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 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
the Greeks being brought into Italy when he was but ten years of age In effect what he say's concerning the Peoples prostrating themselves on the ground as soon as they hear the Priest say Sancta Sanctis is not true for the Liturgy denotes this Adoration of the People before the Sancta Sanctis at the same time as the Priest and Deacon adore immediately after this Prayer Look upon us O Lord Jesus Christ our God c. But granting it were so that the People prostrated themselves in the time the Sancta Sanctis was said it would not thence follow that their Adoration terminated it self in the Sacrament They would worship God as does the Deacon in the words I now mention'd O God be propitious c. Or our Saviour in Heaven as they do in the Prayer which I likewise now mention'd which precedes the Sancta Sanctis Look down O Lord our God from the Holy Place of thy Dwelling They prostrate themselves before the Images of the Saints before the Book of the Gospels before the Bread when as yet unconsecrated and yet no Body concludes hence they adore these things with an absolute Adoration Why then will Arcudius have them to adore the Eucharist with an Adoration terminating it self in it BUT if Arcudius's Testimony be of no validity in reference to this last Article wherefore must it be otherwise in respect of this other Article on which I ground my Conclusion I answer for two Reasons the one for that being interressed as he is against us it is not to be imagin'd he would speak any thing in our favour unless the thing were so well known and undeniably true that he could not disguise it or pass it over in silence and th' other because that in effect his Testimony in this respect agrees with the Liturgy of the Greeks which expresses no kind of Adoration directed to the Eucharist immediately after its Consecration And there being no mention likewise of any such thing afterwards to the end of the Office the Conclusion I draw hence is undeniable Had the Greeks the same Sentiments as the Latins and made profession of rendring the same Divine honours to the Substance of the Sacrament which are due only to the proper Person of the Son of God what time could they choose better for the acquitting themselves of this Duty than that in which he begins to be present on the Altar When a Prince comes into a place People are not wont to delay the shewing him the respect due to him every one stands immediately uncovered in his Presence and those Persons that did otherwise would be esteemed foolish and stupid What likelyhood is there then did the Greek Church believe that immediately after the Consecration the Bread becomes the very Substance of the Body of our Lord she would defer any longer to acknowledge it to be so by a Solemn Adoration Mr. Arnaud must not tell us that the Priest's mind is so taken up with the Idea of the Sacrifice that it is all this while fixed in Heaven These are Reasonings invented expresly to excuse a thing which cannot be alter'd but in truth it is so natural to Persons that believe Transubstantiation to shew immediately the Signs of Adoration to that Object they have before their eyes that notwithstanding all these fine Reasons those who compiled the Liturgy of the Greeks would never have been wanting in this particular had they believed the aforemention'd Doctrine So that this very consideration of the Greeks not having ordain'd any solemn kind of Reverence or Worship to the Sacrament after its Consecration is alone sufficient to make us conclude what we contend for MR. Arnaud who indeed has no reason to rest satisfi'd with his first Proofs has recourse to his Baron of Spartaris and Paysius Ligaridius that is to say to two false Greeks brought up in the Faith of the Roman Church and won to its interest as will appear hereafter I only wonder he is not asham'd to bring for witnesses such kind of People as these are AS to Oderborne the Lutheran who discoursing of the Russians tells us That the Priest leaving the Altar to shew the People the Eucharist the People kneel down and the Priest say's in the Moscovit ' s Language Loe here the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ whom the Jews put to death altho innocent it is easie to perceive he is deceived in taking for an Adoration of the Eucharist a Devotion which they practise before its Consecration when the Bread is carri'd from the Prothesis to the great Altar There can be rais'd no scruple concerning the truth of this seeing we have the Testimony of all Authors who by unanimous consent observe that this Ceremony is performed before the Consecration of the Symbols ALEXANDER Gagnin say's That one of them carries the Bread Moscovit descript cap. 2. which is prepared for the Sacrifice and another the Cup full of Wine that they issue out of the Sanctuary thro a little door with other Priests that carry the Images of St. Peter St. Nicholas and Michael the Archangel whilst in the mean time the â—â—ople express their Devotion by Acclamations and Acts of Worship that some of 'em cry out Lord have pity on us others knock their foreheads against the Ground and that others make often the Sign of the Cross and bow their heads in fine that they render to the Symbols which are carri'd about sundry marks of veneration and honour That having went round the Church they enter again thro the Gate which is in the middle of the Quire into the Sanctuary and there make the Sacrifice Sigismond Baron of Herberstain say's likewise Comment Vir Mosco That before they consecrate the Bread according to our manner they walk with it about the Church worship it and adore it with a certain form of words they utter ARCUDIUS who inveighs so earnestly against this Custom as an Idolatrous Arcud lib. 3. cap. 19. practice attributes it not only to the Greeks but likewise to the Russians and say's That they prostrate themselves and knock their heads against the Ground M. Habert Bishop of Vabres say's That in the Greek Churches Pontif. Eccl. Gr. obscrvat XI ad partein 7. litt the People make a low bow but in other Churches as in those at Russia they prostrate themselves on the ground after the same manner as if our Saviour's real Body passed along We have already observ'd that Sacranus and Scarga do expresly refer this Devotion to the Bread when as yet unconsecrated as well as others and moreover add that the Russians shew no reverence to the Sacrament after its Consecration And in effect we do not find they go twice round the Church whence it follows that Oderborne was mistaken and supposed this respect was given the Bread after its Consecration for there being but one turn made round the Church it cannot be denied but 't is done before the Consecration What
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
only prove the relative Adoration of Images by the Example of that which is given the Eucharist but likewise by the Example of that which is given to the Cross Sacred Vestments and Vessels If Mr. Arnaud's Consequence be good we must say likewise that the Iconoclastes rendred to all these things a Worship which they acknowledged to be only due to God alone which is not easy to believe It must then be necessarily acknowledged either that the Iconoclastes rejected not absolutely the distinction of the two Adorations the one Absolute and the other Relative or that they acknowledged not the Honour given to the Cross Sacred Vestments and the Eucharist was a real Adoration and there is a greater likelyhood in the last than in the other So that Stephen proves well the relative Adoration of Images by the relative Adoration of the Eucharist and other sacred things but this is not by a Principle common to the Iconoclastes and their Adversaries but only by external Ceremonies which were common to them both and which were variously expounded by both Parties CHAP. XI Several Circumstances relating to the second Council of Nice Examined HAVING thus cleared the Sence of the Council of Nice it 's scarce worth our Enquiry whether this Council was called and held in a regular manner and whether its Conduct was so sincere that there could be no Fault found with it I grant it was assembled in the Year 787. ten Years after Stephen Stylytus's Death if we refer our selves to the anonymous Author who wrote the Life of this Stephen and do thereby acknowledg that according to the best Chronology it cannot be said That after Epiphanus had censured in the Council of Nice the Terms of Figure and Image Stephen Stylite notwithstanding said will you cast out of the Church the Figures of the Body and Blood of Christ Altho Mr. Blondel whom every body knows was very skilful in these Matters of Chronology computed Stephen's Death to have hapned ten Years after this Council of Nice was held Howsoever Mr. Arnaud knows very well that the Bill Epiphanus read was not written before this Council was held that it could not be seen by Stephen and that the Clause therein touching the Rejection of the Term of Image in reference to the Eucharist was not taken out of Damascen's Writings who was Stephen's Contemporary and a Patron of Images as well as he Whence it follows that altho the Writing which was read in the Council condemned the Use of this Term yet Stephen who was engaged in the same Affair as the Author of this Writing made use of it which shews that this Doctrine that the Eucharist is not an Image or Figure was neither the Doctrine of the whole Greeks Chruch nor even that of the whole opposite Party to the Council of Constantinople Now this is the Substance of what I had to say and to which Mr. Arnaud was bound to make reply IN effect it has not been Stephen only who made use of the Term of Figure and believed it to be not Inconsistent with the Doctrine of the Greek Church in reference to the Eucharist Balsamon who lived in the twelfth Century did the same likewise The thirty second Canon say's he of the Council called in Trullo Injoyns the unbloody Sacrifice be made with Bread and Wine mingled with Water because the Bread is the Figure of Christ's Body and the Wine the Figure of his Blood Andrew of Créte as Goar Reports scrupled not to say That our Saviour is Immolated in the Symbols which are the Figures of him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And Nicetas Pectoratus writing against the Latins in the eleventh Century likewise said You eat the Azyme of the Jews as a Figure of our Lords true and living Flesh And again If as you say the Apostles received an Azyme from our Lord and delivered it to you as a Figure of our Lord's Body to be the Mystery of the new Testament c. BUT to return to the Council of Nice it is granted 't was Tarasus who before he accepted of the See of Constantinople obtained a Promise from the Empress Iréne that there should be a Council called but this does not hinder but it may be said That he was not setled in this See till he had obtained from Iréne the Convocation of this Synod But whether it was at his Request or not that Iréne did it it little matters for it is still certain they were agreed in it and this Condition on which he is said to accept of that See shews only that he was far engaged to maintain the Cause of Images and already became a Party Mr. Arnaud cannot deny that Tarasus had already declared himself in the Letter he wrote to Pope Adrian Neither can he any more deny the Pope answered him he would not consent to his Election to the Patriarchate unless he Re-established the Worship of Images All this is expresly contained in Adrian's Letters and thence may justly be concluded that this Person was not at his own Liberty when he presided in this Council and could at farthest be considered only as the Head of a Party which was at that time the strongest as being upheld by the Empress Iréne and her chief Minister Stauracius Now this by good right makes void whatsoever Tarasus did afterwards MR. Arnaud cannot deny but that the two Monks Thomas and John whom the Council ever called The Vicars or Representatives of the Apostolical Sees in the East were sent by some Hermit of Palestine and not by the Patriarchs of Antioch Alexandria and Jerusalem nor by the Consent of the Patriarchal or other Churches Whence it appears this Council could not rightly call it self Universal nor be preferred above that of Constantinople altho so esteemed by the Author of the Perpetuity who tells us as a considerable Matter that all the Patriarchs were there present IT was say's Mr. Arnaud a mere Favour of the Council towards them to Lib. 7. c. 3. p. 715. give them the Place of the Patriarchs If it were a mere Favour of the Council then the Presence of these Men ought not to be made a Ground for the calling this an oecumenical Council and by this means to give it the greater Authority The Author then of the Perpetuity had no reason so loudly to proclame that all the Patriarchs were present at it For it is Absurd to pretend the Patriarchs assisted at it under Pretence there was given by mere Favour the Place of Patriarchs to two Religious who had neither Order nor Mission from these Patriarchs Yet this Favour adds Mr. Arnaud was Ibid. granted on good Grounds seeing no Persons could better supply this Place than those that were competent Witnesses of their Sentiments and were the Bearers of their Synodical Letters But to keep in a Council the Rank of Patriarchs it is not sufficient for Persons to be Witnesses of their Sentiments nor Carryers of their Synodical Letters which the Patriarchs
