that Protestants are not obliged to defend the Sentiment of the Greeks and that his business is to enquire what it is not how maintainable And saith elsewhere P 337. That both the Greeks and Latins are far departed from the Evangelical simplicity and the main and natural explication the Ancients have given to the Mystery of the Eucharist Here then 1. as to the later ages of the Church Protestants stand by themselves and the Reformation was made as Calvin confessed it †Epist P. Melancthoni a toto mundo 2. After such a Confession M. Claude seems not to deal sincerely in that with force enough he draws so frequently in both his Replies the sayings of the Greek writers of later times to the Protestant sense and puts his Adversary to the trouble of confuting him And from the many absurdities that he pretends would follow upon the Greek Opinion taken according to their plain expressions saith these intend only * a Presence of Christ's Body in the Eucharist as to its Vertue and Efficacy opposite to its Reality and Substance and * an Vnion of the Bread there to the Divinity only so far as the Divinity to bestow on it the Salvifical Virtue or Efficacy of Christ's Body and * a conjunction of the Bread there to Christ's natural Body born of the Blessed Virgin but to it as in Heaven not here to it as a Mystery may be said to be an Appendix or Accessary to the thing of which it is a Mystery But all this is the Protestant Opinion 3. Again seems not to deal sincerely in that whilst he affirms the modern Greeks to retain the former Doctrine of their Church as high as Damascen and the 2d Council of Nice ‖ l. 3. c. 13. p. 315. and again †l. 3. c. 13. p. 326. l. 4. c. 9 p. 488. Damascen not to have been the first that had such thoughts viz. of an Augmentation of Christs Body in the Eucharist by the Sanctified Elements as it was augmented when he here on earth by his nourishment but to have borrowed them from some Ancient Greek Fathers naming Greg. Nyssen Orat. Catechet c. 37. See this Father's words below § 321. n. 14. and Anastasius Sinait who explained their Doctrine by the same comparison as Damascen and the Greeks following him did yet doth not freely declare both these the Ancient Greeks as well as the later either to differ from or to agree with the Protestant Opinion § 4 4. Having said this That however the Greek Opinion varies from the Protestants it concerns him not Next he declares That what ever the Greeks may be proved to have held concerning some transmutation of the Bread and Wine into Christ's Body and Blood or concerning a Real or Corporal presence and their understanding Hoc est Corpus meum in a literal sense neither doth this concern his cause who undertakes only to maintain that these Churches assert not Transubstantiation at least assert it not so as to make it a positive Article of their Faith His words upon D. Arnauld's resenting it That whereas he contented himself â—nly to shew that the Real presence was received by the Oriental Schismatical Churches M. Claude diverted the Controversie to Transubstantiation His words I say are these * l. c. 1. p. 157. In the Dispute concerning the Greeks our business is only about Transubstantiation and not at all about Real presence For it was to this only and Adoration that I formerly limited my self in my last Answer But then as if this might do him some prejudice he as it were cautiously addeth Yet I would have none draw a Consequence from hence that I acknowledge a Real presence established in the Greek Church But here to make his words true he adds again in that sense as the Roman Church understands it And what sense is that surely by the way of Transubstantiation And so you see he pares his words till they say no more than just what he said before That he acknowledgeth no Real presence viz. by way of Transubstantiation established in the Greek Church And this is to say only that he acknowledgeth them not to hold Transubstantiation Next concerning the Greek their receiving or opposing Transubstantiation he hath one Hold more Ibid. It is not saith he our business to know whether the Greeks formally reject Transubstantiation Or whether they have made It an Article of Controversie between them and the Latins but only whether they comprehend it amongst their points of Faith or no Our Dispute is only concerning this matter One would think that he had been chaced very much and driven up to the wall that to preserve himself safe he makes so many outworks and contracts the Subject of his Disputation within so narrow a Compass But doth he not here for the Greek Church also thus decline and tacitly as it were yield up that to the Catholicks which they have always professed to be the main Controversie with Protestants on this Subject viz. The Real and Corporal presence of our Lord and the perpetuity of the Christian Faith as well East as West in the constant Belief of this for all the later times of the Church Catholick which consent found in the later times is the truest proof from which we may collect also the true sense of the former And from this Corporal presence once established whether a Transubstantiation be or be not necessarily follows also the lawfulness of a Soveraign Adoration which renders the Dispute concerning one of the two Points he contesteth needless and decideth it against him since an Adoration of the Mysteries practised among the Greeks he is content to allow but not Soveraign Now Real presence makes it out a Soveraign one § 5 5. His way thus far made and his cause pretended not to be concerned in that the Greeks have a different Sentiment of the Eucharist from Protestants Nor that they take Hoc est Corpus meum as also the Latins in a literal sense and hold a Real presence Nor that they do not reject the Roman Transubstantiation Or make any Controversie with the Latins about it And so all Authorities save those that press Transubstantiation being removed from giving him any trouble Next For the Greeks asserting a Transubstantiation the alledging such Testimonies as these which follow and frequently occur in their Authors will not be admitted by him as good or to the purpose That by the Consecration the Bread is changed and converted into the very the proper the True or in veritate in reipsa Body of Christ which Body also is the same with that born of the Blessed Virgin and that suffered on the Cross That the Eucharist is not a Figure or Image only of this Body but the very Body of our Lord united to his Divinity as the Body born of the Blessed Virgin was Neither are these now two but one Unum corpus unus Sanguis cum eo quod sumpsit in utero Virginis
