is proved And in such manifest wresting of an Authors clear sense it is Conscience only must confute such gain-sayers not an Argument And in such cases it concerns the Reader not easily to resign his Reason to anothers engagements nor suffer his Judgment to be figured with the impressions of every mans fancy especially when opposing Church-Authority nor to apprehend difficulty in every thing so long as he sees it to be contested This of M. Claude's Art in evading of such as seem very evident and indisputable Testimonies § 7 6. But 6ly Suppose such clear and express Testimonies produced as that no such answers can discountenance them nor no exceptions be made against them then especially out of the 1st and 2d Observations precedent he hath some at least against the Person Urge against him the Testimonies of the Modern Greek Writers such as will admit none of his Qualifications He tells us many of them are Greeks Latiniz'd and won over to Rome Or the writing quoted wants another testimony that it is not forged such as lived in the same times having in their writings not mentioned such a Piece thus he throws off Samonas and Agapius †l. 4. c. 3. Proceed in adding to these the testimonies of several Dignified persons of the present Greek Clergy and that in several Countries and Churches of the East distinct and averse from the Roman Communion By a diligent Collection of which his prudent Adversary hath done the Church Catholick great service * in manifesting that the doctrine and practice of the Greeks not only touching Real Presence and Transubstantiation but most of the other Controversies agitated in the West consents and agrees with the Church of Rome and * in representing to the more ingenuous amongst Protestants how singular they stand and divided in their Faith from the whole Christian world he tells us They are the Declarations only of Greeks Latiniz'd and corrupted by the Roman Missions Though the same persons still maintain their dissent from the Latins as to those Points formerly in Controversie between the two Churches and there is much less cause considering the repugnance to natural Reason for their corruption in this point of a Corporal Presence wherein they are made so easily to be won than in any other of those wherein they still stand out against Rome and cannot at all be tainted Lastly tho' the Testimony they give is not so much concerning their own particular perswasion as what is the Common Tenent and Profession of the Greek i. e. those no way reconciled to the Roman Communion or other Oriental Churches A matter wherein a false testimony as it would carry a greater guilt so lies too open to discovery Urge to him the testimony of the Orientals especially persons dignified in the Clergy that have travelled about some negotiations into the West He saith l. 5. c. 5. p. 594. There is little credit to be given to this kind of People who come not usually into the West but for their own Interest and who fail not to speak in such a manner as one would have them Urge to him the testimony of those of the Greek Communion inhabiting in the West and here indulged their own Service and Rites easily enquired into as for example the Greek Church in Venice See Respon 2. part 2. c. 8. his answer to what was urged out of Gabriel Arch-Bishop of Philadelphia the Prelate there That we are not to think it strange if one who had lived some forty years in that place suffered himself and so those under his charge to be wrought upon by the ordinary commerce they had with the Latins Urge the Oriental Liturgies which though not denied to be different in several Regions or perhaps several also used in the same as both S. Basil's and 9. Chrysostom's are by the Greeks yet have a great congruity and harmony both amongst themselves and with the Greek and Roman as to the Service and Ceremonies of the Eucharist His answer is †His last Answer l. 5. c. 5.606 608. That we have not any certainty that these Pieces are sincere or faithfully translated or some of them not corrected by the Missions As for the Liturgies and other witnesses produced for the Faith of the Jacobites of Syria the Armenians Cophtites or Egyptians Ethiopians or Abyssines agreeing in this Point with the Roman he thinks them all sufficiently confuted from Eutychianism being held by these Eastern and Southern Church For saith he †l. 5. c. 6. p. 604. What can one find more directly opposite than to maintain on one side that Jesus Christ hath no true Body that there is nothing in him save only the Divine Nature that all that which hath appeared of his Conversation in the World of his Birth Death Resurrection were nothing but simple appearances without Reality and on the other side to believe that the substance of the Bread is really changed into the proper substance of his Body the same he took of the Virgin Thus he for his advantage applying the extremities of that Heresie to all these Nations contrary to the Evidence of their publick Liturgies But Eutychianism taken in the lower sense as Eutyches upon the mistake of some expressions of former Fathers Athanasius and Cyrill Patriarchs of Alexandria which perhaps also induced the engagement of Dioscorus their Successor on his side maintained and the Ephesin Council i. e. above 90. Bishops under Dioscorus allowed it affirms no more than that the two Natures of our Lord the one Divine the other Humane Consubstantial with us and received of the Blessed Virgin after their conjunction become one yet this without any confusion or mixture or conversion of the two Natures into one another Now that these Nations adhere to Eutychianism only in this latter sense they not well distinguishing between Nature and Personality I refer him that desires further satisfaction to the Relations of Thomas a Jesu l. 7. c. 13 14 17. and Brerewoods Enquiries c. 21 22 23. and Dr. Field