Dispute and consider things without passion I am perswaded he would soon acknowledge that the sence he imputes to the Greeks has no resemblance with the Terms of their Liturgies nor other usual expressions As for example we would know how we must understand this Clause of their Liturgies Make this Bread the precious Body of thy Christ and that which is in this Cup the precious Blood of thy Christ changing them by the virtue of thy Holy Spirit Mr. Arnaud understands them as mentioning a change of Substance I say on the contrary these are general Terms to which we cannot give at farthest any more than a general sence and that if they must have a particular and determinate one we must understand them in the sence of a Mystical change and a change of Sanctification which consists in that the Bread is to us in the stead of the Natural Body of Jesus Christ that it makes deep impressions of him in our Souls that it spiritually communicates him to us and that 't is accompani'd with a quickning grace which sanctifies it and makes it to be in some sence one and the same thing with the Body of Jesus Christ and yet does not this hinder but that the Natural Substance of Bread remains Let us examine the Liturgies themselves to see which of these two sences are most agreeable thereunto WE shall find in that which goes under the name of St. Chrysostom and which is the most in use amongst the Greeks that immediately after the Priest has said Make this Bread to become the precious Body of thy Christ and that Euchar. Graecorum Jacobi Goar Bibl. patr Graecor Lat. Tom. 2. which is in the Chalice the precious Blood of thy Christ changing them by thy Holy Spirit he adds to the end they may purifie the Souls of those that receive them that is to say be made a proper means to purifie the Soul by the remission of its sins and communication of the Holy Spirit c. These words do sufficiently explain what kind of change we must understand by them namely a change of Sanctification and virtue for did they mean a change of Substance it should have been said changing them by thy Holy Spirit to the end they may be made the proper Substance of this Body and Blood or some such like expressions In the Liturgy which goes under the name of St. James we find almost the same thing Send say's it thy Holy Spirit upon us and these Holy Gifts lying Bibliot Patr. Graeco Lat. Tom. 2. here before thee to the end that he coming may sanctifie them by his holy good and glorious presence and make this Bread to become the Holy Body of thy Christ and this Chalice the precious Blood of thy Christ to the end it may have this effect to all them which shall receive it namely purifie their Souls from all manner of sin and make them abound in good works and obtain everlasting life And this methinks does sufficiently determine how the Bread is made the Body of Jesus Christ to wit in being sanctifi'd by the presence of his Spirit and procuring the remission of our sins and our Sanctification The Liturgy which bears the name of St. Marc has almost the same expressions Send on us and on these Loaves and Chalices thy Holy Spirit that he Ibid. may sanctifie and consecrate them even as God Almighty and make the Bread the Body and the Cup the Blood of the New Testament of our Lord God and Saviour Jesus Christ our Sovereign King to the end they may become to all those who shall participate of them a means of obtaining Faith Sobriety Health Temperance a regeneration of Soul and Body the participation of Felicity Eternal Life to the glory of thy great name A Person whose mind is not wholly prepossessed with prejudice cannot but perceive that this Clause to the end they may become c. is the explication of the foregoing words change them into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ and that it determines them to a change not of Substance but of Sanctification and Virtue This Truth is so evident that Arcudius has not scrupled to acknowledge that if this Clause be taken make this Bread the Body of thy Christ in an absolute sence Arcud lib. 3. cap. 33. that is to say that it be made the Body of Christ not in respect of us but simply in it self it will have no agreement nor coherence with these other words that follow to the end they may be made c. And he makes of this a Principle for the concluding that the Consecration is not performed by this Prayer but that 't is already perfected by the words this is my Body directly contrary to the Sentiment of the Greeks who affirm 't is made by the Prayer So that if we apply Arcudius's Observation to the true Opinion of the Greek Church to wit that the Consecration is performed by this Prayer we shall plainly perceive that their sence is That the Bread is made the Body of Jesus Christ in respect of us inasmuch as it sanctifies us and effects the remission of our sins AND with this agrees the Term of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to Sanctifie which the Greeks commonly make use of to express the Act of Consecration and that of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Sanctifications by which they express their Mysteries as appears by the Liturgies and those of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the holy Gifts the sanctified Gifts the holy Mysteries the quickning Mysteries the holy Bread which are common expressions amongst them All which favours the change of Sanctification ON the other hand we shall find in the Liturgy of St. Chrysostom that the name of Bread is given three times to the Sacrament after Consecration in the Pontificia four times and in the declaration of the presanctifi'd Bread it is so called seven times In the Liturgy of St. Basil the Priest makes this Prayer immediately after the Consecration Lord remember me Archi. Habert Apud Goar in Euchol a sinner and as to us who participate all of us of the same Bread and Cup grant we may live in Union and in the Communion of the same Holy Spirit Likewise what the Latins call Ciborium the Greeks call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is as much as to say a Bread Saver and 't is in it wherein they put that which they call the presanctifi'd Bread being the Communion for the sick I know what is wont to be said in reference to this namely that the Eucharist is called Bread upon the account of its Species that is to say of its Accidents which remain sustain'd by the Almighty Power of God without a Subject but the Greeks themselves should give us this explication for till then we may presume upon the favour of the natural signification of the Term which we not finding attended with the Gloss of the Latins it must therefore be granted not
that he must of necessity either deny what the whole Church believes to wit the Conversion of the Substance of Bread or fall into this other Absurdity of maintaining that this Conversion is made in the Divine Nature Common Sence leads him to this and yet we find no such thing in all his Discourse AFTER Anastasius comes Germain the Patriarch of Constantinople Mr. Aubertin has placed him according to the common Opinion in the eighth Century but in effect there is more likelyhood according to Allatius his Conjecture that he lived in the twelveth and the Reflections Mr. Arnaud makes on this Subject seem to me just enough to be followed till we have greater Certainty But howsoever this Author say's no more than That the Bread is changed into the Body of Christ and that it is his Body To which we have Lib. 7. c. 3. so often already answered that it will be needless to say any more Mr. Arnaud sets to Phylosophising on some Passages which Mr. Aubertin alledged in his Favour but this is an Illusion for when what Mr. Aubertin alledges concerning Germane to show that 't is contrary to Transubstantiation should not be Conclusive 't would not thence follow he believed it nor Taught it if this does not appear elsewhere from good Proofs and Mr. Arnaud is obliged to produce such without supposing it is sufficient he Refutes Mr. Aubertin's Consequences For Refuting is not Proving GERMAIN sufficiently shews us towards the end of his Treatise in what Sence he understood the Bread to be the Body of Christ Moses say's Germ. Theor. rer Eccles sub finem he sprinkling the People with the Blood of Goats and Heifers said This is the Blood of the Covenant But our Saviour Christ has given his own proper Body and shed his own Blood and given us the Cup of the new Testament saying This is my Body which was broken for you this is my Blood shed for the Remission of your Sins As often then as ye eat this Bread and drink of this Cup ye declare my Death and Resurrection Thus believing then we eat the Bread and drink of the Cup as of the Flesh of God declaring thereby the Death and Resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ. We have already observed in the foregoing Book that the Greeks do often use this Expression As the Flesh As the Body to mollify and abate in some sort their usual way of speaking which is that the Bread is the Body of Christ and to signify that the Bread is to us instead of this Body It appears from the sequel of Germain's Discourse his Sence is that for the better applying our Minds to the Death and Resurrection of our Lord we eat the Bread and drink of the Cup in the stead of his Body and Blood AS to John Damascen the Author of the Perpetuity having alledged him as a Witness of the Doctrine of the ancient Church I said He ought not Answer to the 2d Treatise of the Perpet c. 2. to produce the Testimony of a Person whom we except against and that with good Cause seeing he was one of the first that left the common Road of the Churches Expressions and betook himself to affected and singular ones which are at as great distance from the Roman Church as the reformed one Now this Exception is so just in respect of the Question concerning the Sentiment of the ancient Church that excepting Mr. Arnaud I do not believe there is any Man how little Conversant soever in the Writings of the Fathers but grants it For all the Ancient Fathers term the Eucharist a Figure or Representation of our Lord's Body and Damascen not only deny's that it is one but also that the Fathers thus termed it after Consecration He is one of the first that brought into Credit the Comparison of Food which changes it self into our Bodies whereby to explain the Change which happens to the Bread in as much as it is made an Augmentation of the Body of Christ that of the Blessed Virgin which the Holy Spirit overshadowed and that of Wood united to the Fire His Expressions being compared with those of the Ancients are wholly extraordinary He tells us that the Sacramental Bread and the Body born of the Virgin are but one and the same Body because the Bread is an Augmentation of the Body and that the same Oeconomy has been observed in both I suppose Damascen was not the first that had these kind of Conceptions seeing we have met with something like this in Anastasius his Discourse and if I mistake not some Trace of this in Gregory de Nysses his Catechism but howsoever it must be acknowledged I had reason to call these Conceptions Affected and Singular in respect of the usual Expressions of the Fathers and to say they vary as much from the Doctrine of the Romane Church as ours YET to hear only Mr. Arnaud a Man would imagine that Damascen clearly taught Transubstantiation To prove it he alledges these same Passages of his fourth Book touching the true Orthodox Faith wich has been a thousand times canvass'd by Controvertists and which conclude nothing Damascen say's That God makes the Bread the Body of Christ and the Wine his Blood that it is an effect of his Almighty Power which has created all things that seeing the Lord took his Body from the pure and immaculate Blood of the Virgin we must not doubt but he can change the Bread into his Body and the Wine into his Blood that if we demand how this Change happens he answers that this is wrought by the Holy Spirit that the Word of God is True and Almighty but that the manner is Incomprehensible But yet it may be rationally say'd that as the Bread and Wine wherewith a Man is nourished are changed into his Body so that they become another Body than that which they were before so the Bread and Wine mixt with Water are changed into the Body and Blood of Christ in awonderful manner by Prayer and Descent of the Holy Spirit and that they are not two different Bodies but one and the same Body HAD not Damascen expressed himself as he has done it would be to no purpose for us to tell Mr. Arnaud the Change he speaks of is not Transubstantiation seeing his Sence is that the Bread becomes a growth of our Lord's Body and is made by this means one with this Body that this is the effect he attributes to the Holy Spirit and Almighty Power of God acting above Nature and not that of a real Conversion of the Substance of Bread into the same Substance which the Body had before Mr. Arnaud would not fail to term this Extravagancy and Dotage But seeing we say no more in this matter than what is grounded on Damascen's own Words as it appears by what we related when we treated on the real Belief of the Greeks This Illustration will be sufficient without proceeding any farther to make Insignificant this long
is to say the Sacrament of his Body and Blood The multitude of Corn and Wine says he in another place is the multitude which Jesus Christ gathered to the Sacrament of his Body and Blood BEDE explaining how the Church has every day our Saviour with Beda Expos alleg in Sam. c. 5. Idem Expos alleg in Prov. lib. 3. c. 31. Idem de Taber lib. 2. c. 2. Idem Hom. est in Vigil S. Jo. Bapt. her says 'T is because she has the Mysteries of his Flesh and Blood in the Wine and Bread elsewhere applying to the Church what Solomon says of the virtuous woman that she eats not her bread in idleness She eats not says he her bread in idleness because receiving the Sacrifice of our Lords Body she carefully imitates in her actions what she celebrates in his Ministry taking care lest she eat our Lords Bread and drink of his Cup unworthily The ancients says he moreover celebrated our Lords Passion by which both they and we have been redeemed by the blood and flesh of Sacrifices and we celebrate it by an Oblation of Bread and Wine Elsewhere he assures us That our Saviour has established under the New Testament the same kind of Sacrifice idem sacrificii genus as that of Melchisedeck to be the Mystery of his Body and Blood In his Homily on the Epiphany he says that our Saviour Idem hom de sanctis in Epiphan having abolished the Paschal Lamb has changed the Mystery of his Passion into the creatures of Bread and Wine In his Commentary on the 33d Psalm he applies what is said of David that he changed his countenance Idem Comm. in Psal 33. and he expresses himself in this sort He changed his countenance before the Jews because he converted the Sacrifices of the Law which were according to the Order of Aaron into the Sacrifice of Bread and Wine according to the Order of Melchisedeck In the same place he says That our Saviour carried himself in some sort in his own hands at his last Supper when he gave to his Disciples the Bread which he blessed and which his mouth recommended to them In his Commentary on S. Luke explaining the words of Idem Comm. in Luc. 22. our Saviour This is my Body this my Blood Instead of the flesh and blood of the Lamb says he he has substituted the Sacrament of his Flesh and Blood IN THE FIGURE OF BREAD AND WINE And to shew wherein consists this mystical figuration he adds That our Saviour did himself break the Bread to signifie the fraction he was voluntarily to make of his own Body And a little further The Bread strengthens the Flesh and the Wine creates Blood in our Bodies and therefore the Bread mystically alludes to the Body and the Wine to the Blood WE find in truth says Mr. Arnaud the language of sense in the Authors Book 8. Ch. 4. p. 75 5. of these Ages as well as in those of the following They could not exempt themselves from using it whatsoever their opinion was otherwise But to judg of that which they had in effect we must consider what they tell us of the Eucharist when they explain to us what they believe of its nature and essence when they do not design it but teach what it is when they do not only denote to us the matter which God has chosen but tell us what God does in this matter when they do not speak of it according to the impressions of sense but according to the sentiments of Faith To make in the sense of the Authors in question a solid opposition between the language of sense and that of Faith it ought to be made appear that according to them these two languages justle one another that they cannot be both of 'em true in the main and that that of sense is deceitful and illusory if taken according to the letter But this is that which Mr. Arnaud does not demonstrate We know our senses tell us that 't is bread we know their deposition is literal for 't is literally and without a figure that our senses tell us that the Eucharist is Bread and Wine As often then as we find the Fathers of the 7th and 8th Centuries speaking according to sense reason will guide us to the understanding of their language according to the letter unless we are shew'd that according to these same Fathers our Faith must correct this language that she declares it to be false being taken according to the letter and does not allow of it unless under the favour of an interpretation and a figure Were this shew'd us I confess then we ought to lay aside this language of sense as being very improper for the discovering to us the true opinion of Authors But till then we have liberty to take it according to the purport of the senses themselves which is to declare to us that the Eucharist is real Bread and Wine For unless it be shew'd us that those who have used it had an intention contrary to that of their senses we ought to suppose they have had even no other than that for we must ever suppose in favour of nature and the general rule That if afterwards there be met with in the expressions of Faith something that seems contrary to those of sense 't is more reasonable to attribute a figure to the language of Faith which can well bear it than to that of sense which naturally cannot suffer it So that comparing these two kinds of expressions Bread and Wine Body and Blood of Jesus Christ one with the other we must ever take the first in a literal sense and the second in a figurative one unless as I said we are shew'd the contrary by some express declaration TO make likewise an exact opposition between the matter of the Eucharist and its essence or nature it must first be shew'd that this matter does no longer subsist but ceases to be in the very moment wherein the Eucharist is made For if it subsists it makes one part of the essence or nature of the Sacrament to wit the material part and we shall always have right to use for our advantage the passages which call the Sacrament Bread and Wine altho they design the marter of it seeing this matter subsists Now of these two suppositions either that the matter subsists or does not subsist that which affirms it subsits is natural in favour of which by consequence we must always prejudicate till such time as the contrary is establisht by good proofs I say that the supposition that the matter subsists is the natural one First Because that in all the changes which happen in the world there is ever a common subject which subsists it being never heard of that there was ever made a change of one thing into another where the whole substance of this first thing has absolutely ceased to be Philosophy can give us no instance of this and even miracles wrought