the Russians Sacramentum religiosius Russis venerantur these are also his words Whence I conclude 't is not likely the Russians or Moscovites believe Transubstantiation the reason is sufficiently evident to wit that those that believe the Sacrament to be the proper Substance of the Son of God cannot but shew it more Respect than those that believe it to be a Substanee of Bread IT is to no purpose for Mr. Arnaud to say that my Argument supposes Lib. 5. C. 4. P. 448. according to this Author the Armenians do neither hold the real Presence nor Transubstantiation and that if I do not suppose this nothing can be less reasonable than my Discourse For if the Armenians adds he together with the Substance of Bread do moreover admit the real presence of Christ it is no wise improbable but that they have a greater respect for the Eucharist than those that do not admit this Substance of Bread The respect of the Eucharist comes only from the Presence of Christ and the presence or absence of the Bread contributes not any thing thereunto I hope Mr. Arnaud will not be offended if I tell him that his Authority is not yet great enough in the Church of Rome to counter-ballance that of Thomas Aquinas Now Thomas his Doctrine is directly opposite to his Contrariatur say's this Author venerationi hujus Sacramenti si aliqua Substantia creata esset ibi quae non posset Adoratione latriae adorari 'T would be Thom. Sum. 3. Part. Quaest 75. Art 2. contrary to the Veneration due to this Sacrament were there any created Substance in it to which may not be given the adoration of Latria Now let any man if he can make this agree with what Mr. Arnaud says Mr. Arnaud's Proposition say's that the respect due to the Eucharist proceeds only from the presence of Christ and that the presence or absence of the Bread does not at all contribute thereunto and Thomas assures us on the contrary that if the Substance of bread were present it would hinder the Adoration of this Sacrament whence it follows according to him that those that hold the Substance of Bread ceases to be ought more to reverence the Sacrament than those that believe it remains So that whether the Armenians do or do not believe the real presence this signifies nothing to my Argument 'T is clear according to Lasicius that they do not believe Transubstantiation and consequently 't is clear according to Thomas Aquinas that they hold an opinion which is contrary to the veneration of the Sacrament yet do they adore the Sacrament more religiously than the Moscovites How then can the belief of Transubstantiation be attributed to the Moscovites for if they held this Doctrine they must have a greater veneration for the Sacrament than the others This Argument cannot be otherwise denyed than by opposing the Doctrine of Thomas Aquinas So that with drawing my self out of the Lists I shall offer in my stead either Saint Thomas to be handled by Mr. Arnaud or Mr. Arnaud by Saint Thomas that is to say the Master by the Disciple or the Disciple by the Master MOREOVER our Question touching the Moscovites relating only to Transubstantiation 't is evident it would be a Digression from the Point in hand to discuss the intire passage of Lasicius to know whether he imputes to the Armenians the belief of the real Presence It will appear by what we shall say in the following Chapters what we may judge of them touching this particular The Question now concerns only the Moscovites and what Lasicius says concerning their worshipping less religiously the Sacrament than the Armenians is uncontroulable considering the testimonies we have produced in the second Book of Sacranus a Chanon of Cracovia John de Lasco Arch Bishop of Gnesne and Scarga the Jesuite who expressly depose that the Russians of whom the Moscovites are a part do indeed adore the Bread before its consecration but afterwards shew it no respect nor veneration scattering the Crums thereof on the ground It is to no purpose for Mr. Arnaud to say that that which hinders them from giving the Eucharist after consecration an external honour is that the Consecration is performed in a place separate from the people and that 't is out of respect to the Sacrament that the People are deprived for some time of the sight of this Mystery 'T is evident these are mere Subter fuges Did they worship the Sacrament with an internal adoration they would declare as much themselves and ease Mr. Arnaud of the trouble of searching their Secret thoughts They would shew it by some expression of external Reverence and for this effect expose the Sacrament to the Eyes of the People the People would at least make profession of adoring it before they received it and the Priests would adore it in the Sanctuary when they had consecrated it Yet do these Authors absolutely say that they give it no adoration This says Mr. Arnaud Lib. 5. C. 1. Pag. 432. is not so for Oderbornus tells us that the Priest comes from the Sanctuary and walking leasurely shows the People that which he has consecrated in secret that then the People fall down on their Knees the Priest saying to 'em in the Moscovit Language Behold the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ whom the Jews unjustly put to death But we have shewed in the third Book when we treated of the Adoration of the Sacrament that Oderborn is apparently mistaken having taken a Ceremony which is used before the consecration of the Bread as if it were used after this Consecration The Moscovites even as the Greeks do but once shew the People the Bread and Wine taking one turn round the Church before the Consecration which they call the great Entrance If Mr. Arnaud knows not this he is ignorant of a Matter well known by others and if he does know it he shews little sincerity in designing to prevail over us by means of Oderborn's mistake CHAP. II. Of the ARMENIANS That the Armenians do not believe Transubstantiation First Proof taken from that the Armenians believe the Humane Nature of our Saviour Christ was swallowed up by the Divinity WEE shall not here particularly treat of the Melchites or Syrians Lib. 5. C. 5. as well for that Mr. Arnaud acknowledges they differ not at all from the Greeks in their Religion as that likewise what he alledges concerning them out of the Notes of Abraham Echellensis Maronite on the Catalogue of Caldean Books made by Abed-Jesu a Nestorian Bishop deserves not our consideration The Testimony of Abraham Echellensis is of no credit and I refer my self thereupon to Gahriel Sionita his Country man who has set him forth as an ignorant and impertinent Fellow a Lyer and Impostor These two persons had both of them their Education at Rome in the Seminary of the Maronites both endeavouring to advance the Roman Interest but falling out about the Edition
own accord to forsake it than to be forced to it by a considerable number of Authoritys I confess this acknowledgment of Mr. Arnauds is praise-worthy but this confident Assertion of the Author of the Perpetuity is not so for altho a retractation is a vertuous effect yet methinks a man ought to be sparing in this particular But to go on with our Proofs THE Second shall be taken from the Testimony of Pope John 22. The Historian Raynaldus relates that in his time not only the Armenians which dwelt in Cilicia and Armenia embraced the Doctrines of the Roman Church but those also that were driven out by the Saracens and were withdrawn into Chersonnesus Taurique submitted themselves to the Bishop of Capha who was a Latin That he received them in the name of the Roman Church That the Pope thereupon congratulated them and shewed them that in the Divine Mysteries the substance of Bread and Wine were changed into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ and that there ought to be mingled some Water with the Wine before it be consecrated He afterwards produces this Popes Letter to the Arch-Bishop and Armenian Priests which were in the Diocess of Capha We have receiv'd says Pope John great satisfaction in Understanding how the Almighty Creator displaying his virtue in you has enlightned your minds with the Knowledge of his saving Grace and in that you have vowed to keep the Catholick faith which the Holy Roman Church truly holds which she faithfully Teaches and Preaches and that you have promised Obedience to the Roman Prelate and his Church in the presence of our Reverend Brother Jerome Bishop of Capha And therefore we earnestly desire that holding the saving Doctrines of this Church you likewise observe its Ceremonies especially in what relates to the most excellent of the Sacraments which is the ineffable Sacrament of the Altar For altho all the other Sacraments confer sanctifying Grace yet in this is contained intirely Jesus Christ Sacramentally under the species of Bread and Wine which remain the Bread being Transubstantiated into the Body of Jesus Christ and the Wine into his Blood Then he tells them they must mingle water with the wine in the Chalice because this mixture is a Commemoration of our Lords Death and of the Blood and Water which gushed out from his side 'T is evident that this Pope applyes himself only to these two Articles because the Armenians held neither of them and that in reference to them it was a new Doctrine and Ceremony in which they had need to be instructed For to what purpose should Transubstantiation be recommended to them if they before held it for a fundamental point of their Ancient Religion Why must all the other points of Controversy between the two Churches be laid aside as that of the Procession of the Holy Spirit the two Natures of our Saviour Christ Purgatory Confirmation and several others to stick wholly to Transubstantiation and the mixture of Water The thing declares it self MR. Arnaud who is of all men in the World the most ready at proofs makes one of this The Pope says he so little distrusted the Armenians believed not Transubstantiation that altho he proposes it to them expresly yet he Lib. 5. Ch. 6. p. 469. does it only occasionally and by way of principle to assert the Wine ought to be mixt with Water And this last particular is that to which he particularly applys himself and which is the Capital or Summary of his Letter whereas had he had the least thought that the Armenians believed not Transubstantiation he would without doubt have set about proving it and that with more care and earnestness than he does the mixture of Water in the Chalice MR. Arnaud must pardon me if I tell him 't is not true that the Pope does only occasionally mention Transubstantiation and by way of principle to establish the mixture of Water Raynaldus who relates this affair gives a better account of it than he ipsos instruxit says he ut in divinis mysteriis substantia panis et vini integris speciebus cum Christi corpore et sanguine commutaretur et vino consecrando aqua modica affundenda esset I believe I do not do ill in opposing against Mr. Arnaud's Illusion a truth attested by an Historian that faithfully relates the matter without the least regard to our dispute Moreover what can be more unreasonable than to say as Mr. Arnaud do's that the Pope proposes Transubstantiation only occasionally and by way of Principle to establish thereby the putting of Water into the Cup What Relation is there between these two things it do's not follow from the believing of Transubstantiation