. not more imto ssible for. od to make e thing verts reflly distinct to coexist with soue ot infomsing oo that the whole coexists vith pole ana pert vith part, than to ie that sane to ‘goeyvis with such a whole informing;but ae- to those holding in eomnon an ooinion & sube noving narte really distinot ‘soexvists with the substance substance eganss 2 it tmty 3 nas itustion fron pertyend a \ gubstence is not - only good ates with it;therefoere it is rae itself;theref TIF GPO giba stance it- eh. is the croppeits edn th rough : Es ccsoas of inherence,in vh: spent. ou iva {ly adgveni it ae 3 therefore, God LnePOLOres UO na thet quantity will be, jee asent with a whole jtherefore, that subs ta ance has >art outside nd consequently. vould be A quantum 8 nda. yer ee, As; teniy 2 quanti through | oth er thin pore somnquennie that piste Loesiy gecouvliched per slura which ct from ueaaclosas 2 and quality must ‘net be at~ Th @an else ‘ve ~roved through those tvo arguments _guelity. auantity? at that major premise s that God ean make qvelity without qnantitys es e different thing,since it no more depgendis tantity than substance. Cimilarly if God ean mn substance. I confirm the vrevious > ineonsistent for a subetance : own self without every dif-~ every other * thing advening to 1 to detract mich From the divine por er sho thet: Cod of Mic own absolute vaver gan not ore thet ene thing may be cevarste from He ‘arent es ene different thing separate; and they seem to divine narer rather than those who say that wis. sithont every other thing eb spears eee Ae ln iccinuntintivety ions ot and ovonted 4 te Be’ nonarnte in 0 exist ‘per 22 ritnont ft nine Added 46 Ace tne. ‘ode “gonvontont to eer 1% is iasiisiriiae! edition parts haet a + odaumseriptively without 4th stherefore, another: suen ave intity te feuit- , neomed. It is likewise | confirmed, beans sa oVvory eresent in enother thine, 12 as it per se or through another intrinsic thin thine 1 has been affirmed that one thing is locally — “yecause its om end is locally orecent there. tefore the eubstance of a stone is vresent in “ ml a plaes ner se,and eonsednent ly game Treason partes of a substance are oresont cesses sonseane ntly the entire sih- ‘is ver se fundamentally end ecireunseriptively Lace; but every thing, rhich in itesif ie© eireniserintiv ely.
6 B06,i8 in itself a quantum; therefore; substance ie a auantwm snd consequentiv is a quantity. > reasoning ean be applied anne erning quality.
ag veevious arguments are confirmed pheannse parts - shing: added to thei, God can meke those gn to exist distinct 3 in a place ‘end ins nttuction + ae coaaaame ean sppoure ray one more than pir oion is at ones to be cAevinet: ine and s absolute porer gan bring it to e tro hadies ‘pipeiaiae unite and make one of airyand vet that ‘Eey may be distinet in plane ation rithout every such thing advening to them; ey that oir will have part outs tldc Q * pert without an added thin “Ey and. consequent Ly it will be n without such centhing added therefore, te 3 in veletion ptm that air is a que antitte The previous can pe confirwed in meny other Per termich | for the sake (of brevity. In. the third place nietly argued thus according ‘to the wagt ete er’ “Aemuterieaue ok emaiggaiameel aie dam ar s quantity: were a 1)oconwht thing inne suhjoots ut mould be in a subject; the common atotua or the pero & S iogae cmien(stetes that the i iyecin i ‘the sacrament ef the altar, for ay one accident vould remain without a subject, others vould be in 2 subject;therefore, 4 quantity not be such a distinet thing et betere. And gsretully. onsidering the agistrum and the ogOrs eorationes ith the gloss 6 ‘nd the state- £ the Saintsyno fis found so clear on acgount of the ssersament of the altar it is sary to netiva: such another thing intermediate substance and qualities, jus +t ar ainet such « athe thing bearing qualitics.
