The Novelty of Popery Opposed to the Antiquity of True Christianity, Book 7 · Controversy 11 · Chapter 7
CHAP. VII. That the Fathers not only call that which we receive in the Euchariſt, ſign, figure, ſymbol, type, and antitype, and commemoration; but alſo teach that the words of the Lord are ſacramental, that is, that in theſe words the name of the thing ſignified is given to the ſign.
THere is nothing more frequent in the books of the Fathers then to call the Euchariſt a ſign, a figure, and a type of Chriſts body. Auſtin in the third book,(a)Potuit ſignificando praedicare Dominum Jeſum Chriſtum, aliter per linguam ſuam, aliter per Epiſtolam, aliter per Sacramentum corporis & ſanguinis ejus. cap. 4. Paul could by ſignifying preach the Lord Jeſus Chriſt, otherwiſe by his tongue, otherwiſe by his letters, otherwiſe by the ſacred ſign of his body and of his blood.
And in the twenty ſixth Treatiſe upon John, ſpeaking of the body of Chriſt;(b)Hujus rei ſacramentum, &c. Res vero ipſa cujus Sacramentum eſt, omni homini ad vitam, nulli ad exitium quicunque ejus participes fiunt. The ſacred ſign of this thing, (even the unity of the body and blood of the Lord) is prepared, &c. And is taken at the table by ſome to life, and by ſome to perdition. But the thing it ſelf, of which it is a ſacred ſign, turns unto life to every man that is partaker of the ſame, and to none unto perdition.
And upon Pſal. 98. he perſonates Chriſt ſpeaking thus,(c)Non hoc corpus quod videtis manducaturi eſtis, & bibituri ſanguinem quem fuſuri ſunt qui me crucifigent. Sacramentum aliquod vobis commendavi, ſpiritualiter intellectum vivificabit vos. Ʋnderſtand ſpiritually that which I ſaid unto you: You ſhall not eat this body which you ſee, and ſhall not drink the blood, which they that crucifie me, ſhall ſpil. I have recommended a ſacred ſign unto you, which being ſpiritually underſtood, ſhall quicken you.
And in the eleventh Sermon of the words of the Lord,(d)Nunquid & Judas quamvis primum ipſum manibus ejus confectum Sacramentum carnis & ſanguinis ejus cum caeteris Diſcipulis manducaret & biberet, manſit in Chriſto, aut Chriſtus in eo? Did the wicked Judas, the ſeller and betrayer of his Maſter, abide in Chriſt, and Chriſt in him? although he eat and drunk the firſt ſacred ſign of his fleſh and blood done by his hands, with other Diſciples.
And in the twenty ſixth Treatiſe upon John, (e)Qui non manet in Chriſto, & in quo non manet Chriſtus, procul dubio nec manducat ſpiritualiter carnem ejus nec bibit ejus ſanguinem, licet carnaliter & viſibiliter premat dentibus ſacramentum corporis & ſanguinis Chriſti.He that abideth not in Chriſt, and in whom Chriſt abideth not, doubtleſs neither eateth his fleſh, nor drinks his blood ſpiritually, although he preſs the ſacred ſign of the body and blood of Chriſt carnally and viſibly with his teeth.
Tertullian in the third book againſt Marcion chap. 19.(f)Panem ſuum corpus appellans ut & hinc jam eum intelligas corporis ſui figuram pani dediſſe. Chriſt hath called bread his body, that thereby thou maiſt underſtand that he hath given to bread the figure of his body. Pamelius in his notes upon Tertullian, is much vexed with this ſentence, and ſaith that perhaps theſe words were added by ſome other. Yet he acknowledgeth that he found it in the Manuſcript of the Vatican, and that it is found in all Editions.
The ſame Tertullian in the fourth book, chap. 40.(g)Acceptum panem & diſtributum diſcipulis corpus ſuum illum fecit, dicendo hoc eſt corpus meum, id eſt, figura corporis mei. Figura autem non eſſet niſi veritatis eſſet corpus. Caeterum vacua res quod eſt phantaſma ſiguram capere non poſſet. Chriſt having taken bread and diſtributed it to his Diſciples, made it his body, ſaying, This is my body, that is, the figure of my body. Now it had not been a figure, if he (that is Chriſt) had not been the body of truth [or the true body.] An empty thing as a ghoſt [or illuſion of the fancy] could not be capable of a figure. He diſputeth againſt the Marcionites who denyed that Chriſt was a true body, and made of him an illuſion of the fancy, a meer ghoſt. Tertullian proveth that Chriſt hath a true body, becauſe he was figured by the ceremonies of the Law, and by the figure of the Lords Supper, when he ſaid, This is my body: that is, the figure of my body. For a thing which is not truly, cannot be repreſented by figure. Which is the ſame reaſon that(h)Orig. in Marcion. Dialog. 3. Tom. 1. Theod. Dial. 3. Origen and Theodoret uſed againſt thoſe that denyed the truth of Chriſts body, as we ſhall ſee hereafter.
