Doctrines and Practices of the Ancient Church Relating to the Eucharist, Chapter 3
CHAP. III. The Third Difference. The Church of Rome believes, That Accidents in the Euchariſt ſubſiſt without a Subject; but the Fathers ſay the contrary, That Accidents cannot ſubſiſt without a Subject, and yet never except the Euchariſt.
THe Catechiſm of the Trent Council *Ad Parochos, part. 2. de Euchar. n. 25.ſays, That the Accidents which are either ſeen with cur Eyes, or perceived by our other Senſes, are without any Subject, by a wonderful manner, and ſuch as cannot be explained. They grant that we may ſee all the Accidents of Bread and Wine, but that they inhere in no Subſtance, but ſuſtain themſelves.—And afterwards †Ibid. n. 44. §. Tertium reſtat.diſcourſe thus: The Species of Bread and Wine ſubſiſt in this Sacrament, without any Subject in which they are: For ſince the Body and Blood of Chriſt is truly in this Sacrament, ſo that no Subſtance of Bread and Wine remains, becauſe thoſe Accidents cannot be inherent in the Body and Blood of Chriſt, it remains, that the Accidents ſuſtain themſelves, above all Order of Nature, being upheld by nothing elſe beſides. And this (they ſay) was the perpetual conſtant Doctrine of the Catholick Church.
How falſe this Aſſertion is, we ſhall now ſhew from the Teſtimonies of the Fathers.
Irenaeus (a)Lib. 2. c. 14. Non poteſt intelligi aqua ſine humectatione, neque ignis ſine calore, neque lapis ſine duritia. Unita enim ſunt invicem haec; alterum ab altero ſeparari non poteſt, ſed ſemper coexiſtere.. We cannot underſtand Water without Moiſture, nor Fire without Heat, nor a Stone without Hardneſs. For theſe are united one to another, one cannot be ſeparated from the other, but muſt always coexiſt.
Athanaſius (b)Orat. 5. contra Arianos. foreign., (or the Author againſt the Arians in his Works) aſſerts, That every Quality is in a Substance.
Iſidore Peleuſiota (c)Lib. 2. Epiſt 72. foreign.ſays, That Quality cannot be without Subſtance.
Methedius (d)Apud Photium Codic. 232. foreign.. Quality cannot be ſeparated, as to its Subſiſtence, from Matter. And a little before he ſays, This is the moſt impoſſible of all things.
S. Baſil *Epiſt 43. foreign.If by your reaſoning you can diſtinguiſh Figure from a Body, yet Nature admits no ſuch Difference, but one muſt be underſtood in conjunction with the other.
Greg. Nazianzen (e)Orat. 37. foreign.proves the Holy Ghoſt not to be a Quality, becauſe then it muſt be in a Subject. For, ſays he, either it do's ſubſiſt by it ſelf, or is of the ſame kind with thoſe which are called Accidents, which are in another.
This would be ill reaſoning, if Tranſubſtantiation were true; for the Holy Ghoſt might be a Quality, and yet be in no Subject, as well as the Colour and Taſte of Bread may be in the Euchariſt, without Bread or any other Subſtance in which it is.
Gr. Nyſſen (f)De Opificio Homin. c. 24. foreign.affirms, That as that is not a Body to which Colour, and Figure, and Solidneſs, and Space, and Heavineſs, and other Properties are wanting; ſo, as he adds, where thoſe aforeſaid do concur, they produce a Bodily Subſiſtence.
S. Auſtin (g)Soliloq. lib. 2. c. 12. Monſtruoſum enim & à veritate alieniſſimum eſt, ut id quod non eſſet, niſi in ipſo (ſc. ſubjecto) eſſet, etiam, cùm ipſum non fuerit, poſſe eſſe.. It is monſtrous, and at the furtheſt distance from Truth, that what would not be at all unleſs it were in a Subject, yet ſhould be able to exiſt when the Subject ceaſes to be. This is a Saying with a witneſs to confute Tranſubſtantiation, where there is the Appearance and Figure, Taſte and Weight of Bread, and yet no Subſtance of Bread is there. Again he ſays (h)Ibid. cap 13. Omne quod in ſubjecto eſt, ſi ſemper manet, ipſum etiam ſubjectum maneat ſemper neceſſe eſt., Every thing that is in a Subject, and always remains, it is neceſſary that the Subject alſo ſhould always remain.
Again *De Immortal. Anim. cap. 5. Mutato ſubjecto, omne quod in ſubjecto eſt neceſſario mutari. Et cap. 8. Quod per ſe non eſt, ſi deſeratur ab eo per quod eſt, profectò non erit.elſewhere. When the Subject is changed, every thing that is in the Subject is neceſſarily changed. And again: That which exiſts not by it ſelf, if it be forſaken of that by which it exiſts, undoubtedly will not be at all.