and Blood of Jesus Christ 'T IS also no less in vain that Mr. Arnaud endeavours to make advantage of some terms of Amalarius his Letter to Guntard which may be seen in Spicilege's seventh Volume Guntard was a young man that was scandaliz'd at his seeing Amalarius spitting without any scruple immediately after his receiving the Communion Amalarius answers him that this was a thing natural and necessary to the preservation of health and that he thought he did nothing herein which cast any dishonor on the Body of Christ that if he imagin'd he cast out in spitting the Body of Christ he was deceived That he would say to him touching the Body of Jesus Christ which we receive what the Emperor Valentinian said to his Army 'T was in your power to choose me Emperor but now 't is in mine to choose whom I please for my Collegue 'T is the same here for 't is your part to have a pure heart and to beseech God to give it you but 't is his to disperse his Body throughout our members and veins for our salvation For 't is he who in giving the Bread to his Apostles has said This is my Body which shall be given for you His Body was on the Earth when he would and it is there when he pleases yea after his Ascension he has not disdain'd to shew himself to S. Paul in the Temple of Jerusalem which was on earth His sense is that we ought not to trouble our selves about what becomes of the mystical Body of Jesus Christ which we receive in the Eucharist that 't is our part to purifie our hearts and his to give us his Body in the manner which he thinks fitting because 't was he that said of the Bread of the Eucharist that 't was his Body What he adds concerning his Body being on the Earth c. he says it not with respect to the Real Presence as Mr. Arnaud imagins but in reference to the right which our Saviour has to make his Eucharistical Body what he pleases For 't is an argument à pari as we call it by which he undertakes to prove that Jesus Christ is the master of his Eucharistical Body as well as the master of his natural Body having left it on Earth as long as he thought fitting and after his Ascension was not so taken up with his abode in Heaven as not to shew himself to his Apostle in the Temple of Jerusalem And this appears from the sequel of his discourse I say this says he to the end that if thro ignorance or without my consent there should proceed out of my mouth any part of the Lords Body you may not believe presently hereupon that I am void of Religion and that I despise my Lords Body or that this Body be carried into any place where he would not have it come Our Soul lives by this Body as the Lord himself says If you eat not the Flesh of the Son of Man nor drink his Blood you have no life in you If then this Body be our life it will not lose being separated from us what it has in it self and what we receive from it My Son desire your Priests to take heed they lose not out of their hearts any of those words which the Lord has spoken in the Gospel for they are likewise our Life as well as the Consecrated Bread He means that altho he casts out of his mouth in spitting some part of the Eucharistical Body yet we must not believe this Body is carried to any place where our Saviour would not have it or this Body being in this place lies stript of the advantage which it has to be the life of our souls no more than the words of the Gospel which altho neglected be yet also our life What signifies this to the Real Presence Will not his discourse be every whit as coherent and as well followed if we suppose that the consecrated Bread is the Body of Jesus Christ in Sacrament as he teaches elsewhere as if we suppose it to be so in propriety of substance which we believe that Amalarius never taught THE conclusion which he draws from all this is yet if you will less favourable to Mr. Arnaud Thus says he having taken with an honest and faithful heart the Lords Body I have nothing to do to dispute whether it be invisibly carried up into Heaven or reserved in our Body till the day of Judgment or whether exhaled up in the Air or whether it flows from our Body with the Blood when our Veins be opened or issues out thro the Pores the Lord saying Whatsoever enters by the mouth into the belly goes into Excrement Which is to say that it belongs not to us to make all these questions about the Sacrament because our Saviour does with it what he pleases As to our parts adds he we ought only to have a care lest we receive it with a Judas ' s heart lest we despise it but on the contrary discern it salutarily from other common aliments I confess Mr. Arnaud has some reason to conjecture hence that Amalarius was of the number of those which they call Stercoranists but on what side soever he turns himself he cannot conclude he held the Real Presence and this very thing that Mr. Arnaud believes Amalarius was a Stercoranist ought to convince him on the contrary that this Author did not believe the change or conversion of the substance in the Eucharist HAD Mr. Arnaud consulted the Letter of the same Amalarius to Rangar which is within two pages of that which he wrote to Gruntard he had seen that Amalarius expounds these words of Jesus Christ This is the Cup of the New Testament in my Blood which is shed for you in this manner This Cup is a figure of my Body in which is the Blood which shall issue from my side to accomplish the ancient Law and when 't is spilt it shall be the New Testament because 't is a new and innocent Blood the Blood of the Man without Sin which shall be spilt for the Redemption of Mankind Explaining aftetwards what is said in the Liturgy Mysterium fidei This Blood says he is called the mystery of Faith because it profits to the Salvation and Eternal Life of him that believes himself Redeemed by this Blood and makes himself an imitator of our Lords Passion And therefore the Lord says If yee eat not the Flesh of the Son of man nor drink his Blood yee will have no life in you Which is to say if ye partake not of my Passion nor believe that I died for your salvation yee will have no life in you The mystery is Faith as S. Augustin teaches in his Epistle to Boniface as in some manner the Sacrament of the Body of Jesus Christ is the Body of Jesus Christ the Sacrament of the Blood of Jesus Christ is the Blood of Jesus Christ so the Sacrament of Faith is Faith 'T is plainly seen this
Church do teach that this Proposition the Bread is the Body of Jesus Christ cannot be admitted but in a Figurative Sence Every Proposition say's Occam in which the Body of Jesus Occham quod 4. quaest 35. Bell. lib. 1. d. Euchu cap 1. Christ is said to be Bread is impossible This Proposition say's Bellarmin that the Bread is the Body of Jesus Christ if it be not taken Figuratively and in this sence that the Bread signifies the Body of Jesus Christ is wholly absurd and impossible for the Bread cannot be the Body of Jesus Christ SUAREZ and Vasquez affirm the same thing and were not these three last Jesuits I might likewise say in my turn that here the Disciple is at variance with his Masters In the third place I affirm that in the Discourse of Zonarus the Term of the same relates not so much to that of Flesh as that of sacrific'd as Mr. Arnaud renders it and of buried to signifie not the Bread is this Flesh in propriety of Substance but that it is this dead and buried Flesh which shews how frivolous Mr. Arnaud's Proof is for this can neither be the same death nor burial it must then of necessity be another In fine 't is but observing never so little Zonarus Discourse and we shall find he distinguishes the Bread from the Body of Jesus Christ for he compares the one with the other saying that as the Flesh of Jesus Christ suffered death and was buried so the Bread is subject to corruption being chewed with the teeth eaten and sent down into the Stomach as in a Sepulchre and that as the Flesh of Christ overcame corruption so in like manner the Bread becomes incorruptible and passes into the Substance of the Soul which shews that his sence is that the Bread is the Flesh it self of Jesus Christ not Substantially but Mystically and consequently this pretended Evidence of Mr. Arnaud is no more than one of his Whimsies IN effect suppose that Zonarus believed Transubstantiation and that what he calls Bread is the proper Substance of Jesus Christ is it possible his extravagancy has lead him so far as to believe that this Flesh is at first corruptible and afterwards becomes incorruptible that it is cut and chewed with the Teeth and in fine reduced into the Substance of the Soul Mr. Arnaud say's 't is probable that Zonarus abuses the word corruption and extends this Ibid. pag â—44 Term to all the changes that happen to the Body of Jesus Christ not in it self but in respect of the Vayl which covers it But this evasion will not serve his turn for Zonarus say's that the Bread is subject to corruption as being the true Flesh of Jesus Christ Now 't is not in respect of its Accidents or Vayl that 't is the true Flesh of Jesus Christ according to the Hypothesis of Transubstantiation It is so by the change of Substance Not to take notice that to eat and chew Accidents with the teeth that is to say Figures and Colours stript from their Substance is a singular Fancy THIS Passage of Zonarus which I now examin'd puts me in mind of another of the same Authors who was a Grecian and famous amongst his own People and lived about the Twelfth Century which shall be my Eighteenth Proof The Passage is taken out of his Commentaries on the Cannons of the Apostles and Councils See here what he writes on the 32. Canon of the Sixth Council in Trullo The Divine Mysteries I mean the Bread and Wine do represent to us the Body and Blood of our Lord for in giving the Bread to his Disciples he said to them take eat this is my Body and in delivering the Cup he said drink ye all of it this is my Blood Seeing then the Lord in his Divine Passion after he had poured out his Blood caused to flow from his Side pierced with a Spear not only Blood but likewise Water the Church has therefore thought it necessary to mingle Water with the Wine in the Holy Mysteries THERE may be made two important Reflections on this Passage First he say's the Bread and Wine do represent to us the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ which cannot agree with the Doctrine of the Church of Rome unless forced by several Interpretations unknown to the Greeks as that by the Bread we must understand the Accidents or Appearances of Bread and by the word represent an inclusive Representation of the thing it self Secondly that grounding as he does this Representation of the words of Christ This is my Body this is my Blood it is clear that he has taken them himself in a sence of Representation and believed that 't was as much as if our Saviour had said This Bread represents my Body this Cup my Blood for otherwise he could not ground as he has done his Proposition that the Bread and Cup represent the Body and Blood of our Lord on this reason that our Saviour said This is my Body this is my Blood THIS Passage seeming to determine the Question in our favour it will not be amiss therefore to consider what may be opposed against it to avoid its force Zonarus makes use of the Term of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which may be sayd to be better rend'red not represent but present give communicate and that the sence of this Author is not that the Bread and Wine do represent to us the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ as Signs and Pictures represent their Original but that they present and communicate them to us in effect inasmuch as they contain the Substance of them and that 't is to confirm this Proposition he alledges the words of our Saviour This is my Body this is my Blood But this evasion will not serve turn if the sence and sequel of Zonarus his Discourse be never so little consider'd His Design was to confute the Armenians in shewing that there ought to be Water mingled with the Wine in the Chalice To prove this he asserts we must represent in the Mystery the Water and Blood which ran down the pierced Side of our Saviour when on the Cross and to confirm this Proposition he has recourse to this general Maxim that the Mysteries which is to say the Bread and Wine do represent the Body and Blood of our Lord. Which plainly shews then we must not translate the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 present or give for why say's he the Bread and Chalice give us the Body and Blood of Christ but because Jesus Christ has said This is my Body this is my Blood We must then put Water into the Cup because Blood and Water issued out from our Saviour's Side The Armenians have said on the contrary there must be none put in because the Lord only made mention of his Blood that 't is very uncertain whether the Mysteries give us this Water which ran down from our Lord's Side and that supposing they do give it us yet does it not hence
follow we must mingle Water with the Wine in the Cup the Wine alone being sufficient to be transubstantiated into the Blood and Water which accompanies the Blood We must then necessarily if we suppose Zonarus speaks sence understand the Term of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the sence of Representation and then his Discourse will appear rational The Mysteries represent the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ as they were upon the Cross Now in this State there issued from the pierced Side of Jesus Christ Blood and Water we must then express in the Mystery this Circumstance and to express it we must mingle Water with the Wine in the Sacred Chalice to the end that as the Wine represents the Blood so the Water may represent this Divine Water which gushed out together with â—e Blood from our Saviour's Side And this being thus cleared up it is hence evident that Zonarus understood these words of our Lord This is my Body this is my Blood in a sence of a Mystical Representation CHAP. X. The Nineteenth Proof that we do not find the Greeks do teach the Doctrines which necessarily follow that of Transubstantiation The Twentieth is the Testimony of sundry Modern Greeks that have written several Treatises touching their Religion The One and Twentieth from the Form of Abjuration which the Greeks are forc'd to make when they embrace the Religion of the Latins I Did affirm in my Answer to the Perpetuity that we donot find the Greeks do teach any of those Doctrines which necessarily follow the Belief of the change of Substances whence I concluded there was no likelyhood they were in this Point agreed with the Latins This Consequence has disturbed Mr. Arnaud and as he makes his own Dictates and those of Reason to be one and the same thing so he has not scrupled to affirm That Reason rejects this as a silly extravagancy But forasmuch as we have often experienced Lib. 10. cap. 8. pag. 59 that in matters of Reason Folly and Extravagancy it is no sure course absolutely to rely upon Mr. Arnaud's words therefore will we again lay aside the Authority of his Oracles and examine the thing as it is in it self FIRST The Greeks do not teach the Existence of the Accidents of Bread and Wine in the Eucharist without any Subject or Substance which sustains them Now this is so necessary a Consequence of Transubstantiation that those which believe this last cannot avoid the teaching and acknowledging of the other supposing they are indued with common sence In effect it would be to charge the Greeks with the greatest folly to suppose they imagin'd that the proper Substance of the Body of Jesus Christ even the very same Body which was born of the Virgin and is now in Heaven does really exist on the Altar being the same in all respects as the Bread of the Eucharist does appear to us to be that is to say white round divisible into little pieces c. and that the same things which as they speak did qualifie and affect the Bread before do qualifie and affect the same Body of Jesus Christ We must not charge the whole Greek Church with such an absurdity Whence it follows we must not attribute to her the belief of Transubstantiation for did she make profession of believing and teaching it she would teach likewise the existence of Accidents without a Subject these two Doctrines being so closely linked together that 't is impossible to separate them unless they fall upon this fancy that the Accidents of Bread do exist in the Body it self of Jesus Christ or this other namely that which appears in the Eucharist is not really the Accidents of Bread but false appearances and pure Phantasms which