The Novelty of Popery Opposed to the Antiquity of True Christianity, Book 7 · Controversy 11 · Chapter 8
CHAP. VIII. Some paſſages of Auſtin, wherein he teacheth that Chriſts words, This is my body, and Except you eat my fleſh, &c. are figurative. The Cardinals anſwers are examined.
AƲſtin (a)Si praeceptiva locutio eſt aut ſlagitium aut facinus vetans, aut utilitatem aut beneficentiam jubens, non eſt figurata. Si autem ſlagitiū aut facinus videtur jubere, aut utilitatem aut beneficentiam vetare, figurata eſt. Niſi manducaveritis, inquit, carnem filii hominis & ſanguinem biberitis, non habebitis vitam in vobis, facinus vel flagitium videtur jubere. Figura eſt ergo praecipiens paſſioni Dominicae eſſe communicandum, & ſuaeviter atque utiliter recondendum in memoria quod pro nobis caro ejus crucifixa & vulnerata ſit.in the third book of Chriſtian doctrine, ch. 15. having ſaid that the precepts of Gods Word which command to do a good work, or forbid to do a wicked work, muſt not be figuratively underſtood; And thoſe precepts which ſeem to command an evil work, or forbid a good work, are figures, and that the words muſt be figuratively underſtood; brings for example the commandment of eating the Lords fleſh and drinking his blood: theſe are his own words; Except you eat (ſaith Chriſt) the fleſh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you have no life in you. He ſeems to command a crime or a wicked act. It is then a figure, commanding to communicate to the Lords paſſion, and to lay in our memory ſweetly and profitably that his fleſh was crucified and wounded for us.
The Cardinal made a great book purpoſely upon the teſtimonies which we alledge out of Auſtin, where he ſpends forty eight long pages about the expoſition of this laſt paſſage. Before he enters upon the matter; he makes a little pedantical exord out of Virgil, Nunc animis opus Aenea, nunc pectore firmo, as having a hard combat to atchieve.
His diſcourſe is both long and intricate, and needs an Oedipus to unriddle it. But in that long diſcourſe he anſwers not the two things wherein lyeth the whole ſtrength of that place. The one is that Auſtin expounding theſe words, Except you eat my fleſh, &c. ſaith not only that theſe words are typical, but alſo declareth very expreſly that in that text by eating the fleſh of the Lord and drinking his blood we muſt underſtand communicating unto the death of Chriſt, remembring with pleaſure and profit that Chriſt was crucified for us. An expoſition which neither he nor the Roman Church approveth. For when we ſay to our adverſaries, Since Auſtin tells us that theſe words are figurative, expound us that figure, and expreſs it in plain words; their anſwer is that the figure lyeth in that the fleſh of Chriſt is not eaten groſſely and viſibly by bits, like fleſh of the ſhambles, but that it is taken whole in a miraculous way under the ſpecies of bread. But that is not Auſtins expoſition, who will have the figure to conſiſt in this, that eating the fleſh of Chriſt ſignifieth a mans meditating in his memory the Lords death and paſſion. If Auſtin ſpake ill by ſpeaking ſo, why doth the Cardinal trouble himſelf to excuſe him? and if he ſpake well, why are we blamed for ſpeaking as he did?
The other thing that we obſerve in Auſtins words is that the expoſition which our adverſaries give to it, tends to eſtabliſh the real manducation which is done with the mouth in the Sacrament. But Auſtin in this paſſage would take us off from all oral manducation, and keeps us altogether to that which is done with the heart and by the memory and meditation of his death.
To which add that Auſtin holds that theſe words, Except you eat the fleſh of the Son of man, you have no life in you, taken litterally, enjoyn a wicked act. Now there is no leſſe wickedneſſe in ſwallowing a whole mans fleſh then in eating it bit after bit. For either way, it is devouring Jeſus Chriſt; which thought Auſtin would put far from us, putting inſtead of it, not the ſacramental manducation, but the ſerious and profitable meditation of our Saviours paſſion.