that Water must be put in the Chalice nor that those which do not do it oppose this Doctrine These are two distinct points which have their Proofs apart without any Coherence or mutual dependence and there cannot be perhaps any thing imputed to a Pope less beseeming the Dignity and Infallibility of the Head of the Church than to make him argue after this manner The Bread and Wine are Transubstantiated therefore you must put Water into the Chalice Mr. Arnaud ought to be more careful of the Honour of this Prelate and observe that Transubstantiation and the mixture of Water are not in his Discourse a kind of Principle and Conclusion this would be Ridiculous but a Doctrine and Practice which the Pope recommends to the Armenians to the end they may be henceforward conformable to the Roman Church in the subject of the Sacrament of the Altar and thus Raynaldus understood it who has been more sincere in this than Mr. Arnaud As to that minute observation that the Pope do's more insist on the mixture of Water than on Transubstantiation it is not worthconsidering for this proceeds not from the cause Mr. Arnaud imagins but only from the Popes declaring to the Armenians the mystical significations of this mixture which required some Discourse and which Raynaldus has well observed whodistinguishesthesethree particulars in the Popes Letter Transubstantiation the Mixture of Water and the mystical significations Ipsos instruxit ut indivinis mysteriis substantia panis vini integris speciebus cum Christi corpore sanguine commutaretur vino consecrando aqua modica affun denda esset acdivina ea re adumbratra mysteria aperuit that is to say he taught 'em the Doctrine of Transubstantiation the mixture of Water and shewed them the mysteries represented by this mixture MY third Proof is taken from the information which Benedict XII Successor to John the XXII caused to be made touching the Errours of the Armenians not at Rome as Mr. Arnaud has asserted through a mistake of which inadvertency were I guilty how severe would he be upon me but at Avignon where he kept his seat and whence his Bull is dated The 67 Article Raynauld ad Ann. 1341. is exprest in these Terms The Armenians do not say that after the words
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
Testimony of Honorius D' Autun who attributes it to Bernoldus or Bertoldus Honor. August de Script Eccl. Joan. Morin Exercit. 9. de Diacon cap. 1. pag. 169. col 2. s 5. a Priest of Constance that lived in the time of Henry IV. which was towards the end of the 11th Century This Bernoldus is he that continued the Chronicle of Hermannus Contractus to the Year 1100. and wrote several Tracts in defence of Pope Gregory VII which shews us that his Book cannot be alledged in this Dispute So likewise Morin acknowledges 't was written after the Year 1000. And Menard who will not have Bernoldus to be the Author yet grants he was the Corrector of it and that he put in and Menard Praef. in lib. Sacram. Gregor out what he thought good to make it more according to the relish of the Church in his time Neither shall I insist upon the Liturgy published by Illyricus being a very uncertain piece either as to its antiquity or purity as Menard has observed BUT not to enter into this discussion it suffices me to say that the name of the Body of Jesus Christ attributed to the Eucharist does no wise conclude what Mr. Arnaud pretends which is that 't is the Body of Jesus Christ in proper substance Does he think we have forgot so many illustrations which the Fathers even those of the 7th and 8th Century have given us Isid hisp Orig. lib. 6. cap. 19. De Officii Eccl. lib. 1. cap. 18. Beda Comment in Marc. 14. in Luc. 22. Id. in cap. 6. ad Rom. touching this way of speaking as for instance what S. Isidor says That by the command of Christ himself we call Body and Blood that which being the Fruits of the Earth are sanctified and become a Sacrament And elsewhere The Bread is called the Body of Jesus Christ because it strengthens the Body and that the Wine refers to the Blood of Jesus Christ because it makes the Blood in the Veins Bede holds the same language The Bread and Wine do mystically represent the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ because the Bread strengthens the Body and the Wine produces Blood in the Flesh The same Author on the 6th of the Romans teaches after S. Augustin That if the Sacraments had no resemblance with the things of which they be Sacraments they would not be Sacraments that 't is by reason of this resemblance we give them the names of those very things which they signifie and that as the Sacrament of the Body of Jesus Christ is the Body of Jesus Christ and the Sacarment of his Blood his Blood so the Sacrament of Faith is Faith One of these passages is a thousand times more considerable and decisive of our Question than whatsoever Mr. Arnaud can produce from the Liturgies because these passages are formal explications of these other expressions which attribute to the Eucharist the name of the Body of Jesus Christ and any man of sence will never be prevail'd on by this confused heap of Citations wherein the name of the Body of Jesus Christ or of the Body of our Lord is given to the Sacrament as soon as he shall hear Isidor Bede or some other famous Author of those Ages in question who explains to him these ways of speaking We must rather believe those Authors when they expound themselves than Mr. Arnaud who heats himself to little purpose and would prepossess the world with his own notions and fancies MOREOVER Can Mr. Arnaud imagine the world takes no notice of so many other expressions so frequent in the Liturgies and Authors of these same Centuries mentioned by us which call the Eucharist the Sacrament of the Body of Jesus Christ the mystery of our Lords Body the Sacrament of his Incarnation the Sacrament of his Humanity the mystery of his Humiliation the Sacrament of his Passion the image of his Sacrifice which the Church Celebrates in remembrance of his Sufferings It is certain that these passages wherein we find these expressions are as so many Commentaries that help us to a right understanding of the others whence Mr. Arnaud would draw advantage because 't is very ordinary and natural to give to a Sacrament which is a sign a memorial and an image the name of the thing which it represents according to the observation of S. Isidor himself We are wont says he to give to Images the names of those things which they Isidor Com. in lib. 1 Reg. cap. 20. represent Thus are Pictures called by the name of the things themselves and we stick not to attribute to them the proper name As for instance We say this is Cicero that Salust that Achilles this Hector this the River Simois this Rome altho these are only the Effigies or Pictures of them The Cherubins are heavenly powers and yet these Figures which God commanded to be made on the Ark of the Testament to represent such great things were not otherwise called than Cherubins If a man sees in a dream a person he does not say I saw the Image of Augustin but I saw Augustin altho Augustin in this moment knows nothing of this Vision and Pharaoh said he saw ears of Corn and Kine and not the images of these things 'T IS easie to comprehend the meaning of the terms of Sacrament and Bela hom estiu de temp Dom. 13. Dom. 17. Dom. 24. alibi passim id Expos Alleg. in Cantic Cantic cap. 3. de tab lib. 2. cap. 3. Aug. in Psal 3. Mystery of the Body of Jesus Christ for they signifie that the Bread and Wine are signs or figures that represent the Body and Blood which Jesus Christ assumed for our sakes abasing himself so far as to be our Brother and suffering the Death of the Cross to Redeem us Thus must we understand the title which Bede gives very often to the Sacrament calling it the mystery or the Sacrament of our Lords Incarnation for he means 't is an action wherein by mystical Symbols men represent his Incarnation We cannot give another sense to that which he calls several times the Sacrament or mystery of his Passion for his passion is only therein figured or represented We must then understand by the Sacrament or the mystery of his Body the figure or representation of his Body And in effect what S. Austin said on the third Psalm That Jesus Christ gave to his Disciples the Figure of his Body Isidor expresses in this sort That Jesus Christ gave to Isidor in lib 2. Rog. cap. 3. Bed quest in 2 Reg in Ps 3. his Disciples the mystery of his Body And Bede in two places of his works expresses himself in the same manner as S. Austin that he gave the figure of his Body which shews they took these terms the Mystery of the Body the Sacrament of the Body the Figure of the Body for one and the same thing Now these expressions give us easily to understand what
that the doubt was rejected in these terms I believe the Eucharist to be the true and proper Body of Jesus Christ nor to make the world believe that all Nations and Ages spake in this sort The term of true may be met with in some passages which Mr. Arnaud alledges and that of proper in others and both of these are therein used in senses far different from that which he gives them but he must not under this pretence form this proposition That the Eucharist is the true and proper Body of Jesus Christ for there 's a great deal of difference between these terms being separate which offer themselves in divers passages and in divers Authors and these same terms joyned together by way of exageration I confess that Nicephorus according to Allatius's relation joyns together the two terms of properly and truly but besides that Nicephorus is not all Ages nor all Nations we have already shew'd that he speaks only thus upon an Hypothesis far different from that of Transubstantiation or the substantial Presence and therefore Mr. Arnaud cannot make any advantage of what he says AND these are my general answers to Mr. Arnaud's passages Should we descend at present to the particular examination of these passages we must first lay aside those of Anastasius Sinait of Damascen of the second Council of Nice of Nicephorus the Patriarch of Constantinople the profession of Faith made by the Saracens that were Converts of the 12th Century and that of the Horologium of the Greeks for they have been all of 'em already sufficiently answer'd 't is only needful to remember what I have already established touching the real Belief of the Greek Church There must likewise be retrenched those that be taken from the Liturgies of the Copticks and Ethiopians seeing we have already answered them We have also answer'd that taken out of the common Liturgy of the Armenians or to speak better the Armenians themselves have answer'd it IF those of Leopolis call the Bread and Wine the true Body and the true Blood of Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour there is no likelihood for all this that they have another Belief than that of the rest of the Armenians who formally declare as we have already seen that they mean nothing else by these terms than a true mystery of this Body and Blood and in effect it is said in the same Liturgy whence Mr. Arnaud has taken his Quotation that the Priest says in Communicating I eat by Faith O Lord Jesus Apud Cassand iâ— Liturgicis Christ thy holy living and saving Body I drink by Faith thy holy and pure Blood THE passage of Adam the Arch-deacon of the Nestorians mention'd by Strozza is impertinently alledg'd for two reasons First That these are the words of a man that reconciled himself with the Church of Rome who in embracing its Religion wrote in Rome it self under the inspection of Pope Paul V. and from whose words by consequence there can be nothing concluded touching the Nestorian Church Secondly That what he says concerning our eating the true Body of God but of God Incarnate that we drink truly the Blood of a Man but of a Man that is God relates not to our question nor is not said in this respect but in regard of the Error of the Nestorians who will have the Body of Jesus Christ to be the Body of a mere man and not the true Body of God Incarnate What 's this to the question to wit Whether that which we receive with the mouths of our bodies be the substance it self of the Body of Jesus Christ WHAT he alledges touching the Liturgy of the Indian Christians that added to the saying of our Saviour these words In veritate saying Hoc est in veritate corpus hic est in veritate sanguis meus is a thing