deceive our sences which is no less absurd nor less contrary to the Doctrine of the Greeks SECONDLY Neither do we find that they teach what the Latins call the Concomitancy which is to say that the Body and Blood are equally contained under each Species but we find on the contrary that they establish the necessity of communicating of both kinds and ground it on the necessity there is of receiving the Body and Blood of Christ as will appear in the Sequel of this Chapter which is directly opposite to this Concomitancy Yet is it not to be imagined but that those People who believe the Conversion of Substances do at the same time establish this other Doctrine For if we suppose as the Church of Rome does that we receive with the mouths of our Bodies this same Substance of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ which he had when on Earth and has still in Heaven it is not possible to separate in such a manner his Blood from his Body and his Body from his Blood as to reckon the Body to be contain'd in the only Species of Bread and the Blood in the only Species of the Wine seeing 't is true that this Separation cannot be conceived without breaking the Unity of the Life which is in Jesus Christ THIRDLY Neither do we find the Greeks have ever applied themselves to shew how 't is possible for our Lord's Body to exist in the Eucharist stript of its proper and natural Figure deprived of its dimensions impalpable indivisible without motion and action which is moreover another Consequence of Transubstantiation FOURTHLY We do not find the Greeks do in any sort trouble themselves touching the nourishment our Bodies receive when they partake of the Eucharist and yet is it certain that if we suppose they believed Transubstantiation 't is impossible for them to obtain any satisfaction touching this matter For should they deny this nourishment they may be convinced of it by experience and if it be referred to the proper Substance of Jesus Christ they plunge themselves into an Abyss of Absurdities and Impieties If it be said the Accidents nourish besides that common sence will not suffer us to say that Colours and Figures nourish they that affirm this do expose themselves to the derision of all the World who know our nourishment is made by the Addition of a new Substance to ours To affirm that God causes the Bread to reassume its first Substance or that he immediately creates another this is to make him work Miracles when we please and to be too free in our disposals of the Almighty Power of God And therefore the Latins have found themselves so perplexed that some of 'em have taken one side and some another Some have boldly denied this nourishment whatsoever experience there is of the contrary as Guitmond and Algerus others chosen rather to affirm the Accidents do nourish as Thomas Aquinas and Bellarmin Others have invented the return of the first Substance of Bread as Vasquez and others the Creation of a new Substance as Suarez and others Mr. Arnaud has chosen rather to affirm That we are nourished not with the Body of Lib. 2. cap 6. pag. 155. Jesus Christ but after another manner known only to
on the principal Point of the Conversion And yet notwithstanding all this if we will believe Mr. Arnaud my Proof is but a foolish and extravagant one He may say what he pleases but it seems to me by this that for the most part there is no agreeing with him under any other Terms than the renouncing of our Reason But to proceed I shall add to what I have already represented the Testimonies of some Modern Greeks who have given us exact descriptions of their Religion and yet not a tittle of Transubstantiation altho their design and occasions which set them on writing obliged them not to be silent on so important an Article I might begin with Jeremias the Patriarch of Constantinople for let a man read over never so many times his Answers to the Divines of Wittemberg yet cannot he find the least intimation of a substantial Conversion unless he suffers his mind to be corrupted by Mr. Arnaud's Declamations but it will be more proper to refer this examination to the following Book wherein the order and sequel of this Dispute will oblige us to mention it WE have Christopher Angelus his Letter given us by George Felavius a Lutheran Divine of Dantzic which Angelus was a Greek a man both pious and learned He greatly suffer'd amongst the Turks for his Religion and at length came into England to end there his Days in peace and quietness His Letter contains a large Account of the Customs of the Greeks touching the Eucharist wherein he is so far from asserting the substantial Conversion of the Latins that he expounds on the contrary these words of Body and Blood by them of Bread and Wine The Priest say's he carrying in his hands Status ritus Ecclesiae Graecae à Christoph Angel◠cap. 23. the Holy Things draws near to the People and stops at the door of the Sanctuary where at once he distributes to every one the Body and Blood of our Lord that is to say Bread and Wine mixed saying this Servant of God receives in the Name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost for the Remission of his Sins Amen WE have a Confession of Faith Compiled by Metrophanus Critopulus at Confession Cath. Apost in Orient Ecclesiae per Metrophanem Critopulum Helmstat in the Year 1625. He was not long after made Patriarch of Alexandria There is a whole Chapter in this Confession the Title whereof is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Lord's Supper In which having established the use of leavened Bread the Unity of this Bread to represent our Unity with Jesus Christ and one another he adds That the consecrated Bread is truly the Body of Christ and the Wine undoubtedly his Blood but the manner say's he of this change is unknown and unintelligible to us For the Understanding of these things is reserved for the Elect in Heaven to the end we may obtain the more favour from God by a Faith void of curiosity Those that seek after the reason of all things overthrow Reason and corrupt Knowledge according to the Observation of Theophrastus seeing then this Mystery is really the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ 't is therefore very pertinently called by Saint Ignatius a remedy against Mortality a Medicine that purifies us and an Antidote which preserves us from Death and makes us live in God by Jesus Christ HERE we find the Bread to be really the Body of Jesus Christ and that it suffers a change but we find not that the Substance of the one is really changed into that of another which is precisely the Transubstantiation of the Latins But on the contrary that the manner of this change is unknown to us whilst on Earth which is to say in a word he would have us indeed to believe a change for the Bread is not naturally the Body of Christ but will not suffer us to determine the manner of it which what is it but a plain rejecting of Transubstantiation seeing that it is it self the Determination of this manner It will be replied that they of the Church of Rome do likewise acknowledge Transubstantiation to be an unaccountable change that we must believe it without troubling our selves how 't is possible and Mr. Arnaud has not fail'd to produce in this sence the Passage of Metrophanus which I now mention'd according to his usual Custom which is to turn to his advantage even those things that are most against him But there is a great deal of difference between saying there is a change which makes the Bread become the Body of Christ altho we know not the manner thereof and affirming there is a substantial change which converts the Substance of Bread into that of the Body of Jesus Christ altho we know not how this comes to pass By the first we keep our selves in the general Idea of a change without descending to a particular determination By the second we determine what this change is to wit a change of one Substance into another In the first the expression is still retain'd which supposes the Bread remains to wit That the Bread is the Body of Christ but in the second this expression is willingly laid aside because it cannot be admitted but under the benefit of Figures and Distinctions The first is the Language of the Greeks the second that of the Latins BUT before we leave this Confession of Metrophanus it will not be amiss to make two reflexions thereon the one that when he establishes the necessity of the Communion in both kinds he grounds it on the necessity of partaking as well of the Body as Blood of Christ and alledges for this effect that saying in the sixth Chapter of Saint John If you eat not the Flesh of the Son Ibid. cap. 91. of Man and drink his Blood you will have no life in you Now this reason manifestly opposes the pretended concomitancy of the Latins and Transubstantiation it self for if there be made a conversion of the Bread into the proper Substance of the Body of Christ such as it is at present that is to say living and animate those that receive the Species of Bread do partake as well of the Blood as Body and it cannot be said there is any necessity of receiving the Cup by this reason that we must partake of the Blood without falling into a manifest contradiction which is likewise the reason wherefore in the Church of Rome it is believed to be sufficient to communicate of one kind THE second Consideration concerning Metrophanus is that this Author discoursing towards the end of his Chapter of the Sacrament which the Greeks reserve for the sick say's That they believe according to the Doctrine of the first Ibid. Oecumenical Council that the Mystery being reserved remains still a Holy Mystery and never loses the vertue it once received For as Wool say's he being once dyed keeps its colour so the Sanctification remains in these Mysteries ever indelible and as the remains which
the sence of the Catholick Church the Substantial and Eternal Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and the Son which is exactly the expression the Greeks abhor WE may add to this that Mr. Arnaud tells us of a Treatise of Paysius Ligaridius Archbishop of Gaza in which Ligaridius discourses of Cyrillus and his Confession and raises an Objection about it which he himself answers saying That several boubted of the truth of this Piece and that should it be true yet one Swallow does not make a Summer but he makes no mention of these two pretended Censures which without doubt he would never have forgotten being as he is a man full of Zeal for the interests of the Roman Religion were they acknowledged to be good and Authentick Acts in the Greek Church I might say the same thing of the Barons of Spartaris did it not elsewhere appear that he was a Person of small Knowledge in the Affairs of the Greeks HEYDANUS a Dutch Professour of Divinity relates that in the year 1643. The News being come to Constantinople that this pretended Heydanus praefat ad lib cui titulus est causa Dei Council was confidently reported to be true in the West Parthenius himself was so surprised and offended thereat that assembling his Clergy and People in the Patriarchal Church he openly professed 't was false and that he never intended such an injury to the memory of Cyrillus IN fine Mr. Rivet Doctor of Divinity in Holland writing to Mr. Sarrau a Councellour in the Parliament of Paris the 21 of March 1644. tells him touching this Business That he saw at Mr. Hagha ' s a Letter written in Vulgar Greek from Pachomius the Metropolitain of Chalcedon which disowned the pretended Council under the Patriarch Parthenius Farther affirming that the Subscriptions were counterfeit and particularly his That this Piece was contrived by a Rascal c. That the Patriarch was a double minded man yet denied what was printed in Moldavia to be the Act he signed and that the Prince of Moldavia banished the Author of this Impression from his Territories BUT supposing what I now alledged to be wholly untrue and that these two pretended Councils were as really true as I believe 'em to be false yet is it certain they will but confirm the Proof we draw from Cyrillus his Confession against Transubstantiation and change it into Demonstration Which will clearly appear if we consider that whosoever composed them did all they could to turn Cyrillus his words into a sence odious to the Greeks even to the imputing to him several Falsities that Cyrillus of Berrhaea who presided in the first Council was a false Greek and one of the Jesuits Scholars engaged long since in the Party of the Latins and that Parthenius seemed likewise fastned to the Roman Interest if we take that for one of his Letters which one Athanasius a Latinising Greek published in which he makes him thus write to the late King That he heartily desired the Peace of the two Churches Athan. Rhetor Presbyt Bisant anti patellar Paris 1655. as much as any of his Predecessors but if the Turk under whose Empire they lived knew of this Affair he would kill 'em all Yet could the King find out a way whereby to secure them from this danger he solemnly protests that for his part he would not be wanting So that we see here what kind of men the Authors of these two Censures have been supposing 'em true and yet they have not expresly censured what Cyrillus Lucaris asserted touching Transubstantiation the first of these to wit Cyrillus of Berrhaea say's Anathematised be Cyrillus who teaches and believes that neither the Bread of the Altar nor the Wine are changed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the Priests Consecration and coming down of the Holy Spirit into the real Body and Blood of Jesus Christ seeing 't is written in the seventeenth Article of his Heretical Doctrine that what we see and take is not the Body of Jesus Christ The second namely Parthenius say's His Doctrine is so destructive to the Eucharist that he attributes only the bare Figure to it as if we were still under the Old Law of Types and Shadows For he denies the Bread which is seen and eaten becomes after Consecration the real Body of Jesus Christ in any other than a spiritual manner or rather by imagination which is the highest pitch of Impiety For Jesus Christ did not say This is the Figure of my Body but this is my Body this is my Blood this to wit that which was seen received eaten and broken after it was blessed and sanctified Not to take here notice how captiously these People turn the Words of Cyrillus to make them contradictory to the Belief and common Expressions of the Greeks it will be sufficient to observe that howsoever prejudiced these Persons have been they durst not re-establish the Transubstantiation he expresly condemned nor take any notice of that part of the Article which rejects it in express Terms But to the end we may better judge of this it will not be amiss to recite Cyrillus his own Words We believe say's he that the second Sacrament which the Lord has instituted is that which we call the Eucharist for in the Night in which he was betrayed taking Bread and blessing it he said to his Apostles take eat this is my Body and taking the Cup he gave thanks and said drink ye all of this this is my Blood which is shed for you do this in remembrance of me And Saint Paul adds as often as ye shall eat of this Bread and drink of this Cup ye shew the Lord's death This is the plain true and lawful Tradition of this admirable Mystery in the administration and understanding of which we confess and believe a real and certain Presence of our Lord Jesus Christ to wit that which Faith offers and gives us and not that which Transubstantiation has rashly invented and teaches For we believe the faithful eat the Body of Jesus Christ in the Sacrament not in a sensible chewing of him with the teeth in the Communion but in communicating by the sence of the Soul For our Lord's Body is not in the Mystery what our eyes behold and what we take but that which Faith which receives after a spiritual manner presents and gives us Wherefore it is certain if we believe we eat and participate but if we believe not we are deprived of this benefit If you compare this Article with Cyrillus of Berrhaea and Parthenius's Censures you will find they apply themselves to that which is said concerning Our Saviour's Body being not what we see and eat but that which our Faith does spiritually receive and that they endeavour to give these Words a construction abominated by the Greeks and different from their usual expressions But as to what he says touching Transubstantiation which he calls a rash invention 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we see they