If the expoſition which our adverſaries give to that figure be conſidered, it will be found that they acknowledge no figure at all; for to eat Chriſt in the Hoſt, according to their belief, is a real, not a typical manducation.
Let the pious Reader ſadly conſider what will become in the end of Chriſtian Religion, ſeeing that the Word of God is removed from the people, and the people ſent back to the reading of the Fathers where they underſtand nothing; and that they which probably might get ſome intelligence in them, are kept back from it, being diſcouraged and confounded by the infinite length and labour, ſince upon one only place of a Father a whole book is made. If the deciſion of our differences lyeth upon that iſſue, when ſhall we have done examining ſome twenty thouſand paſſages of the Fathers alledged on both ſides? And if we ſtand to the Cardinals expoſitions, they ſhall be found a hundred times more obſcure then the text of the Fathers which he takes in hand to expound. Oh wretched men that caſt themſelves purpoſely into a darkneſſe without end, and into a maze of uncertainty, to avoid the clarity, certainty, and brevity of the Word of God!
Fulbertus Carnutenſis (b)Fol. 168. Figura eſt ergo (dicet haereticus) praecipiens, &c. Petavius upon Epiphanius ſaith that theſe words [dicit haereticus] are not found in his manuſcript.in his Sermon againſt the Jews, takes a ſhorter way, and makes this place of Auſtin advantagious to the Roman Church, by the addition of two words, alledging thus St. Auſtin; Except you eat the fleſh of the ſon of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; It is then a figure [will the heretick ſay] commanding, &c. Our Cardinal made conſcience to follow him in that depravation. But he followed his example in the following paſſage.
Auſtin in the 12. ch. of the book againſt Adimantus ſpeaks thus,(c)Non enim Deus dubitavit dicere Hoc eſt corpus meum, cum ſignum daret corporis ſui. The Lord made no difficulty to ſay, This is my body, when he gave the ſign of his body. Other Advocates of Tranſubſtantiation anſwer, that the Roman Church denieth not that in the Euchariſt we receive the ſign of the Lords body; but they ſay that it is a ſign joyned with the truth. But that anſwer cannot ſubſiſt: For Auſtin ſaith not only that Chriſt gave the ſign of his body, but teacheth alſo how theſe words, This is my body, muſt be underſtood. Auſtin declareth that the Lord by his body underſtood the ſign of his body. An Expoſition eſteemed heretical by the Roman Church, and for that we ſuſtain ſo much hatred.
Cardinal du Perron not able to bear the ſtrength of that reaſon, hath recourſe to his boldneſs in depraving, and doth like Fulbert in the forealledged place. For he puts in theſe words of his own according to you, which turn this clauſe into a contrary ſenſe, making Auſtin to ſay, The Lord made no difficulty to ſay this is my body, when he gave, according to you, the ſign of his body; as if Auſtin ſpake according to the ſenſe of the Manicheans.
Had we uſed the fourth part of that licence, we ſhould be called Forgers, Atheiſts, Ʋngodly, impudent; for theſe are the flowers of their ordinary oratory. But for my part, that I may ſpare this Prelats memory, I will impute this fault to extremity of grief and deſpondency to ſee his game go againſt him.
I maintain that it is moſt falſe that Auſtin ſpake according to the ſenſe of the Manicheans, and affirm that the ſenſe which he puts upon Auſtins words, is contrary to his intention, which I muſt open to the Reader.
