The Novelty of Popery Opposed to the Antiquity of True Christianity, Book 7 · Controversy 11 · Chapter 15
CHAP. XV. Shewing how the Fathers ſay, that the Fathers of the Old Teſtament ate the ſame meat which we eat in the Euchariſt.
VVHoſoever ſaith, that the Fathers that lived before Chriſts Birth, ate the ſame meat which we eat in the Euchariſt, ſaith by conſequence that we eat not the fleſh of Chriſt with an Oral Manducation; for they could not really eat with their carnal mouth a body which was not yet. But they might eat him in Sacrament, as the ſigns are called by the name which they ſignifie.
Such is the doctrine of the Apoſtle who affirmeth(a)1 Cor. 10.2, 3, & 4. that the Fathers of the Old Teſtament were all baptized in the cloud and in the ſea, and all ate of the ſame ſpiritual meat, and did all drink the ſame ſpiritual drink, for they drunk of that ſpiritual rock that followed them, and that rock was Chriſt.
That it is the Apoſtles mind to ſay that theſe Fathers drunk of the ſame drink, not only among themſelves, but alſo with us, it appeareth by his declaring that the drink which they drunk was Chriſt, even the ſame Chriſt which we drink, and which we participate: of which participation he ſpeaks ſoon after. The ſame appeareth becauſe this text cannot be expounded otherwiſe without departing from the ſcope of the Apoſtle, which is to admoniſh us that we be no idolaters or fornicators, as ſome of the Iſraelites were in Moſes his time, who although they had participated Chriſt in the Sacrament as well as we, were puniſht nevertheleſs when they fell into idolatry and fornication.
It is evident alſo, that the Apoſtle ſpeaks not of manducation by faith, ſince he ſpeaks of a manducation which all the Fathers participated, both good and evil, and among others thoſe that were puniſht for their fornication and idolatry; but he calls Manna and the water flowing from the rock, ſpiritual meat and drink, becauſe they had a ſpiritual ſignification, and becauſe they were to be taken in a ſpiritual ſenſe.
The old Chriſtians, following the Apoſtles ſteps, ſay that the Fathers before Chriſts coming ate the ſame meat, not only among them, but with us alſo.
So ſpeaks Auſtin in the 45. Treatiſe upon John. (b)Ideo & ſic ait, eundem potum ſpiritualem biberunt, nam corporalem, non eundem. Quid enim illi bibebant? Bibebant enim de ſpirituali ſequente petra; petra autem erat Chriſtus. Videte ergo fide manente ſigna variata. Ibi petra Chriſtus, nobis Chriſtus quod in altari Dei ponitur. Et illi pro magno Sacramento ejuſdem Chriſti biberunt aquam profluentem de petra. Nos quid bibamus norunt fideles. Si ſpeciem viſibilem intendas, aliud eſt; ſi intelligibilem ſignificationem, eundem potum ſpiritualem biberunt.The Apoſtle ſaith, they drunk the ſame ſpiritual drink, but not the ſame bodily drink. And what did they drink? they drunk of the ſpiritual rock that followed them; now that rock was Chriſt. See then how faith remaining, the ſigns are changed: there the rock was Chriſt, but to us that which is laid on Gods altar, is Chriſt. And they, for a great Sacrament of the ſame Chriſt, drunk the water flowing out of the rock. But the believers know what it is that we drink. If you behold the viſible form, it is another thing; If you regard the intelligible ſignification, they drunk the ſame ſpiritual drink. In all this paſſage it is plain, that Auſtin compareth not the Iſraelites among themſelves, but with us; and affirmeth that they drunk the ſame drink as we do. He ſaith that they drunk indeed another bodily drink, for they drunk the water flowing from the rock, and we drink wine in the Euchariſt. It is (ſaith he) the ſame faith or doctrine, but the ſigns are differing. He calls then that which is received in the Lords Supper, ſigns of Chriſt. Note here eſpecially that he joyns theſe two things as like, that the ſtone in old time was Chriſt, but now that which is laid on the altar or table of the Lord, is Chriſt. As then the ſtone then was not Chriſt really, but in Sacrament; likewiſe that which now is ſet upon the altar is not Chriſt really, but in Sacrament or ſignification: Note alſo, that he ſaith, that the viſible form is another then in old time. Now it is evident that he ſpeaks of the ſpecies or form of bread, and of the ſpecies or form of wine in the ſingular, becauſe by the word ſpecies he underſtands the ſubſtance of bread, which is one; not the accidents, which are many. When he ſaith that the ſigns of the Old Teſtament are changed into other ſigns, it is evident, that as by the ſigns of the Old Teſtament the ſubſtances of Manna and water are underſtood; So by the ſigns of the New Teſtament the ſubſtances of bread and wine are underſtood, and not the accidents and ſhew of bread without bread, and the colour and taſte of wine without wine.