that their Faith must be the rule of ours yet will I endeavour to satisfie the Reader in this particular I do also hope that this inquiry will not be useless towards the clearing up of the principal Question between Mr. Arnaud and my self because that in shewing what the Greeks do believe I do at the same time shew what they do not believe I shall do then three things in this Chapter the first of which shall be to shew the real Belief of the Greeks touching the Eucharist Secondly describe in what they agree and differ from the Church of Rome And thirdly likewise wherein we of the Reformed Church do agree with them and in what particulars we do not AS to the first of these Points to the end we may have a fuller and clearer understanding of the real Opinion of the Greeks it will be necessary we make several Articles of it and reduce them into these following Propositions FIRST in general the Eucharist is according to them a mystical representation of the whole Oeconomy of Jesus Christ They express by it his coming into the World his being born of a Virgin his Sufferings Death Resurrection Ascension into Heaven and the Glory he displayed on the Earth in making himself known and adored by every Creature Were it necessary to prove this Proposition we could easily do it by the Greek Lyturgies and Testimonies of Cabasilas Germain Simeon Thessaloniensis Jeremias and several others but this not being a matter of contest I shall not insist upon it SECONDLY They consider the Bread in two distinct respects either whilst it is as yet on the Table of the Prothesis or on the great Altar Whilst 't is on the Prothesis they hold 't is a Type or Figure Yet do they sometimes call it the Body of Jesus Christ sometimes the imperfect Body of Christ sometimes the dead Body of Jesus Christ although they do not believe the Consecration is then compleated This is confirmed by what I related in the Fourth Chapter of this Third Book and it is not likewise necessary to insist any longer thereon because this particular concerns not the matter in hand THIRDLY When the Symbols are carried and placed on the great Altar they say that by the Prayers of the Priest and Descent of the Holy Spirit the Bread and Wine are perfectly consecrated and changed into the Body and Blood of Christ To express this change they use these general Terms I already noted to wit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. which signifie a change They say the Bread is the Body of Christ and that it is made the very Body it self or the proper Body of Christ and hereunto refer all those Citations Mr. Arnaud has alledged out of Theophylact Euthymius Nicholas Methoniensis Cabasilas Simeon Thessaloniensis and Jeremias We do not deny that the Greeks use these Expressions it concerns us here only to know in what sence the Greek Church uses them and what kind of change they mean thereby I say then that when we come to examine this change and determine in what manner the Bread and Wine are made the Body and Blood of Christ they curb our curiosity and remit this knowledge and determination to God and for their own parts keep within their general Terms Which appears by the profession of Faith which the Sarrazins made in the Twelfth Century when they imbraced the Greek Religion I believe Bibl. Patr. Tom. 2. Graeco-Lat say's the Proselyte and confess the Bread and Wine which are mystically sacrificed by the Christians and of which they partake in their Divine Sacraments I believe likewise that this Bread and Wine are in truth the Body and Blood of Christ being changed intellectually and invisibly by his Divine Power above all natural conception he alone knowing the manner of it And upon this account it was that Nicetas Choniatus complains that in the Twelfth Century the Doctrine Nicetas Choniat Annal. lib. 3. of the Divine Mysteries was divulged and therefore censures the Patriarch Camaterus for his not having immediately silenced a Monk who proposed this Question to wit whether we receive in the Eucharist the corruptible or incorruptible Body of Jesus Christ He should have been condemned say's he for an Heretick that introduced Novelties all the rest silenced by his example to the end the Mystery may ever remain a Mystery John Sylvius in his Cathe'merinon Joan Sylv. aâ—rebat Cathem of the Greeks recites a Prayer wherein it is said That the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ are touched and changed on the Altar after a supernatural manner which must not be inquired into We have likewise already seen in the Tenth Chapter of this Book the Testimony of Metrophanus the Patriarch of Alexandria who having told us the consecrated Bread is really the Body of Jesus Confess Eccles Or. cap. 9. Christ and that which is in the Cup undoubtedly his Blood he adds That the manner of this change is unknown to us and the knowledge thereof reserved for the Elect in Heaven to the end we may obtain more favour from God by a simple Faith void of curiosity And thus acquits himself ANOTHER Greek Author cited by Allatius under the name of John Allat adversus Chreygton exercit 22. the Patriarch of Jerusalem You see say's he that Saint Paul scruples not to call this Body Bread But be it so if you will that it be no longer called Bread and being no longer Bread is neither leavened nor unleavened you see that it is not bereaved of these Appellations till after Sanctification But before this dreadful Sacrifice when you offer it to sanctifie it shall this be neither Bread nor an Azyme Now that which is done in this Oblation is by our selves but that which happens in this admirable change is not from us but God It appears by this passage recited by Allatius and taken if I be not deceived out of a Manuscript wherein this Author disputes touching the Azymes against a Latin who told him that this Controversie was vain seeing that after the Consecration it is no longer Bread but the Body of Jesus Christ and it seems this Patriarch maintains against him that 't was still Bread and proves it by the Authority of Saint Paul who so calls it It seems likewise by what he adds that he would say that supposing it was no longer called Bread and lost this name yet we must not speak of what it becomes by Consecration because God only knows that and not men ALTHO the Greeks are sometimes thus reserved restraining themselves within their general Terms yet for the most part they shew more particularly their thoughts touching the nature and kind of the change which happens to the Bread and Wine and which makes them to be the Body and Blood of Christ And they do it likewise in such a manner that 't is no hard matter to find out their meaning Which is what we have now to demonstrate But before we enter into
will be perhaps replyed these two Arguments which in respect of Terms are alike yet do differ in Sence For Mr. Arnaud by the Symbol means the Accidents or Species which cover the Body and Mr. Aubertin by the Figure understands a real Substance of Bread So that howsoever alike these Arguments do at first appear one of 'em may be reasonable and th' other Extravagant I grant all this but I say if Mr. Arnaud's Argument be good Mr. Aubertins is so likewise and that if there be any Extravagancy in either of them it must be in the first and not in the second Why must Anastasius rather argue on the State of the corruptible Species than on that of the corruptible Bread His Arguing take we it how we will must be grounded on two Qualities attributed to the Eucharist one That it is a Sign and th' other That it is a corruptible Sign and from hence he will conclude that Christ's Body before his Resurrection was Corruptible as well as its Sign Now these two Qualities of Sign and Corruptible are found as well or rather better in the Bread which Aubertin means than in the Accidents or Mr. Arnaud's Species It will no ways avail to say that Anastasius denies the Eucharist to be a Figure and that thus he would contradict himself saying on one hand that it is not a Figure and supposing on the other that it is one This I say signifies nothing for 't is only changing the Term of Figure into that of Symbol which Mr. Arnaud uses and which he believed not to be comprehended in the Rejection of the Word Figure Neither signifies it any thing to say Anastasius assures us the Eucharist is the real Body which hinders us from understanding by the Term of Symbol contained in his Argument that 't is Bread in Substance For I deny that by the true Body he mentions we must understand the Body in proper Substance It is then certain that if we may attribute Mr. Arnaud's Argument to this Author we may as well attribute to him that of Mr. Aubertin BUT I say moreover that if there be any Extravagancy in either of these two Arguments it will be found to be rather in that which Mr. Arnaud imputes to him than the other Which we shall soon find if we consider what means in Anastasius his Discourse the Term of Eucharist according to Mr. Arnaud's Commentary for it signifies the Incorruptible Body Invisible and Impassible of Christ under the Corruptible Species of Bread and Wine Anastasius then will Reason after this manner The Body of Christ before his Resurrection was immediately Corruptible in it self Why Because now in the Eucharist it is Incorruptible in it self and Corruptible in respect of the Species which cover it Was ever such absurd Arguing known Would not the Heretick Gayanite say the contrary hence followed for seeing our Lord is Incorruptible in himself in the Eucharist this is a Token he was so before his Resurrection And as to the Species being only Appearances of Bread the Corruption which happens to them is no more than an appearance of Corruption which can at farthest but figurate an apparent Corruption in our Lord's Body before his Resurrection which does not differ from the Doctrine of these Hereticks Moreover Anastasius establishes in his Argument this Principle That an incorruptible Nature can neither be Cut nor Wounded in the Side and Hands nor Pierced nor put to Death nor Eaten That it can neither be held nor touched Now is it not a most extream folly to strengthen this by instancing the Eucharist that is to say the real Body of Christ which is Cut Pierced Chewed in respect of the Appearances which cover it and which are yet incorruptible For this is just as if a Man should prove 't is Night in pointing to the Sun shining In effect if we introduce the Heretick defending himself against Anastasius his Proposition by the Example of the Eucharist and saying I distinguish an incorruptible Nature can neither be Hurt nor Cut nor Pierced nor put to Death immediately and really in it self I acknowledg it in respect of the Appearances which cover it and I prove my Negative by the Example of the Eucharist wherein the Body of Christ wholy incorruptible as it is is yet Cut Chewed Pierced in respect of the Appearances which are to it instead of a Vail Should I say the Heretick be brought in Disputing against Anastasiu's Principle in this manner he would make a very just and reasonable Answer whence it appears that this Example of the Eucharist if taken in the Sence Mr. Arnaud gives it is an extravagancy and Folly in Anastasius his own Mouth MR. Arnaud then may be pleased to acknowledg that he cannot rely on this Hypothesis neither justify the other Evasion which is That Anastasius believed this whiteness and other sensible Accidents of the Eucharist to be the Ibid. p. 631. Accidents of the Body of Christ and so that when the Bread is broken it is the Body of Christ that is broken By the Body of Christ Mr. Arnaud understands not the Mystical Body only but the Natural Body in proper Substance Now what greater Extravagancy can we charge a Man with than to impute to him the Belief that the Substance of the Body is in Effect of the same Form and Figure as the Bread in the Eucharist that 't is divided and broken in several Particles as the Bread is divided that each Particle is a part of this Body and that the Substance of this Body has really the Savour and Colour which Bread has And seeing we must believe the Concomitancy in the same manner as the Substance of Bread will be liquid and fluid as Wine in the Cup so that of the Blood will be in the other Species hard and solid as Bread In Truth if Anastasius could have this Sentiment we must say he was a Person unfit to be instanced in this Dispute add Mr. Arnaud cannot render him more contemptible than in attributing to him such kind of Fooleries What he alledges concerning Tertullian that he believed the Divinity had a Body is lyable to be questioned There are abundance of Passages in this Author which will not suffer us to entertain such a Thought of him and which oblige us to expound in a good Sence what he has otherwise expressed a little roughly Theodoret makes the Euthychiens fall into Contradictions it is true but they are different from the Extravagancy with which Mr. Arnaud charges Anastasius for they do not immediately discover themselves whereas th 'others presently manifest themselves In short if Mr. Arnaud cannot make use and advantage of his Authors unless he accuse them first of Extravagancy and afterwards excuse them by Example of the Extravagancies of others Let me tell him he must get better Witnesses and not think to weary us out with the Language of Persons who neither know what they say nor what they believe WAS there ever any thing
which Mr. Arnaud would make of this Priest For to determine whether Transubstantiation be an Article of the Moscovite Religion it ought to be known on one hand what it is the Latins call Transubstantiation what they say and believe of it and on the other what the Moscovite Religion asserts touching the Eucharist 'T is no hard matter to make an ignorant Priest that speaks of a change of Bread into the Body of Christ believe thaâ— he acknowledges a Transubstantiation But not to wander from the point in hand there is all the likelyhood in the World that that which passed at the Arch-Bishop of Sens is a meer Illusion To judge of it we need only attentively consider the Expressions of the Relation which Lib 12. P. 75. Mr. Arnaud has produced After Dinner they withdrew into the Arch-Bishops Chamber where we began to Discourse them touching the different Customs of their Church touching their Patriarchs Communion with the other Grcek Patriarchs concerning Fastings Caelibacy Prayer their Liturgy c. But in fine the Arch-Bishop desirous to come to the main Point of which he was most desirous to be informed prayed the Interpreter to tell him word for word what he was going to demand having laid this strict charge on the Interpreter he desired them to tell him their Opinion concerning the Sacrament of the Eucharist The Moscovite Priest answers without the least haesitation which a little surprized us for he had hither to stood as it were upon his Guard as if he had feared the engaging too far in some point of Controversie lest he might thereby endanger his Reputation That it was the real Body and Blood of Christ and that after the Priest had uttered these words of our Saviour this is my Body the Bread is changed into the Body of Christ and having said the same in respect of the Cup the Wine is changed into his Blood When the Interpreter had said this the Arch-Bishop bad him tell him exactly word for word what the Priest had told him The Interpreter told the Moscovite Priest what the Prelate desired whereupon he repeated the same words the second time by the Interpreter And for as much as he expressed that the Bread and Wine were transubstantiated into the Body and Blood of Christ he was asked whether the Moscovite Priest used a word which in his Language had the force of that of Transubstantiated in ours He replyed yes and repeated the Moscovite word which signifies this in looking on the Priest and Secretary who both of them made Signs that this word was proper in their tongue and signified a change of Substance THE result of this Discourse is 1. That the Priest said 't was the real Body and Blood of Christ and that the Bread was changed into the Body of Jesus Christ and the Wine into his Blood 2. That he repeated only the same words the second time 3. That the Interpreter added that the Bread and Wine are transubstantiated 4. That it was the Interpreter that profest the Moscovite word had the force of that of Transubstantiation 5. That for a farther Confirmation touching the force of the Word he required the Priest's and Secretary's consent by a bare look without speaking to them 6. That the Priest and Secretary answered him by a sign without speaking 7. That this sign signified this word was proper in their Tongue and signified a change of Substance IT is to be observed that this Interpreter was a Monk not of the Moscovite Religion but the Roman and of the order of Jacobins and that he explained in French what the Moscovites said in his Language and in Moscovit what M. the Arch-Bishop of Sens said in French for the Moscovites understood no more the French than the French the Moscovit Upon this remark which is beyond controul for 't is a matter of Fact well known throughout all Paris I desire Mr. Arnaud to tell me why this Interpreter having returned the Answer of the Moscovite Priest which he twice repeated in the same Terms without any Alteration when he had I say given it in these words the Bread is changed into the Body of Jesus Christ and the Wine into his Blood wherefore did he add that the Bread and Wine were transubstantiated Wherefore when he was asked whether the Priest used a Word which in his Tongue had the force of Transubstantiation did he demand by a bare look the consent of the Priest and Secretary to the Yes which he answered seeing the Priest and Secretary who understood not French neither understood the Transubstantiated which he added nor the Question put to the Interpreter nor the Yes he answered Do they in Muscovia speak by sings or were they agreed before hand that this look should signifie transubstantiated How could the Priest and Secretary answer to that which they did not understand why by signs and why must this sign which answered a very obscure Question signifie Transubstantiation Certainly we are but sorry people here in the West in comparison of these Moscovites that can treat of one of the most important Articles of Religion by signs and nodds without knowing the point in question had Mr. Arnaud and I learnt this Secret our Dispute would not be so tedious Now if this be not delusory I know not any thing that I can call by that name 'T IS certain the Moscovites profess to follow the Greek Religion although they have in some sort altered it Which I told the Author of the Perpetuity and this I did not assert upon light grounds although Mr. Arnaud is pleased to say I did seeing I said no more than what he himself acknowledges This is a common Principle to us both 't is true we draw hence different consequences but as matters are now stated and cleared any man may easily judge which of us two has best grounded his Sentiment I said likewise that Lasicius affirms the Armenians although they deny Transubstantiation yet do reverence the Sacrament more religiously than the Russians whence I drew this Conclusion that 't was not likely the Answer to the P. 3. C. 8. latter of these who are more cold in their Devotion should extend their Belief farther than the others and that the others should have more respect for a Substance of Bread than these should have for what they esteemed the proper Substance of the Son of God I know not what could oblige Mr. Lib. 5. C. 4. P. 448s Arnaud to say That it is scarcely to be imagined how many Disguisements and Falsities there are in this Argument I designed no more by all this than the drawing of a just Consequence from a True Principle 'T is certain that Lasicius say's two things the one that the Armenians of Leopolis deny the Bread and Wine lose their Nature In Sacramento Eucharistae elementa Naturas suas amittere negant These are his words the other Joan. Lazic Relig. Arm. that they reverence the Sarcament more religiously than