The Manicheans affirmed that there was two Gods, the one good, the other evil; and ſaid that the evil god was author of the Law, and the good, author of the Goſpel. To make good their opinion, they laboured to make the Law to juſtle againſt the Goſpel, and to find contrariety between them. Among other contrarieties they marked this, that the Law ſaid that the ſoul is in the blood, and therefore forbade eating of blood, ſaying Deut. 12.23. Be ſure that thou eat not the blood, for the blood is the life. To this they oppoſed this ſentence of the Goſpel, Matth. 10.28. that none is able to kill the ſoul, although it be certain that men can ſhed and diſperſe the blood. Auſtin anſwereth two things to that objection. That either when the Law ſaith that the blood is the ſoul, it ſpeaks only of the blood of beaſts, or that it is a typical locution, which according to the cuſtom of Scripture, attributes unto the ſign the name of the thing ſignified; in the ſame manner as Chriſt ſaid This is my body, when he gave the ſign of his body. And in the ſame manner as the Apoſtle ſaid that the ſtone was Chriſt, becauſe it was a ſign or figure of Chriſt. Theſe are the very words of Auſtin, (d)Nam ex eo quod ſcriptum eſt ſanguinem pecoris animam ejus eſſe, praeter id quod ſapra dixi non ad me pertinere quid agatur de pecoris anima, poſſum etiam interpretari praeceptum illud in ſigno eſſe poſitum; Non enim Dominus dubitavit dicere Hoc eſt corpus meum, cum fignum daret … oris ſui.As for that which is written that the blood of the beaſts is the ſoul of the ſame; beſides what I ſaid already, that I care not what becomes of the ſoul of a beaſt, I may alſo expound that this command [which forbids eating of blood, becauſe the blood is the ſoul] is put in ſign; [that is, becauſe the blood is the ſign of the ſoul] For the Lord alſo made no difficulty to ſay, This is my body, when he gave the ſign of his body. And to confirm that expoſition, he adds in the ſame chapter that other example, The ſtone was Chriſt, of which words he ſaith that the ſenſe is, The ſtone ſignified Chriſt. St. Auſtin will have theſe locutions, The blood is the ſoul, and This is my body, and The ſtone was Chriſt, to be alike; and he teacheth that the name of things ſignified in theſe expreſſes is given unto the ſignes. For he addeth in the ſame chapter,(e)Illud quod Lex dicit, &c. quia ſanguis eſt anima, eſſe poſitum dicimus, ſicut alia multa; et pene omnia ſcripturarum illarum ſacramenta ſignis et figuris plena ſunt futurae praedicationis quae jam per Dominum noſtrum Jeſu declarata eſt, Sic eſt enim ſanguis anima quomodo petra erat Chriſtus, ſicut dicit Apoſtolus, Bibebant de ſpirituali ſequente eos petra; Petra autem erat Chriſtus. Notū eſt autem filios Iſrael petra percuſſa bibiſſe aquam in eremo; de quibus loquebatur Apoſtolus cum haec diceret, nec tamen ait, Petra ſignificabat Chriſtum, ſed ait, Petra erat Chriſtus. That which the Law ſaith that the blood muſt not be ſpilt, but eaten becauſe the blood is the ſoul, we ſay that it is put as many other things; and almoſt all the Sacraments of theſe Scriptures are full of ſigns and figures of the future preaching which now is declared by our Lord Jeſus. For ſo is blood the ſoul, as the ſtone was Chriſt, as the Apoſtle ſaith, They drunk of the spiritual ſtone that followed them, and the ſtone was Chriſt. Now it is known that the children of Iſrael, the ſtone being ſmitten, drunk water in the wilderneſs; of whom the Apoſtle spake when he ſaid theſe things: and yet he ſaid not the ſtone ſignified Chriſt, but this ſtone was Chriſt.
Let us apply theſe laſt words to the ſubject in hand, ſince Auſtin joyneth theſe examples; and let us ſay that the Lord ſaith not This ſignifieth my body, but, This is my body; in the ſame manner as the Apoſtle ſaid not This ſtone ſignifieth Chriſt, but This ſtone is Chriſt; For (ſaith Auſtin) the Scriptures are full of ſuch figures. Will the Cardinal have that to be the language of the Manicheans? And ſince Auſtin ſaith that in theſe words, the ſtone was Chriſt, the ſign is named with the name of the thing ſignified; why ſhall we not ſay the ſame of theſe words, This is my body, ſince theſe two examples are ſet together by Auſtin, and that the one ſerveth to clear the other?
