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
preserve Orthodoxy and stifle Heresies supposing the Eastern People believed Transubstantiation MR. Arnaud finding Berengarius his Affair would not do his Business betakes himself to another Artifice It concerns us not to know say's he whether Lib. 2. cap. 5. pag. 143. Cerularius and Leo D'Acrida could be ignorant of Berengarius his Condemnation Yet this was the Author of the Perpetuitie's Chief Argument But whether they could be ignorant of the Opinion of the whole Latin Church touching the Eucharist which was then by the Calvinists own Confession most clear distinct and determinate for the real Presence But let the Matter concern what it will his Proof will be never the better But instead of saying for the real Presence he should say for Transubstantiation for our Question touching the Greeks being only on this Point if Mr. Arnaud will make advantage of Cerularius and Leo d' Acrida's silence he must establish that the Latins made it then an Article of their Belief There is a great deal of ambiguity in these Terms of real Presence the Greeks do and do not believe it they believe as we already observed a real Presence of Virtue but not areal Presence of Substance And even we our selves who deny the real Presence Mr. Arnaud means profess to believe another which we hold not only for real but a thousand times more real than that which Mr. Arnaud intends If then he designed to explain himself clearly and to the purpose he must say that the Opinion of the whole Latine Church was plainly and distinctly for Transubstantiation BUT 't is not enough to say so it must be proved for endless and impertinent Stories will never satisfie our Reason He tells us that Cerularius having sent his Letter caused the Latin Churches at Constantinople to be shut Lib. 2. cap. 5. up and took away from the Latin Abbots and other Religious Persons their Monasteries That in the following year Pope Leo sent Cardinal Humbert and the Bishop of Blanche Selve and the Archbishop of Melphus in quality of his Legats to Constantinople with Letters to both the Emperour and Patriarch Which is no more than what we know already without Mr. Arnaud's telling us HE adds That Humbert wrote a refutation of Cerularius his Letter by way of Dialogue and amongst the rest that the Azyme is made by invocation of the Trinity the real and individual Body of Christ There are so many faults to be reprehended in this Allegation that a man scarce knows where to begin to refute it Were his Translation as it should be it would appear these words do not so clearly assert Transubstantiation as to give Cerularius an occasion to reproach the Latins with it For may we not understand that the Bread is made the real and individual Body of Christ in as much as he has not two Bodies but one only in the same sence Saint Chrysostom say's that Chrysost Ep. ad Ces although the nature of Bread remains even then when it becomes worthy to be called our Lord's Body Yet do we not say that the Son of God has two Bodies but one And in the same sence Damascen say's also That when the Bread Damascen I. pist ad Zac. Doar Humbert cont Graec. Bibl. Patr. 1. 4 Edit and Wine pass into the growth of our Lord's Body and Blood it becomes not two Bodies but one Moreover Humbert say's not what Mr. Arnaud makes him say viz. that the Bread becomes the Individual Body his words are Corpus Singulare the Singular Body that is to say the Body which singly and only belongs to Jesus Christ and not to the Father and Holy Spirit and there is so great blindness or rather unfaithfulness in this Translation that I cannot suppose it to be Mr. Arnaud's He has published it without doubt from the Collection of some of his Friends and not from Humbert's Text For how great soever his prejudice may be I do not believe he would venture his reputation for so small an advantage as might be expected from this false Translation Observe here what Humbert say's The Azyme being thus prepared is made by an hearty Invocation of the Holy Trinity the real and single Body of Christ Not as the Theopaschites would have it the Body of the Father Son and Holy Ghost Which it seems you believe likewise seeing you say the Azyme does not participate of the Father Son and Holy Spirit as the Leavened Bread does Leave this wicked Opinion unless you will be condemned with the Theopaschites In the Commemoration of our Lord's Passion the Holy and Impassible Trinity has nothing in common except the single Consecration wherein all the Persons co-operate For the death of the Humanity only of the Son of God is celebrated in this visible Sacrament the Apostle saying every time ye cat of this Bread and drink of this Cup ye shew the Lord's death till he comes Our Lord himself in this particular Commemoration delivering the Bread to his Disciples said to em this is my Body which was given for you Mine say's he which by the Grace of the Holy Spirit I who am the Wisdom of the Father have built as a Temple in 46 days in the Womb of the unspotted Virgin It now plainly appears what is the meaning of this Singulare Corpus Christi which is to say the Body which the second Person only assumed and not the Father nor Holy Spirit To make of this the individual Body of Jesus Christ to conclude from thence Transubstantiation is so gross and ridiculous a mistake that had Mr. Arnaud met with the like in my Writings in the humour he seems to be of he would have made it the Subject of a whole Chapter I shall only advise him to take more care another time and not labour so confidently hereafter upon other Peoples Memories This first Passage is attended by another almost of the same kind He say's say's he that the Latins honouring the Body of Truth that is to say the Body of Christ made of an Azyme and in the Azymes taste with their Mouths and Heart how sweet the Lord is This adds he is clear enough and a man must be very dull not to understand this Language I confess I am not quicker of apprehension than another yet I understand very well Humbert ' s Discourse without Transubstantiation We say say's he that the Azyme of the Christians is very different from that of the carnal Jews who observed and pursued the shadow of Truth invited hereunto by the promise and desire of a Terrestial Felicity such as a long Life Riches a numerous Off-spring and such like things But as to us honouring and retaining the Body of Truth which is of the Azyme and in the Azyme we taste with our mouths and heart how sweet the Lord is desiring of him no more but that he may dwell in us and we in him eternally Is not this to deride People to alledge such a Passage as this whereby to
Image of the Body of Christ and the Eucharist is the proper Body of Christ altho they understood a Propriety by an Impression of Virtue I confess there is not between these two States of Image and proper Body in the Sence wherein those of Nice understood them a real Inconsistancy But we must likewise acknowledg that there is an apparent one especially when 't is made to consist only in the Terms as I believe these Greeks have made it If Mr. Arnaud will have them make it to consist in the same thing besides that this Difference will be of small Importance as to the Main I need only offer him what himself has told us concerning Anastasius and others who denyed the Eucharist was a Figure That Lib. 7. c. 2. p. 630. these were not two inconsistent Principles nor two contrary Expressions in the Language of those Times to say that the Eucharist is not the Figure of Christ's Body and yet a Representation of the Mysteries of his Life and that the same Authors that teach the one teach us likewise the other I need only tell him that in the same Place wherein they earnestly deny the Eucharist to be an Image they acknowledg it is a Symbol and that Damascen himself who will not suffer it to be called an Image or Type yet assures us that the same Oeconomy which was observed in Christ's natural Body is observed in the Bread which establisheth a true Resemblance at bottom I need only offer him the Exposition Bessarion makes of Damascen's Words By the Figure say's he he means a Bessarion de de Sacram. Eucharist Shadow which is no more than a Figure barely signifying another Subject yet without having any Substance for acting MR. Arnaud answering this Passage of Bessarion which I offered against the Author of the Perpetuity say's That Bessarion had reason to say St. John Damascen in denying the Eucharist to be a Figure means a bare Figure without C. 6. p. 680. Efficacy Not that he pretends an efficacious Figure is not a Figure but he supposes to say the Eucharist is the Sign of Jesus Christ and not his Body is asmuch as to say it is a bare Figure without Virtue and Efficacy because the Quality of a Figure does not include any Virtue and that it would have no other which could give it this Virtue So that according to Bessarion 't is certain that Damascen in denying the Eucharist to be a Figure of Jesus Christ means by the Word Figure a Shadow and a Figure without Efficacy because that in effect if the Eucharist be a bare Figure it would be a Figure without Efficacy and there would be no place of Scripture which could prove this Efficacy as we will shew elsewhere This Proposition then is true in one Sence if the Eucharist were but a Figure it would be but an empty Figure But this is not true in any Sence seeing if the Figure were an Efficacious Figure it would not be a Figure HE means it is impossible to attribute any Virtue to the Eucharist if it be not acknowledged the Body of Christ in Substance But 1st This Principle is false in it self and the contrary may be proved by an Instance from Scripture which St. Paul calls The Power of God to Salvation Rom. 1. And by the Example of Baptism which is accompanied with the Virtue of Christ's Blood and which according