Resp p. 514. in Answer to D. Arnauld 's Objections touching Remigius that if the Bread were made the body of Christ in its Substance it would follow that our Lord would have so many Bodies as he is united i.e. in his Divinity to different Breads this he grants notwithstanding Remigius his arguing all these Breads but one and the same Body from the same Divinity replenishing them of which more below But the Bread not being made Christ's Body save only in Vertue and in Efficacy this consequence is null because this Vertue through the whole world is one and the same For this is indivisible and is all of it entire where-ever it is Thus he And that such are his Answers and Explications of these expressions of the Greeks as I have here represented You may see in his 2d Answer part 3. c. 2. 4. His last Answer l. 3. c. 9 10. l. 4. c. 7. l. 5. c. 7. l. 6. c. 10. and frequently elsewhere § 6 Where chiefly you may observe that how punctual soever the Expressions of the Greeks are concerning the presence of Christ's very Body yet he expounds them only of the Vertue exclusive to the Substance of Christ's Body And yet this person confesseth that the Greeks hold †l. 4. c. 7. That the Bread is made the proper Body of Christ opposed to figure by the way of Augmentation of his Natural Body so as our Nourishment is made our Body And yet elsewhere more fully †l. 6. c. 10. That upon the Consecration they held an Vnion of the Bread with the Divinity of our Lord and by the Divinity an Vnion to his natural Body and that they understood that by the means of this Vnion or of this Conjunction the Bread becomes the Body of Christ and is made the same Body with it I add as our nourishment by its union to the same Soul is made the same Body with ours Now then when we say that our nourishment upon such an operation passing upon it is or is changed into or is made our Body or Flesh did he candidly here interpret our meaning who should say that we affirm only that this nourishment is our Body or Flesh in Vertue or changed into the Vertue of it exclusively to its being also made the Substance of it So doth this person deal candidly for instance when Euthymius a Greek Author that held this opinion expresseth himself thus †Comment in Mat. c. 64. Quemad-modum Jesus Christus supernaturaliter assumptam carnem deificavit Etiam Haec the Bread and Wine ineffabiliter transmutat i. e. by his united Deity in ipsum vivificum Corpus in ipsum pretiosum sanguinem suum in gratiam ipsorum Which Grace he explains presently after by this Body strengthning us as Bread doth and this Blood exhilarating and encouraging us as Wine †See Psal 103.15 I say doth he deal ingenuously to expound the here by a C ' est a dire or id est Transmutat ineffâ—biliter in ipsum Corpus in ipsum Sanguinem id est in gratiam ipsorum Making the Body a Synonyma with its Vertue Such a Synonymon saith he as that of St. Paul in 1 Tim. 4.3 They who believe and know the Truth Or 1 Tim. 6.3 Wholesom words and Doctrine of Godliness But might he not have said more aptly such a Synonymon as that in Psalm 32. Verbo Domini Caeli firmati sunt omnis virtus eorum firmati sunt Caeli id est virtus eorum Or Psalm 147. Magnus Dominus magna virtus ejus Dominus id est virtus Domini But if the Greeks mean as he saith indeed they do That the Bread by Consecration is made our Lord's proper Body though not that Numerical one born of the Virgin yet another added to it by way of Augmentation and so in some sense made the same with it viz. so as our nourishment is with ours by the Union and inhabitation of our Lord's Divinity to and in them both and lastly that by its being thus made our Lords Body it hath also the vivificating vertue of his natural Body inherent in it then I say in plain dealing this Person expounding the Expressions of the Greeks ought to have confessed their maintaining the presence in the Eucharist of this Substance of Christ's Body as well as of its Vertue this Substance I say of which they affirm that it is the same with the other crucified so far as to be united to the same Divinity and in the same person of our Lord and from this to receive the same vivificating Vertue though indeed this new Substance from that crucified numerically distinct Nor consequently ought he to impose upon the Greeks as every where he doth their holding the Bread after Consecration to remain still so entirely Bread as it was before but only the matter of it so to remain as the matter of our Nourishment doth when yet that which was Bread is now truly our Flesh and no more Bread our Flesh not by I know not what Mystical Relation to it but by a most interior Reception and Incorporation into it and dispersion through that our Substance or Flesh which was existent before Nor lastly using the same integrity ought he to have said this new Substance to have been held by the Greeks augmentative of Christ's Natural Body or also to be the same with it as the Greeks always say it is by reason of a supernatural vertue of Christ's Natural Body communicated to it as he usually explains them for one thing may have the Vertue of another without being an augmentative part of it or contracting any Identity with it But that this new Substance is held by the Greeks an accruit to our Lord 's Natural Body and the same also with it from its Vnion to the Divinity and so its change into Christ's Flesh and so its partaking also the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Graces or Vertues of it which the Greeks speak of with much reason as well as of the substance because in these we are most concern'd Thus perhaps with much less labour might this ingenious Person have comprehended in his Answers and explications of the Greek's opinion more Truth and gained from his Readers more belief And for this I appeal to any other sober Person when he shall have considered M. Claude's concessions set down below § 9. and the necessary consequences of them § 10. But this Person well saw the great prejudice he should do to his Cause in explaining these Authors in such a manner which would have made a fair way at least toward a Total Transubstantiation and therefore judged it safest to hold fast to a vertual presence Now in this way he takes many of these Expressions seem so clearly to say the contrary to what he would have them as a proof can hardly be brought against such answers that will not have as little or perhaps less evidence in it than the thing that