on the Church l. 3. c. 1. p. 64 c. and of the several Authors cited by them and to the testimony of Tecla Mariae a Learned Abyssin Priest cited by M. Claude †l. 5. c. 6. who saith They hold after the Union only Vnam Naturam sine tamen mixtione sine confusione i. e. of those two Natures of which the One afterward is compounded Which Testimony may serve either to expound or to confront one or two of the other he brings that seem to say otherwise Urge to him the Confession of Protestants Grotius Bishop Forbes and others though themselves of a contrary perswasion that the Modern Greek Church believes Transubstantiation for which they cite their late Writers the Reading of whom convinced them in this though it cannot Mr. Claude Of these two Grotius and Forbes he replies ‖ l. 4. c. 4. That they are persons who admitted themselves to be pre-possessed with Chimerical fancies and
that Protestants are not obliged to defend the Sentiment of the Greeks and that his business is to enquire what it is not how maintainable And saith elsewhere P 337. That both the Greeks and Latins are far departed from the Evangelical simplicity and the main and natural explication the Ancients have given to the Mystery of the Eucharist Here then 1. as to the later ages of the Church Protestants stand by themselves and the Reformation was made as Calvin confessed it †Epist P. Melancthoni a toto mundo 2. After such a Confession M. Claude seems not to deal sincerely in that with force enough he draws so frequently in both his Replies the sayings of the Greek writers of later times to the Protestant sense and puts his Adversary to the trouble of confuting him And from the many absurdities that he pretends would follow upon the Greek Opinion taken according to their plain expressions saith these intend only * a Presence of Christ's Body in the Eucharist as to its Vertue and Efficacy opposite to its Reality and Substance and * an Vnion of the Bread there to the Divinity only so far as the Divinity to bestow on it the Salvifical Virtue or Efficacy of Christ's Body and * a conjunction of the Bread there to Christ's natural Body born of the Blessed Virgin but to it as in Heaven not here to it as a Mystery may be said to be an Appendix or Accessary to the thing of which it is a Mystery But all this is the Protestant Opinion 3. Again seems not to deal sincerely in that whilst he affirms the modern Greeks to retain the former Doctrine of their Church as high as Damascen and the 2d Council of Nice ‖ l. 3. c. 13. p. 315. and again †l. 3. c. 13. p. 326. l. 4. c. 9 p. 488. Damascen not to have been the first that had such thoughts viz. of an Augmentation of Christs Body in the Eucharist by the Sanctified Elements as it was augmented when he here on earth by his nourishment but to have borrowed them from some Ancient Greek Fathers naming Greg. Nyssen Orat. Catechet c. 37. See this Father's words below § 321. n. 14. and Anastasius Sinait who explained their Doctrine by the same comparison as Damascen and the Greeks following him did yet doth not freely declare both these the Ancient Greeks as well as the later either to differ from or to agree with the Protestant Opinion § 4 4. Having said this That however the Greek Opinion varies from the Protestants it concerns him not Next he declares That what ever the Greeks may be proved to have held concerning some transmutation of the Bread and Wine into Christ's Body and Blood or concerning a Real or Corporal presence and their understanding Hoc est Corpus meum in a literal sense neither doth this concern his cause who undertakes only to maintain that these Churches assert not Transubstantiation at least assert it not so as to make it a positive Article of their Faith His words upon D. Arnauld's resenting it That whereas he contented himself â—nly to shew that the Real presence was received by the Oriental Schismatical Churches M. Claude diverted the Controversie to Transubstantiation His words I say are these * l. c. 1. p. 157. In the Dispute concerning the Greeks our business is only about Transubstantiation and not at all about Real presence For it was to this only and Adoration that I formerly limited my self in my last Answer But then as if this might do him some prejudice he as it were cautiously addeth Yet I would have none draw a Consequence from hence that I acknowledge a Real presence established in the Greek Church But here to make his words true he adds again in that sense as the Roman Church understands it And what sense is that surely by the way of Transubstantiation And so you see he pares his words till they say no more than just what he said before That he acknowledgeth no Real presence viz. by way of Transubstantiation established in the Greek Church And this is to say only that he acknowledgeth them not to hold Transubstantiation Next concerning the Greek their receiving or opposing Transubstantiation he hath one Hold more Ibid. It is not saith he our business to know whether the Greeks formally reject Transubstantiation Or whether they have made It an Article of Controversie between them and the Latins but only whether they comprehend it amongst their points of Faith or no Our Dispute is only concerning this matter One would think that he had been chaced very much and driven up to the wall that to preserve himself safe he makes so many outworks and contracts the Subject of his Disputation within so narrow a Compass But doth he not here for the Greek Church also thus decline and tacitly as it were yield up that to the Catholicks which they have always professed to be the main Controversie with Protestants on this Subject viz. The Real and Corporal presence of our Lord and the perpetuity of the Christian Faith as well East as West in the constant Belief of this for all the later times of the Church Catholick which consent found in the