In vain the Cardinal anſwereth, that the Sacraments both Old and New, were one and the ſame thing in figure and ſignification, but not in truth and reality; For neither in the old nor in the new Sacraments was then or is now the truth and the reality. The truth contained in the Goſpel oppoſed to the figures of the Law, is found in Chriſt and in his death, not in the bread and wine of the Sacrament. St. John teacheth us ſo much, John 19.36. where he alledgeth the prohibition made in the Law of breaking any bone of the Paſchal Lamb. Of which figure he finds the fulfilling, not in the Lords Supper, but in the Croſs, in which the Souldiers forbore to break the arms and limbs of the Lord. And the Apoſtle Paul 1 Cor. 5.7. ſaith that Chriſt our Paſſeover was ſacrificed for us, nor with any regard to the Lords Supper, but ſpeaking of the Lords death and paſſion. And if Auſtin or any other of the Fathers puts the truth in the Sacraments of the New Teſtament, and the figure in the Sacraments of the Old; by that truth he underſtands not that Chriſt is really in the water of baptiſm, or in the elements of bread and wine, or that the water or the bread is tranſubſtantiated into Chriſt; but by the truth he underſtands a more ample and effectual grace then that which was under the Law, as John ſpeaks in the firſt Chapter, The Law was given by Moſes, but Grace and Truth by Jeſus Chriſt. Upon this the words of the ſame Father, upon the 77. Pſalm are very expreſs,(c)Idem in myſterio cibus & potus illorum qui noſter, ſed ſignificatio… idem, non specie. Qui… idem ipſe Chriſtus illis in petra figuratus, nobis in carne man…feſtatus eſt. Their meat and drink was the ſame in myſterie as ours, but the ſame in ſignification, not in kind. For the ſame Chriſt which was figured unto them in the rock, was manifeſted to us in the fleſh. Where we clearly ſee the two foreſaid things. The one, that he compareth not the Iſraelites among them, but with us, and that he declareth that the Fathers are the ſame meat as we eat. The other, that he placeth the fullfilling of the old Sacraments, not in that which is eaten with the mouth in the Euchariſt, but in the incarnation and apparition of Chriſt.
The ſame Father in the book of the utility of Penitence,(d)Tomo 9. c. 1. Eundem cibii spiritualem manducaverunt. Quid eſt eundem n…ſi quia eū quem etiam nos? They ate the ſame spiritual meat. What is the ſame meat, but that which we alſo eat? And again,(e)Eundem non invenio quomodo intelligam niſi eum quem manducamus & nos. St. Paul ſaith the ſame meat. I finde not how this word the ſame can be underſtood, but that meat which we alſo eat. And again,(f)Quicunque in Manna Chriſtum intellexerunt, eundem quem nos cibum ſpiritualem manducaverunt. All that underſtood Chriſt in Manna, ate the ſame spiritual meat as we do.
There it is clear, that Auſtin ſaith not only that the Fathers ate the ſame meat as we in figure or Sacrament, but alſo that they ate by faith the ſame thing ſignified. For he addeth, They drunk the ſame drink as we do, but ſpiritual, which was taken by faith, but was not ſwallowed by the body.
