The Novelty of Popery Opposed to the Antiquity of True Christianity, Book 7 · Controversy 11 · Chapter 9
CHAP. IX. Examination of Cardinal du Perrons anſwer, whereby he endeavours to give reaſons why the Fathers call the Bread and Wine of the Lords Supper ſigns, figures, types, and ſymbols of the body and blood of Chriſt, even after the Conſecration.
THE Cardinal finding himſelf bepelted with a hail of teſtimonies of Fathers which call that which is received in the Sacrament, ſigns, and figures, and types, even after the Conſecration, ſeeks to take ſhelter under a dark diſtinction which he hath borrowed from others.(a)In his 2. book of the Euchariſt againſt M. du Pleſſis, in the ch. where he treats of Theodoret, the ſame things he ſaith in the 4. book againſt King James, ch. 4. p. 871, & 872. Theſe are his words: There are (ſaith he) two ſorts of ſigns; ſome inſtituted to ſupply the defect of preſence, as the Paſchal lamb, Manna, the ſtone of the deſart, the ſhew-bread, the brazen ſerpent; Some inſtituted to ſupply the defect of appearance, and to be forms and viſible clothings for things which by their own eſſence could appear and make themſelves viſible, as the ſpecies of the flame in the buſh, and of the dove in Chriſts Baptiſm, the ſerpent tempted Eve in the earthly Paradiſe, the humane forms which Angels put on. Now the ſigns inſtituted to ſupply the defect of appearance are not excluſive, but on the contrary incluſive and connotative of the reality. In another place to prove that, he alledgeth(b)Ibid. p. 472. where he miſtakes Pope Hilary for Paſchaſius in the book De corpore Dei, cap. 4. Pope Hilary, and Alger, and Eutychius, who ſay that the body of Chriſt which is taken upon the Altar, is both truth and figure. For want of antient authors he brings new ones, and ſuch as are not receivable; for the antients do not ſpeak ſo.
I do freely acknowledge thoſe two ſorts of ſigns, and know that there are ſigns which ſignifie a preſent thing: But in ſuch ſigns two things ſhall be found; the one that they are true ſigns, not falſe ſhews; the other that they are ſigns of things of an inviſible nature. For to give a falſe ſhew for a ſign, and to be a ſign of a thing preſent and of a viſible nature, it is a meer illuſion and a ſuperlative abſurdity. This is ſeen by the examples which the Cardinal brings; For the flame in the buſh was a true flame, and a ſign of Gods preſence which is inviſible: duplicate page duplicate page And the dove which he ſpeaks of, was a true dove, and was the ſign of a thing of an inviſible nature, which was the Holy Ghoſt. But in the Euchariſt the Cardinal forgeth imaginary things, bread which ſeems to be bread and is not, and yet is ſign of a thing preſent and of a viſible nature. All ſigns ſerve to ſignifie, and are helps to know. But here they forge us ſigns, even the accidents of bread and wine, which hinder to ſee that which they ſignifie; which ſignifie Chriſt, and hide the ſight of Chriſt. They are not then helps but hinderances to knowledge: As if a cheſt where a thief hath hidden ſtollen money, were called a ſign or a figure of that money.
But the chief conſideration is that the ſtrength of thoſe places of Fathers that call that which is received in the Euchariſt ſigns and figures even after the conſecration, lyeth not in that they call thoſe things ſigns and figures, but in that they will have the word my body to be interpreted the ſign of my body; Note.an interpretation which the Roman Church abhorreth. Alſo in that they oppoſe the ſign to the truth, and from their being ſigns gather that they are not really the Lords body. For we have alledged multitude of paſſages of the Fathers which affirm that the Lord ſaying, This is my body, gave to the ſign the name of his body, and honoured the viſible ſignes with the name of his body. And that theſe words Except you eat the fleſh of the Son of man, &c. are typical words, which ſignifie that we muſt ruminate in our memory, and profitably meditate that Chriſt dyed for us; and that theſe things are ſigns, and not the truth: That the Lord ſaying This is my body, gave the ſign of his body; that we eat not the body which was crucified for us, but that it is a Sacred ſign which is recommended to us; That the Sacrament of Chriſts body is Chriſts body, according as the Sacraments are named by the name of that they ſignifie; in the ſame manner as every Lords day is the day of Chriſts reſurrection, and baptiſm is called faith becauſe it is the ſign of faith. And that the Sacrament is called the Lords body after its manner, but that to ſpeak truly it is the Sacred ſign of Chriſts body which was crucified. All that is full of weight and clarity; and to all that no anſwer is given.
And though the Fathers ſaid no more but that the thing received in the Sacrament is a ſign or figure, is not that a ſufficient proof againſt the real preſence of the Lords body under the accidents of bread? For how many paſſages did we produce wherein they ſpeak of the ſigns of Chriſts body without ſpeaking at all of the preſence of the natural body of Chriſt under theſe ſigns? When the Fathers exalt the excellency of the Euchariſt, is it credible that they ſpeak only of that which is leſſe worthy in the Euchariſt, namely of the ſigns of Chriſts body, and leave out that wherein our adverſaries place the excellency of the Euchariſt, namely the real preſence of the Lords body? Would they have given thanks to God in the publick ſervice for eſtabliſhing in his Church the ſigns and antitypes of Chriſts body without ſpeaking of the real preſence of Chriſts body under theſe ſigns? Had not that been an ungrateful thankſgiving, and rather a forgetfulneſſe then a remembrance? As if one having received the gift of a horſe or a ſword, gave thanks for the bridle or the ſcabbard, not for the horſe or the ſword. Certainly whoſoever will commend the excellency of a thing, will fix upon that which is moſt commendable and moſt excellent.
I add that whoſoever ſpeaks of the Sacrament of Chriſts body, ſaith manifeſtly that the Sacrament is not Chriſts body. And who ſo affirmeth that in theſe words, This is my body, the name of the thing ſignified is given to the ſign, ſaith not that the ſign is with the body, but will have it underſtood, that This is my body, ſignifieth, This is the ſign of my body.
The premiſes afford an anſwer to that which the Cardinal addeth; Could not David (ſaith he) after he had attained to the Crown, repreſent upon a ſtage, and in a diſguiſed habit and face, the combat which he had performed againſt Goliah, and be by that means, though in diverſe reſpects, both the ſign and the ſignified thing? May not then Chriſt who is the Evangelical David, repreſent in the Euchariſt under the commemorative ſpecies of his paſſion the combat which he had on the Croſs againſt the allegorical Gyant of the Chriſtians?
This Prelat ought to have reſerved his eloquence for another Subject that had ſome ſhew of reaſon. In one point he deſerveth to be applauded, for comparing that which is done in the Maſſe unto a play acted by a diſguiſed man; and I would not be he that ſhould contradict him. But he is ſhort of reaſon when he thinks that David acting thus his combat upon a ſtage, ſhould be a ſign of himſelf. Only his preſent action ſhould be a ſign and a repreſentation of his paſt action. And David acting thus ſhould be a true perſon; But they give us here for a ſign bread in ſhew, which is no bread indeed. Neither is it Chriſt that doth in the Maſſe that action which the Cardinal compares unto a play; It is the Prieſt that moveth, and makes the whole repreſentation.