Section IX.
Arguments from other Scriptures proving Christ's real Presence in the Sacrament to be only spiritual, not natural

1. THE first is taken from those words of our blessed Saviour; "Whatsoever entereth into the mouth, goeth into the belly, and is cast forth into the draught;" meaning, that all food that is taken by the mouth, hath for his share the fortune of the belly; and indeed, manducation and ejection are equally diminutions of any perfect thing; and because it cannot, without blasphemy, be spoken, that the natural body of Christ ought or can suffer ejection, neither can it suffer manducation. To this Bellarmine [Lib. 1. Euch. c. 11. sect. Resp. cum Algero.] weakly answers, 'that these words of Christ are only true of that which is taken to nourish the body;' which saying of his is not true; for if it be taken to purge the body, or to make the body sick, or to make it lean, or to minister to lust, or to chastise the body, as those who in penances have masticated aloes and other bitter gums, yet still it is cast into the draught. 2. But suppose his meaning true, yet this argument will not so be put off; because although the end of receiving the blessed sacrament is not to nourish the body; yet that it does nourish the body, is affirmed by Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, and others; of which I have already given an account. [Sect. 5. n. 9] To which I here add the plain words of Rabanus: "Illud [corpus Christi] in nos convertitur, dum id manducamus et bibimus:" "That body is changed into us, when we eat it and drink it;" and therefore, although it hath a higher purpose, yet this also cannot be avoided. 3. Either we may manducate the accidents only, or else the substance of bread, or the substance of Christ's body. If we manducate only the accidents, then how do we eat Christ's body? [Aristol. lib 3. de Anim. cap. 12.] If we manducate bread, then it is capable of all the natural alterations, and it cannot be denied. But if we manducate Christ's body after a natural manner, what worse thing is it, that it descends into the guts, than that it goes into the stomach; to be cast forth, than to be torn in pieces with the teeth, as I have proved that it is by the Roman doctrine? [Sect. 3. n. 6.] Now I argue thus: If we eat Christ's natural body, we eat it either naturally or spiritually: if it be eaten only spiritually, then it is spiritually digested, and is spiritual nourishment, and puts on accidents and affections spiritual. But if the natural body be eaten naturally, then what hinders it from affections and transmutations natural? 4. Although Algerus, and out of him Bellarmine, would have Christians stop their ears against this argument (and so would I against that doctrine, of which these fearful conclusions are unavoidable consequents), yet it is disputed in the 'Summa Angelica,' and an instance or case put which to my sense seems no inconsiderable argument to reprove the folly of this doctrine: for, saith he, what if the species pass indigested into the belly from the stomach? he answers; that they were not meat if they did not nourish; and therefore it is probable, as Boetius says, that the body of our Lord does not go into the draught, though the species do. And yet it is determined by the gloss on the canon law, [De Consecrat. dist. 2. c. Si per negligentiam. Glos. ibid.] that as long as the species remain uncorrupted, the holy body is there under those species; and therefore may be vomited; and consequently ejected all ways by which the species can pass unaltered. "Eousque progreditur corpus, quousque species," said Harpsfield, in his disputation at Oxford. If these things be put together, viz., the body is there so long, as the species are uncorrupted: and the species may remain uncorrupted till they be cast upwards or downwards, as in case of sickness: it follows that in this case, which is a case easily contingent, by their doctrine, the holy body must pass 'in latrinam.' And what then? 'it is to be adored as a true sacrament, though it come from impure places, though it be vomited:' so said Vasquez; [In 3. t. 3. d. 195. n. 46.] and it is the prevailing opinion in their church. Add to this, that if this nourishment does not descend and cleave to the guts of the priest, it is certain that God does not hear his prayers: for he is enjoined by the Roman missal, published by authority of the council of Trent and the command of Pope Pius the Fourth, to pray, "Corpus tuum, Domine, quod sumpsi, et sanguis, quem potavi, adhæreat visceribus meis;" "Let thy body, O Lord, which I have taken, and the blood which I have drunk, cleave to my bowels." It seems indeed they would have it go no further, to prevent the inconveniences of the present argument; but certain it is, that if they intended it for a figurative speech, it was a bold one, and not so fitted for edification, as for an objection. But to return. This also was the argument of Origen: "Quod si quicquid ingredituv in Os, in ventrem abit, et in secessum ejicitur, et ille cibus, qui sanctificatur per verbum Dei perque obsecrationem, juxta id, quod habet materiale, in ventrem abit, et in secessum ejicitur:-et haec quidem de typico symbolicoque corpore."-He plainly distinguishes the material part from the spiritual in the sacrament, and affirms, that "according to the material part, that meat that is sanctified by the word of God and prayer, enters into the mouths, descends into the belly, and goes forth in the natural ejection. And this is only true of the typical and symbolical body." [In cap. xv. St. Matt.] Now, besides that it affirms the words of our blessed Saviour to have effect in the sacrament, he affirms, that the material part, the type and symbols, are the body of Christ, that is, his body is present in a typical and symbolical manner. This is the plain and natural sense of the words of Origen. But he must not mean what he means, if he says any thing, in another place, that may make for the Roman opinion. And this is their way of answering objections brought from the fathers; they use to oppose words to words, and conclude they must mean their meaning; or else they contradict themselves. And this trick Bellarmine uses frequently, and especially Cardinal Perron, and from them the lesser writers: and so it happens in this present argument; for other words of Origen are brought to prove he inclined to the Roman opinion. But I demand, 1. Are the words more contradictory, if they both be drawn to a spiritual sense, than if they be both drawn to a natural? 