The Novelty of Popery Opposed to the Antiquity of True Christianity, Book 7 · Controversy 11 · Chapter 16
CHAP. XVI. That the Fathers believed not that the body of Chriſt is really preſent under the element of Bread, but that he is in heaven only, not in earth.
WE have ſhewed by a multitude of allegations of the Fathers, that they ſpeak of three ſorts of the body of Chriſt; His natural body, born of the Bleſſed Virgin Mary, and crucified for us; his myſtical body, which is the Church; and his Sacramental body, which is made by the mouth of Prieſts, which is broken in pieces, which feeds our bodies, which is made up of many grains, which is the Sacrament of the natural body of Chriſt, in which Gods vertue is working, ſo that by participating the Sacrament with faith, Chriſt dwelleth in us, and we in him. Of the preſence of that body in the Euchariſt none doubteth, and the Fathers ſpeak of it often.
But as for the Lords natural body, as the Fathers teach, that we do not eat it with our mouth, and that the wicked cannot eat it; ſo they hold that it is in heaven, not in earth; and that being aſcended to heaven, he will return to us no more, but on the day of judgement; and that the way to take him, is not to lay hold on him with our hand, or to receive him into our mouth, but apprehend him by faith.
Auſtin in the 50. Treatiſe upon Iohn (a)Pauperes ſemper habebitis vobiſcum, me autem ſemper non habebitis. Accipiant & hoc boni, ſed non ſint ſolliciti; loquebatur enim de praeſentia corporis ſui. Nam ſecundum Majeſtatem ſuam, ſecundum providentiam, ſecundum ineffabilem & inviſibilem gratiam impletur, quod ab eo dictum eſt, Ecce ego vobiſcum ſum omnibus dicbus uſque ad conſummationem ſaculi. Secundum carnem vero quam verbum aſſumpſi…, ſecundum id quod de virgine natus eſt, &c. non ſemper habebitis me vobiſcum, &c.The Lord ſaid, You ſhall have always the poor with you, but me you ſhall not have always. Let the godly underſtand this, and not be troubled, for he spake of the preſence of his body. For according to his Majeſty, according to his providence, according to his unſpeakable and inviſible grace, is fulfilled that which he ſaid, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. But according to the fleſh, which the Word hath aſſumed, according as he was born from the Virgin, according as he was taken by the Iews, &c. he ſaith, Me you have not always with you.
In the ſame Treatiſe, he ſpeaks thus to them that ask how they may take and hold Chriſt:(b)Reſpondent, Quem tencho? Abſentem? Quomodo in coelum manum mittam, ut ibi ſedentem teneam? Fidem mitte, & tenuiſti. Parentes tui tenuerunt carne, tu tene corde, &c. Corpus ſuum intulit coelo, majeſtatem non abſtulit mundo. They anſwer, Whom ſhall I hold? Him that is abſent? How ſhall I put my hand in heaven, that I may hold him that ſits there? Send up thy faith thither, and thou haſt laid hold of him. Thy Fathers held him in the fleſh, but thou holdſt him with thy heart. He hath carried up his body into heaven, but he hath not removed his Majeſty from the world. And in the ſame place, We have Chriſt always according to the preſence of his Majeſty; but according to the preſence of his fleſh, it was well ſaid to his Diſciples, Me you have not always.
And in the firſt Treatiſe upon the firſt Epiſtle of Iohn, (c)Ipſum jam in coelo ſedentem manu contrectare non poſſumus, ſed fide contingere.We can no more hold him with our hand now that he is ſitting in heaven; but we may touch him with our Faith.
This Father by the Cardinals Doctrine was not well taught; for to them that are in the Church, and ask, How ſhall I take Chriſt? Muſt I ſtretch my hand as far as heaven, where he is, ſeeing that he is no more on earth? A Romiſh Doctor would anſwer, What needeſt thou to go ſeek him ſo far, ſeeing that he is neer thee, on the altar, and in the Prieſts hands? Inſtead of that, Auſtin anſwereth, Lay hold on Chriſt by faith, receive him in thy heart, and imagine not that thou canſt lay hold on him with thy hand. No other way doth he give, as indeed there is no other way. Auſtin was not content to have ſaid that Chriſt is with us no more, and is no more preſent with us, as for his natural body, but he added beſides, that to hold him we muſt not ſtretch our hand, but take hold on him by faith at the right hand of God. It ſeems that by ſaying, We can hold him no more with our hand, he ſpeaks to the Prieſts of the Roman Church, who boaſt that they have Chriſt in their hand every day: So that if one may believe them, they make the body of Chriſt, and have him in their power.
The ſame in the 57. Epiſtle to Dardanus ſpeaks thus.(d)Secundum hanc formam non eſt putandus ubique diſ…uſus. Cavendum eſt enim ne ita divinitatem aſtruamus hominis, ut veritatem carnis auſeramus. Non eſt autem conſequens ut quod in Deo eſt ita ſit ubi que ut Deus. According to this form [of manhood] we muſt not think that Chriſt is diffuſed every where; for great heed muſt be taken that we do not ſo eſtabliſh the Godhead of this man, as to aboliſh the truth of his fleſh. It followeth not that any thing that is in God is every where, as God is every where.