to the Scripture is the Laver of our Regeneration In effect to apply to us the supernatural Virtue of the Body of Christ it is not necessary that the Substance of this Body be locally in the Eucharist it is sufficient that his Spirit be in it and operates therein 2ly It is false there is no Passage of Scripture whereby to prove this Efficacy That which our Saviour himself say's Do this in Remembrance of me and what St. Paul adds That as often as we eat of this Bread and drink of this Cup we shew forth the Lord's Death till he comes this I say includes the Communication of his Virtue For Christ and his Death are not Objects of a mere historical Consideration It is the same with this Divine Saviour as with the Sun which it is impossible to behold without being inlightned by it and cheared with its Rays If we behold him say's one of the Prophets we are inlightned by him To declare his Death as we ought is without doubt an Action inseparable from the feeling of his Efficacy and that Man who deny's this Truth knows little of Christ 3ly Neither is it true that Damascen opposes those that deny the Eucharist to be the Body of Christ in Substance and say it is only so in Virtue neither is it true Bessarion imputes to him this Reasoning Were not the Eucharist the proper Substance of Christ's Body it would be no more than a mere Figure without Virtue and Efficacy This is one of Mr. Arnaud's Circuits which has no Grounds either in the Passage of Damascen nor in that of Bessarion Bessarion indeed would have Damascen to believe Transubstantiation and the substantial Presence for being a Cardinal in the Roman Church 't is no marvel he maintained not the contrary but he does not say Damascen argued as Mr. Arnaud supposes 4ly Mr. Arnaud does himself furnish us wherewithal to dissipate all his Subtilties touching the Council of Nice for we need only apply to the Council of Nice what he say's concerning Damascen in making these Fathers argue after this manner To say the Eucharist is an Image of Christ is the same as to say 't is no more than a bare Image without any Efficacy because the Quality of an Image includes not any Virtue and the Eucharist cannot have elsewhere this Virtue there being no place of Scripture which attributes it to it nor from whence it can be concluded Now the Iconoclastes affirm the Eucharist to be an Image They say then that 't is a bare Image without Virtue and Efficacy and consequently they contradict themselves when they afterwards call it the Body of Jesus Christ for if it be a mere Image it cannot be Virtually this Body This Reasoning attributed to the Fathers of Nice would be better grounded than that which he Imputes to Damascen because it does not appear Damascen Disputes against Persons that Expounded the Words of Christ This is my Body in this Sence This is the Figure of my Body whereas it appears that the Iconoclastes had Expounded them in this Sence This is the Image of my Body whence it follows they might been told better than they have been by Damascen that having no other Passage of Scripture whereby to prove it was the Body of Christ in Virtue it was no more according to them than a mere Image without any Efficacy AS to what Mr. Arnaud say's That altho Paschasius his Adversaries Expounded C. 6. p. 683. these Words The Body of Jesus Christ the Virtue of Jesus Christ yet did they not say it was the
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
no more any express and determined thought on the Articles of the Christian Faith and that Jesus Christ is God and Man that he was born of a Virgin died for us rose again and ascended up into Heaven and that there is an Eucharist but meaning that they had only a very small knowledg of them such as is common to persons unlearned and who rarely apply themselves to meditate on matters of Religion who go indeed for Christians but trouble themselves with no more knowledg than barely to learn the Creed and receive some other general Instructions 'T is easily perceived that this was my sense and that the ignorance I attribute to these persons of the 10th Century from the concurrent Testimony of all Historians was not so great as to keep 'em absolutely from all knowledg of the principal Points of Christian Religion as if they were become Pagans or Atheists or bruit Beasts but that it hindred them from having that clearness of apprehension and distinct knowledg which comes by study and pains and the hearing of able Preachers Which will evidently appear upon consulting the particular places of my Answer wherein I treat of the 10th Century for I attribute to it a confused knowledg of the Mysteries of Religion Now a confused knowledg is moreover a formal knowledg Elsewhere I compare their knowledg to that of a Child who is wont to see First Answer near the end his Nurse ill drest lean and sick which still supposes he sees her altho he sees her not in her usual condition In another place I say the Pastors grew Answer to the second Treatise Part 2. ch 3. and Part 3. ch 7. careless of instructing the People and the People likewise of informing themselves in matters of Religion that there were few persons that applied themselves to the meditating on the Christian Mysteries that the Pastors extremely neglected th' instructing of the People and that the People grew as careless as they in matters of their salvation Now the meaning of all this is not that they wholly lost all kind of knowledg but that it was very scanty In fine 't will appear this is my sense to him that shall cast his eyes on the use I pretend to make of the obscurity of the 10th Age which was to shew that the people of it had not light enough to discern whether the Doctrin of the Real Presence was an innovation in the Christian Religion or whether 't was a Doctrin of the Fathers Now this does not oblige a man to suppose an absolute ignorance of the Christian Mysteries but that the knowledg of them was very confused Which Mr. Arnaud could have well enough seen if he pleased but he thought 't were better to betake himself to Sophisms imagining they would not be laid open and that he might so disguise the subject that few persons should be able to understand it And 't is on this Principle which is neither true nor sincere that he has grounded this reasoning the common Mysteries held at this day by both Parties and contained in the ancient Symbols were not unknown in the 10th Century therefore they of that Age had a distinct knowledg of the truths of the Christian Doctrin WHATSOEVER follows in his fourth Chapter turns upon the same equivocation Did they leave off says he reading the Holy Scripture Page 892. in the Churches and Cloisters Did they give over explaining of it to the People and teaching it in the Schools Do not the writings of those Authors which we have that lived in that Century such as those of S. Odon and Raterius Bishop of Verone make it appear that the Scriptures and Fathers were studied Why does he say that the people had concealed from 'em the clear and solid expositions of the Fathers Was not the Eucharist therein called the Sacrament of the Body of Jesus Christ the Mystery of the Body of Jesus Christ Bread and Wine But all these interrogations are needless A man may say they did not absolutely give over the reading of the holy Scripture and expounding it Perhaps Odon and Raterius were a little studious Perhaps the Eucharist was called a Sacrament a Mystery Bread and Wine and yet it may not follow the People had a distinct knowledg of the points of Religion The Greeks Armenians Moscovites Ethiopians Jacobites Nestorians did not wholly lay aside the reading of the Holy Scripture and of some Fathers in their Church and Cloisters and yet is it true that all these people yea their very Monks and Prelates lived in a very confused knowledg of the mysteries of the Gospel WHAT he adds touching some Historians and Bishops that wrote Books is built on the same foundation Besides that there appears not any thing in these Authors but what is very mean their small number does well warrant our saying this Age was void of Learned men and that people had but a very confused knowledg of the mysteries of the Gospel 'T IS false saith he that in this Age open War was denounced against the senses If this be false how does he himself understand they taught Transubstantiation in it For can this Doctrin be taught without opposing the testimony of our senses seeing they shew us it is Bread and Wine BUT these small objections are very inconsiderable in comparison of Mr. Arnaud's grand pretension which is that this confused knowledg which I attribute to the 10th Century is but a mere empty sound whose sense I my self do not understand In searching his Book says he in what sense he took it I found that confused knowledg and distinct knowledg are one and the same thing in his language which is to say that the knowledg which he calls confused is every whit as clear as that which he calls distinct This discovery would be a very fine one indeed were it not merely imaginary 'T is grounded on that describing some-where the instructions of the Fathers of the eight first Centuries I say that they taught therein the Sacrament to be Bread and Wine that this Bread and Wine were the signs and Figures of the Body of Jesus Christ that they lost not their natural substance but were called the Body and Blood of Christ because they were the Sacraments of ' em He hence concludes that 't is in these Articles wherein consists according to my way the distinct knowledg of the Mystery of the Eucharist He afterwards observes that in another place speaking of the trurh of the Eucharist which have been always popular I say That the Mystery of the Eucharist has been always popular in the outward form of its celebration and in the general acts which Christians ought to perform in it To take Bread to drink Wine in remembrance of the Death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ our Lord to receive these things with a religious frame of mind as a great Sacrament which the Lord has ordained to raise up ones Faith to the Body and Blood of our Saviour to