later times is the truest proof from which we may collect also the true sense of the former And from this Corporal presence once established whether a Transubstantiation be or be not necessarily follows also the lawfulness of a Soveraign Adoration which renders the Dispute concerning one of the two Points he contesteth needless and decideth it against him since an Adoration of the Mysteries practised among the Greeks he is content to allow but not Soveraign Now Real presence makes it out a Soveraign one § 5 5. His way thus far made and his cause pretended not to be concerned in that the Greeks have a different Sentiment of the Eucharist from Protestants Nor that they take Hoc est Corpus meum as also the Latins in a literal sense and hold a Real presence Nor that they do not reject the Roman Transubstantiation Or make any Controversie with the Latins about it And so all Authorities save those that press Transubstantiation being removed from giving him any trouble Next For the Greeks asserting a Transubstantiation the alledging such Testimonies as these which follow and frequently occur in their Authors will not be admitted by him as good or to the purpose That by the Consecration the Bread is changed and converted into the very the proper the True or in veritate in reipsa Body of Christ which Body also is the same with that born of the Blessed Virgin and that suffered on the Cross That the Eucharist is not a Figure or Image only of this Body but the very Body of our Lord united to his Divinity as the Body born of the Blessed Virgin was Neither are these now two but one Unum corpus unus Sanguis cum eo quod sumpsit in utero Virginis
designs upon the matter of the Differences between the two Communions Catholick and Protestant which they pretend to accommodate and reconcile So he Censures Casaubon out of Spondanus †Levitatem animi Vacillantem eum perpetuo tenuisse cum his illis placere cuperet nulli satisfecisset Where indeed whose judgment ought sooner to be credited than theirs who appear more indifferent between the two contending parties So To Archbishop Lanfrank's words to Berengarius Interroga Graecos Armenios seu cujus libet Nationis quoscunque homines uno ore hanc fidem i. e. Transubstantiationis se testabuntur hahere cited by Dr. Arnauld He answers ‖ p. 361. That Pre-occupation renders his Testimony nothing worth Urge the Socinians because the Fathers oppose so manifestly their own opinions therefore more apt to speak the truth of them in their opposing also those of other Protestants and particularly in their differing from them in this point of the Eucharist He tells us they are not creditable in their Testimony because so much interested to decry the Doctrine of the Fathers in their own regard and thus they imagine Protestants will have less countenance to press them with an Authority that themselves cannot stand to Urge the Centurists confessing Transubstantiation found in some of the Fathers and in magnifying their new-begun Reformation more free plainly to acknowledge those they thought errours of former times He ‖ l. 1. c. 5. denies them fit witnesses in this Controversie because themselves holding a Real Presence they had rather admit a Transubstantiation in the Fathers than a Presence only Mystical And suppose such excuses should fail him yet how easie is it to find some other whereby a person may be represented never to stand in an exact indifferency as to whatever Subject of his Discourse With such personal exceptions M. Claude frequently seeks to relieve his Cause where nothing else will do it Whereas indeed such a common Veracity is to be supposed amongst men especially as to these matters of Fact that where a multitude though of a party concern'd concur in their Testimony they cannot reasonably be rejected on such an account either that their being deceiv'd or purpose to deceive and to relate a lie is possible or that what they say can be shewed a thing well-pleasing and agreeable to their own inclinations For as it is true that ones own interest if as to his own particular very considerable renders a Testimony less credible So on the other side almost no Testimony would be valid and current if it is to be decried where can be shewed some favour or engagement of affection to the thing which the person witnesseth and cannot be manifested an equal poise to all parties and so for Example in the Narration of another Country's Religion often made by all Parties none here can be believed save in what he testifies of them against his own Such things therefore are to be decided according to the multitude and paucity and the Reputation of the Witnesses rather than their only some way general interest and the Credibility of such things is to be left to the equal Reader 's Judgment § 8 But 7ly Should all that is said touching the later Greek's from the eleventh or the eighth to the present age their holding Transubstantiation be undeniably made good and all the Testimonies concerning it exactly true Yet he saith ‖ l. 2. c. 1. It will not follow that a change of the Church's former Faith in this Point is impossible or hath not actually happened and consequently that all M. Arnauld 's long dispute about it is vain and unprofitable I add and then so his Replies But here since the true sense and meaning of Antiquity on what side this stands is the thing chiefly questioned and debated between the Roman Church and Protestants unless he will throw off this too and retreat only to sense of Scripture I suppose to wise men it will seem little less than the loss of the Protestant cause and too great a prejudice to it to be so slightly yielded up if that not the Roman only but the whole visible Catholick Church besides themselves from the eleventh to the present age doth defend a Corporal Presence and a literal sense of Hoc est Corpus meum or also