very doubtful 'T is not likely Alexis Menesez the Arch-bishop of Goa who laboured to reduce these Indians to the Faith of the Roman Church would have retrenched from their Liturgy these words in veritate had he in truth found them in it Those that wrote the actions of this Arch bishop say this addition was made by a Bishop that came from Babylon Mr. Arnaud tells us we must not much heed what they relate This is a mere Chaos wherein a Book 5. Ch. 10. p. 500. man can comprehend nothing The Deacon says he sings still in their Mass Fratres mei suscipite corpus ipsius filii Dei dicit Ecclesia But what consequence can be drawn from these words 'T is certain that this corpus ipsius filii Dei is a clause added by Menesez against the Error of the Nestorians who would have it to be no more than the Body of a mere man for every one knows this was the Heresie of the Nestorians There remains still in this Liturgy as correct as 't is several passages that do not well agree with the Doctrine of the Roman Church as what the Priest says Jesus Missae Christ apud Indos Bibl. patr tom 6. Christ our Lord the Son of God that was offer'd for our salvation and who commanded us to Sacrifice in remembrance of his Passion Death Burial and Resurrection receive this Sacrifice from our hands Were the Sacrifice Jesus Christ in his proper substance there 's no likelihood they would offer it to Jesus Christ himself Having read the passage of S. Paul That whilst we are in this Body we are absent from the Lord that we desire to be out of the body to have his presence that we desire to please him whether present or absent c. rehearsed the Creed the Priest says This Sacrifice is in remembrance of the Passion Death Burial and Resurrection of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ Then praying for the Consecration O Lord God says he look not upon the multitude of my sins ' and be not angry with us for the number of our Crimes but by thy ineffable Grace Consecrate this Sacrifice AND INDUE IT WITH THAT VIRTUE AND EFFICACY THAT IT MAY ABOLISH THE MULTITUDE OF OUR SINS to the end that when thou shalt at last appear in that humane form which thou hast been pleased to take on thee we may find acceptance with thee On one hand he restrains the Consecration to the virtue or efficacy which God gives to the Sacrament for the abolishing of our sins and on the other formally distinguishes the Sacrament from the Humane Nature of Jesus Christ in which he will appear ar the last day Immediately after he calls the gifts the Holy Sacraments of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ And then beseeches God they may be made worthy to obtain the remission of their sins by means of the Holy Body which they shall receive by Faith Again he says That he Sacrifices the Mystery of the Passion Death Burial and Resurrection of Jesus Christ and prays to God That his Holy Spirit may come down and rest on this Oblation and sanctifie it to
it there must be made this contradictory opposition Men are not always lyars men are sometimes lyars or men are always lyars men are not always lyars they are sometimes true That man will justly render himself ridiculous who having offer'd this proposition That during a thousand years men always spake the truth and attempting to maintain it shall afterwards give an exchange and say the question is Whether men could remain a thousand years without speaking any truth He may be well told this is impertinently stated and that this is not the point in hand but only to know whether they always said the truth during a thousand years without ceasing ever to speak it or whether they have been sometimes lyars This instance alone exactly discovers the Author of the Perpetuity's illusion who having offer'd this proposition That the faithful ever had a distinct knowledg whether the Eucharist was or was not the Body of Jesus Christ that is to say the proper substance of the Body of Jesus Christ for 't is thus he understands it has afterwards proposed the state of the question in these terms It concerns us to know whether the faithful could remain a thousand years in the Church without forming a distinct and determinate notionâ— whether that which they saw was or was not the true Body of Jesus Christ We have just cause to tell him that this is not the point but whether they always were in a condition to form this distinct notion or whether sometimes they were not Mr. ARNAVD endeavours in vain to excuse the Author of the Perpetuity that he only established this state of the question on the very terms of my answer For supposing it were true that the terms of my Answer furnished him with an occasion or pretence for this yet must he not thus establish it to the prejudice of the publick interests which require a man to proceed right on in a Dispute to find the truth and not to amuse ones self in deceitful and fruitless contests and prove things which will signifie nothing Now this is what the Author of the Perpetuity has done and Mr. Arnaud likewise by means of this false state of the question as will appear if we consider that when they have proved most strongly and solidly and in the most convincing manner imaginable That the faithful could not remain a thousand years in the Church without forming a distinct and determinate notion whether that which they saw was or was not the true Body of Jesus Christ which is a proposition contradictorily opposite to that which they express in their state of the question they will do nothing in order to the clearing up of our difference We dispute whether the change which the Protestants suppose be possible or not Now to prove that 't is impossible by the Argument of the distinct knowledge it signifies nothing to shew that the faithful could not remain a thousand years in the Church without forming this distinct notion now in question For they might remain only a hundred years in it fifty years thirty years without forming it this is sufficient to invalidate their proof and give way to the change which we pretend To shew it is impossible that a man has entred into a house it is not enough to prove that the door of this house could not remain open for ten years together it must be shew'd that it was always kept shut For if it has been left open only one day the proof concludes nothing It is then evident that these Gentlemen beat the air and that whatsoever they built on their state of the question is only an amusement to deceive silly people Whence it follows that persons of sense may justly complain of them in that they have made my words be they what they will a pretence whereby to entertain the world with fruitless discourses BUT moreover 't is certain that the Author of the Perpetuity has perverted my words and sense 'T is true that in the fifth Observation of my first Answer I established this general Principle That error and truth have equally two degrees the one of a confused knowledg and th' other of a distinct one and that 't is hard to discover any difference betwixt them whilst they are in this first degree of confused knowledg unless a man comes to the other termed a distinct knowledg that the ideas are so like one another that a man cannot easily discern them It is true that from this Principle I generally concluded That before an Error becomes famous by its being opposed the greatest part of the Church content themselves with holding the truth in this indistinct degree I now mention'd and so it is easie for a new Error to insinuate and settle it self in mens minds under the title of an illustration of the ancient truth It is moreover true that in applying this Principle I added these terms To apply this to the matter which we treat of I say that before Transubstantiation came into the world every one believed our Saviour to be present in the Sacrament and that his Body and Blood are really therein received by the faithful Communicant and that the Bread and Wine are the signs and memorials of his Death and Passion on the Cross this was the Faith of the whole Earth but I shall not be mistaken when I say there were few that extended their thoughts so far as to observe exactly the difference of the two Opinions which do at this day separate the Reformists and Romanists there were also some who knew the truth only in general When then error came in thereupon and building ill on a foundation declared we must understand our Saviour is present in the Eucharist stubstantially and locally that his Body and Blood are received in it by the mouth of our bodies and that the sign of his Body is his Body it self this was without doubt in effect an extraordinary novelty and of which there was never heard any mention but yet I do not find it strange that several people were deceived by it and took this not for a novelty but as an illustration of the common Faith So far extends my fifth Observation BUT he ought not to stop here to raise a state of a question he ought to see likewise what I add immediately after in the sixth Observation Had the Author of the Perpetuity and Mr. Arnaud consulted it they would have acknowledged that I gave therein a formal explication and as it were a limitation to this general Principle which I laid down that this does not wholly take place in enlightned Ages wherein there are eminent Pastors for knowledg that take care to instruct clearly their Flocks in the truths of Faith For then their good instructions hinder the growth of Error and render people capable of knowing and rejecting it But it is wholly applicable to the Ages of darkness wherein Ignorance and Superstition have corrupted the Church Which I express in these words Which
in an insulting manner What likelihood says he is there people should proceed to reflections on this mystery t' inform themselves whether it be really Jesus Christ or not I answer the question here concerns the eight first Ages and what he alledges I said was meant of the time of the most gross ignorance as 't will appear to him that shall take the pains to see my words in the proper place whence he has taken them He has not done fairly in this matter For altho it be acknowledged that in the time wherein the Pastors took care to instruct their Flock there might be some persons who proceeded not to the question how the Sacrament was the Body of Jesus Christ yet would we not be understood to speak generally of the people of that time as if there were no difference between them and those that lived in the time when ignorance most prevail'd BVT says Mr. Arnaud further There 's nothing more wonderful than the alliance which Mr. Claude makes in this imaginary order of two qualities the most irreconcilable in the world Every body knows that an high Contemplation does ordinarily suppose a higher knowledg of Mysteries than is to be expected in the common sort of the Faithful Yet it seems the persons of which this rank consists were on one hand so stupid that they comprehended nothing in the most ordinary expressions amongst the Christians altho their ears were struck with 'em in a thousand manners and yet so spiritual on the other that at the sight of the Sacrament or upon the least mention of it they had immediately their whole hearts so fixt on the Body of their Saviour that they could not reflect on the words used in the celebration of the mystery or popular instructions EVERY body knows that to raise up one's devotion to our Saviour Christ who died and rose again for us 't is not necessary to have a very high knowledg of Mysteries As the Death of Jesus Christ and his Resurrection are the most necessary notions of Christianity so are they likewise the first and if a man be not spiritual enough to send up his Devotions to our Saviour 't is certain he is no Christian Neither need a man be very knowing to comprehend that the Sacrament is design'd for this use The whole action of the Eucharist leads the most simple to this and the sursum corda which they understood put them in mind of it But to make reflections on the expressions of the Fatherr when they call the Eucharist the Body of Jesus Christ or said the Bread was the Body of Jesus Christ this requires greater ability and curiosity As to the first which is the lifting up our hearts to our Saviour Christ dead and risen it needs only be supposed that the persons of this first rank now before us had learned their Creed that they were not ignorant our Saviour died and rose again for us and knew the Eucharist was