To make the abuſe extream, the Cardinal by this addition, according to you, chargeth Auſtin of calumny. For it was not the belief of the Manicheans that the bread of the Euchariſt was the ſign of the body of Chriſt. The Cardinal himſelf ſaith ſo much(f)Ch. 6. of his book of the paſſages of St. Auſtin p. 38. unwittingly, when he ſaith that the Manicheans believed that Chriſt had no true body. For how could thoſe that deny the truth of Chriſts body, believe that bread in the Euchariſt was a ſign of a thing that is not? And if Auſtin ſpake according to the opinion of the Manicheans when he expounded Chriſts words This is my body, by theſe, This is the ſign of my body; we muſt ſay alſo that the ſtone was Chriſt, becauſe according to the opinion of the Manicheans, not according to truth, it ſignified Chriſt. For Auſtin ſets theſe two texts together as much alike.
To this notable text we joyn another more expreſſe yet, out of the 23. Epiſtle to Boniface. Auſtin labours to ſhew to Boniface that Baptiſm may be called ſaith, becauſe it is the Sacrament or ſacred ſign of faith, according as the ſigns uſe to take the name of things ſignified. Among other examples he brings the Lords Supper which is called the ſacrifice of Chriſt, although it was but the ſign and commemoration of the ſame, It being certain that Chriſt was never ſacrificed but once. In the ſame manner as the Lords day is called the day of the Lords reſurrection, as if he did riſe again every Lords day, becauſe upon that day the memory of Chriſts reſurrection is celebrated; and in the ſame manner as the ſign of the ſacred body of Chriſt is in ſome reſpect the body of Chriſt, being ſo called becauſe of the reſemblance or repreſentation. Theſe are then the very words of that good Doctor, whereby he proveth that Baptiſm may be called Faith, becauſe it is the Sacrament or Sacred ſign of Faith.
(g)Saepe ita loquimur ut Paſcha propinquante dicamus craſtinam vel perendinam eſſe Domini paſſionem, cum ille ante annos multos paſſus ſit. Nempe ipſo die Dominico dicimus, Hodie Dominus reſurrexit, cum ex quo reſurrexit tot anni tranſierint. Cur nemo tam ineptus eſt ut nos ita loquentes arguat eſſe mentitos, niſi quia iſtos dies ſecundum illorum quibus haec geſta ſunt ſimilitudinem nuncupamus, ut dicatur ipſe dies qui non eſt ipſe, ſed revolutione temporis ſimilis ejus, & dicatur illo die fieri propter ſacramenti celebrationem quod non illo die ſed jam olim factum eſt? Nonne ſemel immolatus eſt Chriſtus in ſemet ipſo? & tamen in Sacramento, non ſolum per omnes Paſchae ſolennitates, ſed omni die populo immolatur. Nec uti que mentitur qui interrogatus eum reſponderit immolari. Si enim Sacramenta quandam ſimilitudinem earam rerum quarum ſunt Sacramenta non haberent, omnino Sacramenta non eſſent. Ex hac autem ſimilitudine plerun que ipſarum rerum nomina accipiunt. Sicut ergo ſecundum quendam modum Sacramentum corporis Chriſti corpus Chriſti eſt; Sacramentum ſanguinis Chriſti, ſanguis Chriſti eſt, ita Sacramentum fidei fides eſt.We often speak in this manner; When Eaſter draweth nigh, we ſay that to morrow or the next day is the Lords paſſion, whereas he ſuffered many years before. Thus upon the Lords day we ſay, this day the Lord roſe again, although ſo many years paſt ſince he roſe again. Why is none ſo ſilly as to tax us of untruth when we speak ſo, but becauſe we call theſe dayes after the likeneſs of thoſe dayes in which theſe things were done? ſo that this day is ſaid to be the ſame day which is not the ſame, but the like by revolution of time; and by reaſon of the celebration of the Sacrament that thing is ſaid to be done that day which was not done that day, but was done a long time before? Was not Chriſt once ſacrificed in himſelf? and yet he is ſacrifice in the Sacrament, not only in all the Eaſter-ſolemnities unto the people, but every day. Neither doth that man lye, who, being asked, anſwereth that he is ſacrificed. For if Sacraments had not ſome reſemblance with thoſe things of which they are Sacraments, they ſhould not be Sacraments at all. And from that likeneſs commonly they receive the name of the things themſelves. As then the Sacrament of the body of Chriſt is in ſome ſort the body of Chriſt, and the Sacrament of the blood of Chriſt the blood of Chriſt, likewiſe the Sacrament of faith (that is baptiſm) is faith.