if it appears on the contrary that they have express'd themselves on the Eucharist quite otherwise than he has done if one party of 'em have formally declared themselves against his Doctrin I see no reason why any man should still obstinately maintain that Paschasus has said or wrote nothing but what the Church of his time believed and taught with him FIRST 't is certain we shall not find the Authors of that Century altho they were not inconsiderable for their number and almost all of 'em wrote something on the Eucharist have delivered themselves on so great a subject in the manner Paschasus has done neither in respect of the sense nor terms Let any man shew us for example they have asserted that the substance of the Bread is converted into the Body of Jesus Christ in such a manner that it does not any longer remain altho the savour and colour still remain or taught that the substance of the Flesh of Jesus Christ enters into our Body that what we receive from the Altar is nothing else but the same Flesh which was born of the Virgin which died and was buried and that 't is this Flesh in propriety of nature or have said that this Flesh of the word pullule this is the expression Paschasus uses which is to say that it multiplies it self and that this multiplication is made in the Sacrament and yet the same Flesh of Jesus Christ and that yet he remains wholly entire Let any one shew us any thing like this in these Authors Mr. Arnaud ought to have employed himself in this instead of expatiating as he has done upon vain arguments Twenty whole Chapters will not so well satisfie rational persons as twelve clear passages out of Authors of the 9tth Century did they contain the same Doctrin which Paschasus has set down in his Writings for this would shew the conformity there was between him and his Contemporaries and at the same time discharge him from the accusation of novelty which we lay against him But there is no danger of Mr. Arnaud's taking upon him this task because he knows 't is impossible to acquit himself well of it IN the second place 't is certain these Authors have not only not spoke of the Eucharist as Paschasus has done but on the contrary have spoke of it in a very different manner from his whence we may easily collect that his Doctrin agreed in no sort with theirs I shall begin with Walafridus Strabo whose words may be seen more at length in my answer to the Perpetuity We shall find him thus speaking That Jesus Christ has establish'd Answer to the second Treatise part 3. ch 2. the Sacraments of his Body and Blood in the substance of Bread and Wine That our Saviour has chosen the Bread and Wine to wit the same species which Melchisedec offered to be the mystery of his Body and Blood That instead of this great diversity of Sacrifices which were in use under the Law the Faithful must be contented with the simple Oblation of Bread and Wine Mr. Arnaud may talk as long as he pleases that these are expressions which do naturally link themselves with the belief of the Real Presence Which is what we deny him These expressions do naturally signifie nothing else but that the Sacrament is real Bread and real Wine and if any use these kind of expressions in the Church of Rome they do it merely by constraint to accommodate themselves in some sort to the expressions of the Ancients Mr. Arnaud again tells us that Walafridus says That the mysteries be really the Body and Blood of our Lord. But we have already several times told him that Walafridus explains himself in the same place and refers this really to the virtue not the substance of Christs Body which also appears from the title of his Chapter which is De virtute Sacramentorum FLORVS an Author of the same Century who has wrote a kind of Florus magister in Exposit Missae Commentary on the Liturgy says That the Oblation altho taken from the simple fruits of the Earth is made to the Faithful fidelibus the Body and Blood of the only Son of God After which borrowing the words of S. Augustin he says That the Consecration makes us this Body and this mystical Blood And the better to explicate what he means by this Body and this mystical Blood he adds That the Creature of Bread is made the Sacrament of the Flesh and Blood of Jesus Christ that 't is eaten Sacramentally that it remains wholly entire in Heaven and is so in our hearts And again a little further Whatsoever is done in this Oblation of the Body and Blood of our Lord is a mystery We see therein one thing and understand another what we see has a corporal species what we understand has a spiritual fruit What he says of this mystical Body and Blood which he explains afterwards by the Sacrament of the Flesh and Blood of Jesus Christ in referring to this alone the effect of the Consecration sufficiently denotes he had not in his view either change of substance or any Real Presence The opposition likewise which he makes of Jesus Christ eaten in parts in the Sacrament to himself who remains entire in Heaven and who enters entire into our hearts does no less denote it for to what purpose is this distinction If our Saviour Christ be really in the Sacrament is he not eaten entire in the same manner in our hearts and wholly entire in Heaven The former words that whatsoever is done in the Eucharist is a mystery wherein we soe one thing and understand another testifie the same thing for what is this thing which we see but the Bread and Wine and what is this other which we understand but the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ which are the object of our understanding He explains himself immediately afterwards The mystery says he of our Redemption was Wine according to what our Saviour himself says I will drink no more of this fruit of the Vine And again Our Lord recommends to us this mystery saying Do this in remembrance of me which the Apostle explaining says As often as yee eat of this Bread and drink of this Cup yee shew forth the Lords Death till he comes The Oblation then of this Bread and this Cup is the Commemoration and annunciation of the Death of Jesus Christ That which is most considerable is his making this Commentary on the very words of the Consecration without adjoyning a word either of the conversion of substances or substantial Presence of the Body and Blood of our Lord. Mr. ARNAVD who oft loses his time in vain contests leaves all these principal passages which I come now from relating and sets himself only against the translation of these words Oblatio quamvis de simplicibus terroe frugibus sumpta divinoe benedictionis ineffabili potentia efficitur fidelibus Corpus Sanguis I said that this fidelibus must
he received when he was preached to every Creature as if he spoke to our Saviour himself and said to him Thou art descended to us thou hast ascended into Heaven and fillest the whole Earth with thy Glory And therefore do we celebrate these Holy Mysteries and partake of and possess thee eternally Wherefore have we this as if he spoke to him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which Goar has well translated Quasi cum salvatore dissereret How comes it to pass I Goar in Euchol p. 153. say we have this quasi if in effect our Saviour was present and the Priest spake to him It may be alledged the passages I come from producing have some ambiguity for it may be doubted whether by the aforemention'd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is meant as being the Body of our Lord or as if it were the Body of our Lord that is to say as if it were in the stead of our Lord's Body But first of all this ambiguity is void in respect of the passage of Simeon who tells us that the Priest does as it were speak to our Saviour for it cannot be alledged that this is either a quasi of quality or of Identity if I may so speak nor give it another sence than this to wit that the Priest speaks no otherwise than if he had our Saviour himself in Person before him and directed his Discourse to him in the same sence as he says Let us see our Saviour speaking in the Apud Allat de perp cons lib. 3. cap. 13. Gospel and that he is as it were present 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and elsewhere That the Priest holding the Gospel in his hand gives it to be kissed by him that takes upon him the Christian Profession as if it were our Saviour himself 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and says to him behold Jesus Christ is invisibly present in the midst of us Now this contributes to the resolving of whatsoever may seem doubtful in the other passages MOREOVER the reasoning of Balsamon and Blastarius clears the difficulty for if we suppose they believed Transubstantiation we cannot give any tollerable sence to their Discourses In effect either they acknowledged that the Azyme was changed into the Body of Jesus Christ as well as the leavened Bread or deni'd it if they acknowledged it their sence is that 't is a great crime to eat the proper Body of Jesus Christ under the Accidents of an Azyme Now this is absurd for if the Body of Christ be really under the Accidents of the Azyme what crime is there in thus eating of it For that which is eaten is no longer a real Azyme but the Substance of the Body it self Wherefore moreover should they be judged more worthy of condemnation than those who mix themselves with the Jews when they celebrate their Feast and eat unleavened Bread with them For the latter of these do really eat an Azyme whereas the others receive only the Accidents of it which serve as a vayl to the proper flesh of our Lord. If it be said they do not acknowledge