The Novelty of Popery Opposed to the Antiquity of True Christianity, Book 7 · Controversy 11 · Chapter 24 – Chapter 25
CHAP. XXIV. Anſwer to the authorities and reaſons brought by Cardinal du Perron (a)Book 4. p. 896, & 898.in the 14, 15, and 16. chapters.
WHoſo will take the pains to read a multitude of allegations to no purpoſe, let him read the fourteenth chapter of M. du Perron's treatiſe of the real preſence: There he collecteth great number of paſſages of Fathers that ſpeak of eating Gods head, and the feet of the incarnation, and of boyling the fleſh before the dores of the Tabernacle, and of burning with the fire of the Spirit the remnant of things not to be eaten, &c. things quite beſides the queſtion, which do him no good, and do us no harm.
In ch. 15. with a million of intricate words according to his cuſtom he ſaith very little. The ſummary is, That when the Greek Fathers ſpeak of eating ſpiritually the Lords body in the Euchariſt, they mean not to exclude the corporeity (for ſo he ſpeaks) neither of the thing received nor of the organ: that is, that they intend not to deny that the Lords body is really received with the mouth of the body, but they mean, that it is by the ſpirit of God that the body of Chriſt is miraculouſly under the ſpecies, and that it is by the Spirit only that we perceive the body of Chriſt which is ſet before us. He ſaith that Scripture calls thoſe things ſpiritual which are corporal, when they are done by the miraculous operation of Gods Spirit, as when S. Paul ſaith to the Galatians that Iſaac was born according to the Spirit.
I anſwer, that by that doctrine the creation of the world may be called ſpiritual; for it was done by the incomprehenſible vertue of the Spirit of God, and is a thing which we comprehend not but by the Spirit and by Faith, as the Apoſtle to the Hebrews ſaith, Heb. 11.3. Through faith we underſtand that the worlds were framed by the Word of God. As for Iſaac, S. Paul ſaith indeed that he was born according to the Spirit, but ſaith not therefore that Iſaac was ſpiritual, or that his birth was ſpiritual. But by being born according to the Spirit, his birth according to Gods promiſe is underſtood, as the Apoſtle himſelf declareth it; for that which he ſaith Gal. 4.29. that he that was born after the fleſh perſecuted him that was born after the Spirit, is the ſame thing which he had ſaid ver. 23. that he who was born of the bondwoman was born after the fleſh, but he of the free woman was by promiſe.
Now that which the Cardinal ſaith, that the Fathers when they ſpeak of eating the fleſh of Chriſt ſpiritually in the Euchariſt, intend not to exclude the corporeity, that is, the real manducation of the body with the mouth, is confuted by the paſſages of the Fathers, wherein comparing the oral manducation which is done in the Sacrament with the ſpiritual manducation, they ſay that the only true manducation is the ſpiritual; and that the wicked eating the Sacrament, eat not truely the body of Chriſt, though they eate the ſacred ſign thereof. As Auſtin ſaith in book 21. of the City of God, ch. 25.(a)Oſtendit quid ſit non ſacramento tenus, ſed re vera corpus Chriſti manducare. The Lord ſheweth what it is to eate the body of Chriſt, not only in Sacrament, but alſo in truth. And in the ſame place,(b)Non ſolo ſacramento ſed re ipſa manducaverunt corpus Chriſti. They have eaten the Lords body, not only in Sacrament, but alſo in truth. And in the ſecond Sermon of the words of the Apoſtle.(c)Si quod in Sacramento viſibiliter ſumitur in ipſa veritate spiritualiter manducetur, ſpiritualiter bibatur. Audivimus enim ipſum Dominum dicentem Spiritus eſt qui vivificat, caro autem non poteſt quicquam, &c. If that which is taken viſibly in the Sacrament, is eaten ſpiritually in the very truth, and drunk spiritually. For we have heard the Lord himſelf ſaying, It is the Spirit that quickeneth, the fleſh profiteth nothing, &c. And in the book of Sentences collected by Proſper. (d)Qui diſcordat cum Chriſto, non carnem ejus manducat, nec ſanguinem ejus bibit, etiamſi tantae rei Sacramentum ad judicium ſuae praeſumptionis quotidie indifferenter accipiat.Whoſoever is in diſcord with Chriſt, eats not his fleſh, and drinks not his blood; although he take the ſacred ſign of ſuch a great thing indifferently every day to the condemnation of his preſumption.