(g)In his ſecond book of the Euchariſt againſt M. du Pleſſis, p. 42.The Cardinals anſwer is that which he uſeth upon all occaſions, and his general plaiſter for all ſores; he ſaith that ſome unbaptized perſons were preſent, before whom Auſtin durſt not ſpeak according to his belief. A ſhift which we have ſhewed to be not only vain, but injurious againſt the Fathers. Beſides, when Auſtin writ this, he writ alone and without witneſſes. And if he was afraid that the Catechumens ſhould read his book, he might have had the ſame fear in all his book, and ſo never have written according to his belief. The Cardinal addeth, that Auſtin compareth the Sacraments of the Chriſtian Church with thoſe of the Jewiſh in the inſtructive and doctrinal function, not in the operative and exhibitive; meaning that they figured the ſame thing, but had not the ſame vertue. In theſe dark terms, in effect he ſaith nothing; For though that which he ſaith be granted, that which I affirm remaineth; that Auſtins aſſertion is, that the Fathers ate the ſame meat as we do, not only in figure, but alſo really by faith. It matters not if there was ſome difference in the efficacy, or in the manner of the operation. Thus in all that he addeth upon that teſtimony of Auſtin, he defends himſelf where we aſſault him not.
Neither muſt he tell us, that this manner of eating Chriſt by faith is a Metaphor, and a Metaphorical expreſſion. For although there be a Metaphor in the word eating for participating, yet this participation is ſo real, that Auſtin acknowledgeth no other true manducation of the fleſh of Chriſt, but the ſpiritual, as we have proved. He ſaith not only, that the only manducation by faith is profitable or ſalutary, but he ſaith(h)Aug. de Civit. Dei lib. 21. c. 25. Qui eſt in corporis ejus unitate, &c. ipſe vere dicendus eſt manducare co…pus Chriſti. that who ſo is not in the body of Chriſt, eats not truly the body of Chriſt.(i)Non ſacramento tenus, ſed re vera corpus ejus manducare. And that it is one thing to eat Chriſt ſacramento tenus, only in Sacrament, and another thing to eat him re vera, truly and in effect.
This may alſo be an anſwer to that the Cardinal ſaith, that the Fathers of the Old Teſtament ate the ſame meat, yet not in the ſame manner: for although the Fathers ate not the fleſh of Chriſt in the ſame manner as we, as for the ſacramental manducation; yet as for the real manducation of the fleſh of Chriſt, they ate it in the ſame manner, that is, with a real and true manducation, although God put more evidence and efficacy in our Sacraments. For Auſtin acknowledgeth no other manner of eating the fleſh of Chriſt truly and really, but to eat it by faith.
Wherefore when Auſtin ſaith, that we eat the Lords fleſh with the faithfull heart, and with the mouth, he underſtands that we eat it with the heart by faith, and that we eat it ſacramentally and in ſign, with the mouth. But that we eat really and truly the natural body of Chriſt with the mouth of the body, is a thing which that good Doctor never ſaid, and never believed. We heard before how he perſonats Chriſt ſpeaking thus to his Diſciples,(k)Aug. in Pſ. 98. You ſhall not eat this body which you ſee, and ſhall not drink the blood which they that crucifie me ſhall ſpill. I have recommended a ſacred ſign unto you, which being ſpiritually taken, ſhall quicken you.
Theſe things are ſo clear and expreſs, that in the end they force the Cardinal to diſpute againſt Auſtin, under pretence of excuſing him.(l)Du Perron of the Euchariſt, againſt Du Pleſſis, p. 46. & 52. We cannot omit (ſaith he) to ſay that this meditation of Auſtin is not litteral at all, that is, not conformable unto the litteral ſenſe of the Apoſtle; but Auſtin played here with his wit. He adds, that Auſtin alledging the words of the Apoſtle to another purpoſe, boweth and turns them from their direct intention, to apply them to his own. And that it is not a direct formal and litteral expoſition, but a curious and collateral meditation, and a game ſome and Allegorical diverſion, whereby Auſtin Allegorically inflecteth St. Pauls words from their natural ſenſe, &c. With ſuch anſwers it were eaſie for us to elude all the paſſages which are alledged againſt us out of the Fathers, ſaying, that ſuch a Father was playing with his wit when he ſpake ſo, and wreſted the ſenſe of Scripture to another ſenſe to bring it to his purpoſe. So Auſtin (in his account) is a mocker, that playeth with Scripture, and giveth a wrong ſenſe to it to ſerve his turn. Certainly ſince our adverſaries to fence themſelves againſt Scripture have recourſe to the Fathers, they ſhould, in policy, uſe them with more civility.