Alſo in another place (i)Epiſt. 57. ad Dardanum. Tolle ipſa corpora qualitatibus corporum, non erit ubi ſint, & ideo neceſſe eſt ut non ſint.. Take away Bodies from their Qualities, and there will nothing remain where (thoſe Qualities) ſhould be; and therefore it follows neceſſarily, that they will not be at all.
Cyril of Alexandria (k)In Joan. lib. 4. cap. 1. foreign.teaches the ſame copiouſly. He calls it Madneſs to affirm, That the Eſſence of the Son conſiſts in Subjection to the Father. For, ſays he, how can Subjection be conceived to ſubſiſt by it ſelf, without exiſting in any thing elſe? And afterwards: If there be no Subject, and nothing praeexiſts in which thoſe things are wont to be done, how can they exiſt by themſelves, which are underſtood and defined in the Order of Accidents?
And elſewhere he ſays (l)Theſaur. aſſert. 31. foreign., To be Unbegotten, is predicated of the Divine Eſſence, as inſeparable from it; juſt as Colour is always predicated of every Body.
And in another place (m)Ibid. aſſert. 16. foreign, &c.diſputing about the Eternity of the Son, and how proceeding from the Father he is not ſeparated from him, he inſtances in Accidents that are inſeparable from their Subjects. We ſee, ſays he, Heat inſeparably proceeding from Fire; but it is the Fruit of the very Eſſence of Fire, proceeding inſeparably from it; foreignas alſo Splendor is the Fruit of Light. For Light cannot ſubſiſt without Splendor, nor Fire without Heat; For what is begotten of them, do's always adhere to ſuch Subſtances.
Again, in his Dialogues (n)De Trinitate, Dial. 2. p. 451. foreign.of the Trinity, he asks, Whether Black and White, if they be not in their Subjects, can ſubſiſt of themſelves? And the Anſwer is, They cannot.
Claud. Mamertus (o)De Statu Animae, l. 3. c. 3. In rebus corporeis ſubjectum eſt corpus, & color corporis in ſubjecto: In incorporeis animus & diſciplina, quae i…a ſibi nexa ſunt, ut nec ſine colore corpus, nec ſine diſciplina rationalis ſit animus—Utrum nam probare valeamus manere quod in ſubjecto eſt, ipſo intereunte ſubjecto?. In corporeal things, the Body is the Subject, and the Colour of the Body in the Subject: In incorporeal matters, the Soul and Diſcipline are Inſtances; which are ſo connected, that the Body cannot be without Colour, nor the Rational Soul without Diſcipline — Can we ever prove, that what is in the Subject abides, when the Subject it ſelf periſhes?
Iſidore Hiſpal. (p)Originum lib. 2. cap. 26. Quantitas, qualitas, & ſitus, ſine ſubjecto eſſe non poſſunt.. Quantity, Quality, and Situation, can none of 'em be without a Subject.
Bertram (q)Contra Graec. l. 2. c. 7. in Tom. 2. Spicilegii D. Acherii.proves againſt the Greeks, That the Holy Ghoſt was not in Jeſus Chriſt as in his Subject; becauſe, ſays he, the Holy Ghoſt is not an Accident that cannot ſubſiſt without its Subject.
Theſe Teſtimonies of the Fathers may ſuffice to ſhew how they differ from the Church of Rome, in this Point, of Accidents being without a Subject, which to them is ſo neceſſary a Doctrine, that Tranſubſtantiation cannot be believed without it; and if the Fathers had believed Tranſubſtantiation, it is incredible that they ſhould deny this Doctrine, without ſo much as once excepting the Caſe of the Euchariſt: None can imagine how their Memory and Reflection ſhould be ſo ſhort, eſpecially when (as we have heard) they form their Arguments to prove the Eternity of the Son of God, and the Perſonality of the Holy Ghoſt, from the inſeparability of Accidents from their Subject. Nay, one of them ſays (r)Orat. 5. contra Arianos, inter Athanaſii Opera., That if God himſelf had Accidents, they would exiſt in his Subſtance.
When therefore P. Innocent (s)De Myſt. Miſſae, l. 4. c. 11. Eſt enim hic color & ſapor & quantitas & qualitas, cùm nihil alterutro ſit coloratum aut ſapidum, quantum aut quale.aſſerts, That in the Euchariſt there is Colour and Taſte, and Quantity and Quality, and yet nothing coloured or taſteful, nothing of which Quantity or Quality are Affections: This is plainly to confound the Nature of all things, and to turn Accidents into Subſtances. So that if, for inſtance, the Hoſt ſhould fall into the Mire, and contract Dirt and Filth, this Filth ſticks in nothing, or elſe Accidents are the Subject of it; for it is confeſſed on all hands, That Chriſt's Body cannot be ſoiled or made filthy. Not to inſiſt upon the Nonſenſe of his Aſſertion, which is juſt as if one ſhould talk of an Eclipſe without either Sun or Moon, or of an Horſes Lameneſs without a Leg, concerning which only Lameneſs can be affirmed.