that these People hold so monstrous an Opinion whence comes it that both Ancient and Modern Authors make no mention of it never examined the Consequences of such a Conversion have vehemently argued against the conversion of the Humane Nature into the Divine to shew that 't is impossible and not mentioned a word of this conversion of Bread into the Divinity How happens it the Emissaries never discovered to the World so important a secret never disputed against them on this point nor the Popes ever made them abjure such an absurd Opinion in the reunions made between these People and the Church of Rome Whence comes it the Greeks who have bin mixtwith them since so many ages never reproached 'um with this kind of Transubstantiation about which there may be great Volumes written Mr. Arnaud who is so ready at arguing from the silence of all these People Authors Travellers Emissaries Popes Greeks c. ought to inform us of the reason why not one of 'um has mentioned a word of this pretended change of Bread into the nature of the Divinity ALL this I think should oblige Mr. Arnaud to suspend a while his judgment touching Mr. Picquet's Letter which say's that all the Levantine Christians who are Hereticks and consequently such as have entred into a Confederacy against the Roman Church yet hold as an Article of Faith the real Presence of Jesus Christ and Transubstantiation of the Bread and Wine into the Body and Blood of our Lord. He ought at least to desire him The Contents of this Letter are thus elated by Mr. Arnaud in his 12 Book to consult what they mean in saying there is but one Nature in Jesus Christ and that the Divine one and yet the Substance of Bread to be really changed into the Substance of Christ's Body BUT this ought to oblige him likewise not to draw so lightly his Consequences from several Passages of the Liturgies which are attributed to these People wherein the Eucharist is called the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ and said to be truely this Body and this Blood For besides that these Expressions import not Transubstantiation as I have often proved and shall farther prove in what follows 't is to be considered that we have no certainty that these pieces are real or faithfully Translated seeing that in those few Passages which Mr. Arnaud produces there may be observed a Remarkable difference The Liturgy which is in the Biblictheca Patrum under the Title of Canon generalis Aethiopum mentions that the People say after the Priest has Consecrated Amen Amen Amen credimus confidimus laudamus te Deus noster hoc verè Corpus tuum est We believe it We trust in thee and praise thee O Lord our God this is really thy Body but Athanasius Kircher otherwise relates these words Amen Amen Amen credimus confidimus laudamus te Mr. Arnaud Lib. 5. C. 13. p. 518. O Domine Deus noster hoc est in veritate credimus caro tua We believe thee we trust in thee we praise thee O our God this we believe is thy Flesh in truth In one place the People are made to say they believe that 't is truely the Body of Jesus Christ and here that they believe 't is the Body of Jesus Christ in truth Now there is a difference between these two Propositions for in one the Adverb truely refers to the Body and in th' other to the Faith of the People This alteration is not so inconsiderable but that we may see by this Example that those who have given us this Liturgy which is in the Bibliotheca Patrum have not scrupled to accommodate their Translation as much as in them lay to the sence of the Roman Church and to wrest for this effect the Terms of the Original I never say'd this whole Piece was absolutely fictitious as Mr. Arnaud wou'd make the World believe But only that that passage which speaks of the Elevation of the Host is Answer to the Perp. part 2. C. 8. Lib 5. C. 13. p. 516. a mere Forgery and this we have proved by the Testimony of Alvarez and Zaga Zabo one of which positively denies the Ethiopians elevate the Sacrament and th' other declares they do not expose it 'T is to no purpose for Mr. Arnaud to endeavour to justify this alteration in saying perhaps there be different Ceremonies in Ethiopia that they elevate the Sacrament in some places and not in others that they elevate it in a manner so little Remarkable that it has given Occasion to Alvarez and Zaga Zabo in comparing it with the elevation of the Roman Church to say they elevated it not at all that is they do not elevate it so high as to make it be seen as is usual amongst the Latins 'T is plainly seen these are mere Subterfuges and vain Conjectures Had Alvarez and Zaga thus meant they would have so explain'd themselves and distinguished the Places or the manner of the Elevation whereas they speak absolutely Mr. Arnand do's not know more than these two Authors and were he to correct or expound them he ought at least to offer something that might justify his Correction or Exposition We may confirm the Testimony of Alvarez and Zaga Zabo by that of Montconies a Traveller into those parts who describing the Mass of the Copticks who as every Body knows are of the same Religion and observe the same Ceremonies as the Abyssins say's expresly that they use no Elevation IT is then certain that this Liturgy such as it is in the Bibliotheca Patrum is an altered Piece and therefore 't is inserted in it without any mention whence 't was taken or who Translated it as I already observed in my answer to the Perpetuity Yet forasmuch as the Almighty taketh the crafty in their own Nets there are several things left untouch'd which do not well agree with the Doctrine of Transubstantiation such as for Instance is this Prayer which the Priest makes after the Consecration commemorating say's he thy Death and Resurrection we offer thee this Bread and Missa sive Canon univers Aethiop Bibl. patr tom 6. Cup and give thee thanks inasmuch as that by this Sacrifice thou hast made us worthy to appear in thy Presence and exercise this office of Priesthood before thee Wee most earnestly beseech thee O Lord to send thy Holy Spirit on this Bread and Cup which are the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour for ever Did they understand the Bread and Wine were the Body and Blood of the Son of God in proper Substance would they say to him himself that they offer to him the Bread and Cup in Commemoration of his Death and Resurrection and would it not likewise be impious to desire him to send on this Bread and Cup his Holy Spirit 'T is not to Jesus Christ himself that the Latins do offer his Body and Blood those that believe the Roman reality do not
the Sacrament of the Eucharist several Passages of the Old Testament which might be easily made to point at it and which several Doctors of the Roman Church at this day do in effect make to relate unto Transubstantiation It will not be found they have taken several Terms in the Sence wherein they must be taken upon the Supposition of Species for Accidents without a Subject of Spiritually to denote an Existence after the manner of a Spirit of the Vail of the Sacrament or Figure of Bread to signifie a bare Appearance of Bread that covers the Substance of the Body of Jesus Christ of Corporeal Presence for a Presence after the manner of a Body by Opposition to the Presence of this same Body after the manner of a Spirit It is plainly seen they have forced and exaggerated the Expressions of the Scripture on the Subject of Baptism the Church the Poor the Gospel at least as vehem ently as those that are to be met with in the Scripture touching the Eucharist We shall not find they have made on the Subject of the Sacrament either the Distinctions Observations or Questions which Persons prepossessed with the belief of the Conversion of Substances ought necessarily to have made without being obliged thereunto by Disputes Nor in a word the proper and inseparable Consequences of this Doctrine but on the contrary several things exactly contrary to it Now this is what I call Analogy or Relation which the parts of a Religion have with one another and against which I say 't is not Rational to prejudicate 'T IS certain we ought not only not to prejudicate against all these things but on the contrary predetermine in their favour seeing the prejudice which all these things form is so strong that we must have on the other side a very great Evidence to surmount it Especially if we examine the Centuries that preceded the seventh whereunto likewise may be applied the same Observations which I now made whence arise the like Prejudices in respect of those Ages and this Pejudice joyning it self to that which we have established touching the Seventh and Eighth Centuries do only fortify it yet more TO all which we may add that there is to speak morally a kind of Contradiction between the parts of Mr. Arnaud's Supposition He would have us imagine the Church of the Seventh and following Ages firmly believed the real Presence and Conversion of Substances altho these Doctrines were never disputed of therein nor so much as questioned But 't is very improbable the Church remain'd Seven or Eight hundred years without any Contest touching this Article supposing she held it There have bin in this Interval of time several Controversies touching the principal Points of the Christian Religion on Articles against which Nature do's less rise than against that of which we speak and which moreover are found clearly established in the Word of God How comes it to pass there has bin none on this There have bin even several Disputes in which there has bin occasion of mentioning the Doctrines of the real Presence and Transubstantiation which could not be without some Contest on this Subject Such were the Controversies of the Valentinians Marcionites Manichees Millenaries Encratites Arians Originists Eutychiens Ascodrupites and of I know not how many others which must unavoidably produce Debates on the Eucharist had the Belief which the Roman Church has at this day bin then introduced into Christianity It being then certain as it is that the Church was in peace in this respect during all these Centuries 't is a token that the Doctrines in question were therein unknown and this very Consideration overthrows Mr. Arnaud's Prejudice and confirms ours MR. Arnaud will say without doubt we must suppose the Church of the seventh and eighth Centuries to be in the same Condition wherein lay that of the eleventh which condemned the Doctrine of Berenger But besides that there are several things which may be alledged concerning this Condemnation it not being true then men believed constantly and universally Transubstantiation nor the real Presence as may be justified by several Inductions there being no likelyhood in the first Condemnations of Berenger Transubstantiation was established seeing 't was established in the Council of Rome held under Nicolas II. wherein he was condemned for the fifth time according to the Authors of the Office of the Holy Sacrament as we have already observed 't is an apparent Illusion to design the grounding of any Prejudication on this seeing we find in the ninth Century a formal Contest which arose on this Subject and that even this makes the principal Point of ouâ— Difference to wit whether there has hapned any change therein Before then the Condition of the eleventh Century can be made to serve for a Principle to conclude from thence the Condition of the seventh and eigth the Question concerning the Change must be first decided for whilst we be in this Contest there can be no Consequence drawn hence It would be a very pleasant thing for a man to prejudicate against the Change which we pretend by the seventh and eighth Century as believing Transubstantiation and at the same time to prejudicate for Transubstantiation in the seventh and eighth Centuries because 't was believed in the eleventh which is to say to draw the Principle from the Conclusion and then the Conclusion from the Principle in saying on one hand that Transubstantiation was believed in the eleventh Century because 't was believed in the Seventh and in the Eigth and on the other that 't was believed in the seventh and in the eighth because 't was believed in the Eleventh LET Mr. Arnaud then if he pleases make another System for all this great preparation of Observations and Propositious falls to the ground assoon as ever we deny him the Supposition he made and shewed him the injustice and unreasonableness of it As to this pretended contrariety of the Language of Sence with that of Faith 't is a thing we have already confuted Should our Senses take upon 'um to tell us the Eucharist was only Bread and Wine or mere Bread and Wine our Faith would not bear this Language This is not the Language of the Church But when our Senses only tell us 't is Bread and Wine this Language is in truth different from that of Faith which tells us 't is the Body of Jesus Christ but 't is not contrary to it for Faith receives and approves it in the manner wherein the Senses conceive it which is to say 't is real Bread and real Wine in a litteral sence and without a figure That which you have seen on the Altar say's St. Augustin and after him Bede an Author of the eighth Contury is Bread and Augus serm ad Infunt Wine and this your Eyes tell you but the instruction which your Faith requires is that the Bread is the Body of Jesus Christ and the Cup his Blood So that here we have
the two Languages both of Sense and of Faith but that of Faith do's not contradict that of Sense on the contrary Faith receives the Language of Sense without Explication and Figure For whosoever say's the Eucharist is Bread and Wine which our Eyes likewise shew us means 't is real Bread and Wine in Substance for this our Eyes shew us in a most proper and litteral sense If St. Augustin and Bede find some Appearance of contrariety between the Language of Sense which bears 't is Bread and that of Faith which will have this Bread to be the Body of Jesus Christ the difficulty lyes not in the Testimony of Sense as if we need call its truth in question but in the Body of Jesus Christ which being Flesh assumed of the Virgin which suffered the Death of the Cross and was exalted up into Heaven that Bread should be say'd to be this Body This thought may arise say's St. Augustin and Bede after him in the mind of some Persons we know whence our Lord Jesus Christ has taken his Flesh to wit of the Virgin Mary we know he was suckled in his Infancy educated grew up in years suffered the Persecution of the Jews was nayl'd to the Cross put to Death Buried rose the third Day and Ascended into Heaven when he pleased whence he is to Descend to judge both the living and dead and that he is now sat down at the right hand of the Father How then is the Bread his Body and the Cup his Blood They do not say how shall we not believe what our Senses assure us Shall we doubt of the truth of their Testimony On the contrary they suppose this Testimony to be certain and ground the difficulty on the Body of Jesus Christ which cannot be Bread The Explication of the difficulty and the reconciliation of the two Propositions are not built on the Error of the senses nor the Interpretation which ought be given to their Language in saying the Eucharist is called Bread because it appears to be so or because 't was Bread before its Consecration But from the Nature of the Sacraments wherein there are two Ideas both of 'um true the one of our Senses and the other of our Understanding My Brethren say they these things are called Sacraments because we see therein one thing and understand another That which we see has a Corporeal Species that which we understand has a Spiritual Fruit. As if they had say'd as to what concerns our Eye-sight 't is really Bread and Wine but in respect of our Understanding 't is the Body of Jesus Christ So that if there must be any thing figurative in either of the two Propositions it must be in the Language of Faith and not in that of Sense which bears neither Difficulty nor Exposition ALL that we can expect from them say's Mr. Arnaud that is to say from Authors of the seventh and eighth Century is that when they speak of this Mystery according to Faith and Truth they should explain themselves Book 8. Ch. 2. p. 739. according to those Terms which plainly and naturally express it and which imprint the Idea of it in all those which hear them litterally That which may be expected from Persons believing and teaching the Conversion of the Substance of Bread whether it has bin disputed on or no is that they declare it in precise and formal Terms Which I have already shew'd on the Subject of the Greeks by this reason that the Doctrine of the Conversion of Substances determins the general Sence of these Expressions the Bread is made the Body of Jesus Christ the Bread is changed into the Body of Jesus Christ that it gives them a particular Sense and forms of it self a distinct and precise Idea whence it follows that when the question is about teaching of it and a man has directly this Intention he cannot but express it in clear and plain Terms which answer the Idea he has of it and makes thence the same to spring up in the Minds of the Hearers It cannot be denyed but this Conversion and Substantial Presence are of themselves very difficult to be conceived and hard to be believed because all the lights of Nature are contrary to 'um and there is nothing convictive in Holy Scripture to establish ' um How then can a man conceive that a Church which holds 'um or designs to Preach 'um to its People do's not explain it self about 'um at least in precise and formal Expressions Reason forces us to say she ought to endeavor to establish them by the strongest Proofs she was able for supposing the Schools had never disputed concerning 'um and no Person had ever declared against 'um yet Nature itself which is common to all men do's sufficiently enough oppose them to oblige the Church he speaks of to defend them from their Attacks and fortify them against their Oppositions But granting Mr. Arnaud the Authors of the seventh and eighth Centuries were in this respect extremely negligent who can imagine they really intended to teach the Substance of Bread was really converted into the Substance of the Body of Jesus Christ when they express themselves only by general and ambiguous Terms which need so many Commentaries and Supplements BUT say's Mr. Arnaud we have reason to believe that being Men and indued with Humane Inclinations they had that also of abridging their Ch. 2. p. 742. Words and leaving something to be supplyed by them to whom they spake I know several People of a contrary Humour and yet are men as appears by other Humours they have But this Proposition has no other foundation but Mr. Arnaud's Imagination He offers it without any Proof and I may reject it without farther examining it Yet let me tell him that in the Explication of Mysteries of Religion Men are not wont to use these half Sentences unless when they treat of a Point indirectly and occasionally and not when they expresly and designedly fall upon the explaining of what we must know and believe What strange kind of ways then had they in those Times to express themselves only in half Sentences when they design'd to explain the Mystery of the Eucharist This Custom lasted a great while seeing it was so for near two hundred years and who told Mr. Arnaud the Ministers were not now and then tempted to assert things clearly and speak what they thought or at least that the People were not wearyed with continual supplying what was wanting in the Expressions of their Ministers or in fine that none of these Customs were lost Mr. Arnaud complains we make use of Raillery sometimes to refute him but why do's he not then tell us things less ridiculous For to speak soberly to undertake to prove Transubstantiation and the real Presence by the silence of him that teaches on one side and by the Suppliment of him that hearkens on the other is not very rational Yet to this pass may be reduced his manner