2. Though we have no need to make use of it, yet it is no impossible thing that the fathers should contradict one another and themselves too; as you may see pretended violently by Cardinal Perron in his answer to King James. 3. But why must all sheaves bow to their sheaf, and all words be wrested to their fancy, when there are no words any where pretended from them, but with less wresting than these must suffer, they will be brought to speak against them, or at least nothing for them? But let us see what other words Origen hath, by which we must expound these. 4. Origen says, that "the Christian people drink the blood of Christ, and the flesh of the Word of God is true food." What then? so say we too; but it is spiritual food, and we drink the blood spiritually. He says nothing against that, but very much for it; as I have in several places remarked already. 5. But how can this expound the other words;-'Christian people eat Christ's flesh and drink his blood?' therefore, when Origen says,' The material part, the symbolical body of Christ, is eaten naturally and cast into the draught,' he means, not the body of Christ in his material part, but the accidents of bread, the colour, the taste, the quantity, these are cast out by the belly. Verily a goodly argument; if a man could guess in what mood and figure it could conclude. 6. When a man speaks distinctly and particularly, it is certain he is easier to be understood in his particular and minute meaning, than when he speaks generally. But here he distinguishes a part from a part, one sense from another, the body in one sense from the body in another; therefore these words are to expound the more general, and not they to expound these, unless the general be more particular than that, that is distinguished into kinds,-that is, unless the general be a particular, and the particular be a general. 7. Amalarius was so amused with these words and discourse of Origen, that his understanding grew giddy, and he did not know whether the body of Christ were invisibly taken up into heaven, or kept till our death in the body, or expired at letting of blood, or exhaled in air, or spit out, or breathed forth, our Lord saying, "That which enters into the mouth, descends into the belly, and so goes forth into the draught:" the man was willing to be of the new opinion of the real presence, because it began to be the mode of the age. [Ep. ad Guitard.] But his folly was soberly reproved by a synod at Carisiacum, about the time of Pope Gregory the Fourth, where the difficulty of Origen's argument was better answered, and the article determined, that "the bread and wine are spiritually made the body of Christ; which, being a meat of the mind and not of the belly, is not corrupted but remaineth unto everlasting life." 8. To expound these words of the accidents of bread only, and say that they enter into the belly and go forth in the draught, is a device of them that care not what they say; for, 1. It makes that the 'ejectamentum' or 'excrement' of the body should consist of colour and quantity, without any substance. 2. It makes a man to be nourished by accidents, and so not only one substance to be changed into another, but that accidents are changed into substances, which must be, if they nourish the body and pass 'in latrinam,' and then beyond the device of transubstantiation we have another production from Africa, a 'transaccidentisubstantiation,' a mequfistamenometousia. 3. It makes accidents to have all the affections of substances, as motion, substantial corruption, alteration, that is, not to be accidents but substances. For matter and form are substances, and those that integrate all physical and compound substances: but till yesterday it was never heard that accidents could. Yea, but magnitude is a material quality, and ground or subject of the accidents. So it is said; but it is nonsense. For besides that magnitude is not a quality, but a quantity, neither can it be properly or truly said to be material but imperfectly; because it is an affection of matter; and however it is a contradiction to say, that it is the ground of qualities; for an accident cannot be the 'fundamentum,' the ground or subject of an accident; that is, the formality and definition of a substance, as every young scholar hath read in Aristotle's Categories: so that to say, that it is the ground of accidents, is to say, that accidents are subjected in magnitude, that is, that magnitude is neither a quantity nor quality, but a substance. 'An accident always subsists in a subject,' says Porphyry. 9. This answer cannot be fitted to the words of Origen; for that which he calls the 'quid materiale,' or the material part in the sacrament, he calls it the symbolical body, which cannot be affirmed of accidents, because there is no likeness between the accidents, the colour, the shape, the figure, the roundness, the weight, the magnitude, of the host or wafer, and Christ's body: and therefore, to call the accidents a symbolical body, is to call it an unsymbolical symbol, an unlike similitude, a representment without analogy: but if he means the consecrated bread, the whole action of consecration, distribution, sumption, manducation, this is the symbolical body, according to the words of St. Paul; "He that drinks this cup, and eats this bread, represents the Lord's death;" it is the figure of Christ's crucified body, of his passion and our redemption. 10. It is a strange expression to call accidents a body; says Aristotle; [Categor. c. 3.] "A body may be called white, but the definition or reason of the accident, can never be affirmed of a body." I conclude, that this argument out of the words of our blessed Saviour, urged also and affirmed by Origen, does prove that Christ's body is in the sacrament, only to be eaten in a spiritual sense, not at all in a natural, lest that consequent be the event of it,-which to affirm of Christ's glorified body in the natural and proper sense, were very blasphemy.