Here the Cardinal is ſtrugling and ſweating. And to avoid the ſtrength of theſe words ſo expreſs, This is my body, that is, the figure of my body, he finds in Tertullians words an Hyperbaton, that is, a tranſpoſition of words out of their due order: Confeſſing thereby that theſe words make for us, unleſs they be put out of order. Then he would have this clauſe thus mended, This is my body, that is (if we muſt believe him) this, namely the figure of my body, is my body. Is not that abuſing God and men? Should he have thus turned the words of Tertullian upſide down to make him ſay things which even the Roman Church believeth not? For the Roman Church believeth not that the figure of Chriſts body is Chriſts body. Wherefore that expoſition needs another expoſition. So after he had changed and overturned Tertullians words by an extravagant expoſition, he doth afterwards change his own expoſition into another. Tertullian (ſaith he) meaneth that the bread which in the Law was the figure of our Lords body, is in the Goſpel the body of Chriſt. To that ſecond expoſition he ſhould have added a third; for this ſecond expoſition as well as the third, ſpeaks againſt the belief of the Roman Church, which believeth not that the bread is the body of Chriſt: nor that the bread which under the Law was a figure, is under the Goſpel the true body of Chriſt. If in Tertullian one Hyperbatick paſſage be found, a thouſand may be found that are not ſo. And how unlike is it that in theſe words, This is my body, that is, the figure of my body, there is an Hyperbaton? Can any man ſpeak more clear and more natural words? Beſides, by putting thus Tertullian upon the rack, he takes away the ſtrength of Tertullians argument, who becauſe this bread is the figure of Chriſts body, proveth that Chriſt hath a true body; ſince figures are images of things that are truly. And if Tertullian in the ſame chapter ſpeaking of the figures of the Law, ſaith that the bread under the Old Teſtament was a figure of Chriſts body, it followeth not that it is no more a figure of Chriſts body under the New Teſtament. The word fuiſſet regards the time in which Chriſt inſtituted his holy Supper. For Tertullian writ about one hundred and ſeventy years after: As if he ſaid, Chriſt would not have inſtituted the figure of his body, if he had not a true body.
Theodoret in the firſt Dialogue, The Lord gave to the fign the name of his body. There is in the Greek, that the Lord hath given to the ſymbole, the name of his body. G…ntian Hervet tranſlateth.(i)foreign. He hath given to his body, the name of the ſymbole and the ſign, and to the ſymbole the name of his body.
Maximus in his Greek Notes upon Dionyſius expounds this word ſymbole, ſaying(k)foreign. that it is ſome ſenſible thing taken for an intelligible thing, as bread and wine for the immaterial and divine food and gladneſs.
The ſame Maximus ſpeaking of the Euchariſt, oppoſeth the ſymbols to the truth, foreign, Theſe things are ſigns, not the truth. It is the ſtyle of the Greek Fathers as Bellarmin acknowledgeth, ſaying,(l)Dionyſius c. 1. Eccleſ. Hierarchiae & alii Patres Graeci, Sacramenta vocant ſymbola, id eſt, ſigna. Dionyſius in the firſt chapter of the Eccleſiaſtical Hierarchy, and other Greek Fathers call Sacraments Symbols, that is ſigns,
Thus Euſebius in the eighth book of the Demonſtration, having ſaid, that Chriſt gave to his Diſciples the ſymbols of his diſpenſation, addeth(*)foreign. commanding to celebrate the image or figure of his own body. All this ought to have kept Cardinal du Perron from his cold Criticiſme upon the word Symbol.
The ſame Theodoret in the ſame place,(m)foreign, &c. The Lord hath honoured the viſible ſigns with the name of his body and blood, having not changed their nature, but added grace unto nature.
And a little after,(n)foreign? Tell me truly, of what doſt thou think the ſacred meat to be a ſign and figure? The anſwer is, It is a ſign of the body and blood of the Lord.