Transubstantiation and so consequently doth concur and Vote against them touching the sense of former Antiquity for this each side in their present Doctrine and Practice pretend to follow And I can hardly think M. Claude would seem to spend so great a part of his Book to defend a Post the loss of which he thought no way harm'd him Again thus it is manifest that in an Oecumenical Council if now assembled the Protestants would remain the Party Condemned § 9 8. After all these Defences wherewith he seems sufficiently guarded He proceeds l. 3. c. 13. thus to declare the true opinion of the Modern Greeks on this Subject which I will give you in his own words p. 310. They believe saith he That by the Sanctification or Consecration is made a Composition of the Bread and Wine and of the Holy Ghost That these Symboles keeping their own Nature are joined to the Divinity and That by the impression of the Holy Ghost they are changed for the Faithful alone the Body of our Lord being supposed either to be not present at all or to cease to be so in the particles of the Symbole received by the unworthy into the vertue of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ being by this means made not a Figure but the proper and true Body of Jesus Christ and this by the way of Augmentation of the same natural Body of Jesus Christ To which they apply the comparison of the nourishment which is made our own Body by Assimilation and Augmentation Again p. 237. more briefly The Doctrine of the Greek Church is That the substance of Bread conserving its proper Being is added to the Natural Body of Jesus Christ that it is rendred like unto it That it augments and by this means becomes the same Body with it By this also he saith p. 334. and see the same in his 4th l. c. 7. the Greeks would observe in some sort the literal sense of the words Hoc est Corpus meum which saith He we do not we understand them in this sense This Bread is the sacred sign or Sacrament of my Body Or which comes to the same pass The Bread signifies my Body They on the contrary taking the word is in some sort according to the letter would have that the same subject which is the Bread is also the Body of Christ. From preserving this pretended literal sense it is also That they would have it That the Bread is made one with the Body by its Vnion to the Divinity by the Impression of the Holy Ghost and by a change of vertue Or as he hath it in his 6th l. c. 10. That there is an Vnion of
Transubstantiation l. 4. c. 5. p. 390. In a word saith he the Greeks neither believe nor impugne Transubstantiation They believe it not for it hath no place in the Doctrine of their Church It is neither in the Confessions of their Faith nor Decisions of Councils nor Liturgies i. e. in such Language as he exacts Surely this main Point the Manner of our Lords Presence is not omitted in all these the Constantinopolitan the second Nicene Council the Liturgies speak of it Nor is Transubstantiation impugned in them according to him is clearly maintained by them according to Catholicks They do not impugne it For as far as appears they have not argued with the Latins nor formally debated it with them in their former Disputes Thus He. And as he grants the Greeks not to have quarrelled with the Latins because they held Transubstantiation So †the Latins never to have accused the Greeks ‖ p. 375. as if they held it not There seems therefore no great need of Missions distributing charities teaching Schools there c. to induce these Orientals to approve a Tenent which they never formerly contested and of an error in which though the main Point these two Churches never accused one another Nay the Greeks in some of their Confessions as in that of the Venetian Greeks to the Cardinal of Guise seem to have out-done the Latins and to go beyond Transubstantiation Mean-while the great quarrels the same Greeks make with the Latins about smaller matters in this principal part of the Christian Service and the chief Substance of its Liturgies the Eucharist as about the manner of the Consecration and about Azymes and on the other side the great Storms that have been raised between Catholicks and Protestants from the very beginning of the Reformation about this very Point of Transubstantiation do shew that if the difference between the Greeks and Latins were considerable and real herein there could not have been on both sides such a constant silence Though in some other matters of little consequence or at least of little evidence such as M. Claude instanceth in there can be shewed a silent toleration of the different Judgments as well of Churches as of private Persons § 20 10ly Hitherto from § 9. I have reflected on M. Claude's Explication of the Greeks Opinion concerning Transubstantiation Now to view the other Point Adoration Here 1st He denies not an inferior and Relative Adoration to be allowed to be due and paid by the Greeks to the Holy Mysteries in the Eucharist such as is given to the Holy Gospel and to other Sacred things Of which we find in S. Chrysostom's Mass that before his reading the Gospel Diaconus respondet Amen reverentiam Sancto Evangelio exhibet See M. Claude's last Answer l. 3. c. 7. p. 219. where he grants That the Greeks have much Devotion for Pictures for the Evangile and for the pain benit and for the Bread of the Eucharist before the Consecration 2ly A Supreme Adoration he grants lawful and due to our Lord's Humanity where-ever present and allows such an Adoration actually given even by Protestants at the time of their receiving the Eucharist to our Lord Christ and to his Sacred Humanity as in Heaven And to his Adversary urging some places of the Fathers for the practice of Adoration in the Communion he replies ‖ 2 Resp part 2. c. 8. p. 416. The Author deceives us in proving what is not controverted For the Question is not whether