himself and howsoever he uses it that we may well say he loses both his time and his pains WOULD we really know what has been the sentiment of the ancients the way to be informed is not to take passages in a counter sense and captiously heapt up one upon another but to apply our selves to the testimony of the Ancients themselveâ— produced sincerely and faithfully some of which are these TERTULLIAN Those of Capernaum having found our Saviours Tertull. de resur car c. 37. discourse hard and insupportable as if he design'd to give them TRVLY his Flesh to eat To manifest to 'em the means he uses for the procuring us salvation were spiritual he tells them 't is the Spirit that quickens ORIGEN There is in the New Testament a letter which kills him that Origen hom 7. in Levit. does not understand spiritually the meaning of it For if we take these words in a literal sense if you eat not my Flesh and drink not my Blood THIS LETTER KILLS S. ATHANASIUS The words of our Saviour Christ were not carnal Athanas in illud si quis dixerit c. but spiritual For to how few persons would his Body have been sufficient and how could he be the food of the whole world Therefore he mentions his Ascension into Heaven to take them off from all carnal thoughts and to shew them he gave his Flesh as meat from above heavenly food a spiritual nourishment EUSEBIUS of Cesarea Our Saviour taught his Disciples that they must understand SPIRITVALLY what he told them concerning his Flesh Euseb lib. 3. de Theol. Eccles cap. 12. and Blood Think not says he to 'em that I speak of this Flesh which I now have on as if ye were to eat it nor imagin that I enjoyn you to drink this sensible and corporeal Blood know that the words I speak to you are spirit and life THE Author of an imperfect Book on S. Matthew under the name of Author oper imperf in Mat. hom 11. S. Chrysostom If it be a dangerous thing to transfer to common uses the sacred Vessels wherein THE TRUE BODY OF JESUS CHRIST is not contained but the MYSTERY of his Body how much more the vessels of our body which God has prepared as an habitation for himself S. AMBROSE The shadow was in the Law the IMAGE is in the Ambros lib. 1. de officiis c. 48. Gospel THE TRUTH IS IN HEAVEN The Jews offer'd anciently a Lamb an Heifer now Jesus Christ is offer'd he is offer'd as a man as capable of suffering and he offers himself as a Priest HERE IS THIS DONE IN A FIGURE but at the Fathers right hand where he intercedes for us as our advocate THIS IS PERFORMED IN TRUTH S. AUSTIN Before the coming of Christ the Flesh of this Sacrifice Aug. contr Faust lib. 20. cap. 21. was promised by Victims of Resemblance In the Passion of Jesus Christ this Flesh was given BY THE TRUTH IT SELF After his Ascension it is celebrated BY A SACRAMENT OF COMMEMORATION IN another place You shall not eat THIS BODY WHICH YOU Aug. in Ps 98. SEE nor drink this Blood which those that are to crucifie me will shed I have recommended to you A SACRAMENT if ye receive it spiritually it will quicken you AGAIN elsewhere The Body and Blood will be the life of every one Aug. Serm. 2. de ver Apost of us if we eat and drink SPIRITUALLY IN THE TRUTH IT SELF that which we take VISIBLY IN THE SACRAMENT si quod in Sacramento visibiliter sumitur in ipsa veritate spiritualiter manducetur Spiritualiter bibatur THE Author of the Commentary on the Psalms attributed to S. Jerom Hieronym Com. in Psal 147. Altho what Jesus Christ says He that eateth not my Flesh nor drinks my Blood may be understood in reference to the Mystery yet the word of the Scriptures the Divine Doctrine IS MORE TRULY the Body of Jesus Christ FACUNDUS The Bread is not PROPERLY the Body of Jesus Facundus def trium capit l. 9. Christ nor the Cup his Blood but they are so called because they contain the mystery of them RABAN Of late some that HAVE NOT A RIGHT SENTIMENT Raban in paenitent have said of the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of our Lord that 'T IS THE BODY it self and Blood of our Saviour born of the Virgin Mary OECUMENIUS The servants of the Christians had heard their Oecumen in 1 Pet. cap. 2. Masters say that the Divine Communion was the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ and they imagin'd that 't was INDEED flesh and blood CHAP. IX That the Fathers of the Seventh and Eighth Centuries held not Transubstantiation nor the Substantial Presence WE may judg by these passages which I now alledged as from a sampler what has been the Doctrine of the ancient Church in General That of the 7th and 8th Centuries in particular will soon discover it self upon the least observation WE shall not find therein either substantial Presence or conversion of substance nor existence of a Body in several places at once nor accidents without a subject nor presence of a Body after the manner of a Spirit nor concomitancy nor adoration of the Eucharist nor any of those things by which we may comprehend that the Church in those times believed what the Roman Church believes in these WE shall find on the contrary as I have already observed that the Greg. Mag. Isidorus Beda Haymo alii passim Beda in Ep. ad Heb. c. 7. Idem in Ps 3. in quest in 2 Reg. cap. 3. in Marc. 14. Carol. Mag. ad alcuin de Septuagint Isidor in alleg Vet. Test Idem Orig. lib. 7. Idem Comment in Genes cap. 12. Idem Comment in Genes c. 23. Authors of those Ages commonly called the Eucharist The mystery of the Body of Jesus Christ the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ the figure of Christ's Body which Bede calls the image of his Oblation which the Church celebrates in remembrance of his Passion Who in another place assures us That the Lord gave and recommended to his Disciples the figure of his Body and Blood And Charlemain to the same effect That he broke the Bread and delivered the Cup as a figure of his Body and Blood WE shall therein find that this Sacrament or figure is Bread and Wine properly so called without any equivocation The Sacrament says Isidor of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ that is to say the Oblation of Bread and Wine which is offered throughout the whole world Elsewhere Melchisedeck made a difference between the Sacraments of the Law and the Gospel inasmuch as he offered in sacrifice the Oblation of Bread and Wine Again in another place Jesus Christ is a Priest according to the order of Melchisedeck by reason of the Sacrament which he has enjoyned Christians to celebrate to wit the Oblation of Bread and Wine that
Idem in Joan. lib. 6. cap. 34. come by the presence of my Divinity by which I shall be with you to the end of the world He retired from them says he again as to his manhood Ibid. cap. 35. but as God he did not leave them For the same Christ who is man is likewise God He left them then as to his manhood but remained with 'em as to his Godhead He went away in reference to that by which he is but in one place yet tarried with 'em by his Divinity which is every where LET Mr. Arnaud reflect if he pleases on these passages and on I know not how many others like 'em with which his reading will furnish him and tell us faithfully seeing on one hand there 's not to be found in Authors of the 7th and 8th Centuries either Transubstantiation or a presence of substance or any natural consequences of these Doctrines and seeing on the other so many things to be met with in them contrary thereunto as those I now mention'd whether he believes 't is likely we shall by the force of his preparations suppositions reticencies and supplements acquiesce in his Assertion that the then Church held constantly and universally as he speaks the Real Presence and Transubstantiation 'T is certain we must offer great violence to our minds and after all when we have endeavoured to imagin what Mr. Arnaud would have us we shall never be able to accomplish it We must imagin says he Christians persuaded that by the Lib. 8. cap. 2. p. 737. words of the Consecration the Bread and Wine were effectually changed into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ This Doctrine was known distinctly by all the faithful I know not where Mr. Arnaud has found any of these fanciful people that are able to persuade themselves what they list As to our parts we are not such masters of our imaginations and in an affair of this nature he must pardon us if we tell him that we cannot fancy a thing to be true when it appears so plainly to us to be false BUT lest he should again accuse us as indocible we 'l see what he has to offer us from these Authors of the 7th and 8th Centuries when they expound the nature and essence of the Eucharist S. Isidor says he calls Lib. 8. cap. 4. p. 755 756. the Eucharist the Sacrament of Christ's Body and if we desire to know in what manner 't is the Sacrament of it he 'l tell us That the Bread we break is the Body of him who says I am the living Bread He further adds That the Wine is his Blood and is the same meant by these words I am the true Vine But he should not suppress what he likewise immediately adds But the Isid lib. 1. de Offic. Eccles cap. 18. Bread is called the Body of Jesus Christ because it strengthens the body and the Wine alludes to the Blood of Christ because it produces blood in our flesh These two things are visible yet being sanctifi'd by the Holy Spirit they become the Sacrament of this Divine Body Is this the language of a man that believes a real conversion of substance HE expresly asserts says moreover M. Arnaud that this Body of Christ Ibid. which we receive in the Eucharist and of which we are deprived when 't is taken from us is the Flesh of Christ concerning which 't is said If ye eat not the Flesh of the Son of man nor drink his Blood ye have no life in you and that this is the Body the truth the original represented by the shadows and types in the Old Testament I answer that S. Isidor supposes we eat the Flesh of Christ in the Eucharist which is true He likewise supposes that if we eat not this Flesh we remain deprived of Salvation and this is moreover true From whence he concludes men ought not to abstain long from the use of the Sacrament because a total neglect of this means which Christ has ordained for the eating of his Flesh and drinking his Blood will put us in danger of being wholly deprived of them for without eating and drinking this Flesh and Blood there is no hope of salvation This is Isidor's sense whence there can be nothing concluded in favour of the Thesis which Mr. Arnaud defends For we spiritually eat our Lord's Flesh in the due use of the Sacrament and 't is this manducation which S. Isidor speaks of as appears from what he there says Manifestrum est eos vivere qui corpus ejus attingunt And as to what he asserts that this is the Body the Truth the Original represented by the ancient Figures we grant it but deny it ought to be hence concluded that the Sacrament is the Body it self of Jesus Christ in substance I have sufficiently elsewhere discoursed in what manner the ancient types related to our Sacraments and those that please to take the pains to read the first Chapter of the third part of my Answer to Father Nouet will find there if I be not mistaken enough to satisfie 'em in that particular BEDE adds Mr. Arnaud says that the creatures of Bread and Wine Ibid. are changed through an ineffable virtue into the Sacrament of his Flesh and Blood This is one of the expressions which arises from the nature of the Sacrament But what does it signifie in this Author He tells us in these following words And thus says he the Blood of Christ is no more shed by the hands of Infidels for their ruine but received into the mouths of the faithful for their salvation But this is a very weak objection The sense of Bede is that the Blood of Jesus Christ is received by the mouths of the Faithful because they receive the Wine which is the Sacrament of it Which is the meaning of this term And thus sicque for he shews in what manner the mouths of the Faithful receive the Blood to wit inasmuch as they receive the Sacrament of it Gregory the Great said before Bede in the same sense That we drink the Blood of the Lamb not only with the mouths of our bodies but with the mouths of our hearts Quando sacramentum passionis Greg. Mag. Hom. 22. in Evangel illius cum ore ad redemptionem sumitur ad imitationem quoque interna mente cogitatur When we receive with our mouths the Sacrament of his Passion and inwardly apply our selves to imitate his great Saviour I shall elsewhere in its due place examine what Mr. Arnaud alledges touching Amalarius Florus Drutmar and some other Authors of the 9th Century Contemporaries with Paschasus It only remains for the finishing of the discussion of the 7th and 8th to answer some slight Observations which he has made on a passage in the Book of Images which goes under the name of Charlemain's The Author of this Book will not have the Eucharist be called an Image but the Mystery or Sacrament of the Body
the most able Divines of his own Communion as well ancient as modern do freely acknowledg that Transubstantiation cannot be inferred thence and that there is nothing which obliges 'em to believe it but the Churches determination AS to the words of the 6th Chapter of S. John so far are they from being formal declarations touching Transubstantiation and the Real Presence that a great many of the Doctors in the Roman Church have not stuck to affirm that these words do not at all relate to the Sacrament of the Eucharist Bellarmin reckons up six besides others namely Biel Cusanus Cajetan Bellarm. de Euch. l. 1. c. 5. Albertin de Sac. Euch. l. 1. c. 30. Tapper Hesselius and Jansemius but Mr. Aubertin has computed 'em to be about thirty three which is in my mind sufficient to make Mr. Arnaud comprehend that this Chapter is not so formal nor evident for these Doctrines as he imagines I shall not here take notice of what he alledges concerning those words of S. Paul That such as eat of this Bread and drink of this Cup unworthily are guilty of our Lords Body and Blood If he takes these words for an evident declaration it is yet more evident that he is mistaken To be guilty of our Lords Body and Blood signifies according to the Fathers to be a murderer of our Saviour to be of consent with the Jews that crucifi'd him This is not very formal for Transubstantiation WHAT he says touching Zuinglius is not at all to the purpose Zuinglius was not ignorant of the sense of our Saviours words but he was ignorant of the examples of like phrases which are in Scripture Mr. Arnaud mentions this only that he might bring in again this black or white Spirit of which we have already discoursed not only from passages out of Cicero and Catullus but also out of Apuleus and S. Jerom himself so that this must be lookt upon as impertinent and tiresome Mr. Arnaud's passion herein appears in that Zuinglius having only said that some body appear'd to him in a dream to advertise him visus est monitor adesse he will needs have this monitor to be a Spirit Neither is there less ignorance in raising from a proverbial way of speaking in the Latin tongue ater fuerit an albus nihil memini which signifies that we know not a man we never saw his face rhis proposition That he knew not whether 't was a white Spirit or a black one Cannot Mr. Arnaud better spend his time than in hunting after these trifles BUT says he The first idea of our Saviours words touching the Eucharist is very favourable to the Catholicks It is favourable by an effect of prejudice I grant But let a man take off this vail from his mind and represent to himself our Saviour in his natural Body on one side and the Eucharistical Bread on the other two visible objects really distinct and locally separate from one another and judg in this case whether the first idea of these words rather refers to a Transubstantiation of one of these objects into the other or to a Sacramental sense The first idea from words does not always arise from the literal signification