The Novelty of Popery Opposed to the Antiquity of True Christianity, Book 7 · Controversy 11 · Chapter 23
CHAP. XXIII. Anſwer to the other allegations of the ſame Chapter.
TO Gregorius Nyſſenus the Cardinal joynes Ambroſe, who in the book of thoſe that are initiated in myſteries, inquireth how it is poſſible that the Euchariſt ſhould be the body of Chriſt, and anſwereth, that it is done by the change of the bread into the body of Chriſt. To which I have already anſwered, that Ambroſe's belief was, that the bread is ſo changed into the body of Chriſt, that nevertheleſs it remains bread alwayes. To ſhew that, he employeth ch. 4. of book 4. of the Sacraments, where he declareth, that this end is to prove that bread is the body of Chriſt:(a)Haecigitur aſtruamus, quomodo poteſt qui panis eſt, eſſe corpus Chriſti. Let us demonſtrate this (ſaith he) how that which is bread, can be the body of Chriſt. And upon that he brings ſome works of God, whereby God made that which is not to be. Whence he inferreth, that much more God can make things that have been to be again, and to be changed into other things.(b)Si ergo tanta vis est in ſermone Domini Jeſu, ut inciperent eſſe quae non erant, quanto magis operaturus eſt ut ſint quae erant, & in aliud commutentur? If (ſaith he) there is ſuch vertue in the word of the Lord Jeſus, that things that were not, begun to be; how much more ſhall he make things that were, to be, and to be changed into other things? This paſſage is found thus ſet down in all the antient Editions, and in the(c)Decret. Grat. Diſt. 2. de Conſecrat. Can. Panis. Roman Decree, and in the Decree(d)Yuo Carn. Secund. Part. de Sacr. Corporis, cap. 7. of Yuo Carnutenſis. And for that which the Cardinal beats over ſo often, that Ambroſe ſaith, that this is done by the Almighty power of God, and that to make the bread to be only the ſign and figure of the body of Chriſt, there was no need to make the Almighty power of God to intervene; I have ſaid already, that Ambroſe believed no more then we do, that bread was only the ſign of Chriſts body. He believed that the bread remaining bread becomes ſo the myſtical body of Chriſt, that by the manducation of that bread, through the unſpeakable vertue of God Chriſt is made ours, and remains in us, and we in him. Yet the ſame Ambroſe celebrating the Euchariſt, ſaid,(e)Fac nobis hanc oblationem aſcriptā rationabilem, acceptabilem, quod eſt figura corporis & ſanguinis Domini. Make this offering to be accounted unto us reaſonable, acceptable, which is the figure of the body and blood of the Lord. Words which cannot be applied unto bread not conſecrated; for bread not conſecrated cannot be the acceptable offering, and cannot be laid to our account before God for our ſins.
The ſame Ambroſe was ſaying,(f)Lib. de iis qui initiantur myſter. cap. 9. Ante benedictionem alia ſpecies nominatur, post benedictionem corpus ſignificatur. Before the bleſſing of the heavenly words, another kind is named. After the bleſſing, the body is ſignified. Again,(g)Non eſt iſte panis qui in corpus vadit. lib. 4 de Sacr. c. 4, & 5. This bread is not that which entreth into the body. Again, Thou drinkeſt the likeneſs of his blood.
(h)Pag. 877.The Cardinal alledgeth Cyprian next. Who ſeeth not (ſaith he) that when Cyprian ſaith [The bread which our Lord gave to his Diſciples, changed, not in ſhape, but in nature, by the Almighty power of the Word, is made fleſh] he cannot underſtand any change there by the change of nature, but the change of ſubſtance? In the beginning of the ſame chapter the Cardinal(i)In ch. 13. p. 1009, & 1010. had ſpoken of that very book as doubting whether it was of Cyprian; Now he ſpeaks of it with an abſolute certainty as believing that it is Cyprians. We have ſhewed before by many evident proofs that the book is ſpurious, none of Cyprians but of a late Author, whoſe barbarous ſtile and doctrine are very far from the elegance and ſolidity of Cyprian.
Yet let us ſee what uſe the Cardinal makes of that allegation. Cyprian (ſaith he) cannot by the change of nature underſtand but the change of ſubſtance. For Ariſtotle teacheth us that the word nature ſignifieth nothing but either the ſubſtance or the accidents which originally ſtick to the ſubſtance, that is the natural and original proprieties and conditions. Wherefore no change intervening in the outward nature of bread, it muſt needs be that the change is made in the ſubſtance.