We have ſeen before that Auſtin told us in many places that this word Sacrament is as much as a Sacred ſign; ſo that the true expoſition of theſe words, Sacramenta plerunque ex hac ſimilitudine ipſarum rerum nomina accipiunt, is this, The ſacred ſignes m…re often by reaſon of that reſemblance take the name of the things themſelves. And theſe words, ſecundum quendam modum Sacramentum corporis Chriſti corpus Chriſti eſt, muſt be thus tranſlated, The ſacred ſign of the body of Chriſt is in ſome ſort the body of Chriſt. Now to make us underſtand in what ſort the Sacrament of Chriſts body is the body of Chriſt, he giveth many examples, namely that it is as every year two dayes before Eaſter they ſay, This day is the paſſion of the Lord; and as every Lords day is the day of Chriſts reſurrection; And as the Baptiſm is Faith. In which expreſſes he ſaith that the Sacraments are named with the name of the thing ſignified.
(h)In his 2. book of the Euchariſt againſt du Pleſſis in the 22. Authority, ch. 3.The Cardinal in a long perplexed diſcourſe ſaith very little. This is the ſummary, That the Sacrament hath two relations with the body of Chriſt. The one as he is dead under the formal object of immolation. The other as he is glorious under the formal object of manducation. And that in the firſt respect the Sacrament is not that which it repreſenteth, but only in the ſecond; and that Auſtin ſpeaks in the alledged place, of the Sacrament in the firſt respect only.
By theſe words the Cardinal manifeſteth his opinion which he declared in the Convocation of the Clergy held in the Convent of the Dominicans of Paris, in a full audience:(i)Of this we ſpake before in the Controverſie of the Sacrifice. namely that Chriſt is not really ſacrificed in the Euchariſt. He tells us then that theſe words Chriſt is ſacrificed in the Maſs, ſignifie nothing elſe, but that the ſacrifice of Chriſt is repreſented in the ſame; and that the ſign (as Auſtin ſaith here) takes the name of the thing ſignified. But as for the real preſence of the body of Chriſt, and the manducation, he denyeth that Auſtins ſentence can be applied to it: But Auſtin holds him too faſt to let him ſcape thus: For he ſaith not only that in the Sacrament the body of Chriſt is in ſome ſort immolated or ſacrificed; But he ſaith that the Sacrament of Chriſts body is in ſome ſort the body of Chriſt, namely in as much as the ſigns take the names of things ſignified. And the examples which Auſtin brings, exclude altogether the real preſence of Chriſt in the Sacrament; For Chriſt dyeth not every year two dayes before Eaſter, and riſeth not really from the dead every Lords day, but only in ſign and commemoration; And Baptiſm is not really Faith, but is the ſign of Faith.
In all theſe examples Auſtin ſheweth how the ſigns are named with the name of things ſignified, which are not preſent, and are not really done. Had not St. Auſtin been out of his right ſenſe, if having ſaid that infants which have no Faith, yet have it in ſome ſort becauſe they have received the ſign of Faith, which ſign according to the cuſtom of Scripture may be called with the name of the thing ſignified; if I ſay, having ſaid that, he had proved it with a clean contrary example, namely by the example of the Euchariſt where Chriſt is really preſent, according to the opinion of our adverſaries? Would he have brought that example, the Sacrament is the body of Chriſt, for an inſtance of a figure like to this, Baptiſm is Faith, if the Sacrament were the body of Chriſt truly and without figure? This then remaineth firm by Auſtins words, that the ſign of Faith is Faith, as the Sacrament of Chriſts body is called Chriſts body.
