but to be eaten by faith. But they mean it otherwise, as I shall demonstrate by and by. In the meantime it is remarkable, that Bellarmine, when he is stating this question, seems to say the same thing, for which he quotes the words of St. Bernard now mentioned; for he says that Christ's body is there truly, substantially, really; but not corporally; nay, you may say spiritually' and now a man would think we had him sure; but his nature is labile and slippery, you are never the nearer for this; for first he says, It is not safe to use the word 'spiritually,' nor yet safe to say, he is not there corporally,' lest it be understood, not of the manner of his presence, but to the exclusion of the nature.' For he intends not (for all these fine words) that Christ's body is present spiritually, as the word is used in Scripture, and in all common notices of usual speaking; but spiritually, with him, signifies after the manner of spirits,-which, besides that it is a cozening the world in the manner of expression, is also a direct folly and contradiction, that a body should be substantially present, that is, with the nature of a body, naturally, and yet be not as a body but as a spirit, with that manner of being with which a spirit is distinguished from a body. In vain, therefore, it is, that he denies the carnal manner, and admits a spiritual, and ever after requires, that we believe a carnal presence, even in the very manner. But this caution and exactness in the use of the word 'spiritual' are, therefore, carefully to be observed, lest the contention of both parties should seem trifling, and to be for nothing. We say that Christ's body is in the sacrament 'really, but spiritually. They say, it is there 'really, but spiritually.' For so Bellarmine is bold to say, that the word may be allowed in this question. Where now is the difference? Here, by 'spiritually' they mean 'present after the manner of a spirit;' by 'spiritually' we mean, 'present to our spirits, only ;' that is, so as Christ is not present to any other sense but that of faith or spiritual susception; but their way makes his body to be present no way, but that which is impossible, and implies a contradiction; a body not after the manner of a body, a body like a spirit; a body without a body; and a sacrifice of body and blood without blood: "corpus incorporeum, cruor incruentus." They say, that Christ's body is truly present there, as it was upon the cross, but not after the manner of all or any body, but after that manner of being as an angel is in a place :—that is their spiritually. But we, by the real spiritual presence of Christ, do understand Christ to be present, as the Spirit of God is present in the hearts of the faithful, by blessing and grace; and this is all which we mean besides the tropical and figurative presence. 9. That which seems of hardest explication is the word 'corporaliter,' which I find that Melancthon used; saying, "Corporaliter quoque communicatione carnis Christi Christum in nobis habitare;" which manner of speaking, I have heard, he avoided, after he had conversed with Ecolampadius, who was able then to teach him, and most men, in that question; but the expression may become warrantable, and consonant to our doctrine; and means no more than 'really' and without fiction,' or 'beyond a figure:' like that of St. Paul, "In Christ dwelleth the fulness of the Godhead bodily i:" upon which St. Austin says, "In ipso inhabitat plenitudo divinitatis corporaliter, quia in templo habitaverat umbraliter;" and in St. Paul okía kaì owμa are opposed, "which are a shadow of things to come, but the body is of Christ*;" that is, the substance,''the reality,' the correlative of the type and figure, the thing signified; and among the Greeks σωματ TOTTOLETV signifies 'solidare,' 'to make firm, real, and consistent;' but among the fathers, oua, or 'body,' signifies πāv Tò ἐκ τοῦ μὴ ὄντος εἰς τὸ εἶναι γενόμενον, ' every thing that is produced from nothing,' saith Phavorinus; that is, every thing that is real 'extra non ens,' that hath a proper being; so that we, receiving Christ in the sacrament' corporally' or 'bodily,' understand, that we do it really, by the ministry of our bodies receiving him into our souls. And thus we affirm Christ's body to be present in the sacrament: not only in type or figure, but in blessing and real effect; that is, more than in the types of the law; the shadows were of the law, "but the body is of Christ." And besides this; the word 'corporally' may be very well used, when by it is only understood a corporal sign. So St. Cyril of Jerusalem, in his third catechism says, that the "Holy Ghost did descend corporally in the likeness of a dove;" that is, in a type or representment of a dove's body (for so he and many of the ancients did suppose): and so heTM i Col. ii. 9. Col. ii. 17, k Col. ii. 17. again uses the word; "Jesus Christ, as a man, did inspire the Holy Spirit corporally into his apostles;" where by 'corporally' it is plain he means by a corporal or material sign or symbol,' viz. by "breathing upon them and saying, Receive ye the Holy Ghost." In either of these senses if the word be taken, it may indifferently be used in this question. 10. I have been the more careful to explain the question, and the use of these words according to our meaning in the question, for these two reasons. 1. Because until we are agreed upon the signification of the words, they are equivocal; and by being used on both sides to several purposes, sometime are pretended as instruments of union, but indeed effect it not; but sometimes displease both parties, while each suspects the word in a wrong sense. And this hath with very ill effect been observed in the conferences for composing the difference in this question; particularly that of Poissy, where it was propounded in these words; "Credimus in usu cœnæ Dominicæ verè, reipsâ, substantialiter, seu in substantiâ verum corpus, et sanguinem Christi spirituali et ineffabili modo esse, exhiberi, sumi à fidelibus communicantibus"." Beza and Gallasius for the reformed, and Espencæus and Monlucius for the Romanists, undertook to propound it to their parties. But both rejected it: for though the words were not disliked, yet they suspected each other's sense. But now, that I have declared what is meant by us in these words, they are made useful in the explicating the question. 