the Azyme to be changed into the Body of Jesus Christ as the leavened Bread is their sence will be that 't is a greater Crime to eat an Azyme in supposing it to be the Body of Jesus Christ than to eat the same Azyme wittingly and willingly in the Communion of the Jews Now this is no less absurd for the intention and belief which the first have lessens their fault whereas the knowledge and intention of the other aggravates it They that eat the Azyme with the Jews mean only to eat an Azyme whereas those that eat it in imagining they eat the Body of our Lord pretend nothing less than to eat an Azyme so that it cannot be said in this respect but that the crime of these last is greater than that of the others It must then be granted that to give a likely sence to Balsamon and Blastarius their quasi must be a quasi of comparison and not of Identity and that they mean that for a man to eat unleavened Bread in stead of the Body of Jesus Christ is a greater crime than to eat it simply with the Jews because this is an introducing of Judaism in the Christian Religion and to make of that which is accursed the Mystery of our Lord's Body Mr. Arnaud will without doubt reply that they dispute against the Latins and so by consequence this quasi ought to be taken in the sence of the Latins Now the Greeks know very well that the Latins do not receive the Bread of the Eucharist instead of the Body of Jesus Christ but as being really and in effect this Body it self I answer that Balsamon and Blastarius do not dispute in particular against the Latins whom they do not so much as mention in the Commentary they wrote on the Seventieth Canon of the Apostles but establish in general this Rule that we ought not to eat unleavened Bread in this Mystery So that this subterfuge will not serve Mr. Arnaud's turn for their quasi must be taken in the sence of the Greeks and not in the sence of the Latins But supposing there be still a great deal of ambiguity in this Term yet is it fully cleared by the expression of John Citrius in a passage cited by Allatius We offer say's he leaven'd Bread in the Sacrifice instead of Apud Allat lib 3 â—e perp Câ—ns cap 12. the Body of our Lord. And this is the meaning of this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Greeks as the Body that is to say instead of the Body IT is in the same sence that Germain the Patriarch of Constantinople say's That as often as we eat this Bread and drink of this Cup we confess the Death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ and that in this Belief we eat the Bread and drink of the Cup AS of the Flesh of the Son of God confessing his Death and Resurrection We find the same Particle used by Nicetas Choniatus Our Saviour say's he is AS it were eaten after his Resurrection ST Athanasius used this Particle AS a great while before him Our Saviour say's he after his Passion and Resurrection sent his Apostles to gather Athan. disp hab in Concil Nic. Vâ—l alius sub nomine Athanasâ— together the Nations having spread his Table which is the Holy Altar from which he gives the heavenly and incorruptible Bread to wit his Body and Wine that makes glad the heart of man 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 mingling AS it were his Blood in the Chalice These quasi's have such a bad rellish with them that Father Noüet alledging this passage of St. Athanasius has thought good to leave it out and 't is the same antipathy to quasi's that obliged the Translators of Mons to leave out one which they found on another Subject in the Text of St. Paul in his Third Chapter of the First Epistle to the Corinthians Verse 15. For whereas the Greek
incorruptible as the Body of Christ was after his Resurrection which they establish by this Reason that the Bread is an augmentation of the Body of Jesus Christ and that as Nature observes on the Food which nourishes us and augments our Body the same order she kept in the first matter from which we were formed So Grace observes in the Eucharistical Bread the same order she observes in the Natural Body By this means they will have the Bread become first the Body of Christ in asmuch as 't is Mortal and Corruptible that it be afterwards this dead Body and in fine this Incorruptible and Raised Body Cabasilas his Sence then is that when the Bread is mystically sacrificed it is made the dead Body of Jesus Christ as he speaks himself the Lamb slain not that the Body suffers Death in this Moment but because in this Moment the Bread passes thro the Oeconomy of Death And thus the Bread is changed into the dead Body of our Lord not that our Saviour dyes in effect but because the Bread which is the Growth of his Body is then changed into this Body in as much as it suffered Death heretofore And this is Cabasilas his real Sence which is conformable to the Hypothesis of the Greeks and not that which Mr. Arnaud attributes to him HE likewise uses to no purpose several Passages out of Simeon of Thessalonica They say nothing but what I already often answered to wit That the Bread is the real Body of Jesus Christ that it is the very Body of Christ and I shewed in what Sence the Greeks use these Expressions and therefore will not any more repeat it I likewise answered what he alledged touching the Adoration and the unconsecrated Particles AS to Jeremias the Patriarch of Constantinople we may well wonder that he should so confidently offer him us as a Person that teaches Transubstantiation seeing that not only Jeremias holds the same Language as the others but asserts several things which opposes the Roman Doctrine Mr. Arnaud having according to his Custom impertinently related several historical Passages Lib. 4. c. 4. tells us That the Article of the Ausbourg Confession which respects the Sacrament expresly asserting the real Presence but not mentioning Transubstantiation Jeremias answers that Point is handled in it very briefly and obscurely and adds that the Catholick Church holds the Bread is changed into the very Body and Blood of our Lord thro the Holy Spirit So that then Jeremias held Transubstantiation And thus does Mr. Arnaud draw his Consequences But he is too quick Some Protestants in Germany sent the Ausbourg Confession to the Patriarch of Constantinople without any Commentary or Exposition on it The Patriarch examining its tenth Article which runs thus Touching the Lord's Supper they hold the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ are really present in it and are distributed to those that participate thereof and condemn the Opinion of those that hold the contrary He say's This Article treats of the Lord's Supper very briefly and to say the Truth somewhat obscurely For adds he we are told several things of you which we do not approve To say hereupon that the Lutherans understood this Article in the Sence of the real Presence and that the Greeks could not be ignorant of it signifies nothing For it appears that the Patriarch only considered the Expressions of the Article barely as they are laid down and found them obscure And as to those things which were told him of them on this Subject and which he disapproved he does not specify them When then he adds That the Catholick Church holds the Bread is changed into the Body and Blood of our Lord thro the Spirit It is clear his Design is without proceeding any farther into the Examination of their Belief to tell them that of his Church and oppose it against their Article so that we must always return to the Inquiry whether by these Expressions The Bread is changed into the real Body he means Transubstantiation or the other Change by way of Augmentation and Impression of Virtue for 't is certain the Article of the Ausbourg Confession respects neither of these Changes MR. Arnaud tells us This was a proper place wherein to assert the Body and Ibid. p. 361. Blood of Christ are not really present in the Sacrament seeing only their Virtue is in it I answer a presence of Virtue is a real Presence of the Body and Blood of Christ even as the Sun is really present with us by the Efficacy of its Beams so that Jeremias had no reason to oppose the reality of the Presence but 't was better said by him that the Terms of the Confession were Ambiguous and that they ought to acknowledg clearly the Body and Blood are substantially present in it supposing he believed this substantial Presence MR. Arnaud adds That the Patriarch does not say the Bread is changed in p. 362. Virtue Power and Efficacy I answer neither does he say 't is changed in Substance and there is this Difference betwixt Mr. Arnaud and I that I add it was not necessary that Jeremias should explain himself touching this change of Virtue because the Greeks who preceded him had already plainly done it but the same cannot be said touching the change of Substance for not one of the Greeks ever mentioned it any more than he so that he was necessarily obliged clearly to express it if he intended it should be understood BUT Mr. Arnaud further say's The Divines of Wittemberg and Tubinga believed upon the Answer of the Patriarch that he taught the real Presence and p. 370. Transubstantiation When this were true we need not be astonished thereat For it might well be that Divines who held the Consubstantiation should take the Words of Jeremias in a Sence which opposed only one part of their Opinion rather than in another which would wholly overthrow it Their Prejudication signifies nothing to the Exposition which the Greeks make themselves of their own Opinion BUT Mr. Arnaud say's moreover If the Divines of Wittemberg Misunderstood the Patriarchs Sence it lay upon him to rectify their Mistakes I answer there cannot be any Advantage made of Jeremias's Silence in this Respect For it is certain that in these Divines first answer they reckon amongst the Points in which they agreed with the Patriarch this That the Communion or Supper of our Lord unites us to him in as much as we truly partake therein of his Flesh and Blood But these were the proper Expressions which this Patriarch used and so far there was no reason to say they charged him with believing what he did not seeing they only repeated what he said It is likewise true they denyed the Bread was changed therein which they grounded on the Testimony of St. Paul who calls it Bread yet did they make use of the same Term Jeremias did which is that of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without the least mention of a