I paſſe by the Cardinals errour, how he believeth that the body of Chriſt in the Euchariſt is ſet forth as living and glorious: For the Apoſtle will have us to eat this bread, and drink this cup, to announce the Lords death till he come, 1 Cor. 11.26. And Chriſt giving the bread and the cup, ſaid, This is my body which is broken for you, and this cup is the New Teſtament in my blood which is ſhed for you. He would then have us to receive his body as broken and as dying for us, and his blood as ſhed. Is it not non-ſenſe to ſay, that in the Maſſe Chriſt is ſacrificed as dead, and yet eaten as glorious and riſen again, ſeeing that he was not yet glorious when he gave the Sacrament to his Diſciples to eat?
All theſe reaſons ſerve alſo to confute thoſe who by the Sacrament of Chriſts body underſtood the ſpecies or accidents. For theſe examples of Baptiſm, of the Lords day, and of the day of his paſſion, exclude the preſence of things ſignified. Neither did Auſtin know accidents without a ſubject. It is a new doctrine of which we ſhall ſpeak hereafter.
We muſt not leave out what the ſame Father ſaith upon the third Pſalm, (k)In Pſ. 3. initio. In hiſtoria Novi Teſtamenti ipſa Domini noſtri tanta & tam miranda patientia quod cum tamdiu pertulit tanquam bonum, cum ejus cogitationes non ignoraret cum adhibuit ad convivium in quo corporis & ſanguinis ſui figuram diſcipulis commendavit & tradidit.So great was the patience of our Lord and ſo admirable, that he ſuffered Judas ſo long as a good man, although he was not ignorant of his thoughts when he admitted him to the banquet in which he recommended and delivered unto his Diſciples the figure of his body and blood. Had Auſtin believed Tranſubſtantiation, he would have ſaid rather that Chriſt had received Judas to the banquet in which he really gave his own body. For the end of Auſtin in this ſentence is to praiſe the Lords goodneſſe and patience, which he would have far more exalted if he could have ſaid that he had given to Judas his own body, then by ſaying that he had given him the figure of his body.
The Roman decree in the ſecond diſtinction of the Conſecration in the Canon Hoc eſt brings a ſentence, as from Auſtin, which we alledged before. We will but obſerve now how the Cardinal abuſeth it. The ſentence is this,(l)Ex lib. Sentent. Proſperi. Sicut ergo coeleſtis panis qui Chriſti caro eſt, ſuo modo vocatur corpus Chriſti, cum ro vera ſic ſacramentum corporis Chriſti, illius videlicet quod viſibile, quod palpabile, quod mortale in cruce poſitùm eſt; Vocaturque ipſa immolatio carnis, que ſacerdotis manibus fit, Chriſti paſſio, mors, crucifixio; non rei veritate ſed ſignificante myſterio. As then the heavenly bread which is the fleſh of Chriſt, is, in its manner, called the body of Chriſt, whereas indeed it is the ſacred ſign of the body of Chriſt, which being viſible, palpable and mortal, was ſet on the Croſs; and that immolation which is done by the hands of the Prieſt is called the paſſion, death, and crucifying of Chriſt, not according to the truth of the thing but by a ſignifying myſtery. Our Cardinal hath beheaded that text, taking away the firſt word as, that the connexion and dependence of the text may not be known, and that it may not be ſeen how the Author ſaith of the Sacrament of the body of Chriſt, that it is not the body of Chriſt according to the truth of the thing, but in ſignifying myſtery, as the ſacrifice of the Euchariſt is not the ſacrifice of Chriſt in truth but in ſignification.