This alſo ſerveth for an anſwer to that the Cardinal addeth, that(e)15. ch. p. 899. the spiritual participation is not real; for (ſaith he) all the actions brought forth out of the ſoul by the faculties are not real, becauſe the actions of the ſoul come not out of the body, &c. Thus towards the end of the 16. chap. he ſaith,(f)p. 908. that the manducation of which the Fathers ſay, that in the Euchariſt we eat the body of Chriſts, is not a bare mental manducation, and by faith; but is a true, real, oral, and corporal manducation. For as for the manducation by faith, he calls, it(g)p. 905. an intellectual thought and meditation, as if it were a meer imagination.
The ſumm of all his Diſcourſe overburdened with ſuperfluous words, is this, that the ſpiritual manducation is not real nor effectual, becauſe, it is an action which is done out of the ſoul, but that the manducation with the mouth is the only real and effectual.
To which I anſwer, that the Cardinal commits here four notable faults: The firſt is his ignorance, that the Fathers hold that there is no other real and true manducation of the body of Chriſt but the ſpiritual. They ſay not only that the corporal or Sacramental manducation availeth nothing without the ſpiritual: but they ſay alſo, that the ſpiritual manducation; and by faith, is the only real and true, as we have lately proved.
Secondly, the Cardinal ſaying, that the ſpiritual manducation is an action of the ſoul, brought forth out of the ſoul, ſhews that he never underſtood nor felt, nor comprehended any thing in this ſpiritual manducation, nor in the grace of God. For this word manducation is a Metaphorical word, which ſignifyeth not only apprehending Chriſt, or thinking of him, but alſo fetching life and ſpiritual food from him. To ſay that this ſpiritual life and food is a thing out of the ſoul, is to have no taſte of piety, no experience of Gods grace in himſelf, and it is extenuating the work of God in the hearts of the godly to a bare imagination, ſeeking ſpiritual life, and ſanctification, and the ſpiritual joy of the faithfull ſoul out of the ſoul, ſo that the ſoul may have no ſenſe of it, and receive no comfort by it. This Prelate hath ſhewed before his inſenſibility in that point, when treating of the mark and ſeal of the Spirit wherewith God marks his elect,(h)1. Book 9. ch. 37. pag. he ſaid, that this mark was in God, and in his eternal thought, not in the hearts of the faithfull.
Thirdly, the Cardinal ſpeaking thus, treſpaſſeth not only againſt the doctrine of the ſoul, but even againſt common ſenſe. For both teach, that all the mental actions are in the ſoul, and in the underſtanding, not without. The Science and intelligence of the Stars or Geometry is in the underſtanding, not without. And although the object which is known, be out of the ſoul, yet the knowledge is in the ſoul, not without. It is the ſame of the ſenſes, which receive the images or operations of the objects that are within us, but act not without us. It is this Prelates cuſtom to ſublimate his wit to bring forth high conceits, and big words, which being throughly examined are found to want common ſenſe. Yet ſuch things read by ignorant perſons, are admired as things beyond the reach of humane wit. Of that ſtrain is his ſaying in the 8. chapter,(i)Pag. 885. that this word money is the name of a thing, not real but intentional, and conſiſting in the inſtitution of the intellect. Yet in my opinion he that payeth ready money, payeth really; and that money is real, not intentional. He that is ſo paid, believeth that he is really paid, not in thought or intention only.
To theſe faults the Cardinal joyns a fourth, that he oppoſeth intentional things to real things; and by intentional things underſtands thoſe that are done in the underſtanding, as if the habits and operations of the mind were not real, or as if nothing were real that hath not a body. Who doubts that the Sciences and vertues that are in mens minds are real and effectual? and how much more the infuſed graces of God, and the effects of his Spirit? Which yet are ſo real, that all other things vaniſh, and are but vanity in compariſon, ſeeing that they abide for ever, and are a beginning of eternal life which we ſhall enjoy in heaven. All that is acting really, is real and in effect: Now the vertues of the ſoul act really, and bring forth effects; then they are real. Wherefore alſo the Saints are really rewarded for real good things.