2. The next argument from Scripture, is taken from Christ's departing from this world; his going from us, the ascension of his body and soul into heaven; his not being with us, his being contained in the heavens: so said our blessed Saviour; "Unless I go hence, the Comforter cannot come:" and "I go to prepare a place for you:" "The poor ye have always, but me ye have not always"." St. Peter affirms of him, "that the heavens must receive him, till the time of restitution of all things." Now, how these things can be true of Christ according to his human nature, that is a circumscribed body, and a definite soul, is the question. And to this the answer is the same, in effect, which is given by the Roman doctors, and by the Ubiquitaries, whom they call heretics. These men say, Christ's human nature is every where actually, by reason of his hypostatical union with the Deity, which is every where; the Romanists say no: it is not actually every where, but it may be where, and is in as many places as, he please: for although he be in heaven, yet so is God too, and yet God is upon earth: 'eodem modo,' says Bellarmine [Lib. 1. Euch. c. 14. sect. Respondeo Argumentum.] 'in the same manner,' the man Christ, although he be in heaven, yet also he can be out of heaven, where he please; he can be in heaven and out of heaven. Now these two opinions are concentred in the main impossiblity; that is, that Christ's body can be in more places than one: if in two, it may be in two thousand, and then it may be every where; for it is not limited, and therefore is illimited and potentially infinite. Against this so seemingly impossible at the very first sight, and relying upon a similitude and analogy that are not far from blasphemy, viz. That as God is in heaven and yet on earth, 'eodem modo,' 'after the same manner' is Christ's body; which words it cannot be easy to excuse: against this, I say, although for the reasons alleged it be unnecessary to be disproved, yet I have these things to oppose: 1. The words of Scripture, that affirm Christ to be in heaven, affirm also that he 'is gone from hence.' Now if Christ's body not only could, but must, be every day in innumerable places on earth, it would have been said that Christ 'is in heaven,' but not that 'he is not here,' or that he is gone from hence. 2. "Surrexit, non est hic," was the angel's discourse to the inquiring women at the sepulchre, "He is risen, he is not here:" but if they had been taught the new doctrine of the Roman schools, they would have denied the consequent; 'He is risen, and gone from hence,' but he may be here too. And this indeed might have put the angels to a distinction: but the women's ignorance rendered them secure. However, St. Austin is dogmatical in this article, saying, "Christum ubique totum esse tanquam Deum, et in eodem tanquam inhabitantem Deum, et in loco aliquo coeli propter veri corporis modum:" "Christ as God is every where, but in respect of his body he is determined to a particular residence in heaven," [Epist. ad. Dardan.] viz. at the right hand of God, that is, in the best seat, and in the greatest eminency. And in the thirtieth treatise of St. John; "It behoveth that the body of our Lord, since it is raised again, should be in one place alone, but the truth is spread over all." But concerning these words of St. Austin, they have taken a course in all their editions to corrupt the place; and instead of oportet have clapped in potest; instead of must be have foisted in may be, against the faith of the ancient canonists and scholastics; particularly, Lombard, Gratian, Ivo Carnotensis, Algerus, Thomas, Bonaventure, Richardus, Durand, Biel, Scotus, Cassander, and divers others. To this purpose is that of St. Cyril Alexandrinus [Lib. 11. in Jon. c. 3.]: "He could not converse with his disciples in the flesh, being ascended to his Father."-So Cassian: [d Lib. 4. de Incarnat. c. 1.] "Jesus Christ, speaking on earth, cannot be in heaven but by the infinity of his Godhead:" [Lib. 2 ad Thrasimundum, c. 7. Apol. p. 63.] and Fulgentius argues it strongly: "If the body of Christ be a true body, it must be contained in a particular place:" but this place is just so corrupted in their editions, as is that of St. Austin, potest being substituted instead of oportet; but this doctrine, viz. That to be in several places is impossible to a body, and proper to God, was affirmed by the universality of Paris in a synod under William their bishop, 1340, and Johannes Picus Mirandula maintained, in Rome itself, that it could not be by the power of God, that one body should, at once, be in divers places.

