam ſua quaeque ſpacia locorum tenent, minores minora, et majores majora, non potuit eſſe in quibuſ que partibus tota, &c. et in nulla parte tanta quanta per totum. The diſtant parts of a body cannot be together, becauſe each of them keeps the space of a place: the leſſer parts holding leſs, and the greater more place, and cannot be whole in every part. This is directly againſt the Roman Church, which puts the whole body of Chriſt in every crum, and under every point of the Hoſt.
In the ſame place he ſaith,(l)Spacia locorum tolle corporibus, nuſquam erunt, et quia nuſquam erant nec erunt. If the space of places be taken from bodies, they ſhall be nowhere, and becauſe they ſhall be nowhere, they ſhall not be at all. And Bellarmin, though labouring to bring reſtrictions and interpretations to that paſſage of Auſtin, acknowledgeth nevertheleſs that Auſtin ſpeaks of the body of Chriſt, affirming that Auſtin ſaith,(m)Bellar. l. 3. de Euchar. c. 7. Auguſtinus ſupra jam dixerat deſtrui naturam humanam Chriſti ſi non detur ei certum ſpacium quo more aliarum ſubſtantiarum corporearum, contineatur. That unleſs a certain ſpace be given to the body of Chriſt, wherein it be contained after the manner of other bodily ſubſtances; the humane nature of Chriſt is deſtroyed. And in the twentieth book againſt Fauſtus the Manichean, chap. 11. Chriſt according to the ſubſtance of his body could not be together in the Sun, and in the Moon, and in the Croſs.
And in Epiſt. 101. to Evodius, (n)Nullum eſſe quantulumeunque corpuſculum quod non pro ſuo modo loci occupet ſpatium. Nec in eo quod occupat ubique ſit totum, ſed minus ſit in parte quam in tot….No body is ſo little, but that it fills according to his meaſure, the ſpace of a place; and there is none that be whole all over the ſpace which it fills, and that be not leſſer in the part, then in the whole.
In that, this Father is grounded in good reaſon. For as our Adverſaries writing upon the fourth book of Ariſtotles Phyſicks, proves by many demonſtrations, that there can be no empty place, and that ſuch an aſſertion would imply many contradictions, ſo they uſe the ſame ſubtilty to prove that a body cannot be without place and without filling ſome ſpace. For it is no leſs abſurd to imagine a body without a place, then a place without a body.
And whereas Tranſubſtantiation contains more wonders then the creation, if the Author of the books of the wonders of Scripture, which are put among Auſtins books, had believed it, he would not have omitted to ſpeak of theſe wonders. For in thoſe books he ſearcheth all the wonders that are found in Scripture. Nay, he ſpeaks thus of the Euchariſt,(o)Aug. l. 3. de Trinit. cap 10. Haec honorem habere poſſunt ut religioſa, ſtuporem autem habere ut mira non poſſunt. Theſe things may be honoured as religious, but cannot be admired as miraculous.
In one thing it appeareth that the Fathers neither knew nor believed that in the Euchariſt the accidents were without a ſubject, that they never ſpeak of the ſpecies of bread in the plural. They ſpeak indeed of the ſpecies of bread and wine in the plural, becauſe by the ſpecies they underſtand the ſubſtances, and that bread and wine are two ſubſtances. But when they ſpeak of bread by itſelf, or of wine by it ſelf, they never ſay the ſpecies of bread, or the ſpecies of wine in the plural, becauſe bread is one ſubſtance, not many. But our Adverſaries who by the ſpecies underſtand the accidents, ſpeak of the ſpecies of bread in the plural, and ſay that the Lords body is broken under the ſpecies of bread, as if bread had many ſpecies. Wherein they ſpeak againſt the uſe of all ages, and againſt the rules of Philoſophy, which never ſaith the ſpecies of a horſe, or the ſpecies of Antony in the plural, to ſay his accidents, and calls not the colour of a horſe his ſpecies. Their language in that point, is both new and abſurd, as well as their doctrine.
Finally, how could the accidents deſtitute of ſubſtance, under which they ſay that the Lords body is incloſed, be ſigns of the body of Chriſt, ſeing that ſigns are helps to know? But our Adverſaries ſay that the accidents of bread are are coverings which hinder our ſenſes to perceive Chriſt. As if a Cheſt were the ſign of Homers Iliad, becauſe that book is hidden within it.