The Novelty of Popery Opposed to the Antiquity of True Christianity, Book 7 · Controversy 11 · Chapter 14
CHAP. 14, Confutation of two ſhifts which the Cardinal uſeth upon all occaſions.
CArdinal du Perron preſt with the evidence of theſe teſtimonies ſhifts for himſelf as well as he can. To that place of Auſtin upon the 3. Pſ. that Chriſt admitted Judas to the Supper in which he gave to his Diſciples the figure of his body and blood,(a)Book 4. ch. 4. p. 871. he anſwers that Auſtin ſpeaks there of the figure, with a relation, not to the true and proper body of Chriſt, but to his analogical body and blood; that is, to the body and ſociety of his Church. This Prelat hoped that no reader would have the curioſity to conſult the place, to ſee whether Auſtin ſpeaks, in that place of the Church, or of the figure of the Church. For he knew well enough that Auſtin from the beginning of the expoſition of the third Pſalm unto this place, ſpeaks not at all of the Church nor of the figure of the Church, and that in that aſſertion of his there is neither colour nor ſhadow of truth.
He adds, that ſuch is the ſenſe in which Auſtin expoundeth the word of body and blood of Chriſt, when he ſpeaks of the Euchariſt in thoſe places where the Catechumens were preſent, or the Infidels, as it appears by theſe words of the 26. Sermon upon John. By this meat and drink he would have the ſociety of the Saints to be underſtood. It is true, that Auſtin in many places expounds theſe words, This is my body, and Except you eat the fleſh of the Son of man, &c. as if by this body and this fleſh the Church was underſtood. But I could not yet finde any place in Auſtin where this word of blood is ſo expounded.
As for the Catechumens▪ or not initiated, and the Infidels before whom he ſaith that the Fathers ſpoke obſcurely of myſteries, and did not diſcover their intention, nor the belief of the Church, it is a ſhift which the Cardinal uſeth upon all occaſions.(b)Pag. 872. As in the 4. ch. of the 4. book; The Fathers (ſaith he) call ſometimes the Euchariſt a figure, whether it be that they may not reveal the ſecret of the myſtery before them that are not initiated; or to keep the analogy that it hath with our ſenſes, to which the Euchariſt ſhews nothing apparently but the figure, not the naked truth of the body: Or in relation to the future ſtate of glory, in which reſpect the participation which we have here with the body of Chriſt, is unto us as an earneſt and a figure of the participation which we have with the Godhead of Chriſt. And falling again to the ſame diſcourſe in the 8. ch. he ſaith that we muſt not learn the intention of the Fathers, by the reading of the diſcourſes where they were forbidden to expound their intention, and the belief of the Church in that point, ſuch as were the diſcourſes that were made before the Catechumens or the Infidels, in whoſe preſence it was prohibited to the Catholicks to announce openly the belief of the Church about the Euchariſt. He brings for example the Treatiſes of Auſtin upon John, which were popular Sermons delivered before all ſorts of perſons, both believers and unbelievers, both initiated and not initiated; and Theodorets Dialogues, where he profeſſeth to ſpeak darkly and reſervedly of the myſtery of the Euchariſt. He will not then have us to look for the doctrine of the Church about the Sacrament in Auſtins Treatiſes upon John, nor in Theodorets Dialogues. But he ſaith, that we ought for that matter truſt the twelve books which Theodoret had writ of the Sacraments if we had them, and Cyprians book of the Lords Supper, and Chryſoſtom's Comments upon Matth. 26.(c)Pag. 878. He adds that the examples which the Fathers alledge to win and work upon the minds of their adverſaries, &c. they wreſt and detort to that purpoſe as much as they can. So he will not have us to ſtand to the verdict of the Fathers whenſoever they ſpeak before the Catechumens, or before Infidels, nor to thoſe writings where they ſpeak incidently; Nor to thoſe where they handle the oblique, collateral, and acceſſary doctrine of the Euchariſt, but to thoſe where they ſpeak of the immediate, direct, and principal doctrine of the Euchariſt. (d)Pag. 879.He ſaith alſo that we muſt conſider the end of the converſion or tranſmutation of bread of which the Fathers ſpeak, and of the efficient cauſe which is the Almighty power of God. This is the ſummary of all the Philoſophy of our Cardinal upon the point of the Euchariſt. Theſe are the tenter-hooks upon which he hath ſtretched his wit for the ſpace of five and twenty or thirty years that he hath been ſweating and beating his brains upon this matter.