3. Thirdly: The Scripture speaks of his going thither from hence by elevation and ascension, and of his coming from thence at his appearing: On dei ouranon men decesqai, and ex ou swthria apodecomeqa: the words have an antithesis; 'The heavens till then shall retain him;' but 'then he shall come from thence;' which were needless, if he might be here and stay there too.

4. When Christ said, "Me ye have not always," and at another time, "Lo, I am with you always to the end of the world;" it is necessary that we distinguish the parts of a seeming contradiction. Christ is with us by his Spirit, but Christ is not with us in body; but if his body be here too, then there is no way of substantial, real presence, in which those words can be true, "Me ye have not always." The Rhemists, in their note upon this place, say, that when Christ said, "Me ye have not always," he means, 'Ye have not me in the manner of a poor man, needing relief;' that is, 'not me so as you have the poor.'-But this is a trifle; because our blessed Saviour did not receive that ministry of Mary Magdalene as a poor man, for it was a present for a prince, not a relief to necessity, but a regalo fit for so great a person; and therefore, if he were here at all after his departure, he was capable of as noble a usage, and an address fit to represent a majesty, or at least to express a love. It was also 'done for his burying;' so Christ accepted it, and that signified and plainly related to a change of his state and abode. But besides this, if this could be the interpretation of those words, then they did not at all signify Christ's leaving this world, but only his changing his circumstance of fortune, his outward dress and appendages of person; which were a strange commentary upon, "Me ye have not always;" that is, 'I shall be with you still, but in a better condition;' but St. Austin hath given sentence concerning the sense of these words of Christ; [Tract. 50. in Johan.] "Loquebatur de præsentia corporis," &c. "He spake of the presence of his body, Ye shall have me according to my providence, according to majesty, and invisible grace, but according to the flesh which the Word assumed, according to that which was born of the Virgin Mary, ye shall not have me; therefore, because he conversed with his disciples forty days, he is ascended up into heaven and is not here;" if he be here in person, what need he to have sent his vicar, his Holy Spirit, in substitution? Especially since, by this doctrine, he is more now with his church, than he was in the days of his conversion in Palestine; for then he was but in one assembly at once; now he is in thousands every day. If it be said,' Because although he be here, yet we see him not;' this is not sufficient: for what matter is it, whether we see him or no, if we know him to be here, if we feel him, if we eat him, if we worship him in presence natural and proper? There wants nothing but some accidents of colour and shape. A friend in the dark, behind a curtain, or to a blind man, is as certainly present, as if he were in the light in open conversation, or beheld with the eyes. And then also the office of the Holy Spirit would only be to supply the sight of his person, which might possibly be true, if he had no greater offices, and we no greater needs; and if he himself also were visible and glorious to our eyes; for if the effect of his substitution is spiritual, secret, and invisible, our eyes are still without comfort; and if the Spirit's secret effect does supply it, and makes it not necessary, that we should see him, then so does our faith do the same thing; for if we believe him there, the want of bodily sight is supplied by the eye of faith, and the Spirit is pretended to do no more in this particular, and then his presence also will be less necessary, because supplied by our own act. Add to this; that if, after Christ's ascension into heaven, he still would have been upon earth, in the eucharist, and received properly into our mouths, and in all that manner which these men dream; how ready it had been and easy to have comforted them who were troubled for want of his bodily presence,-by telling them, "Although I go to heaven, yet fear not to be deprived of the presence of my body; for you shall have it more than before, and much better; for I will be with you, and in you; I was with you in a state of humility and mortality, now I will be with you with a daily and mighty miracle; I before gave you promises of grace and glory, but now I will become to your bodies a seed of immortality: and though you will not see me, but under a veil, yet it is certain, I will be there, in your churches, in your pixes, in your mouths, in your stomachs, and you shall believe and worship." Had not this been a certain, clear, and proportionable comfort to their complaint, and present necessity, if any such thing were intended? It had been so certain, so clear, so proportionable, that it is more than probable, that if it had been true, it had not been omitted. But that such sacred things as these may not be exposed to contempt, by such weak propositions and their trifling consequents, the case is plain, that Christ, being to depart hence, sent his Holy Spirit in substitution to supply to his church the office of a teacher, which he, on earth, in person, was to his disciples; when he went from hence, he was to come no more in person, and therefore he sent his substitute; and therefore to pretend him to be here in person, though under a disguise which we see through with the eye of faith, and converse with him by presential adoration of his humanity, is in effect to undervalue the real purposes and sense of all the sayings of Christ concerning his 'departure hence,' and the 'deputation of the Holy Spirit.' But for this, because it is naturally impossible, they have recourse to the divine omnipotency: God can do it, therefore he does. But of this I shall give particular account in the section of reason; as also the other arguments of Scripture I shall reduce to their head of proper matter.

Project Canterbury