Doctrines and Practices of the Ancient Church Relating to the Eucharist, Chapter 5

Doctrines and Practices of the Ancient Church Relating to the Eucharist · Chapter 5

p. 20CHAP. V. The Fifth Difference. The Fathers differ from the Roman Church, in their Aſſertions about the Nature and Properties of Bodies.

EVery one knows what the Sentiments of the Roman Church are herein, and what they muſt neceſſarily aſſert believing Tranſubſtantiation: That a Body that is Organical, as Chriſt's is, may be inviſible and impalpable; commenſurate to no Space: That it may poſſeſs one Place, ſo as to be in more at the ſame time: That it may be entire in one Part and in one Point, and may exiſt after the manner of a Spirit.

See Bellarmine de Euchariſt. lib. 1. cap. 2. reg. 3. & lib. 3. c. 7.

The Council of Trent ſays (a)(a)Seſſ. 13. cap. 3. Totus Chriſtus & integer ſub ſpecie panis, & ſub qualibet ejus ſpeciei parte exiſtit., Whole and entire Chriſt is in the Euchariſt, under the Species of Bread, and under every part of the Species of Bread.

I ſhall now ſhow, That the Fathers aſſert quite contrary to all theſe Maxims of the Roman Church, giving us a different Account of the Nature and Properties of Bodies; and in the Particulars forenamed, make no difference betwixt Chriſt's Body and ours.

p. 211 Aſſertion. They aſſert, That every Organiz'd Body, not excepting the Body of Chriſt, is viſible and palpable.

Tertullian (b)(b)De Reſurrect. c. 35. Corpus hominis non aliud intelligam quam—quod videtur, quod tenetur.. I underſtand nothing by the Body of a Man, &c. but what is ſeen and felt.

Methodius (c)(c)Apud Photium Cod. 234. foreign.. God is Incorporeal, and therefore Inviſible.

Euſtathius Antioch. (d)(d)De Engaſtrimytho. foreign.. If he was Inviſible, without doubt he was Incorporeal. Speaking of Samuel raiſed at Endor.

Didymus (e)(e)Caten. in Joan. 4.24. foreign.John 4:24. If a thing be Inviſible, it preſently follows, that it is Incorporeal.

Greg. Nazianzen (f)(f)Orat. 34. foreign;—foreign;—foreign.. If God be a Body, what kind of Body, and how?—an impalpable and inviſible one?—This is not the Nature of Bodies. And he cries out, (foreign) O ſtrange Licence! to imagine thus.

Greg. Nyſſen (g)(g)De Opific. hom. cap. 24. foreign, &c.ſays, That is not a Body, that wants Colour, Figure, Solidneſs, Space, Weight, and the reſt of its Attributes.

S. Auſtin (h)(h)De Verb. Domini, Ser. 60. Semper quidem Divinitate nobiſcum eſt, ſed niſi corporaliter abiret à nobis, ſemper ejus corpus carnaliter videremus., ſpeaking of our Lord, ſays, He is always with us by his Divinity; but if he were not corporally abſent from us, we ſhould always carnally ſee his Body.

Ephrem Antioch. (i)(i)Apud Photium, Cod. 229. foreign.. No Man of any ſenſe can ſay, That the Nature of that which is palpable and impalpable, of that which is viſible and that which is inviſible, is the ſame. Altho' the Valentinians in Eulogius (k)(k)Ibid. Cod. 230. foreign.ſay, That the Nature of that which is viſible, and that which is inviſible, is the ſame. And ſo did the Manichees. Ibid.

Vigilius (l)(l)Lib. 4. contr. Eutych. Neceſſe erit ut caro, ſicut & verbum; ſi unius cum co eſt naturae, increata ſit & inviſibilis, &c. Sed carnem his conditionibus ſubjacere impoſſibile eſt., ſpeaking of the Lord's Body, ſays, It is neceſſary the Fleſh, as well as the Word, if they be of one Nature, be uncreated and inviſible— But it is impoſſible that Fleſh ſhould be the Subject of ſuch Conditions.

Titus Boſtrenſis (m)(m)Contr. M…nich. l. 2. Omne quod ſub aſpectum cadit, cum ſit corpus, natura oppoſitum eſt inaſpectabili & incorporeo, &c.. Every thing that falls under our Sight, ſeeing it is a Body, is in Nature oppoſite p. 22to that which is inviſible and incorporeal.