About this matter the 11th. ch. of the 20th. Book againſt Fauſtus Manichean is implyed: Where diſputing againſt Fauſtus, who put Chriſts body in infinite places at the ſame time; he ſaith that Chriſt (e)Secundū praeſentiam quippe ſpiritualem nullo modo illa pati poſſet, ſecundum praeſentiam vero corporalem ſimul & in ſole et in L… na et in cruce eſſe non poſſet.according to his spiritual preſence could not ſuffer theſe things [that is, to be crucified:] But that according to his corporal preſence he could not be at the ſame time in the Sun, and in the Moon, and in the Croſs.
And in the 78. Treatiſe upon Iohn (f)Vado et venio ad vos. Sed à quibus homo abſcedebat Deus non recedebat, et idem ipſe Chriſtus homo et Deus. Ergo ibat per quod homo erat, et manebat per id quod Deus erat. Ibat per id quod uno in loco erat.The Lord Ieſus ſaid, I go and return to you again, but he did not depart as God from thoſe whom he left as man. The ſame Chriſt is both God and man. Then he went as he was man, and remained as he was God. He went in as much as he was in one place, but he ſtayed in as much as he is everywhere, that is, in his Godhead. How doth this agree with the Roman Church? Auſtin ſaith, that Chriſt aſcending to heaven went from us as man, but the Roman Church ſaith, that he ſtaid with us as man, and according to his humane nature; yea that Chriſt as man is far more preſent with us then he was in the time of his living among men; for then he was preſent but in one place, but now they make him preſent in an hundred millions of places, in altars, in boxes, in ſtomacks, yea (if it happens) in the bellies of Mice. Auſtin ſaith, that Chriſt as man is but in one place: Whereas the Roman Church puts him in many millions of places in the ſame moment. It is very obſervable, that if Auſtin had believed tranſubſtantiation, he would not have ſaid that Chriſt is gone and retired from us as for his humane nature, but remaineth preſent as for the Divine; but he would have ſaid that he ceaſed indeed to be preſent with a viſible preſence, but that his body remaineth inviſibly preſent. This good Doctor did not know and never ſpake of any other way whereby God ſupplyeth the want of the viſible and bodily preſence of Chriſt, but the preſence of his Godhead. Beſides it is an extravagant nonſenſe, to ſay that the body of Chriſt is gone, but that it remained inviſibly preſent. As if one ſaid that Philip is gone out of Paris, but that he is in Paris ſtill inviſibly preſent; becauſe, though he be gone, he lyeth hid in Paris; Or that he hath no ſoul, becauſe his ſoul is inviſible.
The ſame Father in the 30. Treatiſe upon John, (g)Surſum eſt Dominus, ſed etiam hic eſt veritas Dominus. Corpus enim Domini in quo reſurrexit uno loco eſſe o…ortet, veritas autem ejus ubi que diffuſa eſt.The Lord is above, but alſo the Lord who is the truth is here below. For the body of Chriſt, in which he roſe again from the dead, muſt be in one place only, but his truth is diffuſed every where. I have tranſlated uno loco, one place only, as the French Bibles of our Adverſaries tranſlate Ʋnus Dominus, una fides, unum Baptiſma, unus Deus, Eph 4.5. & unius uxoris virum, 1 Tim. 3.2. thus, There is but one Lord, one Faith, one Baptiſm: And the Biſhop muſt be the husband of one wife only. For alſo the word unus in Latine imports unity; and the oppoſition which Auſtin makes requires it, That the truth of the Lord is everywhere, but his body is in one place only.
The corruptors of the new Editions, have wickedly falſified this place. For inſtead of corpus Domini in uno loco eſſe oportet, that the body of the Lord muſt be in one place only, they have put in uno loco eſſe poteſt, it may be in one place. But all the old Editions have oportet. And that text is thus alledged by Gratian in the 2. Diſtinction of the Conſecration in the Canon Prima. And by Yuo Carnutenſis in the ſecond part of his Decree, 18. ch. And by Lombard in the 4. Book of the Sentences 10. Diſt. A. And by Thomas in the 3. part of the Sum qu. 75. Art. 1. But though all the Copies and Editions had poteſt, yet reaſon and the ſenſe of the ſentence ſhew that it muſt be read oportet: For it is altogether unreaſonable to ſay that Chriſts body can be in one place. As if one ſaid, that the Sun may be in ſome place; Poſſibility is not mentioned, where there is neceſſity. If in this clauſe you read that the Lords body may be in one place, you muſt read in the following clauſe, but his truth may be diffuſed everywhere, to keep the Laws of the oppoſition. The ſame Text is ſuſpect of another falſification; for inſtead of veritas, it is like there ſhould be virtus.