the Bread to the Divinity of our Lord and by the Divinity to his natural Body by means of which Vnion or Conjunction the Bread becomes the Body of Christ and made the same Body with it with his natural Body Again for preserving the literal sense That they bring the comparison of Nourishment made One with our Body and that they have invented this way of Augmentation of the natural Body of Christ It seems also That the Modern Greeks understand some real or Physical impression of the Holy Ghost and of the vivificating vertue of Jesus Christ upon the Bread with some kind of inherence i. e. of the vertue Although I will not saith he ascertain positively that this is the General Belief of their Church though the expressions seem to sway on this side But however it be this is not our opinion We believe that the Grace of the Holy Ghost and vertue of Christs Body accompanies the lawful use of the Sacrament and that we partake the Body of Jesus Christ by Faith as much or more really than if we received it in the mouth of our Body But we do not understand there this Real impression or inherence i. e. of the Supernatural Vertue of the Body of Christ ‖ See p. 338. viz. that born of the Virgin of the Greeks Whence it is that our Expressions are not so high as theirs And this Opinion of theirs he makes to be as ancient as ‖ l. 3. c. 13. p. 315. Damascen This Opinion of the Modern Greeks saith he seems to be taken from Damascen some of whose expressions I think fit to produce For it is certain that to make a good Judgment of the Opinion of the Modern Greeks we must ascend as high as him And M. Arnauld himself hath observed That John Damascen is as it were the S. Thomas of the Greeks Thus He. § 10 But lest he should seem to fasten such a gross Opinion upon the Greek Church as they will not own nor others easily believe they maintain for he confesseth that it hath something in it that appears little reasonable and especially as to the Augmentation of Christ's natural Body to be assez bizarre ‖ p. 336. and lest he should make it liable to so many odious absurdities as that a Transubstantiation which he endeavours to avoid may seem much the more plausible and eligible of the two perhaps I say for these considerations he undertakes to qualifie and render a credible and likely sense to it on this manner In saying 1. That they hold indeed an Vnion of the Divinity to the Bread and that in an higher manner than to any other Sacred Sign or Ceremony but yet not Hypostatical 2. That they hold the Bread changed into an augmentative part of Christ's natural Body but it remaining still entire Bread as before and altered only in a Supernatural Vertue added to it 3. Hold it to be joined to Christ's Body and augmenting it but so as to be not individually the same but numerically distinct from it as also those new parts we receive by nourishment are distinct from all the former parts of our Body 4. To be joined to this natural Body of Christ not locally or to it as present in the Eucharist but as in Heaven How this As saith he a Mystery may be said to be an Appendix or Accessory to the thing of which it is a Mystery And to these four Qualifications this Author seems necessitated because otherwise Adoration and Transubstantiation in some part though not a total Existence of the Accidents without a Subject The same Body at once in many places and several other Consequents thus appearing also in the Greek's Opinion would have given too much countenance to the Roman § 11 Where you may observe that there are three things wherein his explaining of this Opinion he imputes to the Greeks to render it more remote from the Latins falls short of that which according to the Comparison and the expressions they use he is justly obliged to maintain 1. The first That the Vnion of the Divinity to the Consecrated Bread is Hypostatical or Personal For such an Union had our Lord's Divinity to the Nourishment to which this is compared received by him and added to his natural Body born of the Blessed Virgin ‖ See M. Claude 2d Answ part 2. c. 2. p. 249. And no less Union than this will serve to make the Eucharistical Bread one and the same with it a thing constantly affirmed by the Greeks at least as to the Suppositum or to make both these the Body of the same Person The difference of the Vnion saith M. Claude ‖ l. 6. c. 10. p. 867. is discerned by the difference of the effect it produceth in the things Now what thing more is requisite to stile it an Union Hypostatical Hypostasis and Subsistentia or Persona with the Greeks importing the same thing than this effect that it renders this Body to which it unites it self and that Body born of the Blessed Virgin the same Body of one Person and this Union gives to this new Body the self-same vivificating vertue Physically inherent as it doth to the other Natural And then such an Hypostatical Union if granted will infer the same Dignity of this breaden body with the other the same Ceremonies of Honour and Adoration due Things which this Person is unwilling to hear of and that would ruine his Cause § 12 The 2d That there is a Substantial change of the Bread i. e. of the substantial form of Bread at least in that this Bread is truly made the Flesh and Blood and animated with the humane soul of our Lord as well as united to his Divinity For so the Nourishment received by our Lord on Earth and added to his Body born of the Virgin remained not still Bread but was truly changed into his Flesh and so also is ours And the Expressions of the Greeks are sutable and cannot without an unjust force and straining be otherwise explicated To instance in one or two Such is that of Theophilact in Matt. 26. Non enim dixit Haec est figura sed Hoc est Corpus meum Ineffabili enim operatione transformatur etiamsi nobis videatur Panis quoniam infirmi sumus abhorremus crudas carnes comedere maxime hominis carnem ideo Panis quidem apparet sed revera Caro est And in Marc. 14. Et quomodo inquis Caro non videtur Sanguinem propositum carnem videntes non ferremus sed abhorremus Idcirco misericors Deus nostrae infirmitati condescendens speciem quidem Panis Vini servat in virtutem autem carnis sanguinis transelementat Where if Theophylact had meant by Caro vere est Caro tantum in virtute est he would never have given this reason in his comment on Matt. Panis apparet quod vere est Caro quoniam infirmi sumus abhorremus crudas carnes but rather would have removed