intended to make us remember him Now there are few Christians but know this But as to the second which is to make reflections on the expressions of the Fathers 't is to be supposed they had retain'd the common expressions which their Pastors used in their Sermons or Books and because they were many and very different from one another some having no difficulty and others on the contrary being hard to be understood we may imagin they precisely applied themselves to the difficult ones without contenting ' emselves with the others 't is likewise to be supposed they had compared together these two ideas that of the Sacrament and that of the Body of Jesus Christ and remarkt the differences by a formal act of Meditation Now all this requires some application of mind without which 't is very possible that simple people may remain in the Christian profession Thus we see what 's become of Mr. Arnaud's first Remark and whether my supposition touching the persons of the first rank ought to be respected as an extravagant and sensless distinction Mr. ARNAVD's second Remark contains That 't is false the use of this expression Corpus Christi which was spoken to those who Communicated was according to the intention of the Church to make them meditate on the Body of Jesus Christ in abstracto that 't is certain on the contrary that this formulary Corpus Christi was design'd to instruct them in the truth of the mystery and exact from 'em the confession of it so that 't was a formulary of Instruction and a profession of Faith and not of Practice and Action THIS discourse has all the characters of a person that finds himself intangled What means he by meditating on the Body of Jesus Christ in abstracto Is it meditating on his Death Resurrection and sitting on the right hand of the Father 'T is certain that this was the intention of these words according to the design of the Gospel as appears by the testimonies which I alledged from the Author of the Commentaries attributed to S. Hierom Primasus an African Bishop and S. Basil and this may be confirm'd by several other passages and by these words of S. Augustin We call Aug. lib. 3. de Trin. cap. 4. Bread and Wine that which being taken from the Fruits of the Earth and consecrated by the mystical Prayer is received by us for the Salvation of of our souls in remembrance of the Death which our Lord has suffered for our sakes And by these of Tatianus Jesus Christ having taken the Bread and Tatian in Diacess Wine testified they were his Body and Blood and commanded his Disciples to eat and drink thereof in remembrance of his approaching Sufferings and Death But for this purpose 't were better to read the words of S. Paul Every time ye eat of this Bread and drink of this Cup ye declare 1 Cor. 11. the Lords Death till he comes If by meditating on the Body of Jesus Christ in abstracto he means the meditating on it without conceiving it present on the Altar 't is not sufficient to say 't is false that this was the design of this formulary Corpus Christi according to the intention of the Church he must prove that the Church meant by these words to represent this Body present in its proper substance in the Eucharist which is what he must prove if he designs to uphold the Author of the Perpetuity's Argument and does not think it sufficient to say This is most false THIS formulary says he was design'd to instruct them in the truth of the mystery Who doubts it It was a formulary of use and instruction both together as I plainly intimated in my answer to the Author of the Perpetuity It behoves us only to know what is this truth of the mystery in which it instructs men 'T was says he moreover a formulary and profession of Faith and not of Practice and Action And I say 't was both the one and the other I have proved 't
the virtue of the Divine Word it is truly the Body and Blood of Christ yet not corporeally but spiritually That there is a great deal of difference between this Body in which Jesus Christ has suffered and that Body which is Consecrated in the Eucharist For the Body with which our Saviour has suffered was born of the Virgin has Blood Bones Skin Sinews and is indued with a reasonable Soul But his spiritual Body which we call the Eucharist is composed of several grains without Blood Bones Members and Soul and therefore we must not understand any thing of it corporeally but spiritually II. Mr. ARNAVD cannot hinder it from being true that the Ibidem people were instructed in this manner The heavenly food with which the Jews were nourished by the space of forty years and the Water which ran from the Rock represented the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ which we now every day offer in the Church They were the same things which we offer at this day not corporeally but spiritually We have already told you that our Saviour Christ before his Passion Consecrated Bread and Wine to be his Eucharist and said This is my Body and Blood He had not yet suffered and yet he changed by his invisible virtue this Bread into his own Body and this Wine into his own Blood in the same manner as he had already done in the Wilderness before he was incarnate when he changed the heavenly Manna into his Flesh and the Water which ran from the Rock into his own Blood He that eats my Flesh and drinks my Blood has Eternal Life He does not command us to eat that Body which he assum'd nor drink that Blood which he spilt for us but by this he means the holy Eucharist which is spiritually his Body and Blood which whosoever shall taste with a pure heart shall live eternally Vnder the ancient Law the Faithful offered to God several Sacrifices which signified the Body of Jesus Christ to come this Body I say which he offered to God his Father as a Sacrifice for our Sins But this Eucharist which we now Consecrate on Gods Altar is the Commemoration of the Body of Jesus Christ offered for us and Blood shed for us according as he himself has commanded saying Do this in remembrance of me III. Mr. ARNAVD must be remembred that Elfric Abbat of Serm. Elfrici apud Eund Voloc Malmâ—sbury and who was afterwards as 't is thought Arch-bishop of Canterbury and lived in the same time wrote That the Eucharist is not the Body of Jesus Christ corporally but spiritually not the Body in which Jesus Christ has suffered but the Body in which he spake the night before his Passion when he Consecrated the Bread and Wine and said of the Consecrated Bread This is my Body and of the Consecrated Wine This is my Blood which is shed for many for the remission of sins The Lord who before his Passion Consecrated the Eucharist and said the Bread was his Body and the Wine truly his Blood does himself every day Consecrate by the hands of the Priest the Bread into his Body and the Wine into his Blood by a spiritual mystery as we find it written This enlivening Bread is not in any sort the same Body in which our Lord suffered and the Consecrated Wine is not the Blood of our Lord which was shed as to the corporeal matter but it is as to the spiritual The Bread was his Body and the Wine his Blood as the Bread of Heaven which we call the Manna with which the people of God were nourished during forty years and the water which ran from the Rock in the Desart was his Blood as says the Apostle in one of his Epistles they ate of the same spiritual food and drank of the same spiritual drink The Apostle does not say corporally but spiritually For Jesus Christ was not then born nor his Blood spilt when the people ate of this food and drank of this Rock IV. Mr. ARNAVD cannot hinder Wulstin Bishop of Salisbury in Mss. in Colleg. S. Bened. Cant. his Sermon which he made to his Clergy from speaking in this manner This Sacrifice is not the Body of Jesus Christ wherein he suffered nor his Blood which was shed for us but it is made spiritually his Body and Blood as the Manna which fell from Heaven and the water which gushed out of the Rock according to the saying of S. Paul I will not have you Brethren to be ignorant that our Fathers have been all under a Cloud and pass'd the Sea and all of 'em baptiz'd by Moses in the Cloud and in the Sea and that they have all eaten the same spiritual food and drank the same spiritual drink for they drank out of the spiritual Rock which followed them Now this Rock was Christ and therefore the Psalmist says he gave them the Bread of Heaven Man has eaten the Angels food We likewise without doubt eat the Bread of Angels and drink of this Rock which signifies Christ every time we approach with Faith to the Sacrifice of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ V. Mr. ARNAVD must know that the people were publickly In eod Mss. Eccl. Vigorn taught That Jesus Christ brake the Bread to represent the fraction of his Body that he bless'd the Bread and brake it because it pleased him so to submit the human nature which he had taken to death that he has also added that he had in it a treasure of Divine immortality And because Bread strengthens the body and the Wine begets blood in the flesh therefore the Bread relates mystically to the Body and the Wine to the Blood VI. He must know that Heriger Abbot of Lobbs in the County of Sig de Script Eccles cap. 137. de Cest Abb. Lob. tom 6. Spicil p. 591. Liege publickly condemned Paschasus his Doctrin as new and contrary to the Faith of the Church Which we learn by Sigibert and the continuer of the Acts of the Abbots of Lobbs for both of 'em say That he produc'd against Rabbert a great many passages of the Fathers Writings touching the Body and Blood of our Lord. VIII Mr. ARNAVD himself confesses that John Scot who withdrew Book 9. ch 6. p. 909. into England about the end of the preceding Century made perhaps some Disciples of his Doctrin 'T is true he would have these Disciples to be secret But why secret John Scot kept not himself private Bertran and Raban were neither of 'em in private Those that disliked Paschasus his Novelties hid not themselves in the 9th Century Why then must the Disciples of John Scot lie secret in the 10th wherein were Homilies that were filled with Doctrins contrary to that of Paschasus publickly read Besides as I have already said there 's no likelihood that Odon Arch-bishop of Canterbury should think himself oblig'd to have recourse to such a famous miracle as is that related by William of Malmsbury to
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
Bertram Now Bertram does not any where name Paschasus and not only he does not attack him openly but shuns to appear contrary to him so that it cannot be concluded from the testimony of this Author that Raban was an adversary to Paschasus his Book Why can it not be concluded from the testimony of this Author seeing this Author formally says it Can Mr. Arnaud that never saw this Letter to Egilon better judg of it than this Author that did see it Supposing Raban did not name Paschasus it will not follow that he did not attack his Book for a man may write against a Book and yet not name the Author of it 'T was a sufficient attacking the Book to combat precisely and directly the fundamental and essential proposition which Paschasus came from establishing in it which was that what we receive in the Communion is the same Flesh of Jesus Christ which was born of the Virgin THIS anonymous Author says moreover Mr. Arnaud is the only person Ibidem that speaks of this Letter of Raban to Egilon 'T was never cited either by Berenger nor by any other Author 't was unknown to all the Writers of the 11th Century Supposing what Mr. Arnaud says were true yet would it not be sufficient for the calling in question the sincerity of this anonymous Author who speaks of this Letter as of that which he saw But besides this Mr. Arnaud hazards himself too much when he positively affirms that this is the only Author who speaks of this Letter of Raban to Egilon He may be convinced of the contrary by Raban himself who acknowledges it and makes express mention of it on the same subject of Paschasus his Doctrin and in the same sense which the anonymous does excepting the name of Paschasus which he does not express which plainly defends the sincerity of this nameless Author Quidam nuper de ipso Sacramento Corporis Sanguinis Poen Rab. c. 33. Domini non rite sentientes dixerunt hoc ipsum Corpus Sanguinem Domini quod de Maria Virgine natum est in quo ipse Dominus passus est in cruce resurrexit de Sepulchro cui errori quantum potuimus ad Egilum Abbatem scribentes