in the Communion we ought to adore Jesus Christ our Redeemer and his Flesh personally united to the Word represented by the Sacrament We practice it with an ardent and humble Devotion when we approach to the Holy Table And afterward Who doubts but that the Body of Jesus Christ is Soveraignly Adorable 3ly He cannot but know or else hath been very careless to inform himself that no Soveraign Adoration is pretended either by the Roman or Greek Church to be given to the external Species or Symbols of the Eucharist which they hold Venerable only with an inferior cult such as is due to all other Holy things but only to the Body and Blood of Christ contained under them as the Council of Trent allowing the Expression of adoring the Sacrament cultu Latriae yet explains it in their Canon thus †Sess 13. c. 6 Si quis dixerit in Sancto Eucharistiae Sacramento Christum unigenitum Dei Filium non esse cultu Latriae etiam externo adorandum Anathema sit And as Bellarmin †De Eucha l. 4. c. 29. also resolves the state of the Controversie Quicquid sit de modo loquendi status quaestionis non est nisi An Christus in Eucharistia sit adorandus cultu Latriae 4ly In the Fourth Observation precedent M. Claude saith he will not contest the Greek's holding a Real Presence of our Lord in the Eucharist Though he contends it is not by the Roman way of Transubstantiation Now from this Real Presence held by the Greeks even after that way he allows at least if he will but grant the true consequences thereof mentioned before § 11. viz. An Hypostatical or other Union to this Body offered and distributed in the Eucharist such as converts it into the Flesh of our Lord and renders it the Body of the same Person with that born of the Blessed Virgin non aliud ab eo quod sumpsit in utero Virginis by which the People seem sufficiently instructed not to distinguish in their Mode of Adoration between these two that they are taught to be personally the same I say from such a Real Presence held by the Greeks a lawfulness of adoring Christ's Body as there present must be held by them And then if it can be shewed by M. Claude they do not actually adore it must be reckoned a matter of neglect not of Conscience or denying such thing due 5ly But now to consider their Practice He denies not the Greeks to adore in their Mode of Adoration which is by inclining the Head and Body seldom kneeling when they receive the Communion their Liturgies have it often repeated and surely he will allow them herein as much Devotion as he doth to the Protestants and also them to give at least an external Relative Devotion to the Mysteries for such they give to the Evangiles and methinks the witnesses he produceth p. 216. should not in general deny simply any Adoration of the Greeks at all The Question then only is granting already an external Adoration given by the Greeks when they approach to the Communion whether this in their intention be a soveraign Adoration exhibited to Christ's Sacred Divinity and Humanity as there present Now the Greeks holding this Humanity there really present conceded before seems sufficient to determine this without more-ado And for one to pretend that this Adoration of the Greeks is given only to God or to Christ's Divinity as every where present or to the Humanity united to it but only
THE Greeks Opinion TOUCHING THE EUCHARIST MIS-REPRESENTED BY Monsieur CLAVDE IN HIS ANSWER TO Mr. ARNOLD Printed in the Year MDCLXXXVI A DIGRESSION Reflecting on the Opinion of the Greek and other Oriental Churches holding a Real Presence of our Lord's Body and Blood whether by Transubstantiation or not much mis-represented by Mr. Claude a French Minister § 321. Whose various Artifices are detected in * Insinuating the Greek's Ignorance Poverty Imbecillity the Latin's Power Missions Industry to gain them n. 1 2 3 4. * Wresting the Greek's sayings to the Protestant's sense contrary to their plain expressions * Affirming the Greeks to retain their former Church-Doctrine as high as Damascen or Gregory Nyssen yet not freely declaring the ancient and modern Greeks to differ from or agree with the Protestant opinion n. 5. * Waving the main point viz. Real Presence which infers a Soveraign Adoration contending about Transubstantiation and that as an Article of Faith n. 6. * Barring all Testimonies save such as press Transubstantiation * Vsing the term Vertue unreasonably as excluding Substance and thereby making the Greek opinion contradictory absurd and indefensible and then leaving them to make it good whereas he ought to have confessed their holding a Presence as well in Substance as in Vertue n. 7 8. * Shifting all Testimonies against him by disingenuously requiring testimony upon testimony or by personal exceptions taken against them n. 9. The Greek Opinion concerning Transubstantiation if made good how prejudicial to the Protestant's Cause n. 10. 1. Concerning Transubstantiation M. Claude in receding from the Latins makes the Greeks fall short of their own Similitude and usual Expressions in three Particulars n. 13 c. That Vertue may be taken as well augmentatively adding to Substance as diminutively excluding it n 14. The Common Doctrine of the Greeks carrying further than their Simile to a total Transubstantiation Proved 1. From their holding the same numerical Body of our Lord born and crucified to be exhibited in the Eucharist present not by descending from Heaven but by a conversion of the Elements and by a multiplication of its local existence in more places than before n. 15 16. 