Damaſcen (n)(n)De Fide Orth. lib. 1. c. 4. foreign—foreign;. How can that be a Body, &c, which is impalpable and inviſible?

Gregory the Great (o)(o)Moral. lib. 14. c. 33. Erit itaque ſubtilis, quia & incorruptibilis; erit palpabilis, quia non amittet eſſentiam veracis naturae., ſpeaking of a glorified Body, ſays, It will therefore be a ſubtile Body, becauſe it will be incorruptible; and it will be palpable, becauſe it ſhall not loſe the Eſſence of its true Nature.

Cyril of Alex. in his Explication of the third Anathema of the Epheſine Council (p)(p)Tom. 3 Concil. Labbe. p. 817. foreign.. He is not a Stranger to that Body which he has united to himſelf, which we ſay is capable to be felt, and to be ſeen.

In fine, The Church of Rome makes Chriſt's Body inviſible tho' it be preſent; the Fathers never make it ſo, but becauſe it is abſent.

So Ammonius (q)(q)Eaten. in Joan. 16.10. foreign.John 16:10. He was taken up into Heaven, and became inviſible unto Men.

And the Author imperfecti Operis in Matthaeum (r)(r)Homil. 53. Si ſit praeſens, non creditur, ſed videtur; cùm autem abſens fuerit, non videtur, ſed creditur, dum timetur.. When he is preſent, he is not believed, but ſeen; but when he is abſent, he is not ſeen, but believed, whilſt he is feared.

2 Aſſertion. The Fathers aſſert, That every Body is quantum, and as it ahs Quantity, poſſeſſes a Place or Space, and is commenſurate to it: That a Body cannot be in more than one Place, nor be intire in one Part, nor exiſt after the manner of a Spirit. All which are falſe, if Tranſubſtantiation be true.

S. Baſil (s)(s)Contr. Eunom. l. 2. foreign.makes that to be incorporeal, whoſe Eſſence cannot be divided three ways (or has not three Dimenſions).

Greg. Nyſſen (t)(t)De Opific. Hom. c. 24. foreign.ſays, That if you take Quantity, Solidneſs, and other Properties from the Subject, the whole Nature of the Body is diſſolved, &c.

S. Auſtin ſays ſo much upon this Argument, that I muſt only mention ſome few Teſtimonies out of a great Heap that might be collected.

He ſays (u)(u)Lib. 4. de Orig. Animae, c. 11. Corpus eſt quicquid majoribus & minoribus ſuis partibus, majora & minora ſpatia locorum continentibus, conſtat., A Body is that which conſiſts of p. 23greater and leſſer Parts, containing greater and leſſer Spaces of Place.

Again (x)(x)Epiſt. 3. ad Voluſian. Quorum nullum poteſt eſſe ubique totum, quoniam per innumerabiles partes aliud alibi habeat neceſſe eſt: & quantumcumque ſit corpus ſeu quantulumcunque corpuſculum loci occupet ſpatium, eundemque locum ſic impleat, ut in nulla ejus parte ſit totum.— Non ſic Deus dicitur implere mundum, velut aqua, velut aer, ut minore ſui parte minorem mundi impleat partem, & majore majorem. Novit ubique totus eſſe, & nullo contineri loco., diſtinguiſhing Bodies into groſs and ſubtile ones, he ſays, Both are Bodies, none of which can be every where whole and entire, becauſe by reaſon of its innumerable Parts, it muſt have another Place elſewhere; and how great or little ſoever a Body is, it poſſeſſes a Space of Place, and ſo fills that Place, that it is not whole in any part of it. And a little after: God is not thus ſaid to fill the World, in the ſame manner as Water or Air do's, ſo that by a leſſer part of himſelf he fills a leſſer part of the World, and by a greater part a greater. So that, according to him, none but God and Spirits can have ſuch an Exiſtence.

So in his Epiſtle to Euodius (y)(y)Epiſt. 101. Nullum eſſe quantulumcunque corpuſculum, quod non pro ſuo modo loci occupet ſpatium; nec in eo quod occupat ubique ſit totum, ſed minus ſit in parte quàm in toto.. There is no Body ſo little, which after its manner do's not poſſeſs a local Space; neither is it whole every where in that Space it poſſeſſes, but leſs in a part of that Space than in the whole.