ae is not even once wentApnods nen cs -or is not (such ¢ sake nent }y oxceat that em to affirm that s11 the qualities in the Ea pa aeystery "et _Hovever I do not intend to state that those such cniatien paaiaane such accidents,of Saints speak, and whieh they seem to affirm ory subject, are heretical or erring in the the seerenont of the Bue BPR eas poceuAe Doat pproved wy the ade ee os ae eer ce we W ACL » the atatenents of the pada dee who imutua ally one another, end in: a were approved authorises by th “ehure ome In tlie fourth absolute aceldent is wore “and adequate; subject, but tty» mere. some tne a ftoren from substance ue ont. Therefore, [ ask gy oo labia: adequate subjects mhethe somposttes tt te Ss not e veoause. a subject would De wore soupos site own absolute ascidentyrnioh « secus false; neither mee then sor 18, ie Goce 20 deat eens is form its own peek estes then matter, it tt were sepe yh oy CA he Com sees 3 to he feise 1SGe game reason dimensions From 8 3 dense y thes ban wh othe ae > therefore dostwoved, which iis a Wega ids ee ak ato the two Gnas: woulda , doney: who ‘think tims. If m part, the same oreument ant travels from subject st as. could he alen abcd chown, but it is ssi, Saleaaiece, enbhetance y affirmed, "gediuecaiha de declare ‘and for me any. Sl.
ae Per eo ae Gog or other parts nor is 4 extrinsic CHUA - Baelitiay Lat 6 Sts self és re “qvente corporal things 2 Aeteant iitar,but it avoids ima rit ent of the RAVER replies and objec soe modern: weite nsure: thot opinion | as bea ar suffic oie he ti ‘sy stinulated by oa. ‘i.
Nees!
essery another B thing, namely,et- to produce things in another without then; th eref ‘agi the ee hel te my bis othe every " ra thout lor See me ey ting oe ive x Lee just oor Mee ANG th ne pea V6 any YY O@THnavcess > hen s though erroneous not by ance on t re etors, Oe a cortein Doctor ereuing 6 6 ena « S e aualitye ao a algo Giver se, wm n that of | the ahyich ike Oi 8 ; Yeally the seme as quelity,ic sontrary to Pak rhs dee <ho Ritaaeorner Sh the sixth silos states the Sag quality is not 5 veto’ 46 Pew vente i mionte it ds naturally impos ae rs “ne rep gon taste would have: as ss or frig bet Se “thore ) arguments 2 aad shobnetios recess bread is not transsubs stantiated the body ef Jhrist,but only into body of Christ. Snt pee. substance would really be transsubs beaut tated - eonfirmed; beea ause the quantity rat ghris is not in the coereuent of the _ gonversion, but only concomipetance of the body of christ MOT einse thea e will be ale 0 pe clear Anigtions « or those already offered T - -epaeniady Ante ards the first argnment to the philos sopher either in the Predisaments Ge And. when he: states that. in the Pradicanents Se from substance and quality; ‘the philosopher aoes, not intend 10 die mubstancesquentity and amality: ag Z “a eq ne things, ethane in divers £e do not. exis at except ae gran aa ce essand thorer ore although this predion ean a at etinct tng oH8 Per cmon baat ge or = auelity and so the ate inetion of be voton. +0 1e philosopher specksyholds oe? ane | statement, that enecles of qrantitev. there are distinct an of quantity s EE VeErs hi Losopher in the. Predican: ontee That those ao not imply qmantities ais tinct from a nart ds ‘clears became: then there mona a“ tro nent ition » togetnor in ee cag anonts™: therefore, prot: canents sai [cateay herefore,not—rith- tending mbetance | and mality are. dis © e ent mate are in aive T2e, nijroanc stion} * sone co.ont S) pectos )s ne aber; aifter ert ‘terh ey quar eterna: ry stated b efore, es to itely, that no 12 thet. is not: signifi: od 50. also | Ww is lear Gogo t7r0y f soine thing beh ns oes eS approved. by the. Re ian ent v we oF Found: SOM a pas mus + ‘be exple thet es: stonentss eine 2 piel an s es emotion " nd ny father : Sian i says ain jjouily | on John: "Although in the sense 1 vhicn they. ought as.
stots mth exp vuRAD oy a poreve ed. we te 2m not move yan oF te precet rent from substance phd stice tions ean wt or tite 2 reason th hey theuselves mutuslly & the la tor writers: rove Te os n refute thei, ov i they news ' in their nothing gut sophie passage a leak ely think that T ought to be limited to Se ons to the ne aketabenietecason; on the.