Yet to all that the anſwer is moſt eaſie. For by all that ſubtilty he labours only to ſence himſelf againſt the places which call the Euchariſt a figure and a ſign of Chriſts body, not againſt thoſe teſtimonies which ſay that theſe words, This is my body, muſt be thus expounded, This is the figure or ſign of my body: And that Chriſt hath given to the ſign the name of his body, and honoured the viſible ſigns with the name of his body; and that the words which command us to eat the fleſh of Chriſt, are a typical locution, which muſt be thus interpreted, that we muſt meditate and call to remembrance that Chriſt is dead for us. Neither doth he guard himſelf from thoſe authorities which deny abſolutely that we eat the body crucified for us, and ſay that the Sacrament is the body of Chriſt, not in truth, but in ſignifying myſtery, and that it is the ſign not the truth. And that the ſubſtance of bread and wine remains after the conſecration: and that the wicked eat not the body of Chriſt; and that there is no other manducation but the ſpiritual. The Cardinal paſſeth by all theſe, and ſtayeth only upon thoſe places where the Euchariſt is called the figure of Chriſts body.
As for his refuſing to ſtand to the writings of the Fathers where they ſpeak before the Catechumens, that is, before the perſons not yet baptized, or before the Infidels: It is very true, that ſometimes the Fathers ſpake more ſoberly of the myſtery of the Euchariſt before the Catechumens, not to conceal from them the ſublimity of the myſteries, but for a clean contrary end; that is, for fear the Sacrament ſhould have been brought to contempt in the peoples eſtimation, if the Paſtours had ſpoken to them in plain and low terms, ſaying unto them that it was bread and wine that was upon the table, and of the like nature as the ordinary bread. This is clearly ſeen in the forealledged place of the ſecond Dialogue of Theodoret, where in ſtead of ſaying bread, he ſaith a food made up with ſuch ſeeds, and that becauſe(e)foreign. of ſome perſons not baptized which might be preſent.
Truly if in Sermons or writings which might be heard or read by unbaptized perſons there was need of ſuch a reſervation; it will follow that they never ought to preach nor write openly and according to their intention, and that they ought continually to diſguiſe their belief, ſeeing that the Catechumens were preſent at Sermons, and that a book once publiſhed is no more in the Authors power, and is expoſed to the ſight both of baptized and unbaptized perſons, both of believers and unbelievers.
But how ſuperfluous had that circumſpection been towards the Infidels, ſeeing that the revolted Chriſtians, that were become enemies to the Faith might reveal to the Infidels and to the Catechumens that which they had learned when they were ranked among the believers before their revolt?
But how hurtful had that rule been, if it had been perpetual? For how juſt might have been the complaint and the miſtruſt of the Catechumens? Would they not have ſaid to their Paſtours that inſtructed them; You deceive us, you diſguiſe your belief; You ſpeak to us againſt your ſenſe. We deſire to know of you the true belief plainly before we be baptized.
The examples of antiquity teſtifie ſufficiently that the Fathers tye not themſelves to that rule. For we have the Apologeticks of the antient Chriſtians, of Juſtin, and of Tertullian, and Origen's books againſt Celſus, and Auſtins books of the City of God againſt the Pagans, in which they handle the higheſt myſteries of Chriſtian Religion.