2. But because the words do perfectly declare our sense, and are owned publicly in our doctrine and manner of speaking, it will be in vain to object against us those sayings of the fathers, which use the same expressions; for if by virtue of those words, 'really, substantially, corporally, verily, and indeed, and Christ's body and blood,' the fathers shall be supposed to speak for 'transubstantiation,' they may as well suppose it to be our doctrine too, for we use the same words; and therefore, those authorities must signify nothing against us, unless these words can be proved in them to signify more than our sense of them does import: and by this truth, many, very many of their pretences, are evacuated. 11. One thing more I am to note in order to the same n Eccles. Hist. Eccles. Gallic. lib. 4. p. 604, 605. et Comment. de Statu Relig. et reip. sub. Carolo 9. A. D. 1651. et Thuanum, Hist. lib. 28. ad eundem annum. purposes; that, in the explication of this question, it is much insisted upon, that it be inquired whether, when we say we believe Christ's body to be 'really' in the sacrament, we mean, "that body, that flesh, that was born of the Virgin Mary," that was crucified, dead and buried? I answer, I know none else that he had, or hath: there is but one body of Christ natural and glorified; but he that says, that body is glorified, which was crucified, says it is the same body, but not after the same manner": and so it is in the sacrament; we eat and drink the body and blood of Christ, that was broken and poured forth; for there is no other body, no other blood, of Christ; but though it is the same which we eat and drink, yet it is in another manner: and therefore, when any of the Protestant divines, or any of the fathers P, deny that body, which was born of the Virgin Mary, that which was crucified, to be eaten in the sacrament,-as Bertram, as St. Jerome, as Clemens Alexandrinus, expressly affirm; the meaning is easy; they intend that it is not eaten in a natural sense; and then calling it'corpus spirituale,' the word 'spiritual' is not a substantial predication, but is an affirmation of the manner, though, in disputation, it be made the predicate of a proposition, and the opposite member of a distinction. That body which was crucified, is not that body, that is eaten in the sacrament,'-if the intention of the proposition be to speak of the eating it in the same manner of being; but that body which was crucified, the same body we do eat,'-if the intention be to speak of the same thing in several manners of being and operating: and this I noted, that we may not be prejudiced by words, when the notion is certain and easy: and thus far is the sense of our doctrine in this article. 12. On the other side, the church of Rome uses the same words we do, but wholly to other purposes; affirming, 1. That after the words of consecration, on the altar there is no bread; in the chalice there is no wine. 2. That the accidents, that is, the colour, the shape, the bigness, the weight, the smell, the nourishing qualities, of bread and wine, • See Bp. Ridley's answer to Curtop's first argument in his disp. at Oxford, Fox Martyrol. p. 1451. vet. edit. p Vide infrà, seet. 12. 1 Dupliciter verò sanguis Christi et caro intelligitur, spiritualis illa, atque divina, de quâ ipse dixit, Caro mea verè est cibus, &c. ; vel caro et sanguis, quæ crucifixa est, et qui militis effusus est lanceâ: in Epist. Ephes. c. 1. Concil. Trid, decretum de SS. Euchar. Sacram. 4 do remain; but neither in the bread, nor in the body of Christ, but by themselves, that is, so that there is whiteness, and nothing white; sweetness, and nothing sweet, &c. 3. That in the place of the substance of bread and wine, there is brought the natural body of Christ, and his blood that was shed upon the cross. 4. That the flesh of Christ is eaten by every communicant, good and bad, worthy and unworthy. 5. That this is conveniently, properly, and most aptly, called transubstantiation, that is, a conversion of the whole substance of bread into the substance of Christ's natural body, of the whole substance of the wine into his blood. In the process of which doctrine they oppose 'spiritualiter' to 'sa cramentaliter' and 'realiter,' supposing the spiritual mandu- › cation, though done in the sacrament by a worthy receiver; not to be sacramental and real". 13. So that now the question is not, whether the sym bols be changed into Christ's body and blood, or no?. For it is granted on all sides: but whether this conversion be sacramental and figurative? Or whether it be natural and bodily? Nor is it, whether Christ be really taken, but whether he be taken in a spiritual, or in a natural manner? We say, the conversion is figurative, mysterious, and sacramental; they say it is proper, natural, and corporal: we affirm, that Christ is really taken by faith, by the Spirit, to all real effects of his passion; they say, he is taken by the mouth, and that the spiritual and the virtual taking him, in virtue or effect; is not sufficient, though done also in the sacrament. Hic Rhodus, hic saltus.' This thing I will try by Scripture, by reason, by sense, and by tradition. SECTION II. Transubstantiation not warrantable by Scripture. 1. THE scriptures pretended for it, are St. John vi. and the words of institution, recorded by three Evangelists, and St. Paul. Concerning which, I shall first lay this prejudice; that, by the confession of the Romanists themselves, men learned and famous in their generations, nor these places, s Can. 8. Anathematis. |