consider at “den gerous and rash ‘to weind of sone salay or Dee ctor aon adh hom — to. tefuto, for JA in check uy opility and to | aie: frou sub stance its T dpelexo ee ba onant with neasrhereforeyit ne chow not hi *.
the 4 experience Sopeon ee rs th Lat haaule am not.
i nongart te: then ahap con herefores for the sawe Teeson, part, of substance eens: “ec aia er thout.every auentity,vhich is contrary het} nas: ay ia sa eg Athen | ane os e sane Ie | “ ee rent part sing there ig no greater gant soneequent ly whe 5 a i le So ee he ‘yd CB Rte sa ‘S 27 we sub ah an “not to be ron vat tats is no médiua;beecaus eae : q eer ee % er oe atte i vher oy ts not efore it have a preexisting nt nould chance from onsonant with ex~ “that: in ar mn no sens ‘eis.
nyethat quantity: is not Ack i 6, and nes sonded cad qual ity - TY OPeELore,s ediny sedy it iteelf a » traoug a: this fore,and on ow than before, O04 nor is it Rey Seat Bae Bika cia me And es in the Predic dies of whole the they ob Not mat nore dense nov hag ay 2% i not veniain; heems SO, ine,it' follove fore; therefore, that “not who tully under ae fre a pce igh ‘ststousnte: T affitm substance Rei crore, CLs : ee no Bcin: Das it a not dead is. not, 9) arist isgtherefor oy ctnric tis _person:so 0 it does not folloriso aauch quan ntity betance: rh sthereforn, substance wae “not so much 80 it ey eidently is eles rT that,although ices “a nt in fer that of the present,vet ies Anfer that Of. tne paste or does renit un e sods whet. ner abe stra at or conerete ASG_ S50 PEO ME LE OReLAy eed Lo, ih Sth frequently two of or the actual and enother of the e negative of the potuel,sl- me of of the Doss ple; and there sfores re not velid. This proposition e in notyrhile this ‘prep ocition pie vhttenee: ve stherefores this whiteness. is ssaLtbongh thie SS possible: for this peta not to be thie ‘likes - likeness are not ‘came it is in . ean wound Oy . Te. not EQLows stance. and tity are.x spame Ton ta statement. ie trues.
ere Bot the same things emue reason I affirm — swuhetange 3 not the: rame things so it enn tie aren09 — Ae. truest) ie _subste ince is; > true if this vroposition this nro sah a ca inpoeedbie tay pass froin ee XN sant propo Ae te geris & “thet: dsdeaas seabain to Yeason, it » eamageal is gonsone: ent etatod 1a same Sen an Aaa re lbs quantity, hich 3 not 6 Waeaity, species, differs in species; therefore Anis — of 0 airy? hich is nls i 470) hors es.
300° iy is one predic: sainents e may eam species (of i st pltes ao A ae nt SLs en aoe eben eae er ay ot. Sine iene ce it is * Le ecies. of quentity.
By Es most partiouler £ predic } or. of a pronoun | ig to the inte: ation tatedent that ensesagiae con s eve ised was ste ted.
at s0i68 we Set the ay ey iz substance? at leas nelrvevery onsh tn ine © 3 solar, noaty cold, and ond of vane stich thifiges And when “ageording | neoidont, t dota ste, "eunstarice is a 80 Or ‘qualit ” vetin La & a substene ee or a quality or thre Hot node stride at1 a ; 4 ‘guentina ‘.
th de statenent and dit ferent > whe ereatee.
oporition is ec io ee * <— i ees vi a oes distine twath + his’ cok er olds thet they do bahar denity dirtinet thi net.
> meee to many ss he vegas tno Leet point of that Toetor that in speaking of bodies of.« iverse vatioes ret one was oreated to | exis et in in. form of each was peated ta @x xist in 2 the same Place, and tmmrenetiont & # also diverges aceidents as waiter RUE and | stituted sand therefore it ought to be conceded the virtue of spe sechy that sainy bodies sien exist hat issthat many things existing oirounesrint: vely Phecesand 0 r whic ch ony one has s art outeride es of the ene a genie or rae otes | of a | substonce or tye | bodies of diverse a es ay ee Bi a ais oe hy % oe Be eS A Beas A ie aie set rand is not tranche tentd ate ny or ghrist 2but only into A eis t; 43 meat, De stated the 5 ekgegaeroed be ~~ ee an ete oa Nat Ok found holding ts fal se minions;7) thet their. opinions ete concerned, Vany Jath odlocsanpg eae ao.