So it is in vain that the Cardinal heaps up many paſſages of Fathers, to prove that the true and real manducation of Chriſts body is ſomething done within us, not without us; for that we believe and maintain. And as for the paſſages which he alledgeth out of Chryſoſtom, (k)Hom. 24. in 1 Cor. & lib. 2. de Sacerdotio.God ſheweth us that which is moſt …xcellent in heaven, ſeated upon earth: Alſo, That Angels worſhipped Chriſt ſeeing him in a manger, and that we ſee him on the altar; they are ſallies of oratory, to raviſh the hearers minds with Hyperbolical expreſſions. For the Romaniſts themſelves believe not theſe words literally taken. They believe not that Chriſts body in the Euchariſt hath any ſituation, or that we ſee him upon the altar; but they hold that he is there without ſituation, and without being in any place; that he is there inviſibly, and that no eye perceiveth him there. And when Cyrillus ſaith, that we take Chriſt bodily, he underſtands that we take bodily the Sacramental body of Chriſt: Or by bodily he meaneth really, and ſo that the body of Chriſt is ours. Whoſo will examine all the paſſages that the Cardinal alledgeth in the 15. and 16. ch. ſhall find that without offering any violence to them, they may be ſo underſtood.
Had the Cardinal rightly conceived how, and in what manner Chriſt is apprehended by the faith of the believer in the Lords Supper, he had not inſiſted ſo much upon an Argument which he frameth in the 16. chap. and upon which he beſtoweth ſix pages. If (ſaith he) the Fathers had underſtood that the manducation of Chriſts body, which is done in the Euchariſt, had been a bare manducation by faith, why ſhould they have excluded the Godhead from the object of that manducation, and ſaid that the Godhead cannot be eaten, but only the body of Chriſt, ſeeing that of the spiritual and analogical manducation which is done by faith, the Godhead is the chief object; the body of Chriſt being not the object of our faith, but becauſe it is joyned with the Godhead?
Beſides that, the Cardinal makes us ſpeak againſt our belief, making us ſay that in the Euchariſt we eat Chriſt only ſpiritually and by faith, whereas we teach that he is alſo eaten Sacramentally and in myſterie; he ſhews by that diſcourſe that he never comprehended how the body of Chriſt is apprehended by the faith of the believer in the Lords Supper; for had he known that, he had known alſo why the Fathers ſpeaking of the manducation of Chriſts body in the Euchariſt, ſpeak only of eating the body of Chriſt, not of eating his Godhead. We ſay then that Chriſt is preſented to us in the Lords Supper as dead for us, and that faith apprehends him as bruiſed for us in the Croſs, bearing the curſe which we had deſerved. Now it is in his humane nature only, that he ſuffered death and paſſion. The Fathers then conſidering Chriſt in the Lords Supper, as dead for us, do wiſely apply their words to the nature of the Lords Supper, when they ſpeak not of eating the Godhead, but only of eating (that is) apprehending by faith, Chriſt dead and crucified for our ſins. That Chriſt is ſo conſidered and apprehended in the holy Communion, the inſtitution ſheweth it, where Chriſt ſaith,(l)1 Cor. 11. This is my body which is broken for you: This cup is the New Teſtament in my blood which is ſhed for you. To which the Apoſtle addeth, As oft as you eat this bread and drink this cup, ye ſhew the Lords death. Which if the Cardinal had well underſtood, he would not have ſpent ſo much ink(m)Pag. 903, 904, 905, & 906. to amplifie that argument.
In vain then he alledgeth Cyrillus, ſaying,(n)Cyril. contra Neſtorium l. 4. c. 5. foreign. We eat not, conſuming the Godhead; away with that ill thought or will; but the very fleſh of the word made quickening. Wherein Cyrillus ſaith true; for by the ſpiritual manducation we apprehend the true fleſh of Chriſt. I know not who was the Cardinals Interpreter for this Greek paſſage, but he did not do his part. Cyrillus ſaith, foreign. The Cardinal tranſlates, We ſwallow the Godhead it ſelf. Away with that impiety. The word it ſelf, is not in the Geeek; foreign ſignifies not ſwallowing, but conſuming: And foreign ſignifieth ill counſell, or ill thought, not impiety.