all difficulty here and prevented such a Question Cur Caro non videtur by telling them Vt apparet ita est Panis Caro autem est non vere aut in substantia sed tantum in Virtute This had been plain dealing but then he had overthrown his Text Hoc est Corpus meum non figura Corporis mei and made it only as M. Claude doth at the most Hoc est Efficax figura Corporis mei non ipsum Corpus As for the pains M. Claude hath taken ‖ l. 4. c. 7. p. 448. to qualifie this Panis apparet Caro vere est in mingling together Theophilact's Comments on Matthew Mark and John and in taking Speciem Panis in S. Mark not for the shew or appearance but Substance of Bread by which it should run not vere Caro but vere Panis in his Comment on S. Matt. and in understanding Vertus Carnis in S. Mark with a tantum so as this excludes vere Caro in S. Matt. I am confident that the ingenious Reader will find therein only great industry used to obscure clear Truth For Vertue may be used as well augmentatively as diminutively in respect of Substance as including Substance and adding something to it and as opposing an outward shew only without Reality or a Substance without efficacy as D. Arnauld ‖ l. 2. c. 9. p. 186. hath judiciously observed and for clearing it instanced in that of St. Paul 2 Tim. 3.5 Habentes speciem quidem pietatis virtutem ejus abnegantes and that of S. Gregory Nyssen Orat. Catechet c. 37. Igitur unde in illo corpore of our Lord when here on Earth transmutatus Panis transit in Divinam virtutem per idem Verbum nunc fit similiter Nam illic Gratia Verbi Corpus cui ex Pane erat substantia quodammodo ipsum erat Panis sanctum fecit hic in the Eucharist similiter Panis sicut dicit Apostolus sanctificatur per Verbum Dei orationem non eo quidem quod per comestionem bibitionem in Verbi Corpus evadat sed quod statim per Verbum in Corpus transmutetur sicut dictum est a Verbo Hoc est Corpus meum And afterwards he saith In illud Corpus immortale Christi mentioned before transelementata eorum quae apparent Natura Which place because D. Arnauld much pressed as throughly clearing that of Theophilact our Lords Nourishment being changed as into the vertue so doubless also into the Substance of his Body and because it is that place from which first Source M. Claude ‖ l. 3. c. 13. derives the Modern Greek Opinion I was curious to search what M. Claude would say to it but I found him as to speak to that of S. Paul and other passages so prudently to pass over this the most insisted on by his Adversary in silence But who pleaseth may see in another place ‖ 2 Resp part 2. c. 2. where it is urged against Protestants for Transubstantiation how miserably this plain passage of this Father suffers under his Exposition of it Whilst this Expression due irregulier as he calls it represents nothing else but Damascen's and the Modern Greek Opinion to any one that hath not shut his eyes and shews the Modern and Ancient Greek Church to be all of one Faith Here then you see in Greg. Nyssen Virtus includes Substance Now see it in that place of Euthymius cited before †§. 6. added to Substance as being indeed the main thing to be insisted on Haec ineffabiliter saith he transmutat in ipsum vivificum Corpus in ipsum pretiosum sanguinem suum in Gratiam or virtutem or vim eorum which Grace he explains presently after by this Body strengthning us as Bread doth and this Blood exhilarating us as Wine ‖ See Psal 103.15 And see in Theophylact's Comment on John 6. the like addition Panis saith he speaking of our Lords nourishment in Corpus ejus mutabatur there is the change of the Substance Et in augmentum sustentamentum conferebat there is the Vertue Again Ita nunc Panis in Carnem Domini mutatur there is the Substance Nec nudi hominis Caro est sed Dei quae deificare valet there is the Vertue Now Virtus taken thus in Theophylact all things in him agree well together Thus is sutes well with vere Caro est with Ineffabilis Operatio Language not so usual for a change of vertue only With the Question Cur non videtur Caro weakly asked if Theophylact spake only of a change of Vertue and not Substance too and if this then the known common Doctrine With this Answer to the Question which as I have shewed in case he held a presence of Vertue only ought to have been quite another and such as a Protestant now would give Lastly it sutes well with his former arguing Non enim Dixit Hoc est Figura Corporis sed Hoc est Corpus which if good must hold as well of virtus or of any thing else that is not ipsum Corpus But Vertue taken so exclusively overturns all and makes Theophylact contradict himself that he may not M. Claude Thus much in vindication of the true sense of Vertue when used by the Greek Authors A like passage to this in Theophylact see in Remigius Antisidor in Expos Missae a follower as M. Claude grants ‖ l. 6. c. 10. p. 862. of the Opinion of Damascen and the Greeks Cum Mysterium sit saith he quod aliud significat Si Eucharistia in veritate Corpus Christi est quare appellatur mysterium Propterea utique quia post Consecrationem aliud est aliud videtur Videtur siquidem Panis Vinum sed in veritate Corpus Christi est Sanguis Consulens ergo omnipotens Deus infirmitati nostrae qui usum non habemus comedere Carnem crudam Sanguinem bibere facit ut in pristina remaneant forma illa duo munera etsi in veritate Corpus Christi Sanguis sicut ipse dixit c. Where Pristina forma cannot be extended to the internal substantial Form or Essence of Bread still remaining as M. Claude ‖ p. 869. would divert the sense For this internal Form or Essence either in the Bread or Flesh since not seen neither causeth nor removeth Horror and the maintaining of this Form sutes not with the In veritate Christi Corpus est and vere Caro est in these Authors which expressions do imply In veritate not Panis but is to be understood only of the external form and other qualities thereof occuring to sense the sight taste c. For so that the Eucharist hath all these exterior qualities of Bread where we do not see or taste we dread not crude Flesh and the horror we have is from its appearing not from its being Flesh Now this Panis quidem apparet Caro vere est of the Greeks what is it but saying the same