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 two Languages both of Sense and of Faith but that of Faith do's not contradict that of Sense on the contrary Faith receives the Language of Sense without Explication and Figure For whosoever say's the Eucharist is Bread and Wine which our Eyes likewise shew us means 't is real Bread and Wine in Substance for this our Eyes shew us in a most proper and litteral sense If St. Augustin and Bede find some Appearance of contrariety between the Language of Sense which bears 't is Bread and that of Faith which will have this Bread to be the Body of Jesus Christ the difficulty lyes not in the Testimony of Sense as if we need call its truth in question but in the Body of Jesus Christ which being Flesh assumed of the Virgin which suffered the Death of the Cross and was exalted up into Heaven that Bread should be say'd to be this Body This thought may arise say's St. Augustin and Bede after him in the mind of some Persons we know whence our Lord Jesus Christ has taken his Flesh to wit of the Virgin Mary we know he was suckled in his Infancy educated grew up in years suffered the Persecution of the Jews was nayl'd to the Cross put to Death Buried rose the third Day and Ascended into Heaven when he pleased whence he is to Descend to judge both the living and dead and that he is now sat down at the right hand of the Father How then is the Bread his Body and the Cup his Blood They do not say how shall we not believe what our Senses assure us Shall we doubt of the truth of their Testimony On the contrary they suppose this Testimony to be certain and ground the difficulty on the Body of Jesus Christ which cannot be Bread The Explication of the difficulty and the reconciliation of the two Propositions are not built on the Error of the senses nor the Interpretation which ought be given to their Language in saying the Eucharist is called Bread because it appears to be so or because 't was Bread before its Consecration But from the Nature of the Sacraments wherein there are two Ideas both of 'um true the one of our Senses and the other of our Understanding My Brethren say they these things are called Sacraments because we see therein one thing and understand another That which we see has a Corporeal Species that which we understand has a Spiritual Fruit. As if they had say'd as to what concerns our Eye-sight 't is really Bread and Wine but in respect of our Understanding 't is the Body of Jesus Christ So that if there must be any thing figurative in either of the two Propositions it must be in the Language of Faith and not in that of Sense which bears neither Difficulty nor Exposition ALL that we can expect from them say's Mr. Arnaud that is to say from Authors of the seventh and eighth Century is that when they speak of this Mystery according to Faith and Truth they should explain themselves Book 8. Ch. 2. p. 739. according to those Terms which plainly and naturally express it and which imprint the Idea of it in all those which hear them litterally That which may be expected from Persons believing and teaching the Conversion of the Substance of Bread whether it has bin disputed on or no is that they declare it in precise and formal Terms Which I have already shew'd on the Subject of the Greeks by this reason that the Doctrine of the Conversion of Substances determins the general Sence of these Expressions the Bread is made the Body of Jesus Christ the Bread is changed into the Body of Jesus Christ that it gives them a particular Sense and forms of it self a distinct and precise Idea whence it follows that when the question is about teaching of it and a man has directly this Intention he cannot but express it in clear and plain Terms which answer the Idea he has of it and makes thence the same to spring up in the Minds of the Hearers It cannot be denyed but this Conversion and Substantial Presence are of themselves very difficult to be conceived and hard to be believed because all the lights of Nature are contrary to 'um and there is nothing convictive in Holy Scripture to establish ' um How then can a man conceive that a Church which holds 'um or designs to Preach 'um to its People do's not explain it self about 'um at least in precise and formal Expressions Reason forces us to say she ought to endeavor to establish them by the strongest Proofs she was able for supposing the Schools had never disputed concerning 'um and no Person had ever declared against 'um yet Nature itself which is common to all men do's sufficiently enough oppose them to oblige the Church he speaks of to defend them from their Attacks and fortify them against their Oppositions But granting Mr. Arnaud the Authors of the seventh and eighth Centuries were in this respect extremely negligent who can imagine they really intended to teach the Substance of Bread was really converted into the Substance of the Body of Jesus Christ when they express themselves only by general and ambiguous Terms which need so many Commentaries and Supplements BUT say's Mr. Arnaud we have reason to believe that being Men and indued with Humane Inclinations they had that also of abridging their Ch. 2. p. 742. Words and leaving something to be supplyed by them to whom they spake I know several People of a contrary Humour and yet are men as appears by other Humours they have But this Proposition has no other foundation but Mr. Arnaud's Imagination He offers it without any Proof and I may reject it without farther examining it Yet let me tell him that in the Explication of Mysteries of Religion Men are not wont to use these half Sentences unless when they treat of a Point indirectly and occasionally and not when they expresly and designedly fall upon the explaining of what we must know and believe What strange kind of ways then had they in those Times to express themselves only in half Sentences when they design'd to explain the Mystery of the Eucharist This Custom lasted a great while seeing it was so for near two hundred years and who told Mr. Arnaud the Ministers were not now and then tempted to assert things clearly and speak what they thought or at least that the People were not wearyed with continual supplying what was wanting in the Expressions of their Ministers or in fine that none of these Customs were lost Mr. Arnaud complains we make use of Raillery sometimes to refute him but why do's he not then tell us things less ridiculous For to speak soberly to undertake to prove Transubstantiation and the real Presence by the silence of him that teaches on one side and by the Suppliment of him that hearkens on the other is not very rational Yet to this pass may be reduced his manner
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
effect as Mr. Claude supposes it in every workman just as the workman says that when the light of the day fails him he had rather have the light of the Lamp than that of the Candle for this or that kind of work CHAP. III. A Defence of the second third and fourth Rank of persons against the Objections of Mr. Arnaud THE first rank of persons being defended against Mr. Arnaud's subtilties it now concerns us t' examin his Objections against the three others but to do it with greater brevity I shall not trouble my self with his useless words but as to matters of moment I shall not pass by any of ' em THE second rank is of those that proceeded so far as the question how this visible Bread this subject called Sacrament is the Body of Jesus Christ but finding an inconsistency in the terms their minds settled on the only difficulty without undertaking to solve it Mr. ARNAVD says That the Fathers have not known these kind of Lib. 6. ch 7. pag. 575. people he means they have not mention'd them in their Writings But supposing the Fathers never knew 'em does Mr. Arnaud believe the Fathers must needs know or expound all the several manners of taking things which were practis'd by all particular persons Had they nothing else to do but to make general inventories of mens fancies to find out and denote distinctly the strength or weakness of each individual person If he imagins 't is a sufficient reason to affirm there were not any persons in the ancient Church who finding great difficulty in this proposition that the Bread is the Body of Jesus Christ stuck here without undertaking to clear the point to say the Fathers have known none of this kind he must acknowledg at the same time that there were none likewise that took these words in this sense That the substance of Bread is chang'd into the substance of the Body of Jesus Christ For I maintain that the Fathers have not known any of these kind of people never spake of 'em never offer'd 'em as an example to doubters nor declared that this was the true sense of their expressions Neither can it be answer'd that if they have not mention'd 'em 't was because all the Faithful took them in this sense For Mr. Arnaud confesses himself 'T is probable Lib. 6. ch 1. pag. 529. that the belief of the Faithful has been ever clear and distinct on the subject of the Real Presence and that they have ever known whether what was given them was or was not the Body of Jesus Christ altho they knew not always so expresly and universally whether the Bread did or did not remain in the Sacrament