And in the ſecond Dialogue,(o)foreign. Tell me then the myſtical ſigns which are offered unto God by the Prieſts, of what are they ſigns? The heretick whoſe name is Eraniſtes anſwereth, Of the body and blood of the Lord. Obſerve by the way that Eraniſtes in the Dialogues of Theodoret, ſignifieth a contributor, as one that payeth his ſhot, not a beggar,(p)Du Perron againſt du Pleſſis p. 504. as our Cardinal thinks. It is a Conference where the heretick contributes what he can. It is true that Eraniſt ſometimes ſignifieth a beggar, as the ſame Theodoret ſaith in the beginning of his Dialogues. But in the ſame place he declareth that in theſe Dialogues, he takes that word for a contributor.
Theodoret addeth,(q)foreign. If then the divine myſteries are ſigns or images of the true body, &c. There is in the Greek antitypes, calling thoſe things antitypes which he had called a little before ſymbols or ſigns.
And in the ſame place,(r)foreign. The myſtical ſigns do not change nature; no not after the conſecration, for they remain in their firſt ſubſtance, figure and ſhape. And a little after, to ſhew that the change is not in the thing, but in the word, he makes Eraniſtes to ſay(ſ)foreign. The myſtical ſign changeth name, &c.
Clement in the fifth book of Apoſtolical Conſtitutions, chap. 16.(u)C…m antitypa myſteria pretioſi corporis & ſanguinis nobis tradidiſſet, &c. exiit ad mo… tem Olivarum. Having given us the myſteries figurative of his precious body and blood, &c. he went up into the Mount of Olives. And ſuch was the thankſgiving that uſed to be ſaid in his time in the participation of the Lords Supper.(*)Gratias tibi agimus Pater pro pretioſo ſanguine Jeſu Chriſti qui effuſus eſt pro nobis, & pro precioſo corpore cujus haec antitypa perſicimus, &c. We give thee thanks, our Father, for the precious blood of Jeſus Chriſt, which was ſhed for us; and for the precious body, of which we do theſe ſigns by his command to announce his death.
Origen in the third Dialogue againſt the Marcionites;(x)Origen. in Marcion. Dial. 3. tit. 1. Quod ſi, ut obloquuntur iſti, carne deſtitutus erat & exanguis, cujuſmodi … carnis, cujus corporis & ſanguinis ſigna & imagines panem & poculum miniſtravit, juſſitque per illa Diſcipulos memoriam ſuî renovare? If Chriſt was without fleſh, and without blood, as theſe men contend: of what fleſh, of what body, and of what did he adminiſter the ſigns and images, even the bread and the cup, and commanded his diſciples to renew by them his remembrance? It is the ſame reaſon that Tertullian uſeth in the fourth book againſt Marcion chap. 40.
Dionyſius ſirnamed the Areopagite, in the third chapter of the Eccleſiaſtical Hierarchy, calleth ſix times that which is upon the ſacred table, and given to the communicants, ſigns or ſymbols.
(y)Ephrem ad eos qui filii Dei naturam ſcrutari volunt, cap. 4. Inſpice item diligenter quomodo ſumens in manibus panem benedicit & frangit in figuram immaculati corporis ſui, &c.Ephrem. Conſider carefully how the Lord taking the bread in his hands, bleſt it and broke it, for a figure of his immaculate body, and gave and diſtributed to his Diſciples the cup for a figure of his blood.
Ambroſe in the fourth book of the Sacraments, chap. 5. affirmeth, that in his time this clauſe was in the publick ſervice. Make this oblation to be ſet to our account, acceptable and reaſonable, which is the figure of the body and blood of the Lord. Which words were ſaid indeed before the conſecration; but they ask of God, that the thing to be conſecrated, be received as an acceptable offering. For our Adverſaries themſelves acknowledge, that the bread not conſecrated cannot be the oblation which is put to our account, and is accepted before God for our ſins.
The ſame Father upon 1 Cor. 11.(z)Quia morte ejus redempti ſumus, hujus rei memores, in edendo & potando, carnem & ſanguinem quae pro nobis oblata ſunt ſignificamus. Becauſe we have been redeemed by his death, we remembring that, in eating and drinking ſignifie the fleſh and blood which are offered for us. And in the ſame place,(a)Quia beneficii divini ſanguis teſtis eſt. In cujus typum nos calicem myſticum ſanguinis ad tuitionem animae & corporis percipimus. The blood is a witneſs of the divine benefit; For the figure of which, we receive the myſtical cup of blood for the preſervation of the body and ſoul.