to this as in Heaven and not to it also as present in the Eucharist when the same Greeks confess it to be so and when the Eucharistical presence is the occasion of such their Adoration here I say not to allow the extent of their Adoration so far as they believe the presence of the Person adored and their worship the same latitude as their Faith would be an unjust and groundless abridgment of their Devotions as also this to pretend an inferior or relative Adoration given by them only to the Mysteries where the same Communicants hold a supreme due to the Person present with them To view a little the Form of their Liturgy We read in S. Chrysostom's Mass That the Priest after Consecration and before he takes the Holy Bread to communicate himself with it adores and saith Attende Domine Jesu Christe de sancto habitaculo tuo veni ad sanctificandum nos qui in excelsis cum Patre simul resides hic una nobiscum invisibiliter versaris dignare potenti manu tua nobis impertiri immaculatum Corpus tuum pretiosum sanguinem per nos toti Populo Corpus tuum I add never severed from thy Divinity and thy self To whom also the Priest had said before in the beginning of the Service Tu enim es qui offers offerris assumis distribueris Christe Deus noster Then the Priest adores again and saith thrice to himself Deus propitius esto mihi Peccatori An Act of Humiliation used here by him before he takes the Sancta into his hands for the Communion as it was once before at the beginning of the Oblation And so saith the Rubrick all the People adore with him Populus similiter cunctus cum devotione adorat Then he takes the Holy Bread and makes the Elevation of it yet whole and entire saying Sancta Sanctis And the Quire answers it seems with relation to It yet one and entire Vnus Sanctus Vnus Dominus Jesus Christus Then the Priest breaking it into four Pieces saith Frangitur Agnus Dei qui frangitur at non comminuitur qui semper comeditur non consumitur which shews what Agnus Dei whether this in Heaven or present here is now spoken of and thus adored Sed eos qui. sunt participes sanctificat So taking a piece thereof in his hand and preparing himself to receive it he saith Credo Domine confiteor Quod Tu es Christus c. Dignare in praesepe animae meae 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in coinquinatum meum Corpus ingredi dignare me participem effici sanctissimi tui Corporis Sanguinis I add never severed from thy Divinity and thy self Also when he calls the Deacon to communicate him with the Holy Bread 't is said Accedens Diaconus Reverentiam exhibet And so also before receiving the Chalice It is said again Diaconus venit et adorat semel dicens Ecce vēnio ad immortalem Regem c. Where it must be remembred that the Greeks also held the Body of our Lord that is received in the Eucharist to be immortal and incorruptible This we find in their Liturgy And sutable to this we read in Cabasilas †c. 39. expounding the Ligurgy concerning the People before their communicating Ipsi autem saith he fidem attendentes et adorant et benedicunt et Jesum qui in eis donis Sanctificatis intelligitur opposed to videtur ut Deum celebrant Where M. Claude's note is †l. 3. c. 7. p. 222. 1. that Non adorant dona sed Jesum But who saith that a Soveraign Adoration is due or given to the Dona Again 2. Jesum saith he qui intelligitur i. e. only qui repraesentatur in Donis But all the former Expressions implying our Lord's presence shew their belief to be contrary Tu es saith the Priest before qui offers et offerris assumis et distribueris Christe Deus noster And the People after this adoring in their receiving say Benedictus qui venit in nomine Domini of which the same Cabasilas Tanquam nunc ad eos venientem et apparentem Christum benedicunt Who also before c. 24. intimates the custom of the Greeks in the Service adorare et alloqui corpus et sanguinem Domini Now I say All these Passages in the Greek Liturgy well considered Here for one to grant the Real and Corporal Presence of our Lord in his whole person in the Holy Mysteries to be believed by this Priest Deacon and other Communicants and yet to say their Adoration and other Addresses and Allocutions are not given and made to him as there present but to him only as in Heaven or only to his Divinity as there and every where present abstracted from his Humanity is such a Comment upon this Liturgy as nothing but a strong pre-ingagement can force upon any ones judgment § 21 The Testimonies this Author brings †l. 3. c. 7. p. 216. do accuse the Greeks of some neglect in this Duty but do not shew them to justifie it and these very Persons that censure such neglect toward the Holy Mysteries after Consecrated accuse them almost of committing Idolatry toward them before So that it seems rather some defect of knowledge in such concerning the Ceremonies of Consecration than want of Devotion Cabasilas †c. 24. long ago observed the same in some ignorant People and blamed it but yet in the same place allows the Adoration of and Allocations made to the Body and Blood of our Lord when the Offerings are Sacrificed and perfected The Consecration also of the Greeks being longer extended and the Adoration not so unitedly performed presently upon the pronouncing of our Lords words of Institution as amongst the Latins but disjunctively at their communicating might occasion some mistake in those Latins who accused them of a Non-Adoration So the other irreverences and indecencies objected are to be esteemed only negligences in private practice not consequences of the publick Doctrine nor countenanced by their Liturgies Which Liturgies use as much Ceremony towards the Holy Mysteries as the Roman doth Where also first the Remains of the Holy Bread are carefully put into the Chalice for the People to be communicated therewith and then for the Remains after the Communion consummated Sacerdos saith the Rubrick quod residuum est Communionis in Sancto Calice cum attentione et devotione consumit et ter Sanctam Calicem abluit et attendit ne remaneat particula Margarita vocata not the least crumb of the intinct Host As for several Devotions and Honours performed to the Blessed Sacrament here in the West which this person diligently reckons up much to its praise not so in the East frequently urged by M. Claude as good Arguments of the Greek Church not believing Transubstantiation or such a Real Presence as the Roman and in latter times here more than in the former 1st They are held no such necessary circumstances or consequences