The ſame Auſtin in the 26. Treatiſe upon John ſpeaks thus.(m)Hunc panem ſignificavit Manna. Hunc panem ſignificat altare Dei. Sacramenta illa fuerunt. In ſignis diverſa ſunt, ſed in re quae ſignificatur paria ſunt. Apoſtolum audi, Nolo enim vos, inquit, ignorare fratres quia patres noſtri omnes ſub nube fuerunt, &c. & omnes eandem eſcam ſpiritualem manducaverunt. Spiritualem utique eandem, nam corporalem alteram, quia illi manna, nos aliud, ſpiritualem vero quam nos. Manna ſignified this bread. Gods Altar ſignifieth this bread. They were Sacraments. They are diverſe in ſigns, but they are alike in the thing ſignified. Here the Apoſtle ſaying, Brethren, I would not that ye ſhould be ignorant, that our Fathers, &c. did all eat the ſame ſpiritual meat; the ſame ſpiritual meat indeed, but another bodily meat, becauſe they ate Manna, we another thing, but yet [they ate] the ſame ſpiritual meat as we eat.
Here the Cardinal anſwers again, that Auſtin in that popular Sermon, for fear of the Catechumens then preſent, abſtained from expreſſing the true direct and immediate doctrine of the Church concerning the Sacrament. He ſaith alſo that theſe were diverſions, acceſſory and collateral expoſitions to feed and ſtay the curioſity of thoſe that were not initiated. This Prelat makes Auſtin a jugler, or a player that puts on ſeveral vizards. But it is certain that diſguizing his belief before the Catechumens was not the way to ſatisfie their curioſity, but a trick to amuſe them with deceitful words, and ſend them away empty and poſſeſt with a falſe belief, of which they needed to be diſpoſſeſt after their baptiſm. At which time having learned the true belief of the Church, they might have ſaid to their Paſtours, What goodly ſtuffe did ye ſerve to us? What tales did ye feed us with? And why did ye not ſpeak to us in good earneſt? How do we know whether you have now told us all, and whether within a few years you will make us alter our belief the ſecond time?
Hereupon the Cardinal(n)Pag. 60. Vir. Aeneid. 3 Hectoreum ad tumulum, viridi quem ceſpite inanem, & geminas, cauſam lachrymis, ſacraverat aras. with a long diſcourſe extenuates the efficacy of the Sacraments of the Old Teſtament, which he calls in contempt Cenotaphia, that is, as he expounds it, vain, hollow, and empty monuments, ſuch as the tombs were, whoſe deceitful inſcription ſpake as if the dead body had been incloſed within, though it was in another place. This is indeed injurious language againſt the Sacraments of the Old Teſtament, to call them vain monuments. For were not the Fathers ſaved by thoſe Sacraments? Shall we call that a vain monument which brings us to ſalvation? Shall we call the Paſſeover a vain monument, ſeeing that the grace and ſalvation in Chriſt was preſented in it?
Doth not Auſtin ſay that the Fathers ate ſpiritually the fleſh of Chriſt? Doth he not ſay that there is no true and real manducation, but the ſpiritual? Truly it is like that the Cardinal ſet forth this diſcourſe only ſhew this fine word of Cenotaphe, and make the world think that he is a jolly Grecian. Rather we ſhould ſay, that even under the Goſpel, unto them that have no faith, the Sacrament is a Cenotaphe, and that the Paſſeover was a figure exhibitive of the truth to them that did participate it with faith. Obſerve alſo the Cardinals learning, when he calls the figures of future things monuments. For every monument is a memorial of a thing paſt.
But who makes any doubt, but that Chriſt and the grace in Chriſt was preſented to the Fathers by the Sacraments of the Old Teſtament? as Cyrillus ſaith upon John; (o)Cyril. Alex. in Joh. l. 3. c. 34. & 36. Verum Manna Chriſtus eſt qui per figuram manna priſcis illis à Deo Patre dabatur.The true Manna is Chriſt whom the Father gave to thoſe antient [Fathers] by the figure of Manna. And Chryſoſtom upon the firſt Epiſtle to the Corinthians, Hom. 23. Although the things which were done then were ſenſible, yet they were ſpiritually given; not according to the conſequence of nature, but according to the gift of grace, and with the body they fed the ſoul alſo, and induced to faith. (p)foreign.They were not then vain monuments, nor Cenotaphes, or imaginary ſepulchers, or names without things.