Macarius in the twenty ſeventh Homily,(b)foreign. In the Church bread and wine are offered to be antitypes or figures of his fleſh and blood, and they that participate to the bread which appeareth, eat ſpiritually the fleſh of the Lord.
Euſebius in the firſt book of the Demonſtration, chap. 8.(c)foreign, &c. We celebrate the memory of this ſacrifice upon the table, by the ſigns of his ſalutary body and blood, according to the Laws of the New Covenant.
And in the ſame place,(d)foreign. He gave to his Diſciples the ſigns of the divine diſpenſation, commanding to celebrate the figure of his own body, otherwiſe to make the image of his own body. A place where the word ſymbol is expounded to be a figure or image.
And in the fifth book of the Demonſtration; ch. 3.(e)foreign. Firſt our Saviour and Lord, then all the Prieſts that have followed him in all Nations, celebrating the holy ſpiritual ſervice according to the Eccleſiaſtical Ordinances, ſignifie unto us by the bread and wine, the myſteries of his body and blood.
Gregory Nazianzen praiſing his Siſter Gorgonia, commends her devotion for reſerving in her hand ſome part of the ſigns of the pretious body of the Lord. (f)foreign, &c.If ſometimes her hand had treaſured up ſome of the antitypes or ſigns of the pretious body or blood of the Lord, ſhe mingled it with her tears.
That cuſtom of giving leave to women to carry away in their hands ſome of the bread and wine of the Lords Supper, and to keep it, was a proof that they believed not Tranſubſtantiation in thoſe dayes. For in thoſe dayes it would be thought an horrible profanation to ſuffer a woman to touch the Hoſt: Wherefore Gregory calls that which his ſiſter carried away, the antitypes or ſigns of the body and blood of Chriſt. And that which is more remarkable, is, that Gregory ſaith, that ſhe received Baptiſm a little before her death. Which is a proof that ſhe carried away the Sacrament without eating of it.
The ſame Gregory in the ſecond Oration of the Paſſeover, ſpeaks thus of the Euchariſt,(g)foreign. We ſhall participate of the Paſſeover; which indeed is yet in figure, although more evidently then in the antient Paſſeover: for the Legal Paſſeover (I make bold to ſay ſo) was a more obſcure figure of a figure. He ſaith that the Paſſeover was a figure of the Lords Supper, as a leſs clear figure is a figure of another more expreſs figure.
Gaudentius in the ſecond Treatiſe upon Exodus, (h)Recte etiam vini ſpecie tum ſanguis exprimitur.With good reaſon his blood is expreſt by the element of wine. Again(i)Ibid. Rationaliter in eo figura corporis Chriſti. In the bread, the figure of Chriſts body is reaſonably underſtood.
Hierom upon 1 Cor. 11.(k)Benedicens, etiam paſſurus, ultimam nobis commemorationem ſive memoriam dereliquit. Quemadmodum ſi quis peregre proficiſcens aliquod pignus ei quem diligit relinquat, ut quotieſcunque illud videt poſſit ejus beneficia & amicitias memorare. When he bleſſed, even going to ſuffer, he recommended to us the laſt commemoration or remembrance. As if one going on a journey ſhould leave ſome token to him whom he loveth, that whenſoever he ſeeth it, he may remember his benefit and love. Should Chriſt have left himſelf for a token and a remembrance of himſelf?
The ſame Hierom againſt Jovinian, (l)In typo ſanguinis ſui non obtulit aquam ſed vinum.The Lord did not offer water but wine for a type of his blood.
Chryſoſtom upon Matthew in the eighty third Homily,(m)foreign. If Jeſus died not, of what is this celebration a ſymbol and ſign? Seeſt thou how carefull he was that we ſhould alwayes remember that he died for us?
Procopius Gazaeus upon Gen. 49.(n)Dedit ſui corporis imaginem vel effigiem aut typum diſcipulis, haud amplius admittens & acceptans Legis cruenta ſacrificia. He gave to his Diſciples, the image, or likeneſs, or type of his body, receiving no more the bloody ſacrifices of the Law.
Suidas upon the word foreign,(o)foreign. The Church makes an offering of the ſigns of the body and blood of Chriſt.
Auſtin is beyond all the Fathers in evidence upon this ſubject. To him therefore I reſerve a chapter by himſelf.