THE Greeks Opinion TOUCHING THE EUCHARIST MIS-REPRESENTED BY Monsieur CLAVDE IN HIS ANSWER TO Mr. ARNOLD Printed in the Year MDCLXXXVI A DIGRESSION Reflecting on the Opinion of the Greek and other Oriental Churches holding a Real Presence of our Lord's Body and Blood whether by Transubstantiation or not much mis-represented by Mr. Claude a French Minister § 321. Whose various Artifices are detected in * Insinuating the Greek's Ignorance Poverty Imbecillity the Latin's Power Missions Industry to gain them n. 1 2 3 4. * Wresting the Greek's sayings to the Protestant's sense contrary to their plain expressions * Affirming the Greeks to retain their former Church-Doctrine as high as Damascen or Gregory Nyssen yet not freely declaring the ancient and modern Greeks to differ from or agree with the Protestant opinion n. 5. * Waving the main point viz. Real Presence which infers a Soveraign Adoration contending about Transubstantiation and that as an Article of Faith n. 6. * Barring all Testimonies save such as press Transubstantiation * Vsing the term Vertue unreasonably as excluding Substance and thereby making the Greek opinion contradictory absurd and indefensible and then leaving them to make it good whereas he ought to have confessed their holding a Presence as well in Substance as in Vertue n. 7 8. * Shifting all Testimonies against him by disingenuously requiring testimony upon testimony or by personal exceptions taken against them n. 9. The Greek Opinion concerning Transubstantiation if made good how prejudicial to the Protestant's Cause n. 10. 1. Concerning Transubstantiation M. Claude in receding from the Latins makes the Greeks fall short of their own Similitude and usual Expressions in three Particulars n. 13 c. That Vertue may be taken as well augmentatively adding to Substance as diminutively excluding it n 14. The Common Doctrine of the Greeks carrying further than their Simile to a total Transubstantiation Proved 1. From their holding the same numerical Body of our Lord born and crucified to be exhibited in the Eucharist present not by descending from Heaven but by a conversion of the Elements and by a multiplication of its local existence in more places than before n. 15 16. 2. From holding the Body thus present by Consecration to be Incorruptible and its Incorruption to depend on its Resurrection and so to relat◠to that numerical Body crucified and raised again Now the Bread remaining intire for its substance or its matter and qualities cannot be such a Body of our Lord as suffers no digestion or corruption Yet something in the Sacrament suffers this For the Greeks then whilst holding the Substance of Bread to remain to lay these changes only on the Accidents not the Substance eating bread fed only by the accidents were without a Transubstantiation to espouse the difficulties of it and therefore their opinion implies an entire change of the Bread as well its matter as form n. 17. 3. From holding this Body in the Eucharist whenever broken whole and entire in each piece to all distributed no way diminished The Lamb broken not impaired ever eaten yet not consumed Which things cannot be said of our Lords Body if the matter of bread still remain n. 18. Whereas Greeks and Latins former and later times may be accorded this Author to maintain the variance seems to fasten on the Greeks an opinion less eligible than Transubstantiation and to offer violence to the natural sense of their words leaving the Greeks to stand apart by themselves from Protestants as well as other Catholicks n. 20. The Greeks confessed by him not to have opposed the Latins for holding Transubstantiation the Latins never to have accused the Greeks as not holding it n. 21. 2. Concerning Adoration of the Eucharist 1. As to their Doctrine Granted 1. That the Greeks allow and pay to the Mysteries in the Eucharist an inferior relative Adoration 2. A Supreme Adoration lawful and due to our Lords Humanity where-ever present and given by Protestants in their Communion 3. No soveraign Adoration pretended by Greeks or Latins to be given to the Symbols venerable only with an inferior cult but to the Body and Blood of our Lord. 4. Real Presence not being contested but only Transubstantiation From such Presence granting its true consequences followes a lawfulness of Adoration n. 22. 2. As to their Practice 5. The Greeks adore after their mode by inclining the head and body Whether this be only relative or soveraign Adoration is understood from their Doctrine and Belief For not to allow the extent of their Adoration as far as their belief of the Presence of the Person adored and their Worship the same latitude with their Faith seems unjust and groundless as also to pretend only an inferior adoration given where the same Communicants hold a supreme due to the Person there present n. 22. More Devotions performed in the Western Churches than in the East from the Berengarian Errors here n. 23. M. Claude 's Concessions and their Consequences sufficient § 1. To diswade from a Communion opposed both by Greeks and Latins concerning the Eucharist 2. To perswade rather to the Roman Communion n. 24. For trying our Obedience God permits Evil with many Allurements Error with many Verisimilities yet hath always left evidence enough to clear all necessary Truth to the humble and obedient not to force the self-confident and interessed n. 25. In a Search by comparing Scriptures and Councils what endless labour and distraction in Obedience to Councils what peace and vacancy for better employments Besides that the rude and illiterate the most of men cannot search Must these believe a former Church now or submit to an inferior Church-Authority against a Superior But this is Schism in them both and he justly ruined by believing an Authority usurped that denies to believe one whereto he is bound n. 25. The Issue of Scripture-Trial long since was a double sense of Scripture that Sense was declared by one nay several Councils The Party condemned appealed to Fathers and Primitive Church whose sense as formerly that of Scripture being double was decided again by Councils but their Authority rejected And now it is desired that the Controversie begin anew and return to the Scriptures or that the Question determine the Controversie and whilst Protestants are the weaker party that all have liberty for when the stronger they too well discern the necessity of Synods for ending differences among themselves which tho not held infallible yet upon the Evangelical Promises of our Lord's assistance require on pain of Suspension subscription to their Decrees and excommunicate persons teaching the contrary Witness the Dort Synod n. 26. M. Claude's strange Method for exempting from Obedience to the Church those that pretend not to a Certainty of their new Opinions considered That if it prove valid it serves as well Catholicks against Protestants upon the same pretensions and affords both sides the same plea one against the other in any controversie arising amongst Protestants Ibid. If searching the