Tiny t; == Eo en 4S ee et aie Wp ene 2% nike wie 10 that sropocition frau “eae rust oe. soneeded t the subs stance rod is tr anssubstantiated into the body of ocelly in heaven In the sane enn? @ im confirustion thet thie proposition must be oo the virtue, of spee ons the quantity: of. the by te oo, ey. the virtue of “provosition must be cone coded, the | body of ener ° exis ste an the saor ament of conver cig ony and éhkent2y the authorized writer;bput yet of these statenents is true and faetjyet according both van be falee,if this substance of the body of Shrist eaten by the virtue af aaee,numely,if re ice ‘of the poay of. onrdst gould exist nowhere ody. of onris ot has a saan i uanel | and the st ‘ronsins “there ae the species of ptivelyimen. th ie has been done na then of ons t ‘exis | c bread by the power of trans sib— proposition would be falee: body of shrist exists unde rt ine vopasition is false) digplic ati ion; for it wowid ‘be oY the: bouy of ohrist would se nething is et ic outside of part seperate frou pax ' But singe the body would no here exist losally,never gould it & attripoted that one part could be - Sildeainer ¢ ~ art; but wherever ono pert noth: ve part movid bs proposition nk be truesthe bady of Le EY for the same reason pro orition would be tz: the body of christ a qus pati 3 or.998 ee ont ly this peopoedt tox , falsotthe bely 9 st is a quenti ty. and tion this proposition would omantity | of tne yody of ghriet is an the | alters And 50 hey waula de sire to ne eftins oehat the iantity or eremont of the alter sey. that —— make not anemia tite: ae in the sacrament oA eo # Pm an pody of Se now here ha o et se co ate froin 20ny erst Ons IT ie in ths ‘Satholic naa ete a hing fink tion corres ep 20nd 7 lortesponds to. det ¢ in n Pt ay He On # ry er a Ue nt Lae : eet ey rm aoe 2CCSSaTy Av ri — Ne is “out: f ostly. fe alee the yody o Tre eonc ie. COL posit ion is true eitl. we: bs ity on a the altar; ie PES Ne = ot 3 the boay ee a ae & oo caer OAT @ vody of Christ existing eir OUR nothing of whe pre ean ame 2 is iam tthe vr a an aiutieniy: thi a Christ hav ng part outs eid a ee YA, ise. accord jing to the 8 er 3 cee of christ is) @ quantum £04 valtn OUg ore a ast as. ale ae pert separate in une ation frog pertgyot it docs 20% there have part eee parte And that reply is ogre eas HOCAN fees avertible,of ane ene is pre eatively 9 ONG ‘ ieee ey ee peel + 2 predi Gata, s ge a atalatins are convertible:a gontinuocus whatever er sfote this DLOoS “1ii0n : eh Pua ae re eh Ya ey gsaermsent of the shaving part | SOD: wtion from vart; is wanifestly false,bec sguse no part i= sevarate tion frow another in the secrament of the alter; Brore this vroposition is false according ta the a ee < “i ee nee;. ™ oF Christ 4© @ continuous quantum permanent in secrament of the alter.
efore t affirm that the body of Christ i2 not Diu thereybecause it does not have there part seperate B in situation froma in heaven it is 4 quantuine “ ‘oe S i. oe cyt * N me é OE ge aE sae a ie anh, oe A EN he see sa ¥ the gaan ty ‘3 ve body of Christ vere aifferent > altar,and cone seque hie the body Iwona truly be a quantun thereyand con- mould have there part separate from part, y youd not be o whole under the entire nthe = Secrusent of the hae ean ad does not remain there;it must be etated that rank = Latome mis the opinion 2: ‘7 thet opinion aefirmed, thet ance, and they do not mpliciously wat uswe Ae amar “ity.ond een +4 oniauality 1 que entity, thet afford an opportunity for the un- the preceding stand at that ovinion affirms tevery quantity aubstene pejnnd heons se of 6 defect in the arguments - malty otrive to enlist net the opinion. Therefore I affirm in re- the argrmont, tot it is too stupddy beceuce ‘follomt: substance ts quantity,and euhetance Me @ there; thorotore no y anentity rensins + 2 Nerves no. eubetonce. Tremaine the ust as it does s not remain t 4 Oe = ie Me svete in enoth @ same piv Prous 3S nor cver ALL = meso is simply cube etane 6. An aes aed: curt ic ce for the a pecauce a sewhere treat et loncth of that subject.