2. From holding the Body thus present by Consecration to be Incorruptible and its Incorruption to depend on its Resurrection and so to relat◠to that numerical Body crucified and raised again Now the Bread remaining intire for its substance or its matter and qualities cannot be such a Body of our Lord as suffers no digestion or corruption Yet something in the Sacrament suffers this For the Greeks then whilst holding the Substance of Bread to remain to lay these changes only on the Accidents not the Substance eating bread fed only by the accidents were without a Transubstantiation to espouse the difficulties of it and therefore their opinion implies an entire change of the Bread as well its matter as form n. 17. 3. From holding this Body in the Eucharist whenever broken whole and entire in each piece to all distributed no way diminished The Lamb broken not impaired ever eaten yet not consumed Which things cannot be said of our Lords Body if the matter of bread still remain n. 18. Whereas Greeks and Latins former and later times may be accorded this Author to maintain the variance seems to fasten on the Greeks an opinion less eligible than Transubstantiation and to offer violence to the natural sense of their words leaving the Greeks to stand apart by themselves from Protestants as well as other Catholicks n. 20. The Greeks confessed by him not to have opposed the Latins for holding Transubstantiation the Latins never to have accused the Greeks as not holding it n. 21. 2. Concerning Adoration of the Eucharist 1. As to their Doctrine Granted 1. That the Greeks allow and pay to the Mysteries in the Eucharist an inferior relative Adoration 2. A Supreme Adoration lawful and due to our Lords Humanity where-ever present and given by Protestants in their Communion 3. No soveraign Adoration pretended by Greeks or Latins to be given to the Symbols venerable only with an inferior cult but to the Body and Blood of our Lord. 4. Real Presence not being contested but only Transubstantiation From such Presence granting its true consequences followes a lawfulness of Adoration n. 22. 2. As to their Practice 5. The Greeks adore after their mode by inclining the head and body Whether this be only relative or soveraign Adoration is understood from their Doctrine and Belief For not to allow the extent of their Adoration as far as their belief of the Presence of the Person adored and their Worship the same latitude with their Faith seems unjust and groundless as also to pretend only an inferior adoration given where the same Communicants hold a supreme due to the Person there present n. 22. More Devotions performed in the Western Churches than in the East from the Berengarian Errors here n. 23. M. Claude 's Concessions and their Consequences sufficient § 1. To diswade from a Communion opposed both by Greeks and Latins concerning the Eucharist 2. To perswade rather to the Roman Communion n. 24. For trying our Obedience God permits Evil with many Allurements Error with many Verisimilities yet hath always left evidence enough to clear all necessary Truth to the humble and obedient not to force the self-confident and interessed n. 25. In a Search by comparing Scriptures and Councils what endless labour and distraction in Obedience to Councils what peace and vacancy for better employments Besides that the rude and illiterate the most of men cannot search Must these believe a former Church now or submit to an inferior Church-Authority against a Superior But this is Schism in them both and he justly ruined by believing an Authority usurped that denies to believe one whereto he is bound n. 25. The Issue of Scripture-Trial long since was a double sense of Scripture that Sense was declared by one nay several Councils The Party condemned appealed to Fathers and Primitive Church whose sense as formerly that of Scripture being double was decided again by Councils but their Authority rejected And now it is desired that the Controversie begin anew and return to the Scriptures or that the Question determine the Controversie and whilst Protestants are the weaker party that all have liberty for when the stronger they too well discern the necessity of Synods for ending differences among themselves which tho not held infallible yet upon the Evangelical Promises of our Lord's assistance require on pain of Suspension subscription to their Decrees and excommunicate persons teaching the contrary Witness the Dort Synod n. 26. M. Claude's strange Method for exempting from Obedience to the Church those that pretend not to a Certainty of their new Opinions considered That if it prove valid it serves as well Catholicks against Protestants upon the same pretensions and affords both sides the same plea one against the other in any controversie arising amongst Protestants Ibid. If searching the
sub sensum cadentium as Samenas ‖ In Mat. 26. Non Panis sed Corpus Domini sacrificatur and Si Panis manens ‖ Dialog cum Saraceno sacrificatus fuisset Panis esset Sacrificium non Agni Dei as Cabasilas Liturg. expositio c. 32. must all be understood of an entire change of the Bread as well its Matter as Form § 16 3ly They hold this Body that is present and distributed in the Eucharist to remain quoties frangitur totum integrum in unoquoque frusto And Omnibus distributum minime diminutum Frangitur Agnus Dei non comminuitur semper comeditur non consumitur saith their Liturgy ‖ Missa Chrysostom Not a several piece or part of our Lord's Body received in the several Particles but all Nor those receiving more of this Body that receive more of the Symbole In infinite places offered only the same Sacrifice viz. that one which was offered on the Cross to several Communicants distributed the self same Body and It to each entire A Tenent flowing from the former Its incorruptibility and by all the same persons maintained For what is so is no more capable of being parted or divided c. Now these things cannot sute to our Lord's Body if the matter of Bread be said still to remain and to make up an augmentative part of our Lord 's natural Body but this numerically and really distinct from it For so in several places will be offered Sacrifices but these