designs upon the matter of the Differences between the two Communions Catholick and Protestant which they pretend to accommodate and reconcile So he Censures Casaubon out of Spondanus †Levitatem animi Vacillantem eum perpetuo tenuisse cum his illis placere cuperet nulli satisfecisset Where indeed whose judgment ought sooner to be credited than theirs who appear more indifferent between the two contending parties So To Archbishop Lanfrank's words to Berengarius Interroga Graecos Armenios seu cujus libet Nationis quoscunque homines uno ore hanc fidem i. e. Transubstantiationis se testabuntur hahere cited by Dr. Arnauld He answers ‖ p. 361. That Pre-occupation renders his Testimony nothing worth Urge the Socinians because the Fathers oppose so manifestly their own opinions therefore more apt to speak the truth of them in their opposing also those of other Protestants and particularly in their differing from them in this point of the Eucharist He tells us they are not creditable in their Testimony because so much interested to decry the Doctrine of the Fathers in their own regard and thus they imagine Protestants will have less countenance to press them with an Authority that themselves cannot stand to Urge the Centurists confessing Transubstantiation found in some of the Fathers and in magnifying their new-begun Reformation more free plainly to acknowledge those they thought errours of former times He ‖ l. 1. c. 5. denies them fit witnesses in this Controversie because themselves holding a Real Presence they had rather admit a Transubstantiation in the Fathers than a Presence only Mystical And suppose such excuses should fail him yet how easie is it to find some other whereby a person may be represented never to stand in an exact indifferency as to whatever Subject of his Discourse With such personal exceptions M. Claude frequently seeks to relieve his Cause where nothing else will do it Whereas indeed such a common Veracity is to be supposed amongst men especially as to these matters of Fact that where a multitude though of a party concern'd concur in their Testimony they cannot reasonably be rejected on such an account either that their being deceiv'd or purpose to deceive and to relate a lie is possible or that what they say can be shewed a thing well-pleasing and agreeable to their own inclinations For as it is true that ones own interest if as to his own particular very considerable renders a Testimony less credible So on the other side almost no Testimony would be valid and current if it is to be decried where can be shewed some favour or engagement of affection to the thing which the person witnesseth and cannot be manifested an equal poise to all parties and so for Example in the Narration of another Country's Religion often made by all Parties none here can be believed save in what he testifies of them against his own Such things therefore are to be decided according to the multitude and paucity and the Reputation of the Witnesses rather than their only some way general interest and the Credibility of such things is to be left to the equal Reader 's Judgment § 8 But 7ly Should all that is said touching the later Greek's from the eleventh or the eighth to the present age their holding Transubstantiation be undeniably made good and all the Testimonies concerning it exactly true Yet he saith ‖ l. 2. c. 1. It will not follow that a change of the Church's former Faith in this Point is impossible or hath not actually happened and consequently that all M. Arnauld 's long dispute about it is vain and unprofitable I add and then so his Replies But here since the true sense and meaning of Antiquity on what side this stands is the thing chiefly questioned and debated between the Roman Church and Protestants unless he will throw off this too and retreat only to sense of Scripture I suppose to wise men it will seem little less than the loss of the Protestant cause and too great a prejudice to it to be so slightly yielded up if that not the Roman only but the whole visible Catholick Church besides themselves from the eleventh to the present age doth defend a Corporal Presence and a literal sense of Hoc est Corpus meum or also Transubstantiation and so consequently doth concur and Vote against them touching the sense of former Antiquity for this each side in their present Doctrine and Practice pretend to follow And I can hardly think M. Claude would seem to spend so great a part of his Book to defend a Post the loss of which he thought no way harm'd him Again thus it is manifest that in an Oecumenical Council if now assembled the Protestants would remain the Party Condemned § 9 8. After all these Defences wherewith he seems sufficiently guarded He proceeds l. 3. c. 13. thus to declare the true opinion of the Modern Greeks on this Subject which I will give you in his own words p. 310. They believe saith he That by the Sanctification or Consecration is made a Composition of the Bread and Wine and of the Holy Ghost That these Symboles keeping their own Nature are joined to the Divinity and That by the impression of the Holy Ghost they are changed for the Faithful alone the Body of our Lord being supposed either to be not present at all or to cease to be so in the particles of the Symbole received by the unworthy into the vertue of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ being by this means made not a Figure but the proper and true Body of Jesus Christ and this by the way of Augmentation of the same natural Body of Jesus Christ To which they apply the comparison of the nourishment which is made our own Body by Assimilation and Augmentation Again p. 237. more briefly The Doctrine of the Greek Church is That the substance of Bread conserving its proper Being is added to the Natural Body of Jesus Christ that it is rendred like unto it That it augments and by this means becomes the same Body with it By this also he saith p. 334. and see the same in his 4th l. c. 7. the Greeks would observe in some sort the literal sense of the words Hoc est Corpus meum which saith He we do not we understand them in this sense This Bread is the sacred sign or Sacrament of my Body Or which comes to the same pass The Bread signifies my Body They on the contrary taking the word is in some sort according to the letter would have that the same subject which is the Bread is also the Body of Christ. From preserving this pretended literal sense it is also That they would have it That the Bread is made one with the Body by its Vnion to the Divinity by the Impression of the Holy Ghost and by a change of vertue Or as he hath it in his 6th l. c. 10. That there is an Vnion of