de corpore ipso quid vere credendum sit aperuimus BVT supposing 't were true says Mr. Arnaud that Raban did in effect Page 875. contradict Paschasus this will be but of small advantage to Mr. Claude Which he endeavours to prove afterwards by the example of several great Wits and famous Bishops who have attack'd the Divinity of Jesus Christ He adds That Raban was as other men are as appears by one of his Letters which the Church of Lyons refuted that it cannot appear strange he should fall into an error touching the Eucharist and that the qualities of a Philosopher Rhetorician Astronomer and Poet could not render him incapable of being deceived Supposing we had only Raban to oppose against Paschasus the advantage would not be inconsiderable Paschasus was only a mean Religious when Raban was Abbot of Fulde and when Paschasus came to be Abbot of Corbie Raban was Arch-Bishop of Mayence whence it follows that the authority of the one was far greater than that of the other As to knowledg it cannot be denied but Raban infinitely excelled Paschasus not in the mere qualities of a Philosopher Rhetorician Astronomer and Poet altho these qualifications do much set off a Scholar but by the Epithet which Baronius gives him Audi says he quid vertex hujus temporis Baron ad ann 847. Theologorum Rabanus decreverit Mr. Arnaud cannot propose Paschasus but only as the single person of his Party now were it the same with us in respect of Raban 't is certain that the presumption would be wholly for this last and that 't is apparently better to bring the Church on Raban's side than on Paschasus's But we are not in these Circumstances The Doctrin of Raban agrees very well with that of other Authors his Contemporaries that of Paschasus agrees with none of ' em The Doctrin of Raban has disturb'd no body but that of Paschasus set several persons against him of his own time There 's not the least reason for accusing Raban of Innovation but there are very strong proofs whereby to conclude that Paschasus was an Innovator It signifies nothing to say that Raban was as other men are as appears by one of his Letters which the Church of Lyons has refuted for should a man rigorously examin Paschasus his Writings he will find more marks of human weakness than in those of Raban besides that from this very thing that Raban had the Church of Lyons for his Adversary one may hence conclude according to Mr. Arnaud's way of reasoning that his Doctrin on the Eucharist differed not from that of his time for otherwise 't is likely that the Church of Lyons would not have spared him on such an important Article and yet instead of this we find on the contrary that when this Church her self spake of the Eucharist it has been in terms which do not at all favour the Real Presence When our Saviour Christ says she gave Lugd. Eccles de tenend ver Script to his Disciples the Sacrament of his Body and Blood he says Take eat this is my Body which is given for you which insinuates that she understood these words This is my Body in this sense This is the Sacrament of my Body And a little further The Oblation of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ which is to say the mystery of his Passion and Death The example of these great Wits and Bishops that have attackt the Divinity of Jesus Christ does indeed shew that 't was not impossible for Raban to fall into error which is what we do not at present dispute for there 's no body infallible no not Mr. Arnaud himself but this example concludes the same thing of Paschasus who was no more infallible than others So far they stand upon equal ground both men and both liable to error It remains to know which of the two actually fell into error and that this example of the Bishops does not decide IT signifies nothing adds Mr. Arnaud to say that no body ever reproach'd Book 8. ch 12 p. 875. him with this error for it does not appear that any other Author save the Anonymous saw this Letter to Egilon so that the only person that had knowledg of it has condemned it Raban did not keep this Letter secret seeing he has himself made mention of it in his Penitentials and says he did it against the error of those who say that the Sacrament was the Real Body and Blood of Jesus Christ born of the Virgin Those who saw not his Letter might easily comprehend by these words the substance of it and for what end he design'd it if they have not condemned it 't was their fault Yet do we not pretend to draw hence any great
one hand the Book could not Dissert Hist c. 17. p. 134 135. be denied to be true and acknowledging moreover that this Bertram to whom 't is attributed is no other than Ratramnus whom he lately mention'd with such great Elogies as being the defender of the Doctrin of the Church concerning Divine Grace he I say believ'd 't was best to attempt the justifying him by any means from the crime of Heresie touching the Eucharist And for this effect has bethought himself of maintaining that Ratramnus in the Book in question defends the same Doctrin which Paschasus Ratbert defended in that which he wrote on the same subject that both one and the other to wit Ratramnus and Paschasus had to deal with the same Hereticks to wit certain Stercoranists who according to Cardinal Perron appeared in the 9th Century that they both of 'em admirably well agree in defending the Catholick Church so that there can be no charge of Heresie brought against Bertram as they of his Communion had hitherto done without any reason Mr. HERMAN Canon of Beauvais has approved of this sentiment of Mr. Mauguin in a Letter to Mr. De St. Beuve Printed in 1652. under the name of Hierom ab Angelo forti and 't is by this means he endeavours to defend Jansenius his Disciples against Mr. Desmarests Professor in Divinity at Groningue who argued against Transubstantiation from the authority of this same Ratramnus whom the Gentlemen of the Port Royal quoted as one of the most famous Witnesses of the Belief of the Church against the novelties of Molina IT seems also that Mr. De St. Beuve does not disapprove of this opinion of Mr. Mauguin and Mr. Herman in his Manuscript Treatise of the Eucharist as we may collect from the Preface of D' Luc d' Achery on the second Tome of his Spicilege Yet by a strange kind of injustice after the testimony of Cardinal Du Perron and others who have seen Bertram's Manuscript he still suspects it to have suffered some alteration Howsoever he would have us remember that Ratramnus died in the bosom of the Church and bear with his offensive expressions This is the part which these two Gentlemen have taken for the preservation of Ratramnus his authority whose testimony is useful to 'em in other matters CELLOT the Jesuit on the contrary designing in his History of Gottheschalc and in his Appendixes to oppose the sentiments of Mr. Mauguin in the subject of Grace and to discredit its Champions has attackt the person of Ratramnus He does indeed acknowledg him for the true Author of the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord but he does all that he is able to discredit it and bereave it of all the Authority which these other Gentlemen attribute to it Howsoever he yields it to the Protestants as being for them and maintains with Possevin that altho this Book may be read with corrections yet Pope Clement VIII has done well in prohibiting it OTHERS of better judgments in the Romish Communion have clearly foreseen that if what Cellot the Jesuit offers against Ratramnus is of use to him against the Disciples of Jansenius and if his way of proceeding be advantageous against the Adversaries which he had at his back 't was not the same in respect of us For as fast as he deprived his Adversaries of so famous an Author as Ratramnus in decrying him for an Heretick on the subject of the Eucharist he yielded him to us without any dispute and by this means does himself furnish us with a very authentick Author against Transubstantiation and the Real Presence They have believed then that to prevent the falling into this inconveniency they must invent some other new means which on one hand might be less bold and more likely than is that of Mr. Mauguin which cannot reasonably be maintain'd and which on the other would not give us so great advantage as Father Cellot has given us in placing Ratramnus absolutely on our side AND this is what Mr. Marca the deceased Arch-Bishop of Paris has seem'd to have done when he offered as a new discovery that the Book in question is of John Scot or Erigenus For by means of this opinion he pretended to secure to Ratramnus his whole authority and reputation and attribute at the same time to the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord the infamy of an heretical piece according to the Decree of the Roman Censurers We may charge Mr. De Marca with inconstancy seeing that in his French Treatise of the Eucharist which was publish'd since his death by the Abbot Faget his Cousin-german he acknowledged that Bertram and Ratram were but one and the same Author and that the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord is truly of Ratramnus HOWSOEVER Mr. De Marca affirms in his Letter to De Luc d' Tome 2. Spicil Achery wrote in 1657. First That the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord is not of Ratramnus as the learned have thought Secondly That 't is John's surnamed Scot or Erigenus Thirdly That John Scot acknowledging this Book was contrary to the Doctrin of the Church publish'd it under the name of Ratramnus by a famous Imposture to give it the more weight Fourthly That this Book is then the same which was condemned in the Council of Verseile by Leo IX as Lanfranc reports and was at length burnt in the Council of Rome under Nicholas II. in 1059. And thus does he reject his former opinion thro human weakness from which the greatest Wits are not exempt and wherein a man easily falls when 't is his interest to be of another mind Mr. De Marca well perceiv'd what a troublesom thing it was to the Roman Faith to say that Paschasus which is as it were the head of it according to the Hypothesis of the Protestants was opposed by all the learned and famous men which were then in the Church He also well foresaw that those who would reflect on the person of Ratram would be extremely surpriz'd to see that upon the contests to which the Doctrin of Paschasus gave birth Charles the Bald having consulted Ratram this great man took part with Paschasus his Adversaries He knew likewise that 't was this same Ratram who was consulted on the subject of Grace by the same Charles the Bald and who shew'd himself so zealous for the truth that he feared not to withstand three times Hincmar his Arch-Bishop as Mr. Mauguin has Dissert Hist c. 17. p. 135. observ'd That this Ratram was so famous in his time that after these bickerings with Hincmar Hincmar himself and the other French Prelates commission'd him to answer in their name the objections of the Greeks in the dispute which arose between them and the Latins There was no likelihood of making such a one pass for an Heretick Moreover Mr. Marca could not deny but that the Book of our Lords Body and Blood ought to be attributed to Ratram should we