And again (z)(z)Contra Epiſt. Manichaei, cap. 16. Nec omnino poteſt eſſe aliquod corpus ſive coeleſte, ſive terreſtre, ſive aereum, ſive humidum, quod non minus ſit in parte quàm in toto, neque ullo modo poſſit in loco hujus partis habere aliam partem, ſed aliud hic, aliud alibi per ſpatia quaelibet locorum diſtantia & dividua, &c.. There can be no Body, either Celeſtial or Terreſtrial, Aereal or Aqueous, that is not leſs in a part than in the whole; nor can it any ways have another part in the place of this part, but muſt have one here, another elſewhere, throughout the ſeveral diſtant and divided Spaces of Place, &c.

But the Nature of the Soul is not found to be extended to the Spaces of Place by any Bulkineſs.Animae vero natura nullo modo invenitur locorum ſpatiis aliquâ mole diſtendi.

He ſays the ſame in another Epiſtle (a)(a)Ad Dardanum Epiſt. 57. Spatia locorum tolle corporibus, nuſquam erunt; & quia nuſquam erunt, nec erunt., and adds, Take away local Extent from Bodies, and they will be no where; and if they are no where, they will not be at all.

In the ſame Epiſtle, ſpeaking of the Divine Perſons, that nothing hinders why they may not be every where ſimul, argues thus: p. 24For they are not Bodies, Non enim corpora ſunt, quorum amplior ſit in tribus quam in ſingulis magnitudo, nec loca ſuis molibus tenent, ut diſtantibus ſpatiis ſimul eſſe non poſſint.whoſe Magnitude is larger in Three than in One; nor do they poſſeſs Places by their Bulk, ſo as not to be able to be in diſtant Spaces at once, (which is the Nature, he acknowledges, of Bodies).

He ſays alſo of Chriſt, Ubique totum praeſentem eſſe non dubites tanquam Deum, & in eodem Templo Dei eſſe tanquam inhabitantem Deum, & in loco aliquo coeli, propter veri corporis modum.We are not to doubt that whole Chriſt is every where preſent as God, and is in the ſame Temple of God, as an inhabiting Deity, and in one certain place of Heaven, by reaſon of the Nature of his true Body.

Elſewhere (b)(b)De Civit. Dei, l. 22. c. 29. Deus totus in coelo eſt, totus in terra, non alternis temporibus ſed utrumque ſimul, quod nulla natura corporalis poteſt.. God is whole in Heaven, and whole on Earth; not at different times ſucceſſively, but both together; which no Corporeal Nature is capable of.

Again (c)(c)Epiſt. 6. ad Italicam. Omne quod oculis corporeis conſpici poteſt, in loco aliquo ſit neceſſe eſt, neque ubique ſit totum, ſed minore ſui parte minorem locum occupet, & majore majorem.. Every thing that may be ſeen with Bodily Eyes, muſt of neceſſity be in ſome Place; nor can it be whole every where, but muſt poſſeſs a leſſer Place by a leſſer Part of it ſelf, and a greater Place by a greater Part.

He repeats almoſt the ſame, in his Twenty eighth Epiſtle.

And in another Book (d)(d)Cont. Epiſt. Manichaei, c. 16. Aeris partes ſuos quoque implent locos, nec fieri poteſt ut aer quo impletur haec domus, ſimul ſecum in eadem domo habere poſſit etiam illum aerem quem vicini habent.. The Parts of Air alſo fill their Places; nor is it poſſible that the Air that fills this Houſe, ſhould together with it have the Air that is in a Neighbour's Houſe.

Again elſewhere (e)(e)De Immort. Animae, c. 16. Moles omnis quae occupat locum, non eſt in ſingulis ſuis partibus tota, ſed in omnibus, quare aliqua pars ejus alibi eſt, & alibi alia.. Every thing of Bulk that poſſeſſes a Place, is not whole in its ſingle Parts, but whole in all its Parts; therefore one Part of it is in this Place, and another in another.