of them but from the matter in question and circumstances of a discourse And this is that which forms the first idea as may be justified by infinite instances should Mr. Arnaud question it Now 't is certain that in respect of our Saviours words all these things do joyntly concur to give them naturally a mystical or figurative sense ALL Nations says he have taken them in this sense All Nations that is to say the Latins since Gregory VII and Innocent III. and yet not all of them neither This is a supposition which Mr. Arnaud will have right to make when he can better prove it But supposing it were true as he would make the world believe that since a thousand years all Nations took them in this sense it will not hence follow that this was the first idea of these words nor that the Roman Church has right to suppose without any other proof that her Doctrine is clearly contained in the Scripture For it is possible for all Nations to fall into an error touching the sense of certain words be engaged in it through surprizal and afterwards remain therein by prejudice and interest And in this case every man sees that this pretended clearness which Mr. Arnaud boasts of cannot be justly supposed IN fine supposing 't were true the first idea of these words was very favourable to the Church of Rome and that all Nations since a thousand years followed this first idea Mr. Arnaud could not hinder me from saying there is not in the Scripture any formal declaration touching Transubstantiation and the Real Presence And this he well knew himself But that he might take his full carier he imagin'd 't was his best way in reciting the passage of my Answer on which he grounds his invective to eclipse these expressions from it by some formal declaration of his word because 't would appear that my sense in 'em is that the Doctrines of the conversion and substantial Presence are not taught in express terms in the Holy Scripture nor are to be drawn thence by necessary consequences which is most true Who Answer to the second Treatise of the Perpituity part 1. ch 3. will believe said I if they be of God that he would leave them as a prey to the contradictions of reason and sense which he himself has armed against them without strengthening them with his protection by some formal declaration of his word Who will believe that the Divine Wisdom c. And here observe how Mr. Arnaud cites them Who will believe that if they be of God he would leave them as a prey to the contradictions of reason and sense which he himself has armed against them without strengthening them with his protection Who will believe that the Divine Wisdom c. Mr. Arnaud has not only the right of supposing without proof what he pleases but that of maiming such passages as seems good to him to alledg that which precedes and that which follows and suppress betwixt both whole clauses because they take from him all pretence of declaiming 'T is by virtue of the same right that he thought he might lay aside that which I added towards the end of this passage Say what you will of it I cannot believe but this silence disquiets you especially if you consider that there is in the New Testament four different occasions wherein according to all appearances Transubstantiation and the Real Presence were to be found DISTINCTLY ASSERTED This distinctly asserted not well relishing with Mr. Arnaud he has ended his citation in these words Say what you will of it I cannot believe but this silence sufficiently perplexes you This privilege of curtailing and suppressing is insupportable in another But what ought we not to yield to Mr. Arnaud especially considering
Body of Jesus Christ the Bread is made the Body of Jesus Christ the Bread is chang'd into the Body of Jesus Christ the Body of Jesus Christ enters into us we receive the Body of Jesus Christ and such like If a man considers each term of these in particular they naturally bring into the mind the idea of what they ordinarily and commonly signifie the Bread that of Bread the Body of Jesus Christ that of the Body of Jesus Christ is that of an affirmation changed that of a change enter and receive that of an entrance and reception But the sense which results from these terms collected being determin'd by the matter in hand can be naturally no other than a mystical sense to wit that the Bread is the Sacrament the sign the pledg the memorial of the Body of Jesus Christ that it serves us instead of it that 't is mystically chang'd into this Body that this Body enters into us by its symbol that we receive and partake of it by a spiritual reception and participation This is the true and natural sense of these expressions and that which first presents it self to the mind by reason of the matter in hand NEITHER the truth of my Principle nor the truth of the application which I make of it can be disputed me The Principle is that when the matter in question determins the propositions to a certain sense which they may reasonably receive then we must not seek for the natural sense of these propositions in the natural signification of each term taken apart but from the matter it self and that the sense to which the matter determins them is the simple and natural sense This Principle may be justifi'd by a thousand examples drawn from the ordinary use of human speech in which is made every moment propositions which would be sensless did not a man take the natural sense of the matter in question Each Art and Profession has also its particular expressions which would be as so many extravagancies were they not understood according as the matter determins them and this is in my opinion what no one can contradict Th' application which I make of this Principle is no less undeniable for 't is true that the expressions of the Fathers on the Eucharist are determin'd to a certain sense by the very nature of the Eucharistical action which is a Sacrament or a mystery of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ Seeing then their expressions are capable of receiving a Sacramental and mystical sense it must be granted that that is the natural sense THE natural sense of a proposition is that which may be most naturally in the mind of him that made it but to judg well of it we must consider the matter and see whether it has not led them to explain themselves in this manner Now it will be granted me that the question here being about signs or mystical symbols and a Spiritual Communion which we have with Jesus Christ men have more naturally in their thoughts the mystical and Sacramental sense than that of Transubstantiation or Consubstantiation BUT besides this distinction which respects the expressions both in themselves and in relation to those that have used them there must be made another which regards the persons to whom these expressions are addressed For there are some that have small knowledg of the matter in hand which know only confusedly what a Sacrament or mystery is who have made little reflection on the manner after which our Lord communicates himself to us in the Eucharist and there are others that have this knowledg more distinct and better form'd Now it being the matter or subject in hand that determins the sense of these expressions 't is certain they are more or less clear more or less intelligible according as this matter is more or less understood by every one But 't is likewise certain that to mark well the natural sense of 'em we must suppose persons who have a distinct knowledg of the subject in question and manner after which the Church has expressed her self about it and not ignorant persons that have only a very obscure notion of it The natural sense of th' expressions of each Art and each Profession is without doubt not that in which those may take it who have scarcely any knowledg of this Art or this Profession but that wherein intelligent and able persons take it and 't is for this reason the later are consulted rather than the others upon any difficulty I confess Religion ought to be the Art and Profession of the whole world but men are neither wise nor honest enough to apply themselves exactly to it It cannot be deny'd but there have been always many persons in the Church little advanced in the knowledg of the mystery of the Gospel 'T is not from them then that we must learn the natural sense of the expressions of the Fathers They might have been the object of their Faith tho not of their Understanding I mean they might believe 'em to be true without diving into the sense of 'em and knowing what they signifie And this is the meaning of S. Austin in his Sermon to Children What ye see says he is Bread and Wine which your eyes likewise tell you but the instruction which your Faith demands is that the Bread is the Body of Jesus Christ and the Cup or that which is in the Cup his Blood This is said in a few words and perhaps this little is sufficient to Faith but Faith desires to be instructed for the Prophet says If ye do not believe how will you understand Ye may reply seeing you have commanded us to believe explain to us what that is to the end we may understand it Whilst these persons remain in this degree of Faith without understanding 't is not to them we must address our selves for the finding out the natural sense of the propositions of the Fathers seeing they do not understand ' em We must desire this of them that are more advanced in knowledg who know what the Church means by these ways of speaking and can give a good account of the natural impression they make on their minds BUT who are these people They are those that learn'd from the Fathers themselves what a Sacrament or Mystery is who knew that a Mystery or Sacrament is when we see a thing and understand and believe another who knew that the Bread and Wine of the Eucharist are signs images figures memorials representations resemblances pictures of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ who knew that the Bread and Wine are to us instead of the Body and Blood that Jesus Christ is signified and communicated to us by means of these symbols and that in partaking of this visible Bread we spiritually eat our Lords Flesh who knew that the signs take commonly the names of the things which they represent that the Sacraments are called after the name of the things themselves that our
if it appears on the contrary that they have express'd themselves on the Eucharist quite otherwise than he has done if one party of 'em have formally declared themselves against his Doctrin I see no reason why any man should still obstinately maintain that Paschasus has said or wrote nothing but what the Church of his time believed and taught with him FIRST 't is certain we shall not find the Authors of that Century altho they were not inconsiderable for their number and almost all of 'em wrote something on the Eucharist have delivered themselves on so great a subject in the manner Paschasus has done neither in respect of the sense nor terms Let any man shew us for example they have asserted that the substance of the Bread is converted into the Body of Jesus Christ in such a manner that it does not any longer remain altho the savour and colour still remain or taught that the substance of the Flesh of Jesus Christ enters into our Body that what we receive from the Altar is nothing else but the same Flesh which was born of the Virgin which died and was buried and that 't is this Flesh in propriety of nature or have said that this Flesh of the word pullule this is the expression Paschasus uses which is to say that it multiplies it self and that this multiplication is made in the Sacrament and yet the same Flesh of Jesus Christ and that yet he remains wholly entire Let any one shew us any thing like this in these Authors Mr. Arnaud ought to have employed himself in this instead of expatiating as he has done upon vain arguments Twenty whole Chapters will not so well satisfie rational persons as twelve clear passages out of Authors of the 9tth Century did they contain the same Doctrin which Paschasus has set down in his Writings for this would shew the conformity there was between him and his Contemporaries and at the same time discharge him from the accusation of novelty which we lay against him But there is no danger of Mr. Arnaud's taking upon him this task because he knows 't is impossible to acquit himself well of it IN the second place 't is certain these Authors have not only not spoke of the Eucharist as Paschasus has done but on the contrary have spoke of it in a very different manner from his whence we may easily collect that his Doctrin agreed in no sort with theirs I shall begin with Walafridus Strabo whose words may be seen more at length in my answer to the Perpetuity We shall find him thus speaking That Jesus Christ has establish'd Answer to the second Treatise part 3. ch 2. the Sacraments of his Body and Blood in the substance of Bread and Wine That our Saviour has chosen the Bread and Wine to wit the same species which Melchisedec offered to be the mystery of his Body and Blood That instead of this great diversity of Sacrifices which were in use under the Law the Faithful must be contented with the simple Oblation of Bread and Wine Mr. Arnaud may talk as long as he pleases that these are expressions which do naturally link themselves with the belief of the Real Presence Which is what we deny him These expressions do naturally signifie nothing else but that the Sacrament is real Bread and real Wine and if any use these kind of expressions in the Church of Rome they do it merely by constraint to accommodate themselves in some sort to the expressions of the Ancients Mr. Arnaud again tells us that Walafridus says That the mysteries be really the Body and Blood of our Lord. But we have already several times told him that Walafridus explains himself in the same place and refers this really to the virtue not the substance of Christs Body which also appears from the title of his Chapter which is De virtute Sacramentorum FLORVS an Author of the same Century who has wrote a kind of Florus magister in Exposit Missae Commentary on the Liturgy says That the Oblation altho taken from the simple fruits of the Earth is made to the Faithful fidelibus the Body and Blood of the only Son of God After which borrowing the words of S. Augustin he says That the Consecration makes us this Body and this mystical Blood And the better to explicate what he means by this Body and this mystical Blood he adds That the Creature of Bread is made the Sacrament of the Flesh and Blood of Jesus Christ that 't is eaten Sacramentally that it remains wholly entire in Heaven and is so in our hearts And again a little further Whatsoever is done in this Oblation of the Body and Blood of our Lord is a mystery We see therein one thing and understand another what we see has a corporal species what we understand has a spiritual fruit What he says of this mystical Body and Blood which he explains afterwards by the Sacrament of the Flesh and Blood of Jesus Christ in referring to this alone the effect of the Consecration sufficiently denotes he had not in his view either change of substance or any Real Presence The opposition likewise which he makes of Jesus Christ eaten in parts in the Sacrament to himself who remains entire in Heaven and who enters entire into our hearts does no less denote it for to what purpose is this distinction If our Saviour Christ be really in the Sacrament is he not eaten entire in the same manner in our hearts and wholly entire in Heaven The former words that whatsoever is done in the Eucharist is a mystery wherein we soe one thing and understand another testifie the same thing for what is this thing which we see but the Bread and Wine and what is this other which we understand but the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ which are the object of our understanding He explains himself immediately afterwards The mystery says he of our Redemption was Wine according to what our Saviour himself says I will drink no more of this fruit of the Vine And again Our Lord recommends to us this mystery saying Do this in remembrance of me which the Apostle explaining says As often as yee eat of this Bread and drink of this Cup yee shew forth the Lords Death till he comes The Oblation then of this Bread and this Cup is the Commemoration and annunciation of the Death of Jesus Christ That which is most considerable is his making this Commentary on the very words of the Consecration without adjoyning a word either of the conversion of substances or substantial Presence of the Body and Blood of our Lord. Mr. ARNAVD who oft loses his time in vain contests leaves all these principal passages which I come now from relating and sets himself only against the translation of these words Oblatio quamvis de simplicibus terroe frugibus sumpta divinoe benedictionis ineffabili potentia efficitur fidelibus Corpus Sanguis I said that this fidelibus must