I could anſwer, that beſides the outward nature and ſubſtance, there are inward proprieties in which the change can be made. But I chuſe rather to beat the Cardinal with his own weapons. The Reader may remember how the Cardinal to ſcape from the hands of Theodoret (who ſaith in the firſt Dialogue, that in the Lords Supper(k)foreign. Christ had altered the nature of the ſigns, And in the ſecond(l)foreign. that the ſacred ſigns after the conſecration change not their own nature) will have nature in thoſe paſſages to ſignifie the accidents, not the ſubſtance. But in this place, which he ſaith to be Cyprians, where it is ſaid, that the bread changeth nature, the Cardinal maintains that nature ſignifieth ſubſtance, and can ſignifie nothing elſe. And he proveth it by Ariſtotle, whom he makes to ſay (without quoting the place) that nature ſignifieth nothing but either the ſubſtance or the proprieties. He proveth a falſe doctrine by a falſe paſſage. That of Ariſtotle of which he had heard, is in the firſt chapter of the ſecond book of his Phyſicks, where he thus defineth nature, (m)foreign.Nature is the principle and the cauſe of motion and of reſt, which principle is in the thing firſt, and of it ſelf, and not by accident. And a little after he addeth, that all things that have that nature or inward principle of motion, are ſubſtances. Ariſtotle ſaith not that nature is a ſubſtance, but that(n)foreign. the things that have this nature, are ſubſtances.
The Cardinal alledgeth next the fourth Myſtagogical Catecheſis of Cyrillus of Jeruſalem; A place which we need not examine for that book is ſpurious, and of another Author then the 18. precedent Catecheſes, as we proved before by evident and undoubted proofs. No kind of books is more ſubject to be ſuppoſititious and to have falſe titles then Catecheſes. For, becauſe every Biſhop made Catecheſes in his own Biſhoprick, nothing was more eaſie, among ſuch a multitude of Catecheſes of uncertain Authors, then to put an old title to a new book.
Again he returneth to Ambroſe, which I have anſwered.
To him he addeth Gaudentius who was his contemporanean, and ſpeaks thus,(o)Gaudent. de rat. Sacrā. Tract. 2. The Lord and Creatour of natures, who out of earth made bread, out of bread again, (becauſe he both can do it and promiſed it) makes his own body. And in the ſame work; He ſaid, This is my body, This is my blood, Let us believe him whom we have believed. Truth knows not untruth. And again, Let us believe all things as they were delivered unto us, not breaking this moſt ſolid bone. This is my body.
The works of this Gaudentius are found in Bibliotheca Patrum, in the ſecond Tome. This Bibliotheca Patrum is a collection of falſe pieces for the moſt part, and of ſmall Authors whom our adverſaries hide in the crowd, fetcht out of the Popes Library, or ſome Manuſcripts of Monaſteries. In that collection they put whatſoever they liſt, and have fair opportunity for that.
But what is in thoſe paſſages, that we ſay not? Do we not ſay, that by the conſecration the bread is made the body of Chriſt? and that the bread is the body of Chriſt? But the queſtion is, whether the conſecrated bread is naturally or ſacramentally the body of Chriſt; or whether Gaudentius meaneth the ſacramental body of Chriſt or no; or whether he believed that the bread was Tranſubſtantiated: of theſe nothing appeareth by his expreſſions. Beſides Gaudentius in this matter delighteth to uſe Allegorical terms: as when he ſaith in the ſame Treatiſe, For this cauſe we are injoyned to eat the head of his Godhead, with the feet of his incarnation, and with the inward myſteries, that we may equally believe all things as they were ſaid to us, not breaking that moſt ſolid bone, This is my body. And if any thing of it remain in every mans ſenſe, which he hath not comprehended by this expoſition, let it be burnt and conſumed by faith.
Chryſoſtom comes next, who in the 83. Homily ſaith, Theſe things are no work of humane vertue. He that did them in that Supper, doth them ſtill. We only hold the place of Miniſters; but he that ſanctifieth them and changeth them, is the ſame. This paſſage concludes nothing, and is to no purpoſe; Chryſoſtom ſpeaks of change, not of Tranſubſtantiation. There is a change in the uſe, in the end, in the efficacy, without change of ſubſtance.
Finally he alledgeth Euſebius, ill intituled Emeſinus in a Paſchal Homily, but ſaith not how the book ſhould be intituled. In the margent he puts Eucherius and Bertramus as Authors to whom theſe Homilies are attributed by ſome. Bellarmin ſaith,(p)Bellar. lib. de Scriptor. Eccleſ. in Euſebio Emeſino. Sub nomine ſuppoſititio Homiliae iſtae ſunt editae cū verus Author ignoraretur: Et in Eucherio. Tribuuntur Eucherio libri Explanationū in Geneſin, & in librum Regum. Sed Eucherii eſſe non poſſunt, cum author ſaepe S. Gregorium citet. that the Homilies fathered upon Euſebius Emeſinus, were ſet out under a falſe name becauſe the true Author was not known. And as for Eucherius to whom our Cardinal ſeems to aſcribe theſe Homilies, Bellarmin obſerveth that among the writings fathered upon Eucherius, there are ſome in which Gregory the firſt is alledged, who writ in the year 595. And it is like enough that he lived many ages after Gregory. It is abuſing the Reader to muſter up paſſages of unknown, new and uncertain Authors, whom we have only from the hands of our adverſaries, who publiſhed them ſuch as they would have them, and had an eſpecial intereſt to corrupt them.