Any man may see what means such an acknowledgment from Mr. Arnaud I repeat it here again that 't is possible the Faithful did not always so expresly and universally know whether the Bread remains or not in the Sacrament which is without doubt at this time a very considerable acknowledgment But not to extend it further than the terms will bear we may at least conclude thence that the Fathers ought to suppose there were persons who probably would not take these words The Bread is the Body of Jesus Christ in this sense The substance of the Bread is changed into the substance of the Body of Jesus Christ and hereupon may be askt why they have not observ'd the exactness and quickness of understanding in the one to deliver the rest from the ignorance wherein Mr. Arnaud acknowledges they may have been AGAIN who told Mr. Arnaud that the Fathers knew not at least in general there might be persons who met with difficulty in this question How the Bread can be the Body of Jesus Christ because of the inconsistency of the terms of Bread and Body This is the difficulty S. Austin proposes in express terms on behalf of persons newly Baptiz'd in a Sermon he preach'd to ' em How says he is the Bread his Body and the Wine his Blood Serm. ad iâ—s The same difficulty is proposed by Theophylact Let no body be troubled says Theophyl in Joan. 6. he that he must believe Bread to be Flesh This was the difficulty which the Fathers were willing to prevent or resolve by this great number of passages which explain in what sense we must understand the Bread to be the Body of Jesus Christ to wit because 't is the Symbol of it the sign or figure the Sacrament of it because there 's some kind of proportion between Bread and Body c. as I shew'd in my Answer to the Author of the Perpetuity Now what were all these explications for but to help those that were perplext with these ways of speaking The Bread is the Body of Jesus Christ the Bread is made the Body of Jesus Christ and who for want of such assistance might make thereof a rock of offence NEITHER need Mr. Arnaud make so many exclamations How Lib. 6. cap. 7. p. 575. should those people discern the Body of our Saviour who were not solicitous to know him and that the Eucharist bore its name What Devotion could they have for this mystery seeing Devotion supposes Instruction Altho they knew not how 't was meant the Bread was the Body yet did not this hinder 'em from having a respect for our Saviour's Body from having a real Devotion considering that our Lord was dead and risen for 'em unless according to Mr. Arnaud it be no real Devotion to meditate on the Death and Resurrection of Christ Neither did this hinder 'em from receiving with great respect the Bread and Wine as pledges and remembrances of our Lords Body and Blood For 't is not impossible for persons to know the Eucharist to be a remembrance of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ and that also the Bread and Wine are said to be the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ without knowing that the first of these expressions is the cause of the second which is to say that the Bread and Wine are said to be this Body and Blood because they are the memorials and pledges of it BVT says Mr. Arnaud This laziness which makes the character of this Page 576. second order would last their whole life and not only some little space of time That it would do so we never told Mr. Arnaud 't is his addition 'T was a lazyness in a matter of the greatest concernment I confess 't is very important to make a good use of the Sacrament which is what I suppose these persons did but when a man shall find difficulty in knowing how the Bread is the Body of Jesus Christ and knows not how to solve it we must not therefore despair of his salvation This says he again is a laziness from which a man may be freed by the least question offer'd to a Priest or Laick that is knowing by the instructions which the Pastors gave to those that were admitted to the Communion
Leaven and Water But yours far from being a true Sacrament is no Sacrament at all being so different from the Truth But we find this arguing more clearly expressed in a Letter of the Patriarch of Antioch to the Bishop of Aquila Those say's he that Auctar Combesis Tom 2. in not ad Isaaci arm Cath. ambas inv partake of the Azyme are in danger of falling into the Heresie of Apollinarius who did not stick to affirm that the Son of God took of the Virgin Mary a Body destitute of Soul and Reason affirming the Divinity was to him in stead of the rational Soul The Azyme then which has neither Salt nor Leaven is it not dead and inanimate and worthy in effect of Death Our Lord Jesus Christ who is perfect God and Man has two Natures and one only Hypostasis having taken of the Holy Virgin a living Body indued with Understanding and given us the Mystery of the New Testament by means of perfect Bread Supposing the Bread of the Eucharist to be a Mystery that represents Jesus Christ its Substance still existing it will then be no hard matter to comprehend this reasoning of the Greeks for they mean that the lump of Bread represents the Body of Christ the Leaven his Soul or Life and the Salt his Understanding or Reason wherefore they say that the Leaven stands for the Soul and the Salt for the Understanding So that partaking of this Bread we mystically eat the animate and living Body of Jesus Christ such as it is in effect and not such a one as Apollinarius dreamt of Whereas those that partake of an Azyme do only mystically eat inanimate Flesh But suppose these People be lieved Transubstantiation and judge then of their meaning They that celebrate the Eucharist say they with unleavened Bread eat a dead Lump how so They eat not the Substance of the Azyme but that of the living Flesh of Jesus Christ They offer say they Flesh that is dead How so again if they offer'd it in its proper Substance such as it now is that is to say living They eat not the Body of Jesus Christ which is consubstantial with us because they eat an inanimate Azyme But it is false that they eat the Azyme they receive only the colours and appearances of it in the same manner as others take the colours and appearances of leaven'd Bread Their Sacrament is not indeed a Sacrament differing so greatly from the Truth Their Sacrament being the Truth it self it can admit of neither difference nor resemblance Who sees not these People are unintelligible if we imagine they argue from the Principle of Transubstantiation For if they only mean that the matter of the Sacrament must be leaven'd Bread to become proper to be changed into the real Body of Jesus Christ they must consider it in the time preceding the Consecration as for instance were I to shew that these Stones are not proper to build a Pallace I must consider them in the time preceding the Building Common sence leads us to this But these People on the contrary are wont almost always to consider it in the time which follows the Consecration You partake say's Nicetas of an inanimate Azyme you offer to God an Azyme being the dead Bread of the Jews You are fed from the Hebrews Table and not from the living and rational Table of the Lord. You communicate with the Jews say's Cerularius you eat a dead Lump say's the Author of the Treatise of the Auctar. Com. bef Tom. 2 in not ad Is Armen in Azymes against the Armenians you receive an Azyme you offer an Azyme being dead Flesh whereas Jesus Christ has given his Mystery 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with perfect Bread All this does very ill accord with the Belief of Transubstantiation NEITHER will it be less difficult to reconcile it with some other expressions used by the Greeks in this same Controversie as with that of Nicetas which I already mention'd You offer in Sacrifice to God the Azyme the Nicet pect in Lat. Bib. Patr. â—4 dead or unleavened Bread of the Jews which you eat as a Figure of the true and living Flesh of our Lord and that which he adds soon after You say that the Apostles receiv'd the Azymes of Jesus Christ and that they left 'em to you for the celebrating of the Mystery as a representation of the Body of Jesus Christ And that of John Citrius which I already likewise mention'd We offer in Sacrifice leavened Bread for the Body of our Lord 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And that of the Patriarch of Antioch the Leaven stands for the Soul and the Apud Allat Perpet Cons lib. 3. cap. 12. Sigism Reg. Mosc Com. Salt for the Understanding And that of John the Metropolitan of Russia in his Letter to the Pope or rather to the Archbishop of Rome as he calls him Jesus Christ gave not to his Disciples an Azyme but Bread when he said Behold the Bread which I give you Let Mr. Arnaud pretend what he will yet I really believe these expressions do not well please him He may tell us the Eucharist may be consider'd in two different respects and that when 't is looked upon in reference to its external Vail 't is called a Figure and Bread and yet the Doctrine of Transubstantiation receive no prejudice thereby But this will not satisfie the World for 't is plainly apparent the sence of Nicetas and other Authors reaches farther than this for to say we offer dead Bread unleavened Bread and figuratively eat it as the Flesh of Jesus Christ that our Saviour gave Bread to his Disciples that he told them 't was Bread he gave them that this Bread should signifie his Body the Leaven his Soul and the Salt his Understanding this is not a bare consideration of simple Accidents But 't is on the contrary to suppose that the Bread remains for we can neither offer nor eat dead Bread a dead Lump unleavened Bread the figurative Bread of the Flesh of Jesus Christ if it does not remain Bread in its real Substance The Bread can neither stand for the Body nor the Leaven for the Soul nor the Salt for the Understanding if in effect this Bread this Leaven and Salt do not any longer subsist but give place to the Body Soul and Understanding of Jesus Christ Mr. Arnaud may tell us if he pleases that Agapius his Monk of Mount Athos who taught Transubstantiation makes use of this way of speaking that the Eucharist is to us in the stead of Jesus Christ wee shall find he is a Person that would not wholly estrange himself from the expressions of the Greeks if it be true that he received the Doctrine of the Latins But we must go on with our proofs OUR Fifteenth Proof shall be drawn from the little care the Greeks take to preserve the Substance of the Sacrament after its Consecration For it is not to be imagin'd supposing their Belief to