VARNA A? i Seth py Pov ALE HEN e tO AIGAVE Y EVM ERGET Oe % The introduction to the tract con- cerning the body of Christ begins.
The PROLOZUG.
Rt nics of our immortality,in order that Ne might 460m us from the servitude of the devil and restore _to our original Liberty and bring us at last to , heavenly inheritance,also offered Himself on the tar of the cross as the price for the redewption of human Tac@e Moreover, that a perpetual inemoriel of ) great a gift wd get remain debak esa that snr ist i ht be ded lay offered in a mye _manner as 8 afiece for us who sin deily,He left behind His orn 4@ sacrament of the ev. rists the unspeakable loftiness of whieh doss dis- in to be aubsected to human investigation;for which Reon there de needa to sneak of that sublime and most Plient sacrament vith all fear end modesty, hecause © wennect to no sacrament is error more nerilouc, inquiry more leborous,nor invention more fruitit; rdinglyysince I a abouw to examine briefly sone s of that most worthy saeranent,I publiciy declare vy in the food and His orn blood in the drinkbe hase peel yy emesis gor and by judiciously ¢ ADPTOVe re not suthorized 7 by the Romen chureh, but aan Let all men unders stand that T do e the prese ent Little. “nt that T may in- XN peech upon the e # show hor bLain 8 ae 1 cee Chapter I...The body of Christ is truly con- ‘Bained under the species of bread.
tend is ean this statement, thet the body of Christ_ ich was assumed from the Virgin Mary,and suffered and las buried, which also stose feos the dead and ascended 0 heaven, and sits on the right hand of God, the her,and in which the gon of God will some to judge > quick end the deadyis really and bf contained | r the species of erent ee although ‘at ss g under the species of bread,syst it is not seen by us with the bodily eye,but vith the ner > faithful believe that it is concesled Mpaamath jes of breads ang it is also hela that the sub- mee of the bread is transsubstantiated er changed, that the substance of the bread does not really. eh at that the accidents alone subsisting per ce ine And not only the body of | thout a subject reme hinaan nature affected lene transeudstantiation of the preadyis contained the species of bread;put also the whole Christ, vided, perfect Godgand true manyis at the same tine ‘lly and truly contained under the entire host and unbartgolthough by a proper asstuaption,of cone sion and transsubstantiation,the substance of the ead is not ehanged into divinity or rational sol into any accident. ities nis is alco my faithysinee it is the Catholic faith. whatever the Roman ehurch pelieves, this filone and thing @lse either explicitly or implicitly I believe. hor much benefit and efficacy there is in implicit ath is set forth by Innocent in & gloss on De Sunona dnitate ct Fide Catholica,"Firwiter": "Implicit faith", says, "orevails to such a degree,as some say,that if one holds to this faith,namely,that he believes tever the ehureh bhelievessif neon dao ted by natural eh fallacy that the Father is greater existed defore the Son or that the three persons re things mutually separate,he is not a heretic nor es he sin;provided he does not defend this error pelieves thie very statement becavss he believes chur eh 80 believes end seubetitutes his orn opinion the faith of the churehsbecause slthough he thus s in his opinion,syet that is not his ovn faithj;on e contrary his own fsith is the faith of the church". refore, if shpbbotd'* ‘avon great efficecy in implicit ith that it excuses the person ignorantly erring con- wr ng those doctrines which are set forth in the onieal seriptures, much more will it exeuse the por~ son ignorantily forming en opinion of something vhie” not found set forth in the ganongcal soriptures.
Chapter IT.
Chapter IT.