If we muſt not heed the writings of the Fathers made for the Catechumens; why doth the Cardinal alledge to us the Catecheſes of Cyrillus and of Gregorius Nyſſenus, made purpoſely for the Catechumens? Why doth he alledge Chryſoſtomes Sermons made before the Catechumens? Note that the number of the Catechumens exceeded by much the number of the believers, becauſe the cuſtom then was to receive baptiſm very late, and many times to put off baptiſm untill the old age and to the extremity. Yea why doth he alledge unto us any book of the Fathers, ſeeing that there was none of thoſe books but the Catechumens could read? who would have laughed at their Paſtours, if when they inſtructed them, they would have taught them another doctrine then ſuch as they had read in their books. Theſe are then meer Chimera's, and poor ſhifts, injurious againſt the Fathers, whom the Cardinal taxeth of hypocriſie, as men writing againſt their intention, and (as he ſpeaks) wreſting and detorting the examples which they alledge, which is laying unſincerity and foul dealing to their charge. That the Cardinal makes theſe vagaries rather to recreate his fine wit, then out of any belief of that he aſſerteth, he ſheweth it in ſome ſallies that tranſport him, riding aloft with his prancing oratory. As when he ſpeaks thus in the 879. p. The Fathers make two ſorts of meditations; The one immediate, direct, and principal; which conſidereth the truth of the thing. The other mediate, collateral, and acceſſory, which conſidereth it according to a moral and allegorical acception; being like the Echo and the reflected ſound of the litteral intelligence, to recreate the ſpirits of the readers by the ſacred mirth and ingenious invention of theſe alluſions and allegorical applications. With ſuch frigaſſes of puff-paſte words this Prelat did tickle his imagination. This the Latins call in lente unguentum; eſſence of pearls, or aurum potabile, in a meſſe of turnips. If then the Fathers have ſaid, that, This is my body, ſignifies, This is the ſign or figure of my body, we muſt finde in theſe words an echo, a reflected ſound, a collateral meditation, a ſacred mirth, a quinteſſence of Allegorical wheemſies.
Yet that we may deal more gently with this Prelat, let us grant him what he asketh. Let us ſuppoſe that the Fathers in their writings did purpoſely uſe dark ſpeeches, and diſguiſe their belief for fear of being underſtood. For may we not uſe his weapons againſt himſelf, and reject all the authorities which he objecteth againſt us, ſaying that the alledged Fathers in thoſe places did not ſpeak according to their ſenſe? That ſuch and ſuch Catecheſes were made for the Catechumens? That in ſuch and ſuch Sermons part of the hearers were Catechumens? and ſo make all their allegations doubtful and uncertain?
Yet let us ſee what reproaches he hath eſpecially againſt Auſtins Treatiſes upon St. John. Firſt by calling them Sermons, he gives them a title which the Author gives them not, and we have no certain proof that ever theſe Treatiſes were pronounced before the people. Alſo he calls theſe Treatiſes in contempt popular Sermons made before all ſorts of perſons. If by popular Sermons he meaneth preacht before the people, the ſame may be ſaid of all the Sermons of the Antients; out of which nevertheleſs the Cardinal diſdains not to bring allegations. But if by popular he underſtands that they are written in a familiar and low ſtile, the reading of theſe Treatiſes ſhews the contrary. For Auſtin never made any thing ſo exact and elaborate upon Scripture as theſe Treatiſes; Chryſoſtoms Homilies are far more popular. Theſe Treatiſes of Auſtin are ten times ſhorter then his expoſitions of the Pſalms, and yet there is ten times more ſubſtance in them. But that which moveth the Cardinal to ſpeak of theſe excellent books with contempt, is that he findes in them three or four leaves together, in which he treateth fully of the manducation of the fleſh of Chriſt, without ſpeaking one word of Tranſubſtantiation, or real preſence, although among all the writings of the Antients there be not ſuch a long Treatiſe of this matter. For it is not incidently that Auſtin treats in that place of this matter, but he makes it his task, and much ado he hath to come out of it. But although we had granted to the Cardinal that theſe Treatiſes of Auſtin upon John are books out of which the intention of that Doctor cannot be known, and which ought not to be regarded; will he ſay the ſame of his books of Chriſtian doctrine, or of the twenty third Epiſtle to the Biſhop Boniface? Were theſe books of Auſtin of Chriſtian doctrine written for the Catechumens? Was Boniface a Catechumen? And yet there Auſtin ſaith that theſe words, Except you eat my fleſh, are a typical locution which ſignifieth meditating the Lords death: and that the Sacrament of Chriſts body is in ſome ſort the body of Chriſt, according as ſigns take the name of the things ſignified.
The ſame I ſay of the Dialogues of Theodoret, which repeat and beat over this matter, beſtowing many pages about it. There the Reader may ſee with delight an Eutychian Heretick maintaining the tranſubſtantiation of bread into the body of Chriſt; and an Orthodox Chriſtian contradicting him, and uſing as expreſs words as he can, ſaying that after the conſecration the viſible ſigns do not change nature, and that their firſt ſubſtance remaineth; and that Chriſt called the bread his body, honouring the ſign with the name of his body, without changing the nature of the ſign.