Let the Cardinal wreſt and clip that notable paſſage as much as he will, yet all his Gloſſes ſhall never have that authority in the Roman Church which thoſe Doctors have which were the Gloſſaries of the decree, who put this Gloſſe in the margent,(m)Coeleſte Sacramentum quod vere repraeſentat Chriſti carnem, dicitur corpus Chriſti, ſed improprie. Unde dicitur, ſuo modo, ſed non rei veritate, ſed ſignificante myſterio. Ut ſit ſenſus, vocatur Chriſti corpus, id eſt ſignificatur. The heavenly Sacrament which truly repreſents the fleſh of Chriſt, is called the body of Chriſt, but improperly; wherefore it is ſaid ſuo modo, in its manner, not according to the truth of the thing, but by a ſignificant myſtery. So that the ſenſe of theſe words is, It is called the body of Chriſt, that is, it is ſignified. To this Gloſſe the Cardinal anſwers nothing: Only he labours to make the place ſuſpected, contradicting the Roman decree and the Doctors that Gloſſed it, and Lombard and all the Schoolmen who attribute this text to Auſtin.
To end his Chapter gallantly(n)In his book of the paſſages of Auſtin, ch. 8. he ſhuts it up with theſe verſes of Virgil of the ſecond of the Aeneids, Accipe nunc Danaum inſidias, & crimine ab uno Diſce omnes.
Which he tranſlateth much to this purpoſe,
(o)The Cardinals French verſes are theſe. Voy maintenant des Grees l'embuſche et l'impoſture, Et d'un crime expoſe tous leurs tours conjecture.See now the Grecians baſe inſidious wile,
And in one crime the ſtamp of all their guile.
This Prelat ignorant in the good letters, did not know that crimen in this place of Virgil ſignifies not a crime, but a wicked man. Which appears by the adjective maſculin which Virgil addeth; Et crimine ab uno diſce omnes. As in the Andria of Terence, Ʋbi eſt iſte ſcelus qui me perdidit. But let us return to Auſtin.
Beda upon 1 Cor. 10. alledgeth this teſtimony of Auſtin taken out of the Sermon to the newly baptized.(p)Quod ergo vidiſtis panis eſt et calix, quod vobis etiam oculi veſtri renuntiant. Quod autem fides veſtra poſtulat inſtruenda, panis eſt corpus Chriſti, calix ſanguis. Id. ibid. Quomodo eſt panis corpus ejus et calix? vel quid habet calix quomodo eſt ſanguis ejus? Iſta (fratres) ideo ſacramenta dicuntur quia in eis aliud videtur, aliud intelligitur. Quod videtur ſpeciem habet corporalem. Quod intelligitur fructum habet spiritualem. Corpus ergo Chriſti ſi vis intelligere, Apoſtolum audi dicentem fidelibus, Vos eſtis corpus Chriſti et membra. This then which you have ſeen, is bread and a cup, as alſo your eyes relate it unto you. But that which your faith (which muſt be inſtructed) demands, the bread is the body of Chriſt, and cup his blood. Then he declareth how the bread is the body of Chriſt. How is (ſaith he) the bread his body and the cup or that which is in the cup his blood? Theſe things (my brethren) are therefore called ſacred ſigns, becauſe in them we ſee one thing, and underſtand another. That which we ſee, hath a bodily likeneſs or ſhew; but that which we underſtand, hath a ſpiritual fruit. If then thou wilt underſtand what the body of Chriſt is, hear the Apoſtle ſaying to the believers, You are the body of Chriſt and his members.
Among many things conſiderable in this paſſage, three are eſpecially ſo; The one that Auſtin will have us to believe the relation of our eyes which ſhew that it is bread. The ſecond that he is ſo far from believing tranſubſtantiation that he chuſeth rather in theſe words, This is my body, to underſtand by the body of Chriſt the believers, that is the Church, then to imagine any tranſubſtantiation of bread into the Lords body. The third, that to the corporal ſhew he oppoſeth not the body of Chriſt inviſibly preſent, but the Spiritual grace. According to our adverſaries he ought to have ſaid, That which is ſeen is the ſpecies of bread; but that which is inviſible and hid under the ſpecies, is the body of Chriſt really preſent.