is famous amongst the Greeks and lived in the Eleventh Century expounding these words of Saint Peter Let your Conversation be honest among the Gentiles that whereas they speak ill of you as of evil doers they may glorifie God Saint Peter say's he speaks here of the false Accusations of the Heathens and if you would know the particulars thereof read what Ireneus Bishop of Lyons has written touching the Martyrs Sanctus and Blandina and you will be perfectly informed This in few words is an account thereof The Greeks having taken some Slaves belonging to the Christian Catecumenists used great violence towards them to make them confess the Christians Mysteries and the Slaves not knowing what to say to please those that so rudely handled them remembred they heard their Masters relate that the Holy Communion was the Body and Blood of Christ imagining that 't was In effect Flesh and Blood Whereupon they taking this as if the Christians were wont REALLY to eat and drink human Flesh and Blood made report hereof to all the other Greeks and by torments forced the Martyrs Sanctus and Blandina to confess it But Blandina afterwards very pertinently demanded of them how they could imagine People who out of Devotion did abstain from eating Flesh whose use was permitted them should do any such thing THIS passage may be considered in two respects either as being of St. Ireneus or Oecumenius I know very well there are several Learned men that believe Oecumenius was mistaken in relating this Story as if it came from Saint Ireneus and in effect we do not thus find it in the Letter of the Churches of Vienna and Lyons produced by Eusebius But in the second respect under which I now offer it we may certainly conclude that 't was the Sentiment of Oecumenius himself For how can we suppose he would call the belief of the Slaves and Heathenish Inquisitors a mistake That the Holy Communion did in effect consist of Flesh and Blood and that the Christians did really do this Wherefore would he reckon this Errour amongst the Slanders of the Heathens Wherefore should he introduce Blandina refuting this Imagination had he himself believed the Communion to be in effect and reality the Flesh and Blood of Christ in its proper Substance and had this been the real Sentiment of his Church How came it to pass he did not endeavour to mollifie and explain these Terms and show that Blandina was mistaken in denying the Eucharist to be in effect and reallity Flesh and Blood or that what she did in this case was only to conceal from the Heathens the Churches Belief in this particular or in fine that she only denied it in one sence to wit that it was visibly and sensibly Flesh and Blood How happened it he feared not lest the Greeks amongst whom he lived when he gave this account would not be scandaliz'd at it or the weak take hence occasion to call in question the truth of the Doctrines of Transubstantiation and the real Presence Yet does he not trouble himself in searching after mollifying Terms or Explanations and the manner in which he has laid this down does clearly shew us that he did not in any sort believe the Holy Communion to be really and in effect the Body and Blood of Christ nor imagin'd he affirm'd any thing contrary to the Doctrine of his Church or which might be taken in an ill sence CHAP. IX The Seventeenth Proof taken from the Dispute agitated amongst the Greeks in the Twelfth Century touching the Eucharist some of 'em affirming the Body of Jesus Christ to be incorruptible and others corruptible The Eighteenth from a Passage out of Zonarus a Greek Monk that lived in the Twelfth Century I Mention'd in my Answer to the Perpetuity a Dispute which arose amongst the Greeks in the Twelfth Century touching the Body of Jesus Christ which we receive in the Eucharist from whence I took occasion to prove the Greeks do not believe the Transubstantiation of the Latins Mr. Arnaud contents not himself with pretending my Proof is not good but will needs draw a contrary Conclusion from the same Principle I made use of It then lies upon me to examine in this Chapter two Passages the one of Nicetas Choniatus and th' other of Zonarus who both take notice of this Controversie and to know whether this difference do's suppose Transubstantiation or not I will begin with Nicetas who lays down the Question in these Terms The Question say's he was whether the Sacred Body of Jesus Christ which we Nicet Chon Annal. lib. 3. receive be incorruptible such as it has been since his Passion and Resurrection or corruptible as it was before his Passion Before we go any further we should consider whether 't is likely such a Question should be stated in a Church that believes Transubstantiation This is a Point easily decided if we consider that those that hold this Doctrine do not reckon the Body of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist to be either in a corruptible state such as it was before his Passion or an incorruptible one wherein it has been since his Resurrection They have invented a Third which holds the middle between the two others and which equally agrees with the two times before and after his Resurrection which is that they call the Sacramental State in which they will needs have this Body to lie hid under the Accidents of Bread being invisible and insensible in it self without Extension Action or Motion having all its Parts in one Point and existing after the manner of Spirits In this State according to them he has neither the incorruption he obtained by his Resurrection nor the Corruption he put on in coming into the World but is corruptible in respect of the Species which enclose him and incorruptible by reason of that Spirituality which Transubstantiation gives him How can Mr. Arnaud imagine that in this Principle of the Sacramental State there may be formed the Question whether he is incorruptible such as he has been since his Resurrection or corruptible as before his Passion How can he conceive that Persons who have his third State in view and are agreed amongst themselves can fall into a debate touching the two others For it cannot be supposed the ignorance of the Greeks has bin so great as not to let them see the inconsistency there is between their Question and the Doctrine of the Substantial Conversion as it is taught by the Latins No People can be so ignorant as not to know that a humane Body such as is that of our Saviour being under the Accidents of the Eucharistical Bread is neither the same that was on the Cross nor that which Thomas touched when it was risen and we must necessarily suppose that he has neither the corruptibility under which he was before his death nor the incorruptibility he received when he arose from the Sepulchre but another incorruptibility which comes to him from his existence
Church do teach that this Proposition the Bread is the Body of Jesus Christ cannot be admitted but in a Figurative Sence Every Proposition say's Occam in which the Body of Jesus Occham quod 4. quaest 35. Bell. lib. 1. d. Euchu cap 1. Christ is said to be Bread is impossible This Proposition say's Bellarmin that the Bread is the Body of Jesus Christ if it be not taken Figuratively and in this sence that the Bread signifies the Body of Jesus Christ is wholly absurd and impossible for the Bread cannot be the Body of Jesus Christ SUAREZ and Vasquez affirm the same thing and were not these three last Jesuits I might likewise say in my turn that here the Disciple is at variance with his Masters In the third place I affirm that in the Discourse of Zonarus the Term of the same relates not so much to that of Flesh as that of sacrific'd as Mr. Arnaud renders it and of buried to signifie not the Bread is this Flesh in propriety of Substance but that it is this dead and buried Flesh which shews how frivolous Mr. Arnaud's Proof is for this can neither be the same death nor burial it must then of necessity be another In fine 't is but observing never so little Zonarus Discourse and we shall find he distinguishes the Bread from the Body of Jesus Christ for he compares the one with the other saying that as the Flesh of Jesus Christ suffered death and was buried so the Bread is subject to corruption being chewed with the teeth eaten and sent down into the Stomach as in a Sepulchre and that as the Flesh of Christ overcame corruption so in like manner the Bread becomes incorruptible and passes into the Substance of the Soul which shews that his sence is that the Bread is the Flesh it self of Jesus Christ not Substantially but Mystically and consequently this pretended Evidence of Mr. Arnaud is no more than one of his Whimsies IN effect suppose that Zonarus believed Transubstantiation and that what he calls Bread is the proper Substance of Jesus Christ is it possible his extravagancy has lead him so far as to believe that this Flesh is at first corruptible and afterwards becomes incorruptible that it is cut and chewed with the Teeth and in fine reduced into the Substance of the Soul Mr. Arnaud say's 't is probable that Zonarus abuses the word corruption and extends this Ibid. pag â—44 Term to all the