man, having the very body and soul of Christ in his mouth, in conscience say, that Jesus is not present, under pretence that he does not see him? Upon the same principle we might assert, that man has no soul, because it is invisible; or that such an one had left town, because he remains concealed in it. Further, Jesus himself warns us that a time will come when it will be said, "Lo! here is Christ; or, Lo! he is there," (Mark xiii. 21,) and forbids us to believe it. Again: "If he shall say unto you he is in the secret chambers, (or cupboards, as rausov also signifies,) believe it not." (Matth. xxiv. 26.) He evidently speaks of places in which some will say he is hid; and he uses the plural— Taμs-secret chambers, as if he were speaking of a Christ who was supposed to be in divers places at the same time. But Jesus clearly confutes all these subterfuges of our adversaries, when, for the purpose of comforting his disciples, who were sorrowful at his departure, he promised to send them the Comforter, who is the Holy Ghost. (John xiv. 16 and 26, and xv. 26.) According to the doctrine of the Roman Church, he should have said, I go away, but I shall not cease to be in your mouths and stomachs, and shall be even much more with you than now. He said nothing at all of this: but, to console them at his departure, he promised to send his Holy Spirit to them. Paul says, (2 Cor. v. 8,) "We are willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord :" and (Phil. i. 23,) "having a desire to depart, and be with Christ." Had this Apostle lost his senses? For, according to the Papal doctrine, he should have said, "I am already with Christ,-I carry him in my hands,-I have him in my stomach." St. Augustine is very explicit upon this point, in his 50th Treatise on St. John, where he says, "In respect to the majesty of the Lord,-in respect to his invisible and ineffable grace,-what he promised when he said, I will be with you always, even to the end of the world,' is accomplished. But, in reference to the flesh which the Word took, and to his being born of the Virgin Mary, &c., he said, 'ye have me not always.'" In his first Treatise on John i., "We can no more touch him with the hand, now that he is seated in heaven, but we can touch him by faith." This is addressed to the priests, who, in these times, vaunt of having Christ in their hands. In his 78th Treatise on John: "In respect to his manhood, Christ left the world; but, in respect to his God-head, he remained." In the 30th Treatise; "The body of Christ, which rose from the dead, must be in one place, but his truth is spread over all." In the Latin it is, in uno loco esse oportet, and not in uno loco esse potest, as in late corrupted editions. Gratian, Ivo of Chartres,+ Lombard, Thomas,§ Gabriel Biel,|| of Augustine, have oportet. and the ancient editions The sense also requires it. For it would offend common sense to say, that the body of Christ may be in one place it might as well be said, that the sun may be in one place-which implies, that it might be in no place. Cyril of Alexandria says, in his eleventh book on John iii. "Though absent in the body, appearing for us before his Father, being seated at his right hand, he dwells in his saints by his Spirit." He supplies the want of his bodily presence by the gift of his Spirit, and not by keeping himself concealed under the accidents of bread. * Gratian Dist. 2, de consec. Can. prim.-† Ivo 2 parte Decreti, c. 18.- Lombard, lib. iv. summac. q. 75, art. 2.-|| Senten. Dist. 10, A. -§ Thomas 3 parte The Eutychian heretics held the same language as our adversaries, for they said that the body of Christ is present on earth as well as on heaven, by an invisible presence.— There was a Treatise written against them, in five books, some think by Vigil, others by Pope Gelasius, in the first of which we find the following: "The Son of God hath withdrawn himself, in respect to his humanity; but, with respect to his Divinity, he says, I will be with you even to the end of the world." In the fourth book: "When the flesh of Jesus Christ was on the earth, it was not in heaven; and, now that it is in heaven, it is not upon the earth."It is plain that Vigil, by saying, when the flesh of Christ was upon the earth it was not in heaven, meant that it was not in heaven, either visibly or invisibly. In like manner, when he says, it is now no longer upon the earth, he means that it is neither there visibly nor invisibly. If he imagined that the flesh of the Lord is present invisibly, then he advocated the cause of the Eutychians, for that was their opinion. In short, the Apostle (Eph. iii. 17,) prays, that Christ may dwell in our hearts by faith," and not that he may dwell in our stomachs with our food. When we ask in what manner the body of Christ is present in the Sacrament, we are answered, that it is not present circumscriptively as wine contained in a tun, nor definitively as immaterial spirits, but that it is present sacramentally. It is indeed a very ridiculous answer. To say that Jesus Christ is present in the Sacrament sacramentally, is like saying that a man present in the temple is there temple-ly, or that he who is in a carriage is there carriage-ly. Moreover, by this answer they rank themselves on our side, for they themselves say that the word Sacrament signifies a "sacred sign;" therefore, to be present sacramentally means nothing more than to be present significatively, by figure and representation. CHAPTER XIV. Confession of our adversaries admitting that Transubstantiation is not founded in Scripture,—that the Ancient Church is consecrated by prayer, and not by these words, “This is my body." The most learned Romanists do not found Transubstan tiation upon these words, "This is my body," but on the authority of the Romish Church, which, they hold, cannot err. "Scotus Scotus, styled the Subtle Doctor,* affirms, that "there is no passage of Scripture which, without the definition of the Church, can constrain us to believe in transubstantiation." To this Bellarmine refers in the following terms:† asserts, that there is no passage of Scripture so explicit as evidently to enforce belief in transubstantiation, without the declaration of the Church; and that is not altogether improbable. For though the Scripture texts that we have quoted seem to us so clear as to constrain every man not perverse, nevertheless one may of good right doubt if it be so, since some very acute and very learned men-such especially as Scotus was-have been of the contrary opinion." He also acknowledges Scotus to have declared, that transubstantiation was not an article of faith before the Council of Lateran, A.D. 1215. On this account Vasquez,‡ after having related the opinion of Scotus, (with whom Durand is to be included,) maintaining that the truth of the consecrating words may be pre * Sent. 4, dist. 11, q. 3.-† De Euch. 1. 3, c. 23. - In Thom. parte 3, disp. 180, c. 5. served, though the substance of bread and wine remain in the Eucharist, blames Bellarmine, without naming him, for having said that this opinion of Scotus is probable, and accuses him of limping between the two sides. "We see (says he) certain professors of Theology in our time, who, limping somewhat from side to side, do not think the opinion of Scotus, regarding the words of consecration, improbable." Amongst the learned and acute, must Cardinal Cajetan be classed, who says, in his Notes on Thomas,* "The other point, not explicitly explained in the Gospel, hath been received from the Church, namely, the conversion of bread into the body of Christ." Again: "Conversionem non explicitè habetur in Evangelio-conversion is not expressly stated in the Gospel." Cardinal D'Ailly:+ "It is manifest that this opinion, which supposes that the substance of bread remains, is possible, and is neither repugnant to reason nor to the authority of the Bible; but is more easily understood, and more reasonable." On this account he also is reprehended by the Jesuit Vasquez. Gabriel Biel, in the 40th Lesson on the Canon of the Mass: "In what manner the body of Christ is there, whether it be by the conversion of something into it, or whether without conversion, the body of Christ begins to exist with the bread, the substance and accidents of which remain, is not stated in the Canon of the Bible." He adds: "It is proved by the authority of the Church and the saints, for it cannot be proved by reason." Again he asks, in 41st Lesson, wherefore "the saints and the Church chose to say and determine that it ought to be understood in so difficult a sense, since the Scriptures might be ex * Cajetanus in 3 Thomæ, q. 75, art. 1. † Pet. de Alliaca, in 4 sen. q. 6, art. 2. |