It is evident that the Cardinal abuſeth the Reader, and writes againſt his conſcience. For while he calls us away from Auſtins Books upon Iohn, and from the Dialogues of Theodoret, he ſends us to other Books which are not in being, and appeals to the twelve Books of the ſame Theodoret of the Sacraments, if we had them; for he acknowledgeth that they are loſt. He ſends us alſo to Cyprians Books of the Lords Supper, of whom he ſpeaks thus: Such is (ſaith he) the Book of the Lords Supper of Cyprian, whether it be the Carthaginian or another of the ſame age; for he addreſſeth his work to Cornelius Biſhop of Rome Contemporanean of Cyprian, and diſputeth againſt the Heretick Novatus of the ſame time.
This Prelate feigneth to doubt whether this Book of the Lords Supper be Cyprians, or of ſome other Author. And yet he could not be ignorant that it is a ſuppoſititious Book. Bellarmine in his Book of Eccleſiaſtical Writers, ſpeaks thus of it, The Sermons of the Cardinal works of Chriſt (among which is this Treatiſe of the Lords Supper) are of a learned and ancient Author, but ſeem not to be of Cyprian; for firſt the ſtile is far lower then that of Cyprian, &c.
Cardinal Baronius, An. 60.(f)§ 51. De Cardinalibus operibus non eſt Cypriani. The Book of the Cardinal works is not of Cyprian. The proofs of that are clear; for in the Preface to Cornelius, the Author ſaith, that he purpoſely ſuppreſt his name, whence it appeareth, that the Author is unknown. He ſtiles Cornelius, Your ſublimity: But Cyprian calls always Cornelius brother. In the Sermon of temptation and faſting, he ſaith, that the Devil fell before mans creation: which is repugnant to Cyprians opinion, in the Book of Zeal and Envy. Beſides that Authors ſtile is barbarous and Monachal. His elegancies are, animam Lazari poteſtative extraxerat. And partiabilis ſubſtantia Trinitatis. And Caloris identitas. Him that hath eaten Chriſt, he calls, Chriſti bajulum, as if he were a porter. This is of the ſame kind, Diſtributus non demembratur, incorporatus non injuriatur. By theſe it appears that the Book is new, and the title to Cornelius ſuppoſed. In the Preface of that Book two paſſages are found, taken well nigh word by word from the 42. Oration of Gregory Nazianzen, who writ about 125. years after Cyprians death: In the Treatiſe of Baptiſm he confuteth the opinion of Cyprian, about the rebaptization of Hereticks. The treatiſe of the words of Chriſt on the Croſs, is found in Bibliotheca Patrum, in the 2. Part of the 12. Tome, which contains the writings of Authors that lived many Ages after Cyprian: whence it is made evident, that theſe treatiſes of Cardinal Works are new, and of the dregs of the laſt Ages. To ſay that he lived in the ſame Age as Novatus, becauſe he diſputeth againſt Novatus (as the Cardinal ſaith) is ſpeaking againſt common ſenſe. By that reaſon if one in our days write againſt Ariſtotle, he is Ariſtotles contemporanean: And Hierome who writ againſt Origen ſhould be of the ſame age as Origen.
As for that the Cardinal ſaith, that the Fathers call that which we receive in the Euchariſt the figure of Chriſt, becauſe it appeareth ſo to the ſenſe, it is taxing the Fathers either of fraud, or great negligence: For if in this point we muſt believe neither our ſenſes nor our eyes, why do they ſpeak according to the report of the eyes? Why do they not give us warning that our ſight is deceived?
To ſay that they call the Sacrament a Figure, although the body of Chriſt be really there, to oppoſe it to the full participation which we ſhall have in heaven, is ſpeaking againſt reaſon: For the inferiour degrees are not figures of the ſuperiour; by that reaſon the loweſt rounds of a ladder ſhould be figures of the higheſt. Beſides, the leaſt Prieſt of the Roman Church (if he may be believed) participates the body of Chriſt more then all the Saints of Paradiſe. For there none of the Saints ſwalloweth Chriſt, none eates his fleſh really; So it will be found that the wicked which participate the Sacrament, yea the Rats that carry the Hoſt away, participate Chriſts body more then thoſe prime Romiſh Saints, Francis and Dominick.
Of the Efficient cauſe of the change made in the Bread, which Ambroſe and the Suppoſitious book of the Lords Supper attribute to the Almighty power of God, it was treated before when we ſpake of Ambroſe.