The body of Christ is really contained under se species of preaeds — Thet the body of Christ is really contained unde species of pread ean not be shovn by natural asonjand, therefore, it is nesessary to assent by th to a conception of that ttiitn, concertbing ghieh ought not to be in doubt wines 4% is yell known t the same truth was revealed to the Apostles by Only-begotten Son of God;a witness to which is the % holy Bvangelist,Matthevygin chapter XXVI.: "le took es dentine ere ane ere poe Hie desciples and said:Take and eat;this is my ’. To this truth Mark also bears testimony in er XIVe, saying: "While they vere eating, Josue took and blessed it and brake it and gave it to thers said/Takeythis is my body". With these statements . agrees in chapter XXII.,saying: "when He had taken bread,ie gave thanks and brake it and gave it ta nen and saidsThis is my body which is given for you; 8 do in Temambrance of me", In shapter VTe§sonny he Evangelist,also records the words of the Feiehoste He points ont the resl nature and the benefit of at sacrament: "The preadswhich I shall give to you he life of the vorld,is my flesh",and then follows: mt ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man,and drink at oe ck a blood, ye have no life in youe He who eateth wy h and drinketh my bloodshath eternal Lively Paul ke similiarly in t.corinthians XI.:"The Lord Jesus?
says, "in the night in which He was betrayed, took Wdyand gave thanks and brake it and saiasTake and jthis is wy body which is given for youj;do this in Likevise in T.vorinthians X.: "The brance of mane eed whioh we vreak, is it not the ecommmion of the or our Lorat# These are the pacsages from the migal seriptures, yhich Slike deelere that the body hrist vas really ani truly given to the deustpaes er the species of bread and @¥et.dt was enjoined upon } same Apostles by the Saviour that they should of- ¢ the body of Christ under the speeles of bread in ry of the Lord's Passion. With the oreviously ed writers of the ganoniesal seriptures,slso agres euinent Doctors,the Noly Fathers,the most illustrious sitors of the divine scrivtures,anid those recognized uthoritative by the Rosen Shureh, o@ie sages preserved in the canonical Ler gouet ve publicly et forth. Of this numberythe blessed Augustine affiras voted in I. Quaestione Te, *Intra eoclesiam™:"Vithin Catholic churenh",he says, "no greater benefit is erred by a good priest and no less benefit by 6 vriest,in the wystery of the body and blood of Lord. * Likewies the blessed Cyprian, the Sishop, of the Lord and His Passion,ve do that h it is yell know that the Lord did." Likewise ose affirme as quoted in De gonsecratione, Dis: tion TI. ¢Ante penedictionen": "Sefore the blessing lifferent isoelen is indicated, efter the blessing body is designated, §nrist is in that sacrament." cewise John affiras as quoted in De goneecrationes inetion IT,, "Nee Moyses": "Moses", ho says, "did not you the true bread, but the Lord Jesus is guest ed Gregory affirms as quoted in Te», i. tion Te, "Multi"; "We",he says, "desecrate the preads | at ie,the body of Chriet when we approach the altar yorthily." Prom these and numerous other passages, § @learly shown that the body of Christ is really ained under the species of breadjand beesuse that ment was clear to ell the faithful from the com - cement of the christian faith; therefore, Bi ence to the confirmation of this statement 1 do wish to delay longer.
a : a: Be es | dopa toas Pat: %: Re; 3 eae a yy eeae | Chapter ITIte The substance of the bread is; converted into the body of Christ.
ithough it is expressly set forth in the eanonical rintures,that the body of Christ is to be offered the faithful wider the species of bread,yet that substance of the bread is really converted or nssubstantiated into the body of Christ is not ad expressed in the eanon of the Bible;but this trine isc believed to have been divinely revealed the oly Fathers,or by a diligent and ekilfuleiix tion to have been proved by passages of the ‘Bible; stherefore,t shall cite vasseages of the Holy Patheors » prove thet truth. Of which number Eusebius Fad semis fates es quoted in De consecratione Distinetion II., "Onia corpus"; "The invisibile Priest converts ohe nefits the vower of the divine blessing oroduces; j 1 it ought not to be strange or impossible to you et earthly and mortal o obiects are converted into © substance of Christ.* Likerise Ambrose states as ted in De Consecratione Distinetion Tl, "Panis": "If? ays, "there is so much pover in the Word of the that that,which vas nét,began to exist;how much ) opperative is it that those thinge may exist ch existed,end be changed into something else;and rhich was pread vefore eonsecration,is now body of Christ after conseoration. Likewise on Summa Trinitate et Fide Catholica, "Firmiter®", rhere ocent TIT. says in a general council: "There is one versal ohurah of believers,cutside of which no one all is saved. In whieh Jesus Christ Himself is toth ost and sacrifice,vhose body and blood is truly tained in the saerament of the altar under the gies of bread and wines since the bread has been ssubstantiated into the body and the wine into the food by divine pover." Likewise on the De Celebraticne issarum, "Sum Marthae": "If, therefore,sHe lifted His to the Pather st the time when He celled the of Lazarus back to the lifeless body,it seems more able that He lifted His eyes toward heaven to the er when He speciglly changed the bread and wine o body and plood. * From these and very many other ages of the Salnts and the Doctors,it is estab- ead that the substances of the bread is really and y transsubstantiated, converted,or thanged ty the vine virtue into the substance of the body of christ, st without an increase or substantial transmutation the body of Christ.