which is to say that 't is to us instead of the Body of Jesus Christ and communicates the virtue and efficacy of it 'T is in this sense that the Faithful say in the 84. Psalm That God is to 'em a Sun and a Shield And David in the 119. Psalm That the Statutes of God have been to him as so many musical songs And in the 41. Psalm according to the vulgar Translation Fuerunt mihi lachrymoe panis die ac nocte This way of speaking is very usual amongst the Latins as appears by these examples of Virgil Erit ista mihi genetrix eris mihi magnus Apollo erit ille mihi semper Deus Mens sua cuique Deus Dextra mihi Deus And so far concerning Florus WE must now pass on to Remy of Auxerre to whom as Mr. Arnaud Book 8. ch 7. page 824. says is attributed not only the Exposition of the Mass which goes under his name but also the Commentary of S. Paul which others refer to Haymus Bishop of Alberstat They that will take the pains to examin the Doctrin of this Author not in the declamations of Mr. Arnaud but in the passages themselves wherein 't is found explain'd will soon find that he held the Opinion of Damascen and the Greeks which is the union of the Bread with the Divinity and by the Divinity to the natural Body of Jesus Christ and that by means of this union or conjunction the Bread becomes the Body of Jesus Christ and is made one and the same Body with him Which does manifestly appear by what I have related of it in my Answer to the Perpetuity The Flesh says he which the Word has taken in the Womb of the Virgin Comment in 1 Cor. 10. in unity of person and the Bread which is consecrated in the Church are the same Body of Christ For as this Flesh is the Body of Christ so this Bread passes to the Body of Christ and these are not two Bodies but one Body For the fulness of the Divinity which was in that Body fills likewise this Bread and the same Divinity of the Word which is in them fills the Body of Christ which is consecrated by the Ministry of several Priests throughout the whole world and makes it one only Body of Christ He does not say as Paschasus that 't is entirely the same Flesh born of the Virgin dead and risen nor that 't is the same Flesh because it pullules or multiplies But he makes of this Flesh and Bread the same Body by an unity of union because that the same Divinity which fills the Flesh fills likewise this Bread And elsewhere Altho this Bread be broken in pieces and Consecrated all over the world yet Ibid. in c. 11. the Divinity which fills all things fills it also and makes it become one only Body of Christ It lying upon him to give a reason why several parts of the same Bread and several loaves consecrated in divers places were only one Body of Jesus Christ there was nothing more easie than to say on the hypothesis of Transubstantiation that 't was one and the same numerical substance existing wholly entire under the species in each part and on every Altar where the Consecration is perform'd But instead of this he falls upon enquiries into the reason of this unity in the Divinity which fills both all the Loaves of the Altars and all the parts of a Loaf Again in another place As the Divinity of the Word which fills the whole world is one so altho In Exposit Can. this Body be Consecrated in several places and at infinitely different times yet is not this several Bodies nor several Bloods but one only Body and one only Blood with that which he took from the Virgin and which he gave to the Apostles For the Divinity fills it and JOYNS it to it self AND MAKES THAT AS IT IS ONE SO IT BE JOYN'D TO THE BODY OF CHRIST and is one only Body of Christ in truth To say still after this that the Doctrin of Remy is not that this Bread is one with the natural Body of Jesus Christ because 't is joyn'd with it and that 't is joyn'd with it because one and the same Divinity fills them this is methinks for a man to wilfully blind himself seeing Remus says it in so many words He teaches the same thing a little further in another place As the Flesh of Jesus Christ which he took of the Virgin is his true Body which was put to death for our Salvation so the Bread which Jesus Christ gave to his Disciples and to all the Elect and which the Priests Consecrate every day in the Church with the virtue of the Divinity which fills it is the true Body of Jesus Christ and this Flesh which he has taken and this Bread are not two Bodies but make but one only Body of Christ We may find the same Doctrin in his Commentaries on the 10th Chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews This Host says he speaking of the Eucharist is one and not many as were the ancient ones But how is it one and not many seeing 't is offered both by several persons and in several places and at several times A person that had the hypothesis of Transubstantiation in his mind would not have stuck to say that it is in all places and at all times one and the same numerical substance the same Body which pullutes or multiplies it self as Paschasus speaks Whereas Remy betakes himself to another course without mentioning a word either of this unity of substance or this pullulation We must says he carefully remark that 't is the Divinity of the Word which being one filling all things and being every where causes these to be not several Sacrifices but one altho it be offered by many and is one only Body of Christ with that which he took of the Virgin and not several Bodies IT cannot be denied but this Opinion of the unity of the Bread with the Body of Jesus Christ by way of conjunction and by means of the Divinity which fills the one and the other got some footing in the Latin Church even since Damascen's time We find it in the Book of Divine Offices falsly attributed to Alcuinus almost in the same terms wherein we have seen it in Remus so that it seems that one of these Authors only copied out from the other As the Divinity of the Word says this supposed Alcuinus is one who fills the whole world so altho this Body be Consecrated Cap. 40. in several places and at an infinite number of times yet are not these several Bodies of Christ nor several Cups but one only Body of Christ and one only Blood with that which he took of the Virgin and which he gave to his Apostles For the Divinity of the Word fills him who is every where which is to say that which is Consecrated in several places and makes that as it
Jesus Christ and pass into the Body of Jesus Christ signifies to transubstantiate in all the languages of the world is a matter ill offered and evidently unjustifiable For if the Bread becomes the Body of Jesus Christ formally by reason of the union as the sense of these Authors is in the same manner as the food we receive becomes our body by the union which it has with it it is made the Body of Jesus Christ not by any real conversion into this same substance of the Body of Jesus Christ which was before but it becomes it by way of addition to this substance or according to the precise explication which Damascen gives of it by way of augmentation and growth of the natural Body of Jesus Christ as we have already seen in the third Book when we treated of the opinion of the Greeks THIS being thus clear'd up 't is no hard matter to answer the passages of Remy which Mr. Arnaud alledges with so great confidence Seeing that a Page 832. Book 8. ch 7. mystery says he is that which signifies another thing if it be the Body of Jesus Christ in truth why call we it a mystery 'T is because that after the Consecration it is one thing and it appears another It appears to be Bread and Wine but 't is in truth the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ For God accommodating himself to our weakness seeing we are not used to eat raw Flesh and drink Blood makes these gifts remain in their first form altho they be in truth the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ I answer that Remy means that the gifts appear to be after the Consecration what they were before to wit simple Bread and Wine that the change which they have received being become the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ by their union with the natural Body is an invisible thing and that this union does not change any thing of their first form altho it seems it should do it seeing the Bread which our Saviour aet and which became likewise his Body by union took the form of Flesh That God deals otherwise in the Eucharist by way of condescention to our weakness because we cannot suffer this form of Flesh but yet the union ceases not to be true and consequently the Bread is in truth the Body of Jesus Christ altho it does not appear to be so This is the true sense of Remy grounded on his own Hypothesis and not that which Mr. Arnaud imputes to him THE second passage as Mr. Arnaud alledges it is conceived in these terms As the Divinity of the Word is one which fills all the world so altho the Body be consecrated in several places and at infinitely different times yet this is not several Bodies of Jesus Christ nor several Cups but the same Body and the same Blood with that which he took in the Virgins Womb and which he gave to his Apostles And therefore we must observe that whether we take more or less all do equally receive the Body of Jesus Christ entire But first I demand of Mr. Arnaud who gave him that liberty to retrench from this passage a whole sentence to alledg what goes before and what follows and leave out a whole period in the middle without any other reason than that it solves the difficulty and clearly shews Remy's sense Is it fairly done in these kind of disputes to maim passages of Authors which do not make for us Moreover were it some words either before or after we might perhaps suppose in his favour that 't were only an omission or neglect and that he did not mind that what he left out belonged to the same passage but to retrench a whole sentence from the middle of a discourse is I think a thing without example Here then is what Remy says 'T is one and the same Body and the same Blood with that which he took in the Womb of the Virgin and which he gave to his Apostles FOR THE DIVINITY FILLS IT AND JOINS IT TO IT SELF AND MAKES THAT AS IT IS ONE IT BE LIKEWISE JOIN'D TO THE BODY OF JESVS CHRIST AND THAT IT BE ONE ONLY BODY IN THE TRVTH This period eclips'd leaves all the rest of the passage favourable to Mr. Arnaud and therefore he has thought fitting to lay it aside according to the liberty which he allows himself of removing whatsoever offends him but this same period re-establish'd shews clearly the sense of Remy which is that all the Loaves consecrated in several places are one and the same Body of Jesus Christ with that which he took of the Virgin not because they are transubstantiated into it but because they are joyn'd with it by means of the Divinity which is one in all these Loaves THE third passage has these words That as the Flesh which Jesus Christ has taken in the Womb of the Virgin is his true Body crucified for our salvation so this Bread which Jesus Christ has given to his Disciples and to all those which are predestinated to eternal life and which the Priests consecrate every day in the Church WITH THE VIRTUE OF THE DIVINITY WHICH FILLS THIS BREAD is the true Body of Jesus Christ And this Flesh which he has taken and this Bread are not two Bodies but make one only true Body of Jesus Christ so that when this Bread is broken and eaten Jesus Christ is sacrificed and eaten and yet remains entire and living And as this Body which he deposed on the Cross was offered for our Redemption so this Bread is offered every day to God for our Salvation and Redemption which altho it appears to be Bread is yet the Body of Christ For our Redeemer having regard to our weakness and seeing us subject to sin has given us this Sacrament to the end that being now incapable of dying altho we sin every day we may have a true Sacrifice by which our iniquities may be expiated And because all these Loaves make but one Body of Jesus Christ and are offered for our Redemption he has said This is my Body which shall be given for you and added do this which is to say Consecrate this Body in remembrance of me to wit of my Passion and your Redemption for I have redeemed you by my Blood Our Lord leaving this blessed Sacrament to all his faithful servants to engrave it in their hearts and memories has done like a man who drawing near the time of his death sends to his friends a great present for a remembrance of him saying Receive this gift my dear friend and keep it carefully for my sake to the end that every time you see it you may think on me There is nothing in all this but what may very well agree with the Hypothesis of Remy that the Bread is the Body of Jesus Christ by way of union and conjunction with the natural Body This Bread with the virtue of the Divinity which fills it is the true Body of Jesus Christ
and Raban who were Paschasus his Adversaries But in short if we will consult Mr. Arnaud he will tell us on the contrary Book 8. ch 11. Page 870. that Amalarius and Heribald were in no wise adversaries to Paschasus That the Author of the Perpetuity granted it because he believed William of Malmsbury said it but that this does not appear to be true That Amalarius indeed was a Sterconarist but yet never any body taught more expresly the Real Presence Thus these Gentlemen who so greatly insult over us when they find any difference amongst us Ministers in the least point of History or conjecture do not always agree among themselves one says Amalarius was the fore-runner of Berenger the other maintains that never any man taught more formally the Real Presence the one makes him together with Heribald and Raban a bitter enemy to Paschasus and th' other protests 't is not likely to be true TO clear up this confusion we must have recourse to the passages of Amalarius and judg of his Doctrin from it self He tells us then first That those things which are done in the celebration of the Mass are transacted Praesat ad lib. de Offic. Eccl. as in a Sacrament of our Lords Passion as he himself commands us saying Every time you do this do it in remembrance of me and therefore the Priest who immolates the Bread and Wine is in Sacrament of Christ the Bread the Wine and Water and Wine are for Sacraments of the Flesh and Blood of Christ The Sacraments must have some resemblance with the things of which they be Sacraments Let the Priest then be like our Saviour Christ as the Bread the Wine and Liquors are like the Body of Jesus Christ It appears from these words that in the stile of Amalarius to be a Sacrament of a thing is to represent it and hold the place of it for this is precisely what these terms signifie The things of the Mass are done IN SACRAMENT of our Lords Passion and these other terms the Priest is in Sacrament of Christ When then he adds that the Bread the Wine and Water are in SACRAMENT of the Flesh and Blood of Jesus Christ it is clear he means they stand in stead of it and represent them and this resemblance which he inserts afterwards between the Bread the Wine and the Water and the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ because they are the Sacraments of 'em confirm the same thing and at the same time formally distinguishes them from the Body and Blood themselves Mr. ARNAVD answers that Amalarius has follow'd the language of Book 8. ch 4. p. 783. sense and that the question here was not to explain the nature of the Eucharist but the mysterious references which God would engrave in the symbols which he has chosen in this mystery But what reason has Mr. Arnaud to make Amalarius to have follow'd the language of sense in opposition to that of Faith seeing Amalarius does not mention any thing that leads to this distinction and that on the contrary it appears by the terms which he makes use of that he honestly meant the Eucharist was real Bread and Wine in substance Who told Mr. Arnaud that Amalarius made not the nature of the Eucharist to consist in the whole action's being a Sacrament of our Lords Passion that the Priest immolates the Bread and Wine that he represents therein our Saviour Christ and that the Bread and Wine stand for his Body and Blood We must judg of Amalarius his Doctrin by his expressions To be in Sacrament according to him is to represent and stand for the Bread and Wine are in Sacrament of the Body and Blood as the Priest is in Sacrament of Jesus Christ they are not then really this Body and Blood AMALARIVS himself does clearly explain his mind in another Lib. 3. de Off. cap. 25. Book â— ch 7. page 834. place saying That the Priest bows himself and recommends to God what is immolated in the stead of Jesus Christ Hoc quod vice Christi immolatum est Deo patri commendat Mr. Arnaud says this is not an expression contrary to the Real Presence because Agapius has made use of it and that in effect this expression is grounded on the different state wherein Jesus Christ is in the Eucharist and that wherein he has been in his Passion and that wherein he now is in Heaven For this diversity distinguishing him to our senses it makes one distinguish him likewise in the expressions But all this is but a mere evasion Amalarius does not say that Jesus Christ in one state holds the place of himself in another state He ingenuously says that which is immolated in the stead of Jesus Christ and if you would know what he means by what is immolated in the place of Jesus Christ he has already told you that 't is Bread and Wine which are immolated and which are in Sacrament of the Flesh and Blood of Christ HE says moreover the same thing elsewhere The Oblation and the Cup Lib. 3. de Off. cap. 26. signifie our Lords Body and when Jesus Christ has said This is the Cup of my Blood he meant his Blood which was in his Body as the Wine was in the Cup. And a little further By this particle of the Oblation which the Priest puts in the Cup he represents the Body of Jesus Christ which is risen from the dead by that which the Priest or the People eat is represented this Body of Jesus Christ which is still on the Earth to wit his Church and by that which remains on the Altar is represented this other Body which is still lying in the Sepulchre to wit the faithful dead IT is in vain that Mr. Arnaud opposes to these passages what the same Amalarius says That the Church believes this Sacrament ought to be eaten by Book 8. ch 4. p. 785. men because she believes 't is our Lords Body and Blood and that in eating it the Souls of the Faithful are fill'd with benediction For 't is true that the reason for which the Church recommends to the Faithful the eating of the Eucharist is because 't is the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ this is not a matter in contest the question is only to know in what manner this is 'T IS moreover in vain that Mr. Arnaud urges these other words Credimus Ibid. naturam simplicem panis vini mixti verti in naturam rationabilem scilicet Corporis Sanguinis Christi We believe that the simple nature of Bread and Wine is changed into a reasonable nature to wit of the Body and Blood of Christ For his sense is not that there 's made a real conversion of one nature into another but that there 's made a mystical conversion by which 't is no longer mere Bread and Wine but the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ or as himself says elsewhere several times the Sacrament of the Body