He ſhuts up this proof in theſe words, Whence it followeth, ſince perſonally ſeparating the Godhead of Chriſt is making the Euchariſt an Anthropophagia, that in the Euchariſt the fleſh of Chriſt is truly, really and corporally eaten, that is, with the organ of the body. I ſeek in this argument ſome ſpark of reaſon, and find none, neither is it poſſible to form an Argument with that reaſoning. This is the conceit.
Whoſo ſeparates the Godhead of Chriſt from the Manhood, makes of the Euchariſt an Anthropophagia.
Now Neſtorius ſeparated the Godhead from the Manhood.
Ergo the fleſh of Chriſt is truly and corporally eaten in the Euchariſt.
A gallant argument, and well brancht! What remote Pilgrimage was this Prelates wit gone to? By the ſame reaſon one might prove the vertue of bleſſed beads, or the Popes Primacy. In every good argument the two parts of the concluſion are found in the two Propoſitions, which is not to be found in this argument.
Finally,(o)Page 907. he alledgeth a teſtimony of Cyrillus, which is found in the defence of the eleventh Anathematiſmus of Cyrillus againſt the reprehenſions of Theodoret. Theſe are the words,(p)This paſſage is found in the firſt Tome of the Councils Printed at Collen in the year 1567. at Gervin Calen, pag. 683. in theſe words; Num hominis comeſtionem noſtram hoc Sacramentum pronuncias? & irreligioſe ad craſſas cogitationes urges eorum qui crediderunt mentem? & attentas humanis cogitationibus tractare quae ſola pura et inexquiſita fide accipiuntur? as they are found in the firſt Tome of the Councils publiſht by our Adverſaries; Doſt thou pronounce that in our Sacrament we eat a man? and doſt thou irreligiouſly preſs the underſtanding of thoſe that have believed into groſs thoughts? and doſt thou attempt to treat with humane thoughts thoſe things which are received with the only, and not far fetcht faith? Note theſe words, that the things which are received in the Euchariſt (for of theſe Cyrillus ſpeaks) are not taken but by faith only. The Cardinal towards the end of the laſt chapter alledgeth this text, and puts(q)foreign. the Greek words in the Margent, which he corrupteth in his traduction; for he tranſlateth foreign deceitfull reaſonings. But foreign is not a reaſoning but a thought. And foreign ſignifieth not deceitfull, but vain and eaſily blotted out. Then he tranſlateth foreign, a faith not inquiſitive, whereas it ſignifieth a faith not far-fetcht. And the word foreign in the page before, he tranſlateth, are preſuppoſed, borrowed for a ground, whereas it ſignifieth are taken; for that is the true ſenſe. As Act. 27.33. foreign, having taken nothing, that is, eaten nothing: And ver. 36. foreign, they took meat. And ſo Acts 16.33. The connexion of the text, and that which followeth, requires it alſo. For faith preſuppoſeth not the things preſented to the believer in the Lords Supper, but takes them and receiveth them with confidence. With paſſages thus corrupted his whole book is ſtuffed.