Shapter IV.
“fhe substance ef the bread is gonverted into the body of Christ, ae not into the divinity,or the soul, gveotirer-haiy,or the bloocd,or into anv accident of the substance.:; Agcording to a proper application of terms,the pre- ously mentioned conversion or transsubstantiation the vread into the soul,or. the divinity,or the oa of Ph ara ae into any acoiaent of the substangve the body of Christ, deenot: to the body of Christ. Hovever, by putting an isproper loose sonstruetion upon this term, conversion or hssubetantiation,it might be conceded that the ed is transsubstantiated into the soul,or, the blood, njecolaent of the body of Shrist. For the tors sy the authorities,are convineed that the subee of bread is not converted into the soul,or the dnity of Christ;from which source a gloss on be secratione Distinction II.on the chapter, "Quid est istwm mandueare?", says: "The bread is gonverted into ) flesh alone and the wine into the blood." Likewise Magister Sententiarun in Book IV.,Distinetion,XxT.: hough", he seye,"the entire christ is assumed under ecies",*yet no conversion of the bread except flesh,or of wine extept into blood,takes place."
these passages it is @lear that the substance of i “pread, from which it is converted into flesh alone, not transsubstantiated into the divinity,or the ional soul,or the ploodsorsas & sonbeqiente, lito aeoident af the flesh,or the soul;but this state- inly true according to a prover use of Ming convertitur. Fron thésestatanent it iwuat be ceived that the substance of the bread is converted “transsubstantiated into that which does not exist, ause it is joined to something else;but,even if it on separated from other thinge,it begins to exby divine cower under the svecies of the bread at ith the obligatory intention,over the proper material.
hetcie the flesh of Christ,not the ul,or the hlood,or other aecident inhering in the sh or the soul; for if the soul vere separarted from — fleshyno matter hoy much the priest might with ention tecite the sadramentsl words over the proper erial,the soul of Christ would not begin to exist re gbut only the flesh. Likevise,if the blood vere arated from the flesh,the blood vould not begin to ist there but only the flesh. And the judgment is same with respect to other aceidonts af the flesh the soul. And for tis reason the Doctors affirm t the body of Christ exists by virtue of the sacra- tal words through the vover of conversion under ; species of bread,and for which reason the substance bread is converted into the body of cChrist,and tee into the pois oF into the deity. Tf yhoweiter any hes to use the tevin, conversion or trans: substan~ tion, somernat inappropriate het he may affirm + the substance of the bread is converted into all et vhich at the utteranes of the sacramental words gins now really to exist umier the srecies of pread, eush s use of the term he @an concede that the subg 100 of the bread is ¢onverted into the reasonable \ of Christ;that is to say,thet at the utterance or sacramental words the verasonable soul hegins to exe ‘under the species of pread. If,yhowever,the sacre- 1 words had been uttered with the obligatory in- on during the period of the three days of death, easonable soul vould not have existed theres be~ it wae then separated from the body of Shrist which it is now united. If indeed you'™: about the term and to assert that the substance @e bread is eonverted into nothing except that deh begins to exist under the species of bread,even , Were separated from other things;I do not wish Oppose you sinee the point is sufficiently estapor alae Chapeer Vo The substance of the bread codas not eee tes after consecration.