the Church of those Ages pretended when she applyed to the Eucharist the term of the Body of Jesus Christ for she designed only to attribute the name of the thing it self to the sacred sign it represents and there 's no likelihood that Authors of those times that made so scrupulous a profession to follow S. Austin even to the copying out his Writings to insert them in their own in proper terms as appears from Isidor's Books Bede's Alcuinus I say there 's no likelihood they would forget what their Master had said touching this Mystery the Lord scrupled not to say This is my Body when he gave the Aug. contr Adimant c. 12. sign of his Body 'T IS to no purpose for Mr. Arnaud to urge the words of the Liturgy of Illyricus Proesta Domine Jesu Christe fili Dei vivi ut qui corpus sanguinem Ch. 3. p. 749 750. proprium pro nobis datum edimus bibimus fiat nobis ad salutem ad redemptionis remedium sempiternum omnium criminum nostrorum Which he thus translates O Lord Jesus Christ grant to us that having eaten thy proper Body and drank thy proper Blood which have been given for us howsoever unworthy that this Communion may be to us a spring of Salvation an eternal remedy for the redemption of us from all our crimes Corpus sanguinem proprium do only signifie Corpus sanguinem tuum thy Body and Blood not the Body and Blood of another as the ancient Priests caused to be caten the Body of a Sacrifice different from their own Body For the Son of God who gave his own Body and Blood for us gives us them to eat and drink in this Sacrament nor that our mouths receive their proper substance the Liturgy does not say so but because they receive the signs and tokens of 'um whilst our souls receive this Body it self and Blood spiritually 'T IS moreover in vain that Mr. Arnaud would persuade us these passages of the Liturgies which term the Eucharist the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ do naturally imprint the Idea of a Real Presence To prevent says he Ch. 3. p. 751 752. the peoples mistakes by all these terms of the Body of Jesus Christ the Priests must have continually warn'd them to take notice that by the words of the Body of Jesus Christ the proper Body of Jesus Christ they meant only its figure This sense must have been expresly explained in all the Liturgies and an Officer appointed to make it thus understood by the people for otherwise 't is impossible but they must fall into the opinion of the Real Presence And this effect being necessary and inevitable it ought to have been the chiefest care and business of the Fathers to hinder it had they not themselves been of this opinion ALL this discourse has nothing in it but what may be easily answered We have already sufficiently replyed to it 'T is true this term of the Body of Jesus Christ taken separately imprints immediately the Idea of the natural Body of Jesus Christ but this same term applyed to the Eucharist which both sense and reason shew us to be Bread which Religion makes us comprehend as a mystery that represents the Incarnation and Passion of our Saviour does not naturally from any other I dea than that of the Sacrament of the Body of Jesus Christ There needs no Officer appointed on purpose to give notice of this to the people nor sound of Trumpet to publish it as Mr. Arnaud speaks in another place Sense Reason and the common notions of Religion were Officers sufficient to give this Idea and publish this to be the sense of this term when applyed to the Eucharist When the Scripture in an hundred places has called our Saviour the Sun the day Star from on High the light of the World the true light that enlightneth every man that cometh into the world I do not find that it setled Officers on purpose to give notice that it meant not a corporal Light or Sun but a Mystical one I do not find the Jews employed an Officer to give notice to the people that that Lamb commonly called the Passover that is to say the passage was not really a passage but only the commemoration of a passage S. Paul did not make use of one when he wrote that we are buried with Christ by Baptism that we are made the same plant with him by the conformity of his Death and Resurrection that we are new Creatures that there is a new man formed in us and I know not how many other expressions which are easily understood by the bare consideration of the matter to which they are applyed The Fathers have not employ'd an Officer when they called the poor Jesus Christ Jesus Christ himself the same Jesus Christ that shed his Blood for us who was delivered and put to death for us not his Prophets but he himself Neither have they employed one when they called the Church the Body of Jesus Christ the very Body of Jesus Christ the real Body of Jesus Christ properly the Body of Jesus Christ the undoubted Body of Jesus Christ the Flesh of Jesus Christ Jesus Christ himself not his Vestment but himself nor when they said that we are one and the same person with him the same Body the same substance by Faith that we are transformed into him changed into his Flesh changed into his Body Should Mr. Arnaud's Principle take place the world must have a great many Officers for there 's nothing more common than not only the metaphorical use of these terms but even the exaggeration of them 'T IS moreover in vain that Mr. Arnaud has painfully collected into a Chapter for that purpose whatsoever passages he could find here and there not only amongst the Latines now in question but likewise from amongst the Greeks Copticks Ethiopians Armenians Nestorians which bear that the Eucharist is the very Body of Jesus Christ his proper Body or properly his Body his real Body his true Body I shall reply to this heap of passages in two manners first in general and secondly in particular IN general I say there is not one of these expressions which is sufficient from whence solidly to conclude that those which have made use of them believed the substantial Presence which the Roman Church teaches either because there is not one of 'um but is used on other subjects wherein evidently there 's neither Transubstantiation nor the Real Presence because they are all capable of another sense and that they may have been employed in other respects than that which Mr. Arnaud attributes to them To begin by that of the Body it self of Jesus Christ we now see the Fathers have used this term on occasion of the poor God says Chrysostom Hom. 15. in Rom. has given his Son and you refuse to give bread to HIM HIMSELF who was given for you who was slain for you the Father has not
learned but a very honest man a bold defender of the Dissert c. 17. Catholick Faith against all Innovators and that he wrote against Hincmar his own Bishop altho he was upheld by the Kings Authority What likelihood is there that a man who scrupled not to write against his Metropolitan and such a man as Hincmar who was countenanced by the King would stick to write by the Kings order too against Paschasus altho he was his Abbot IT signifies nothing for Mr. Arnaud to say That Paschasus clearly testifies that his Doctrin was only attack'd by private Discourses and not by Books For this cannot be collected from his expressions unless we read 'em with glosses and interpretations of Mr. Arnaud Let those says Paschasus in his Commentary on the 26th of S. Matthew that will extenuate the term of Body hear me those that say that 't is not the true Flesh of Jesus Christ which is now celebrated in the Sacrament in the Church and that 't is not his true Blood imagining they know not what that 't is in this Sacrament the virtue of the Flesh and Blood and make the Lord a lyar saying that 't is not his true Flesh nor his true Blood by which we declare his true death whereas truth it self says This is my Body And a little lower I am astonish'd at some peoples saying 't is not the real Flesh and Blood of Jesus Christ in the same thing but that it is Sacramentally so a certain virtue of his Flesh and not his Flesh the virtue of his Blood and not his Blood the figure and not the truth the shadow and not the Body And in another place a little further I spake of these things the more largely and more expresly because I understand that some rereprehend me as if I would in the Book which I wrote concerning the Sacraments of Christ attribute to these words more than the truth it self promises And in his Letter to Frudegard Sed quidam says he loquacissimi magis quam docti dum hoec credere refugiunt quaecunque possunt ne credant quoe veritas repromittit opponunt dicunt nullum corpus esse quod non sit palpabile visible hoec autem inquiunt quia mysteria sunt videri nequeunt nec palpari ideo corpus non sunt si corpus non sunt in figura carnis sanguinis hoec dicuntur non in proprietate naturoe carnis Christi sanguinis quoe caro passa est in cruce nata de Maria Virgine Ecce quam bene disputant contra fidem sine fide It appears from these passages that Paschasus his opinion was contradicted That he was accused for taking Christs words in a wrong sence That he had several clear and solid objections offered him whether by word of mouth or writing or by Books or bare discourses he does not inform us But one may well conclude hence that this opposition consisted not in secret discourses as Mr. Arnaud would have us believe Are we wont to call private discourse a formal opposition by way of objection dispute censure and clear and precise explication of the contrary opinion Opponunt says he quoecunque possunt Ecce quam bene disputant dicunt non in se esse veritatem carnis Christi vel sanguinis sed in Sacramento virtutem carnis non carnem Audivi quosdam me reprehendere c. Do men thus express themselves when they would represent private discourse But says Book 3. ch 8. p. 843. Mr. Arnaud Paschasus in his Letter to Frudegard assures that altho some are deceived thro ignorance yet there is no body that dared openly contradict what the whole earth believes and confesses of this mystery I answer that the sense of Paschasus is that no body dared contradict openly what the whole Earth believes and confesses of this mystery to wit that 't is the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ according as 't is express'd in this clause of the Liturgy which he alledges Vt fiat Corpus Sanguis dilectissimi filii tui Domini nistri Jesu Christi and by the words of Christ This is my Body Now what he says is true in the sense which we suppose must be given to the words of Christ and to the terms of the Liturgy but it does not hence follow that those that opposed the sence which Paschasus gave to these very words of the Liturgy and to those of Christ explain'd themselves very plainly against him for there 's a great deal of difference between acknowledging the truth of these words and acknowledging the sense which an Author would give 'em They confessed that the words were true and could not be question'd without a crime but yet this hindred 'em not from setting ' emselves against the sense of Paschasus Paschasus pretends to draw advantage against 'em by their acknowledging the words imagining the words were plainly for him but he does not at all say they dared not to dispute openly against him nor against the sense he gave these words This is a delusion of Mr. Arnauds just as if any one having said that there 's no body yet amongst the Protestants that has openly denied the Eucharist to be the Body of Jesus Christ Mr. Arnaud would thence conclude that there 's none of 'em then that has yet openly contradicted the sense in which the Roman Church understands it and that they explain themselves about it only in secret discourses But pray why must these be secret discourses during Paschasus his life seeing Mr. Arnaud is obliged to confess there were after his death publick Writings which appeared against his Doctrin Is not this a silly pretension which at farthest can only make us imagin Paschasus as a formidable man who held the world in awe during his life and against whom no body dared open his mouth till after his death BUT laying aside this imagination of Mr. Arnaud come we to the principal question to wit whether Paschasus was an Innovator Mr. Arnaud to defend him from this charge has recourse to the Greek Church which gives says he such an express testimony to his Doctrin of the Real Presence Book 8. ch 9. in the 7th 8th and 9th Centuries that it must needs shame those who out of a rash capricio have the boldness to affirm that Paschasus was the inventer of it He adds That all the principal Authors of the Latin Church of the same time who clearly taught it in such a manner as they ought to teach it according to the state of their time do overthrow this ridiculous Fable To pass by Mr. Arnauds expressions which are always stronger than his reasons we need only send him to th'examination of the Greek Authors of the 7th 8th and 9th Centuries and Latin Authors of the 7th and 8th for he will therein find wherewithal to satisfie himself above his desires Let 's only see whether he has any thing better to offer us HE has recourse next