The Cardinal deals here prudently; for becauſe this paſſage is a fragment remaining of a loſt Sermon; It will be time enough (ſaith he) to anſwer when our adverſaries have recovered the book where Auſtin ſpeaks that language. And he gives this reaſon for it; Becauſe (ſaith he) all the ſtrength they can raiſe out of this, depends from the immediate connexion of periods. And he ſaith that Beda doth not alwayes exactly relate Auſtins words. But Fulgentius a Diſciple of Auſtin, hath preſerved that Sermon to poſterity. For it is found whole in the Treatiſe of Fulgentius of the Baptiſm of an Ethiopian dying. Which book the Cardinal having not ſeen, he is excuſable that he would not truſt Beda.
Such was the belief of this good Doctor, with whom, all things being conſidered, none of the Fathers whoſe writings we have, is to be compared. A man whoſe learning was joyned with a ſingular holineſſe of life, and ſweetneſſe of converſation. It ſeemeth that this good ſervant of God foreſaw the abuſe which the poſteriour ages brought forth, and to which the Hyperbolical Allegories of ſome Doctors of his time tending to elevate the peoples devotion, hath given occaſion contrary to their mind. This is known in that Auſtin ſpeaks more often and more clearly of this matter then any before him. Alſo in that whereas he beſtowed two long Treatiſes to expound our Saviours words, Joh. 6. where it is ſpoken of the manducation of Chriſts fleſh, in thoſe two Treatiſes there is not one word of the real manducation of Chriſts fleſh with the mouth, but he referreth all to the ſpiritual manducation by faith, and to the union of the faithful in one body. The ſame may be known in that having ſaid in the firſt Sermon upon the 33. Pſ. that in the Lords Supper,(q)Ferebatur Chriſtus in manibus ſuis quando commendans ipſū corpus ſuum ait, hoc eſt corpus meum. Ferebat enim iſtud corpus in manibus ſuis; iſta eſt humilitas domini noſtri. Chriſt bore himſelf in his own hands, leaſt that any ſhould abuſe that expreſſion to groſſe thoughts, he ſaith in the following Sermon,(r)Quomodo ferebatur in manibus ſuis, quia cum commendaret ipſum corpus ſuum & ſanguinem ſuum, accepit in manus ſuas quod noruut fideles, & ipſe ſe portabat quodammodo cum diceret hoc eſt corpus meum. That Chriſt carried himſelf in ſome ſort in his hands when he ſaid, This is my body. Which relates to the forealledged words of the ſame Auſtin, who ſpeaking of the bread of the Lords Supper, ſaid, that it is the body of Chriſt in its manner, although indeed it is the ſacred ſign of his body. Theſe words, in ſome ſort, are never imployed but to bring ſome exception and diſtinction, when a thing being affirmed abſolutely and without reſtriction, ſhould be falſe. So we ſay that a man is learned in ſome ſort, when he is not univerſally learned. And that the nature of the Son of God was mortal in ſome ſort, that is, the humane nature only, not the divine. But when it is queſtion of the whole and real preſence of a body, that reſtriction hath no place. It cannot be ſaid that the brains of a living man is in his head in ſome ſort. One cannot tell that the body of Chriſt crucified was in the Croſſe in ſome ſort, or that it is now in heaven in ſome ſort. But if Chriſt crucified is repreſented in a picture, it may be ſaid that he is crucified there in ſome ſort. Thus in the Euchariſt he is preſent in ſome ſort, that is Sacramentally, and according as ſigns take the names of things ſignified. But if he was preſent in it really and whole, it were abſurdly ſpoken to ſay that he is preſent in it in ſome ſort. And whoſoever ſaith that the Lords body is really preſent in the Euchariſt in ſome ſort, ſaith alſo by conſequent that it is abſent from it in ſome ſort.