really different from one another as also from that of the Cross Nor will the Communicants receive our Lord's Body entire but each apart and this part numerically differing from that Corpus quod traditum est which Communion of a parcel was a thing objected to the Stercoranists and those who held our Lord's Body corruptible See M. Claude's Concessions concerning this 2d Answer part 3. c. 2. and so his retreat to a Virtual presence to verifie these expressions of the Greeks of this Body every where the same and received by every one entire § 17 As for some speeches used by the Greeks in making application of their Similitudes none of which can exactly fit so high a Mystery that seem not to accord so well with a Total Transubstantiation The Bread said by them to be assumed by or united to the Divinity of our Lord The Bread and his Body by the Divinity to be made One An Augmentation of Christs Body to be made by the Bread consecrated as here on Earth by his Nourishment c. I see no Reason why this Person should not be contented with the former Explications given of them Such as 1. both free these Authors from contradicting themselves and 2. do render the sense of the Fathers unanimous and the Christian Doctrine to run all in one common Stream viz. the Real Presence and Exhibition in the Eucharist of that numerical Body that suffered for us on the Cross 3. and whereby also may be avoided those many gross absurdities concerning new Contracts and Unions and new Bodys of our Lord which being so unworthy these high Mysteries and very injurious to our Lord's Incarnation are all avoided by a total Transubstantiation See if you please these absurdities mentioned by Bellarmine De Euchar. l. 3. c. 13. 15. and by Suarez De Sacrament Disp 49. § 3. The Divinity of our Lord then may be said to assume or unite it self unto the Bread or to make the Bread one with his Body not by a meer joining it to Himself or to his Body whilst it remains still Bread but by this first converting and changing of it by his Divine Omnipotency into his Body and then his uniting Hypostatically his Divinity to it And his Body may be said in some sort to receive daily an Augmentation from these iterated Consecrations of Bread to be made his Body in as much as there is a daily multiplication of his Body as to its local Existence in more places than before according to the frequency of Communions whilst his Body in Heaven doth not descend but keeps its constant former residence there § 18 Thus Greeks and Latins former and latter times will be at some accord Whereas this Author to maintain a variance between the two Churches seems necessitated to fasten on the Greeks an Opinion which being taken in its just extent Transubstantiation seems much the more eligible and which he is forced many times also to pare and qualifie so that it may have some Conformity to the Doctrine of Protestants and keep a greater distance from the Roman as offers extreme violence to the natural sense of their words For Example He allows * an Union of the Divinity to our Lord's Body in the Eucharist as the Greeks say But no such Union Hypostatical * Christ's body in the Eucharist the same with that born of the Blessed Virgin as they say but in such a sense as mean-while to remain really essentially numerically diverse from it * The Bread the same body with that born of the Virgin but It not changed into Christs Flesh but remaining still Bread * Bread still not only for the matter as it was in our Lord's or is in our nourishment but for the same Substantial Form and Qualities still inhering in it as before * The Bread made the very and true body as they say But virtually only in having infused into it and inherent in it the vivificating virtue of Christs natural Body Where the Protestants leave the Greeks to stand by themselves allowing this Vertue communicated to the Believer only not to the Symboles * The Eucharistical body conjoined as our nourishment is to ours to Christs natural body as they say but the one only in Heaven the other on Earth * Our Lord's Body in the Eucharist by the same Divinity inhabiting in both made one and the same with that born of the Virgin as they say but Mystically and Sacramentally only For the same Divinity replenishing both doth not therefore render them really the same one with another * The same body thus with that but no Sovereign Adoration due or by the Greeks given to this as to that * This the same Body with that and this also as indivisible received entire by every Communicant as the Greeks say but this Body entire in vertue only not in Substance * The same Body of our Lord in all places where this Sacrament is celebrated but only in the former sense i. e. the vertue and the efficacy of it the same If such be their sense the Reader cannot but think the Greeks very unfortunate in their Expressions or if not their sense this person presuming he should meet with very credulous Readers This from n. 11. of the 8th Observation M. Claude's explication of the true Opinion of the Modern Greeks and the necessary consequents of it § 19 9ly After this He confesseth That it doth not appear that the Greeks have made any Opposition to the Roman Church about