Disciple Placidus in it to whom he dedicates his Book and the rest of his Scholars This appears from the reading of his Preface and second Chapter Placuit says he in his Preface ea quoe de Sacramento Sanguinis corporis tibi exigis necessaria quoe tui proetexantur amore ita tenus perstringere ut coeteri vitoe pabulum salutis haustum planius tecum caperent ad medelam nobis operis proestantior exuberaret fructus mercedis pro sudore And in the second Chapter Tanti Sacramenti virtus investiganda est disciplina Christi fides erudienda ne forte ob hoc censeamur indigni si non satis discernimus illud nec intelligimus mysticum Christi Corpus sanguis quanta polleat dignitate quantaque proemineat virtute ideo timendum ne per ignorantiam quod nobis provisum est ad medelam fiat accipientibus in ruinam There cannot be gathered any more than this touching the first design of Paschasus His designs without doubt extended not so far as the whole Universe they only respected Placidus and some other Scholars which he taught and the end he proposed was to give 'em the knowledg of this mystery which he had obtain'd believing 't was not sufficiently known His Book which was design'd only for young people was yet read by many others it excited the curiosity of several as he himself tells us in his Letter to Frudegard Ad intelligentiam says he hujus mysterii plures ut audio commovi I have stirred up several people to understand this mystery 'T is likely several became of his mind and 't is certain others condemned his opinion Audivi says he quosdam me reprehendere and that others in fine remain'd in suspense and uncertainty Quoeris says he to Frudegard de re ex qua multi dubitant and lower Multi ex hoc dubitant quomodo ille integer manet hoc Corpus Christi Sanguis esse possit This first success so little advantageous obliged him to write his Commentary on the 26th of S. Matthew where he urges the words of Christ This is my Body and argues as strongly as he can against those that say 't is the Body of Jesus Christ in a Figure in a Sacrament and in Virtue In fine Frudegard having offered him a passage of S. Austin out of his third Book De Doctrina Christiana wherein this Father says that to eat this Flesh and drink this Blood is a figurative locution which seems to command a sin but which signifies to meditate on the Death and Passion of Jesus Christ for us he thence takes occasion to write the Letter to Frudegard wherein he endeavours by all means to defend his Doctrin pressing again the words of Jesus Christ and relating some passages of the Fathers and Liturgy which he imagin'd were on his side And this is all that can be said historically touching Paschasus his fact in which I think there 's nothing that hinders us from believing he was an Innovator that is to say that the Doctrin he offered was not that of the Church as will be made plain by what we shall alledg anon Mr. Arnaud should argue from these matters of fact and not from imaginary suppositions PASCHASVS says he proposes immediately his Doctrin without Book 8. ch 8. p. 848. any Preface or insinuating address without supposing any other Principle than that God can do what he pleases His Doctrin then was not new This consequence is too quick He does not mention that horrid blindness wherein he must suppose the world Altho he does not speak of it what can be thence concluded those that propose novelties as the perpetual Faith of the Church are cautious of absolutely acknowledging that in this respect the world lies in an error Yet does Paschasus insinuate in his Book that this mystery was unknown that is to say that men knew not yet his Doctrin as I have already shew'd and in his Letter to Frudegard he formally acknowledges that several were ignorant of it Quamvis says he plurimi ignoraverint tanti mysterii Sacramenta He does not trouble himself adds Mr. Arnaud to confirm what he says by proofs sufficient to dissipate this error What follows hence He proves it as well as he can that is to say ill yet does he advertise his Placidus in his Preface that he took what he offer'd out of the principal Authors of the Church and he names S. Cyprian Ambrose Hilary Augustin Chrysostom Jerom Gregory Isidor Isychius and Bede Now here are I think great names enough Mr. Claude adds further Mr. Arnaud would persuade us that a young Religions Page 850. having taught in a Book a Doctrin unheard of contrary to sense and reason and having taught it without proofs living in a great communalty having commerce with a great number of Religious Abbots and Bishops was yet advertised by none of 'em that he offered an error contrary to the Doctrin of the Church and that not only he escap'd unpunish'd but for thirty years together no body testifi'd any astonishment at his Doctrin so that he only learn'd from other peoples report and that thirty years after he wrote his Book that there were some persons who found fault with it Mr. Arnaud's prejudice puts him upon strange things Does he not see we need only turn his reasoning on John Scot and Bertram to expose the weakness of it They wrote against the Real Presence who told them they offer'd an error contrary to the Doctrin of the Church who punish'd 'em for it what Popes what Councils condemn'd ' em who setting aside Paschasus stood up against those that affirm'd the Eucharist was not the Body of Jesus Christ otherwise than Sacramentally figuratively and virtually and not really Non in re esse veritatem carnis Christi vel Sanguinis sed in Sacramento virtutem quandam carnis non carnem virtutem Sanguinis non Sanguinem Supposing no body did address themselves to Paschasus himself to charge him with the publishing in his Book a new Doctrin what can be rationally inferred hence but that his Book was at first but little known by learned men who were fit to judg of it because a Book design'd for Scholars does not usually make any great noise or because perhaps that it was despised seeing that in effect there was little in it to the purpose But says Mr. Arnaud at least the Monks of the Convent of Corbie must oppose him Had they done it they had done no more than they ought But Paschasus was their Master that taught 'em and the Disciples are not wont to contradict their Masters Paschasus had immediately won to his interests Placidus who was a person of Quality and a Dignitary in this Convent as appears by the terms of Paschasus himself for thus does he bespeak him Dilectissimo filio vice Christi proesidenti Magistro Monasticae Disciplinoe alternis successibus veritatis discipulo Again who told Mr.
the end it may procure them the remission of their sins He says not to the end it may change the substance of it and convert it into that of the Body of Jesus Christ which yet must have been said or something equivalent thereunto were this the formal effect of the Consecration Having recited our Lords words This is my Body this is my Blood he adds This shall be a pledg to us to the end of the world And a little further Esay touched a live coal his lips were not burnt with it but his iniquity pardon'd Mortal men receive a fire IN THE BREAD IT self and this fire preserves their bodies and consumes only their sins 'T is easie to perceive that by this fire which is in the Bread it self he means the Holy Spirit which he had already prayed for to come down and rest on the Oblation Explaining afterwards what this Mystery is Approach we all of us says he with fear and respect to the Mystery of the precious Body and Blood of our Saviour and with a pure heart and a true Faith call we to remembrance his Passion and Resurrection and let us clearly comprehend them For for our sakes the only Son of God has assumed a mortal Body a spiritual reasonable and immortal Soul and by his holy Law has reduced us from error to the knowledg of the truth and at the end of his Oeconomy offered on the Cross the first fruits of our nature he is risen from the Dead ascended up into Heaven and has left us his Holy Sacraments as pledges to put us in mind of all the favours which he has bestowed on us Was not here a fitting place to make some mention of his corporeal Presence in the Eucharist and having said that he is ascended up into Heaven does it not seem that instead of adding he has left us his Holy Sacraments he should have said he yet presents himself on the Altars in the substance of his Body Let Mr. Arnaud himself judg whether this Liturgy favours him AS to the ancient Liturgy of France which bears that Jesus Christ gives us his proper Body I have already answer'd that these terms of proper Body signifie only his Body and I apply the same answer to the passages which Mr. Arnaud alledges of S. Ireneus Juvencus Gaudencius and of S. Chrysostom who likewise use the same term of proper 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 proprium corpus signifies suum corpus his Body not that of another but his own for this is often the sense of this term as we have already shew'd S. Hilary says There 's no reason to doubt of the truth of the Flesh and Blood of our Lord. I acknowledg he speaks of this Flesh inasmuch as 't is communicated to us in the Sacrament but I say also he means the spiritual Communication which Jesus Christ hath given us in the act it self of the Sacramental Communion and that Hilary's sense is we must not doubt but this Flesh is really communicated to us inasmuch as our Souls are made really partakers of it EPHRAM of Edesse speaks likewise of the Spiritual Communion which we have with Jesus Christ God and Man when he says that we eat the Lamb himself entire WE may return the same answer to the passages of Gelazius of Cizique Hesychius and the History of the Martyrdom of S. Andrew GELAZIVS of Cizique says very well That we truly receive the precious Body and the precious Blood of Jesus Christ not only because the Spiritual Communion is a real reception of this Body and Blood but likewise because this Communion consider'd in opposition to the Sacramental Communion is the only true one HESTCHIVS says That the Mysteries are the Body and Blood of Jesus Chhist secundum veritatem according to truth because that in effect the mystical object represented and communicated to our Souls in this holy action is the Body and Blood of our Lord and this is what he understands by the truth or virtue of the Mystery as we have already observed elsewhere The Author of the relation of the Martyrdom of S. Andrew makes this Saint say not what Mr. Arnaud imputes to him That he Sacrific'd every See E the and Beatus who relate this passage Bibl. patr tom 4. day to God the immaculate Lamb but that he Sacrificed every day to God ON THE ALTAR OF THE CROSS the Immaculate Lamb. Where I pray is Mr. Arnaud's fidelity thus to eclipse these words on the Altar of the Cross to make the world believe this Author means the Sacrifice which is offered every day in the Eucharist whereas he means only that every day he Immolates Jesus Christ on the Cross to wit in meditating on this Cross and preaching it to the people He adds That all the people who are Believers eat the Flesh of this Lamb and drink his Blood and yet the Lamb which was sacrific'd remains whole and alive and altho he be truly sacrific'd and his Flesh truly eaten and drank yet he remains whole and alive This is an allusion to the ancient Lamb of the Jews which was first sacrific'd and afterwards eaten by the people which was a figure of our Saviour the true Lamb of God that was sacrific'd on the Cross and whose Flesh was eaten and Blood spiritually drank by those that believe in him by Faith The Lamb being divided and not rising again after he was slain our Saviour Christ has this advantage over him that he is alive after his being sacrific'd and eaten without suffering any division But whether we consider this manducation absolutely in it self or by comparing it to that of the ancient Lamb it is true For on one hand it is neither false nor illusory and on the other it is the truth figured by the manducation of the Lamb of the Jews THE passage of S. Leo which says We must in such a manner draw near to the Divine Table as not to doubt in any wise of the truth of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ is very impertinently alledged Mr. Arnaud is not to learn that Leo discourses against the Eutychiens who denied our Saviour had a real Body and his sense to be that when we partake in the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of our Lord we must not doubt but our Saviour has in himself in his proper person a real Body and Blood and is real man 'T IS now plainly seen that this heap of passages which Mr. Arnaud has pretended to make of the consent of all Nations and Ages is but a meer illusion and that his design in wand'ring thus ftom his subject was only to colour over the weakness of his proofs touching the 7th and 8th Centuries now in debate He had so little to say concerning these Centuries that he thought it necessary to take the field and circuit about to amuse his Readers and fill up his Chapters But his subject matter is so little favourable to him on what side soever he turns