The ſame Auſtin in the 60. Sermon de Verbis Domini, Chriſt is always with us in his Godhead; (h)Semper quidem divinitate nobiſcum eſt, ſed niſi corporaliter abiret, à nobis ſemper eū carnaliter videremus, et nunquam ſpiritualiter crederemus.but had he not gone away bodily from us, we ſhould always ſee him carnally, and ſhould never believe him ſpiritually. No doubt but that our Adverſaries reading this, could with all their heart fall out with Auſtin. For he ſaith, that if Chriſts body were not gone, we ſhould ſee him always. Whereas the Church of Rome ſaith, that Chriſt went from us bodily, and yet that he ſtay'd behind bodily, but that we ſee him not.
In the 140. Sermon de Tempore, (i)Feria prima Paſc. Serm. 1. Ideo Dominus noſter abſentavit ſe corpore ab omni Eccleſia et aſcendit in coelum, ut aediſicetur fides.The Lord abſented himſelf in body from all the Church, and aſcended into heaven, that thy faith might be edified. I would know whether when one hath the body of Chriſt really in his mouth▪ or in his ſtomack, it may be ſaid without lying, or without jeſting, that Chriſt hath abſented himſelf from him. For by the ſame reaſon one might ſay, that the brains or liver of Philip is abſent from him, or remote from him, becauſe he doth not ſee it, and becauſe the inward parts of his body are inviſible to him. He had ſaid a little before,(k)Conſolatur te fractio panis, abſentia Domini noneſt abſens. Habeto fidem, et tecum eſt quem non vides. The fraction of bread comforteth thee: The abſence of the Lord is not abſent: Have faith, and he whom thou ſeeſt not is with thee. Shewing that he is not with them that have not faith.
Cyrillus of Alexandria in the 9th. book upon John ſpeaks to the ſame purpoſe. The faithfull people muſt believe, though he be abſent in body from us, that yet all things, and our ſelves are governed by his vertue. And in the 11. Book 3. ch.(m)Etſi abeſt corpore patri pro nobis apparens, ac à dextris ejus ſedent, habitat tamen in Sanctis per Spiritum. Though he be abſent in body, appearing for us before his Father, and ſitting at his right hand, he dwels nevertheleſs in his Saints by his Spirit.
This Father here followeth the command of Chriſt himſelf, who in the 14. and 15. of John having foretold his Apoſtles that he would ſhortly go from them, and leave them, to go to his Father, giveth them not that comfort that he would go away only as for his viſible preſence, but that he would remain inviſibly preſent under the element of bread. Only he promiſeth to ſend them the Comforter, which is the Holy Spirit, to ſupply his abſence.
(l)Cyril. l. 9. in Joh. 7.21. Credere oportet fideles; quamvis à nobis corpore abſit, virtute tamen ſua omnia et nos gubernari.The Eutychians who forged unto Chriſt a body that was everywhere, gave occaſion to the Fathers of the 5. Age to maintain that the body of Chriſt is no more on earth, and that he is nowhere preſent, but in one place only, where he is ſitting at the right hand of God. Vigilius writ five Books againſt Eutyches in which he inſiſteth much upon that. In the 1. Book he ſpeaks thus,(n)Dei filius ſecundum humanitatem ſuam receſſit à nobis. Secundum divinitatem ſuam ait nobis, Ecce ego vobiſcum ſum omnibus diebus uſque ad conſummationem ſaeculi. The ſon of God according to his manhood departed from us, but according to his Godhead he tells us, Lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Had the Fathers believed the real preſence under the elements of bread and wine, the Eutychians might have ſtopt their mouth, ſaying, that Chriſt even according to his manhood is always with us, unto the end of the world, ſince he is always bodily preſent under the accidents of bread.
Vigilius addeth,(o)Per formam ſervi quam abſtulit à nobis in coelum, abſens eſt nobis: per ſormam Dei quae non recedit a nobis in terris praeſens eſt nobis. According to the form of ſervant which he carried from among us into heaven, he is abſent from us. According to the form of God which retireth not from us, he is preſent unto us in earth. But his words are expreſs, eſpecially in the 4. Book.(p)Si verbi et carnis una natura eſt, quomodo cum verbum ubique ſit, non ubique invenitur et caro? Nam quando in terra fuit non erat utique in coelo, et nunc quia in coelo eſt, non eſt utique in terra, et in tantum non eſt, ut ſecundam ipſam Chriſtum ſpectemns venturum de coelo quem ſecundum verbum nobiſcum eſſe credimus in terra. If the Word and the Fleſh have but one nature (as the Eutychians ſay) how comes it to paſs that the Word being everywhere, his fleſh alſo is not found every where? For when it was on earth it was not in heaven; And now becauſe it is in heaven it is not on earth.
To ſay that Vigilius underſtands that the fleſh of Chriſt is no more in earth viſibly, but inviſibly, is to make Vigilius an Eutychian; for ſuch was the belief of the Eutychians, againſt whom he diſputeth. Beſides, Vigilius ſaying, that when the fleſh of Chriſt was on earth, it was not in heaven, underſtands that it was neither viſibly nor inviſibly in heaven. Whence it followeth, that when he ſaith, that being now in heaven, it is no more on earth, he underſtands alſo that it is neither viſibly or inviſibly in earth any more.
For the queſtion between Vigilius and the Eutychians was not of the viſibility, but of the real preſence, which the Entychians affirmed, and againſt which Vigilius diſputeth with all his might.