to this as in Heaven and not to it also as present in the Eucharist when the same Greeks confess it to be so and when the Eucharistical presence is the occasion of such their Adoration here I say not to allow the extent of their Adoration so far as they believe the presence of the Person adored and their worship the same latitude as their Faith would be an unjust and groundless abridgment of their Devotions as also this to pretend an inferior or relative Adoration given by them only to the Mysteries where the same Communicants hold a supreme due to the Person present with them To view a little the Form of their Liturgy We read in S. Chrysostom's Mass That the Priest after Consecration and before he takes the Holy Bread to communicate himself with it adores and saith Attende Domine Jesu Christe de sancto habitaculo tuo veni ad sanctificandum nos qui in excelsis cum Patre simul resides hic una nobiscum invisibiliter versaris dignare potenti manu tua nobis impertiri immaculatum Corpus tuum pretiosum sanguinem per nos toti Populo Corpus tuum I add never severed from thy Divinity and thy self To whom also the Priest had said before in the beginning of the Service Tu enim es qui offers offerris assumis distribueris Christe Deus noster Then the Priest adores again and saith thrice to himself Deus propitius esto mihi Peccatori An Act of Humiliation used here by him before he takes the Sancta into his hands for the Communion as it was once before at the beginning of the Oblation And so saith the Rubrick all the People adore with him Populus similiter cunctus cum devotione adorat Then he takes the Holy Bread and makes the Elevation of it yet whole and entire saying Sancta Sanctis And the Quire answers it seems with relation to It yet one and entire Vnus Sanctus Vnus Dominus Jesus Christus Then the Priest breaking it into four Pieces saith Frangitur Agnus Dei qui frangitur at non comminuitur qui semper comeditur non consumitur which shews what Agnus Dei whether this in Heaven or present here is now spoken of and thus adored Sed eos qui. sunt participes sanctificat So taking a piece thereof in his hand and preparing himself to receive it he saith Credo Domine confiteor Quod Tu es Christus c. Dignare in praesepe animae meae 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in coinquinatum meum Corpus ingredi dignare me participem effici sanctissimi tui Corporis Sanguinis I add never severed from thy Divinity and thy self Also when he calls the Deacon to communicate him with the Holy Bread 't is said Accedens Diaconus Reverentiam exhibet And so also before receiving the Chalice It is said again Diaconus venit et adorat semel dicens Ecce vēnio ad immortalem Regem c. Where it must be remembred that the Greeks also held the Body of our Lord that is received in the Eucharist to be immortal and incorruptible This we find in their Liturgy And sutable to this we read in Cabasilas †c. 39. expounding the Ligurgy concerning the People before their communicating Ipsi autem saith he fidem attendentes et adorant et benedicunt et Jesum qui in eis donis Sanctificatis intelligitur opposed to videtur ut Deum celebrant Where M. Claude's note is †l. 3. c. 7. p. 222. 1. that Non adorant dona sed Jesum But who saith that a Soveraign Adoration is due or given to the Dona Again 2. Jesum saith he qui intelligitur i. e. only qui repraesentatur in Donis But all the former Expressions implying our Lord's presence shew their belief to be contrary Tu es saith the Priest before qui offers et offerris assumis et distribueris Christe Deus noster And the People after this adoring in their receiving say Benedictus qui venit in nomine Domini of which the same Cabasilas Tanquam nunc ad eos venientem et apparentem Christum benedicunt Who also before c. 24. intimates the custom of the Greeks in the Service adorare et alloqui corpus et sanguinem Domini Now I say All these Passages in the Greek Liturgy well considered Here for one to grant the Real and Corporal Presence of our Lord in his whole person in the Holy Mysteries to be believed by this Priest Deacon and other Communicants and yet to say their Adoration and other Addresses and Allocutions are not given and made to him as there present but to him only as in Heaven or only to his Divinity as there and every where present abstracted from his Humanity is such a Comment upon this Liturgy as nothing but a strong pre-ingagement can force upon any ones judgment § 21 The Testimonies this Author brings †l. 3. c. 7. p. 216. do accuse the Greeks of some neglect in this Duty but do not shew them to justifie it and these very Persons that censure such neglect toward the Holy Mysteries after Consecrated accuse them almost of committing Idolatry toward them before So that it seems rather some defect of knowledge in such concerning the Ceremonies of Consecration than want of Devotion Cabasilas †c. 24. long ago observed the same in some ignorant People and blamed it but yet in the same place allows the Adoration of and Allocations made to the Body and Blood of our Lord when the Offerings are Sacrificed and perfected The Consecration also of the Greeks being longer extended and the Adoration not so unitedly performed presently upon the pronouncing of our Lords words of Institution as amongst the Latins but disjunctively at their communicating might occasion some mistake in those Latins who accused them of a Non-Adoration So the other irreverences and indecencies objected are to be esteemed only negligences in private practice not consequences of the publick Doctrine nor countenanced by their Liturgies Which Liturgies use as much Ceremony towards the Holy Mysteries as the Roman doth Where also first the Remains of the Holy Bread are carefully put into the Chalice for the People to be communicated therewith and then for the Remains after the Communion consummated Sacerdos saith the Rubrick quod residuum est Communionis in Sancto Calice cum attentione et devotione consumit et ter Sanctam Calicem abluit et attendit ne remaneat particula Margarita vocata not the least crumb of the intinct Host As for several Devotions and Honours performed to the Blessed Sacrament here in the West which this person diligently reckons up much to its praise not so in the East frequently urged by M. Claude as good Arguments of the Greek Church not believing Transubstantiation or such a Real Presence as the Roman and in latter times here more than in the former 1st They are held no such necessary circumstances or consequences