In another Tract (f)(f)Tract. 31. in Joan. Homo ſecundùm corpus in loco eſt, & de loco migrat, & cum ad alium locum venerit, in eo loco unde venit non eſt: Deus autem implet omnia & ubique totus eſt, non ſecundùm ſpatia tenetur locis. Erat tamen Chriſtus ſecundùm viſibilem carnem in terra, ſecundùm invifibilem Majeſtatem in coelo & in terra.. Man, as to his Body, is in a Place, and paſſes from one Place to another; and when he comes to another Place, he is no longer in that Place from whence he came. But God fills all things, and is every where whole, not confined to Places according to Spaces. Chriſt, according to his viſible Fleſh, was on Earth; according to his inviſible Majeſty, in Heaven and Earth.

p. 25To name but two or three more out of S. Auſtin, who ſeems to ſpeak Prophetically (g)(g)De Ʋnit. 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.Eccl 10. 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)(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)(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)(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)(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)(m)In Geneſ. qu. 3. foreign.makes this a Conſequence from Angels being of a determinate Subſtance, That then they require a Place to be in: For only the Divinity, p. 26ſays he, as being undetermined, is not in a Place. And elſewhere (n)(n)Dialog. 2. foreign., ſpeaking of Chriſt's Body after the Reſurrection, he ſays, Still it is a Body, having its former Circumſcription.

Cyril of Alexandria (o)(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, foreignſays, 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)(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)(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)(r)foreign. Orat. 34.makes it impoſſible for one Body to be in divers.

So do's Damaſcen (s)(s)De Fide Orth. l. 1. c. 4.make it impoſſible that one Body ſhould paſs thro' another, unleſs there be foreign, that which divides, and that which is divided.

Claud. Mamertus (t)(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)(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 righthand Parts there where its left-hand Parts are, nor its Parts before there where it has its Parts behind.

S. Hilary (x)(x)In Pſal. 124. Spiritus namque eſt omnia penetrans & continens. Non enim ſecundùm nos corporalis eſt, ut cùm alicubi adſit, abſit aliunde, &c.Ps 124ſpeaking 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.

p. 27And elſewhere (y)(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)(z)Orat. 51. foreign.. 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)(a)Paulo poſt. foreign.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)(b)Orat. 37. foreign.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)(c)De Spir. S. cap. 14. foreign, &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, foreignif Chriſt's Body could be in more Places at the ſame time.

Arnobius (d)(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 confitendum que 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 p. 28that 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)(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 determinatam que 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?

No…a…ian (f)(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.

p. 29Author Quaeſt. ad Antioch. (g)(g)Quaeſt. 26. foreign.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)(h)De Trin. Dialog. 6. foreign.lays it down as a Rule, that Nothing can partake of it ſelf.

And elſewhere (i)(i)Ibid. Dial. 5. & 7. foreign.. 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)(k)Idem in Joan. lib. 2. c. 1. foreign.he ſays, That to partake of ones ſelf, is abſurd ſo much as to imagine it.

S. Chryſoſtom (l)(l)Hom. 10. in Joan. citat. à Theodoret. Dial. 2. foreign—foreign.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 it ſelf.

Gelaſius Caeſarien. (m)(m)Citat. à Theodoret. Dial. 1. foreign.. The Word was made Fleſh, not being it ſelf changed, but dwelling in us. The Tabernacle is one thing, and the Word is another; the Temple is one thing, and God that dwells in it another.

See alſo the like Saying in Methodius, cited by Photius his Bibliotheca. Cod. 234. pag. 920. ult. Edit.

In a word, the Fathers oppoſe all Penetration of Dimenſions in Bodies, and ſay (n)(n)Author. Libr. cui tit. Celebres Opiniones de Anima, c. 10. foreign., That it is impoſſible for one Body to penetrate another Body.

p. 30And the ſame Author ſays (o)(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)(p)Haereſ. 42. ſec. 7. foreign.. So do's Tertullian (q)(q)Contr. Marcion. l. 1. c. 15.. Irenaeus (r)(r)Adv. Haer. l. 2. c. 1.has the ſame Rule, and laughs at Marcion's God upon that account.

Greg. Nyſſen (s)(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)(t)Ad Autolycum, l. 2. foreign.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)(u)De Fide ad Petr. c. 3. Unaquaeque res ita permaner, 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.