I muſt not omit a place of Hilary which the Cardinal alledgeth often, but giveth a falſe interpretation to it Hilary ſaith in the 8. Book of the Trinity, (r)De veritate carnis et ſanguinis non relictus eſt ambigendi locus. Nunc enim ipſius Domini profeſſione et fide noſtra vere caro eſt, et vere ſanguis eſt, et haec accepta atque hauſta id efficiunt ut et nos in Chriſto, et Chriſtus in nobis ſit.There remaineth no place for doubt of the truth of the fleſh and blood [of Chriſt] for now both by the profeſſion of the Lord himſelf, and by our faith, it is truly fleſh and truly blood: And theſe things being taken and ſwallowed, work that effect that we are in Chriſt, and Chriſt is in us. The Cardinal in the 6. ch. out of this place, gathereth that the ſubſtance of the fleſh, and blood of Chriſt is truly in the Sacrament, becauſe Hilary ſaith, that we muſt not doubt of the truth of the fleſh of Chriſt. But that is not Hilary's intention, but only to ſay that Chriſt hath a true fleſh, and a true blood, and hath a true humane nature, which is true as well out of the Sacrament as in the Sacrament. He ſaith alſo, that this true body, and this true blood taken in the Euchariſt; make us to be in Chriſt, and Chriſt in us. This ſheweth, that he ſpeaks not of the oral manducation of which the wicked alſo are partakers, and which makes not the wicked to be in Chriſt, howſoever any man ſay that by that manducation Chriſt is in them. The word haurire, to ſwallow, which Hilary uſeth, may as well be applied to the mind as to the body;(ſ)Virg. 3. Georg. Exultantiaque haurit corda pavor pulſans. Et alibi Vocemque his auribus hauſi. For the Latine Authors ſpeak ſo.
CHAP. XXV. How the Cardinal ſends the Reader to a larger Book of his of the Euchariſt; That the beginning of that Book ſheweth what one ſhould think of the reſt.
THe Cardinal for the concluſion of his Treatiſe of the real preſence ſends back the Reader to a larger work, promiſing to treat in it more fully of the Euchariſt. That promiſed work, is his Book of the Euchariſt againſt Monſieur du Pleſſis, upon which Book I have already made many obſervations. That is the Book wherein he tranſlates,(a)3. Book. 14. ch. p. 866. Feſcennina carmina, Verſes to avert witchcraft, (b)Catullus in nuptias Juliae & Manlii, carm. 60. Nec diu taceat procax Feſcennina locutio.whereas he ſhould have tranſlated, laſcivious verſes. Which appeareth by that which followeth in the paſſage he alledgeth, where unchaſte and profane verſes are oppoſed to Sacred Songs and Angelical praiſes. But paſſing by many the like obſervations, I will but repreſent the entry of that ſo long expected Book, that by the Frontiſpiece the Reader may judge of the body of the building.
M. du Pleſſis to ſhew that the Roman Church by the doctrine of Tranſubſtantiation makes the Lords Supper to be no more a Sacrament, ſaith that every Sacrament is a ſign, which is different from the thing ſignified. But by the Tranſubſtantiation the ſign, which is the bread, is aboliſht, and becomes the thing ſignified. Upon that M. du Perron triumpheth, and in big words which fill three pages, he rateth M. du Pleſsis like a poor Scholar. Where is (ſaith he) the Scholar that knows not that the definition of the gender, is far more lean, ſcant and hungry then that of the kind? &c. Do not the rudiments of Logick teach us, that from the gender to the kind, one may argue affirmatively, not negatively? But I maintain the contrary, that the rudiments of Logick teach us, that from the gender to the kind the argument is always made negatively, never affirmatively. One may and ought to argue thus, Non eſt animal, ergo non eſt homo. Not as the Cardinal will have it, Eſt animal, ergo eſt homo. According to the Cardinals Logick one might Argue thus, A frog is an animal, Ergo, it is a man. Is not that want of natural Logick? Should not a School-boy be ſnibbed over the fingers with the Ferule that ſhould argue ſo? Where is now that deep learning of our Prelate? Should he have puffed up a diſcourſe of three pages with a high flown ſtile to ſet up ſuch a groſs abſurdity? M. du Pleſsis reaſoned thus: Every Sacrament is a ſign; The Lords Supper is a Sacrament: Ergo, the Lords Supper is a ſign; Whence he inferred very well that the Roman Church aboliſhing the ſign by the tranſubſtantiation, aboliſhed the Sacrament. There being no fault to be found in that form of Argument: yet M. du Perron ſwelleth the ſayls of his eloquence, and ſheweth by many examples, that the definition of the gender containeth not all the perfections of the kinds: making the world believe that M. du Pleſſis affirmed, that the definition of the Sacrament (which is the gender) expreſſeth the whole nature of the Euchariſt, which is a kind of Sacrament. A thing which M. du Pleſſis neither ſaid nor thought. So that M. du Perron adds calumny to ignorance.