says Aristotle'; "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 uor 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, 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 impossibility; 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 blasphe s Categor. c. 3. t St. John, xvi. 7. u xiv. 2. my, 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 cœli 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 "," 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: "He could not converse with his disciples in the flesh, being ascended to his Father."-So Cassian: "Jesus Christ, speaking on earth, cannot be in heaven but by the infinity of his Godhead :" and Fulgentius argues it strongly: "If the body of Christ be a true body, it must be contained in a particular b a St. John, xvi. 28. c Lib. 11. in Jon. c. 3. b Epist. ad Dardan. d Lib. 4. de Incarnat. c. 1. e Lib. 2. ad Thrasimundum, c. 7. Apol, p. 65. 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 : Ὃν δεῖ οὐρανὸν μὲν δέχεσθαι, and ἐξ οὗ σωτῆρα ἀποδεχόμεθα : 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 Tract. 50. in Johan. the sense of these words of Christ; "Loquebatur de præsentiâ 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 heads of proper matter. g Heb. ix. 24. 2 Cor. v. 6. 8. Philip. i. 23. iii. 20. Coloss. iii. 1, 2. St. John, xiv. 16. xvi. 7. END OF THE NINTH VOLUME. Printed by J. F. Dove, St. John's Square. |