se nononEreebesdored, that that consion or trenssubstantiation is not.accomplisnhed this manner, that the body of shrist begins to exist er the species of bread though the substance ite f remains, but in such a vay that the very substance the bread is converted into the body of dhrist,so , the stthetance of the bread does not remain by he of the divine virtue,but the body of Christ reo- ns only under the accidents which were in the sub- nee of the bread before conversion,syet it is not ected by thoce deciaenke ac will be shown later. ver,it wust be noted that, elthough itgis found arly expressed in the Noy Testament that the body hrist is to be recived by the faithful under the ies of breed in memory of the Lord's Passion and the remission of their sinsivet it is not there tly axprassed thet the substance of the bread does remain. For this reason from sneient times ‘thers been diverse ovinions vith respect to this point; stete the Magister Sententiarwm in Book TV., Dis- tion XI,and Hostiensis on the top of the page on onsecrations,snd the gloss on De consesoratione, Madcon Tl.,"tn sacramentorum",and the gloss on erratione Missarun, "cum Marthae."*® Yhieh sourecs i ert that there vere three opinione concerning the version of the bread into the body of christs "One nion asserts that that substance, rhich was at first and the © deases to exist there and the aecidents only re- nynemely, taste, color, veight and resenblence;and er these accidents the body of Christ begins to ex there. The third ovinion holds,that the substance the bread and the wine remain there,and the body of iS ict exists in the seme plac settunder the seme specics. " aes noctors mentioned before approve the second opinion, it seems to be the conclusion of the Rowan churehe h respect to which on De Suma Trinitate et Fide holica,"Firmiter", Tnnosent says in a general eonneil: re is one universal shurch of all bellevers,oute saved? See that vassage - rom fe % _ eens Vetinditamichtetn yhapter TIil.of thie q second iii ca, wee diverse vievs coneerning the sain writers exoress it Saint Thomes in Book IV.,Distinetion Xt.,%uestion bt ee a Tey Question TiI.:"fhatyalthough the substance of the “cad does not really remein vith the body of Christ, there is no contradiction involved in the state- 4 that through the divine power the bread ean reiin with the body";and therefore they concede and ap~ rove thatstatesent that the body of christ is in the: rament of the altar through a change wade in respect the body of Ohrist. And without—-giygeginiice to any other Pinion that second opinion sesms to me more probable | Le more in accord with theology, boeanse it rather ex-.
s the omipotence of God by detracting nothing from ' bh oon, except that which plainly and expressly implies -. ntradictionjyet for the present I refrain from s. cussion of this opinion,sines IT am 4 iss more fully elsewhere the saue subjects; how~ \ er I.arfirm thet the substance of the bread does not be ain, put coases to exist and the bedy of Christ be- \ \ 3 to exist under those species.
chapter VI.
‘The body of christ ie not cir- munseribed in a plaee in the sace~ rament of the altar.
oreover, although the body of onriat is Tealliv and ly contained under the species of bresadyyet it is _ oirouuseribed in a place in the saerement of the ary but the entire body of chriet is freelly contained ex the whole host and every vart of the hest;rhich encnt is confirmed py the testimony of the Holy ners. Of whieh number the blessed Jerome states as ted in De Sonsecrationa, Distinetion Ile, "*Singuli®: h individualyye Saves, "receives Shrist the Lord, the vhole shrist ig in eagh single vortion,and He not Lessened through the distgibution to individuals, each portion# Lika} He offers Nimeelt entire to the plessed Hilary is sino auoted de Jonseeratione, | inetion I1., "Ubi": "Where, "he says, "there is a part he body,there is the whole." From these passages it @learly deduced that the whole Shrist is in the ole host,and the whole is in a vartjfrom which state- nt a% ‘follows that the body of Christ is not con- , or cirauncecriped in a place, But the faithful be led to believe in the sossibility of that con- ion in another vay;for the Christian ought to say ieday. the divine vireet of sn leen Py we See ae!
i ieiteian gay vhich no one could doubtjor unless this truth sig nats be ascertained from Mkered Seripturs or the Doetors roved by the ghureh. For ve ought not to ourtail ue of all oreaturesgnor is experimontal knowledge ficient for saying that nothy nest be saconshed by divine virtue,sinee God ean ohange the ive order of naturad seusesj;and it is well known + He has done many things @ontrary to the eomon ake of natural causes. For who ever experimentally without a inan,of of a virgin naturally conesiviny