Transubstantiation l. 4. c. 5. p. 390. In a word saith he the Greeks neither believe nor impugne Transubstantiation They believe it not for it hath no place in the Doctrine of their Church It is neither in the Confessions of their Faith nor Decisions of Councils nor Liturgies i. e. in such Language as he exacts Surely this main Point the Manner of our Lords Presence is not omitted in all these the Constantinopolitan the second Nicene Council the Liturgies speak of it Nor is Transubstantiation impugned in them according to him is clearly maintained by them according to Catholicks They do not impugne it For as far as appears they have not argued with the Latins nor formally debated it with them in their former Disputes Thus He. And as he grants the Greeks not to have quarrelled with the Latins because they held Transubstantiation So †the Latins never to have accused the Greeks ‖ p. 375. as if they held it not There seems therefore no great need of Missions distributing charities teaching Schools there c. to induce these Orientals to approve a Tenent which they never formerly contested and of an error in which though the main Point these two Churches never accused one another Nay the Greeks in some of their Confessions as in that of the Venetian Greeks to the Cardinal of Guise seem to have out-done the Latins and to go beyond Transubstantiation Mean-while the great quarrels the same Greeks make with the Latins about smaller matters in this principal part of the Christian Service and the chief Substance of its Liturgies the Eucharist as about the manner of the Consecration and about Azymes and on the other side the great Storms that have been raised between Catholicks and Protestants from the very beginning of the Reformation about this very Point of Transubstantiation do shew that if the difference between the Greeks and Latins were considerable and real herein there could not have been on both sides such a constant silence Though in some other matters of little consequence or at least of little evidence such as M. Claude instanceth in there can be shewed a silent toleration of the different Judgments as well of Churches as of private Persons § 20 10ly Hitherto from § 9. I have reflected on M. Claude's Explication of the Greeks Opinion concerning Transubstantiation Now to view the other Point Adoration Here 1st He denies not an inferior and Relative Adoration to be allowed to be due and paid by the Greeks to the Holy Mysteries in the Eucharist such as is given to the Holy Gospel and to other Sacred things Of which we find in S. Chrysostom's Mass that before his reading the Gospel Diaconus respondet Amen reverentiam Sancto Evangelio exhibet See M. Claude's last Answer l. 3. c. 7. p. 219. where he grants That the Greeks have much Devotion for Pictures for the Evangile and for the pain benit and for the Bread of the Eucharist before the Consecration 2ly A Supreme Adoration he grants lawful and due to our Lord's Humanity where-ever present and allows such an Adoration actually given even by Protestants at the time of their receiving the Eucharist to our Lord Christ and to his Sacred Humanity as in Heaven And to his Adversary urging some places of the Fathers for the practice of Adoration in the Communion he replies ‖ 2 Resp part 2. c. 8. p. 416. The Author deceives us in proving what is not controverted For the Question is not whether in the Communion we ought to adore Jesus Christ our Redeemer and his Flesh personally united to the Word represented by the Sacrament We practice it with an ardent and humble Devotion when we approach to the Holy Table And afterward Who doubts but that the Body of Jesus Christ is Soveraignly Adorable 3ly He cannot but know or else hath been very careless to inform himself that no Soveraign Adoration is pretended either by the Roman or Greek Church to be given to the external Species or Symbols of the Eucharist which they hold Venerable only with an inferior cult such as is due to all other Holy things but only to the Body and Blood of Christ contained under them as the Council of Trent allowing the Expression of adoring the Sacrament cultu Latriae yet explains it in their Canon thus †Sess 13. c. 6 Si quis dixerit in Sancto Eucharistiae Sacramento Christum unigenitum Dei Filium non esse cultu Latriae etiam externo adorandum Anathema sit And as Bellarmin †De Eucha l. 4. c. 29. also resolves the state of the Controversie Quicquid sit de modo loquendi status quaestionis non est nisi An Christus in Eucharistia sit adorandus cultu Latriae 4ly In the Fourth Observation precedent M. Claude saith he will not contest the Greek's holding a Real Presence of our Lord in the Eucharist Though he contends it is not by the Roman way of Transubstantiation Now from this Real Presence held by the Greeks even after that way he allows at least if he will but grant the true consequences thereof mentioned before § 11. viz. An Hypostatical or other Union to this Body offered and distributed in the Eucharist such as converts it into the Flesh of our Lord and renders it the Body of the same Person with that born of the Blessed Virgin non aliud ab eo quod sumpsit in utero Virginis by which the People seem sufficiently instructed not to distinguish in their Mode of Adoration between these two that they are taught to be personally the same I say from such a Real Presence held by the Greeks a lawfulness of adoring Christ's Body as there present must be held by them And then if it can be shewed by M. Claude they do not actually adore it must be reckoned a matter of neglect not of Conscience or denying such thing due 5ly But now to consider their Practice He denies not the Greeks to adore in their Mode of Adoration which is by inclining the Head and Body seldom kneeling when they receive the Communion their Liturgies have it often repeated and surely he will allow them herein as much Devotion as he doth to the Protestants and also them to give at least an external Relative Devotion to the Mysteries for such they give to the Evangiles and methinks the witnesses he produceth p. 216. should not in general deny simply any Adoration of the Greeks at all The Question then only is granting already an external Adoration given by the Greeks when they approach to the Communion whether this in their intention be a soveraign Adoration exhibited to Christ's Sacred Divinity and Humanity as there present Now the Greeks holding this Humanity there really present conceded before seems sufficient to determine this without more-ado And for one to pretend that this Adoration of the Greeks is given only to God or to Christ's Divinity as every where present or to the Humanity united to it but only