changes that happen to the Body of Jesus Christ not in it self but in respect of the Vayl which covers it But this evasion will not serve his turn for Zonarus say's that the Bread is subject to corruption as being the true Flesh of Jesus Christ Now 't is not in respect of its Accidents or Vayl that 't is the true Flesh of Jesus Christ according to the Hypothesis of Transubstantiation It is so by the change of Substance Not to take notice that to eat and chew Accidents with the teeth that is to say Figures and Colours stript from their Substance is a singular Fancy THIS Passage of Zonarus which I now examin'd puts me in mind of another of the same Authors who was a Grecian and famous amongst his own People and lived about the Twelfth Century which shall be my Eighteenth Proof The Passage is taken out of his Commentaries on the Cannons of the Apostles and Councils See here what he writes on the 32. Canon of the Sixth Council in Trullo The Divine Mysteries I mean the Bread and Wine do represent to us the Body and Blood of our Lord for in giving the Bread to his Disciples he said to them take eat this is my Body and in delivering the Cup he said drink ye all of it this is my Blood Seeing then the Lord in his Divine Passion after he had poured out his Blood caused to flow from his Side pierced with a Spear not only Blood but likewise Water the Church has therefore thought it necessary to mingle Water with the Wine in the Holy Mysteries THERE may be made two important Reflections on this Passage First he say's the Bread and Wine do represent to us the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ which cannot agree with the Doctrine of the Church of Rome unless forced by several Interpretations unknown to the Greeks as that by the Bread we must understand the Accidents or Appearances of Bread and by the word represent an inclusive Representation of the thing it self Secondly that grounding as he does this Representation of the words of Christ This is my Body this is my Blood it is clear that he has taken them himself in a sence of Representation and believed that 't was as much as if our Saviour had said This Bread represents my Body this Cup my Blood for otherwise he could not ground as he has done his Proposition that the Bread and Cup represent the Body and Blood of our Lord on this reason that our Saviour said This is my Body this is my Blood THIS Passage seeming to determine the Question in our favour it will not be amiss therefore to consider what may be opposed against it to avoid its force Zonarus makes use of the Term of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which may be sayd to be better rend'red not represent but present give communicate and that the sence of this Author is not that the Bread and Wine do represent to us the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ as Signs and Pictures represent their Original but that they present and communicate them to us in effect inasmuch as they contain the Substance of them and that 't is to confirm this Proposition he alledges the words of our Saviour This is my Body this is my Blood But this evasion will not serve turn if the sence and sequel of Zonarus his Discourse be never so little consider'd His Design was to confute the Armenians in shewing that there ought to be Water mingled with the Wine in the Chalice To prove this he asserts we must represent in the Mystery the Water and Blood which ran down the pierced Side of our Saviour when on the Cross and to confirm this Proposition he has recourse to this general Maxim that the Mysteries which is to say the Bread and Wine do represent the Body and Blood of our Lord. Which plainly shews then we must not translate the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 present or give for why say's he the Bread and Chalice give us the Body and Blood of Christ but because Jesus Christ has said This is my Body this is my Blood We must then put Water into the Cup because Blood and Water issued out from our Saviour's Side The Armenians have said on the contrary there must be none put in because the Lord only made mention of his Blood that 't is very uncertain whether the Mysteries give us this Water which ran down from our Lord's Side and that supposing they do give it us yet does it not hence
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
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
who has without doubt taken 'em from Isidor for 't was the common custom of the Authors of those days to copy out one from another He says moreover in another place expresly That no Infidel can eat the Flesh of Jesus Christ and that all those whom he has redeem'd by his Blood must be his slaves circumcised in reference to Vice and so eat the Flesh of Jesus Christ And as Bede and Alcuinus made a particular profession to be S. Austin's Disciples so they have not scrupled to transcribe into their Books several passages taken word for word out of the Writings of this great man which confirm the same thing Bede amongst others has taken this out of the Book of Sentences collected by Prosper He that is not of the same mind as Jesus Christ neither eats his Flesh nor drinks his Blood altho for the condemnation of his presumption he receives every day the Sacrament of so great a thing And he and Alcuinus Beda in Cor. 11. Beda Alcu. in Joan. 6. have borrow'd from his Treatise on S. John these words Jesus said to them this is the work of God that you believe in him whom he has sent This is then what is meant by eating the meat which perishes not but remains to life everlasting Why prepare ye your teeth and belly believe and ye have eaten it this is the Bread which came down from Heaven to the end that he which eats of it may not die This is meant of the virtue of the visible Sacrament He that eateth internally not externally that eateth with the heart not with the teeth And a little further our Saviour explains what 't is to eat his Body and drink his Blood He that eateth my Flesh and drinks my Blood dwelleth in me and I in him To eat then this meat and drink this drink is to dwell in Jesus Christ and to have Jesus Christ dwelling in us So that he that dwells not in Jesus Christ and Jesus Christ in him does not eat spiritually his Flesh altho he sensibly bites with the teeth the Sacrament of his Body and Blood but rather eats and drinks to his condemnation the Sacrament of so great a thing And again The mark by which a man may know he has eaten and drank is that he dwells in Jesus Christ and has Jesus Christ dwelling in him We dwell in him when we are the Members of his Body and he dwells in us when we are his Temple And a little lower The words which I tell ye are spirit and life What is the meaning of that They are spirit and life That is they must be understood spiritually If ye understand them spiritually they are spirit and life if carnally this hinders not but they are spirit and life but not to you IN short we find these Authors of the 7th and 8th Centuries acknowledg no other Presence of Jesus Christ on Earth than that of his Divinity of his Grace or Providence and in no wise that of the substance of his Body Jesus Christ ascending up into Heaven says Isidor has absented himself Isidor lib. 1. sentent cap. 14. as to the flesh but is ever present in respect of his Majesty according to what he has said I am with you to the end of the world THE passages of Bede on this subject are too many to be mentioned Beda Expos allegor ipsam lib. 1. cap. 12. here I shall only relate some of ' em The Lord says he having performed the duties of his Oeconomy returned into Heaven where he is ascended in respect of his Body but visits us every day by his Divine Presence by which he is always every where and quietly governs all things There is his Flesh which he has assumed and glorified for our sakes Because he is God and man says he again he was raised up into Heaven where he sits as to his Humanity which he assumed on Earth Yet does he remain with the Saints on Earth in his Divinity by which he fills both Heaven and Earth Elsewhere he says that the man mention'd in the Parable of the Gospel who leaving his house went a journey into a far Country is our Saviour Christ who after his Resurrection Idem Comm. in Mare c. 13. ascended up to his Father having left as to his bodily Presence his Church altho he never suffered it to want the assistance of his Divine Presence Interpreting mystically in another place the words concerning Ann the Daughter of Phanuel who was a Widow and aged 84. years This Ann Idem in Luc. lib. 1. cap. 2. says he signifies the Church which is as it were a Widow since the Death of her Lord and Spouse The years of her widowhood represent the time in which the Church which is still burthened with this body is absent from the Lord expecting every day with the greatest impatience that coming concerning which it is said We will come to him and make our abode with him 'T was to the same effect that expounding these words of Job I have comforted the heart Idem Exposit alleg in Job lib. 2. c. 14. of the Widow he says that this Widow is the Church our Mother which our Saviour comforts and that she is called a Widow because her Spouse has absented himself from her as to his corporeal Presence according to what himself tells his Disciples The poor ye have always with you but me ye have not always IN one of his Homilies he acknowledges no other presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist than a Presence of Divinity and Grace For having exactly denoted how many times the Lord appeared to his Disciples after his Resurrection He designed says he to shew by these frequent appearances Idem Hom. ast de temp feria 6 Paschal that he would be spiritually present in all places at the desire of the faithful He appeared to the women that wept at the Sepulchre he will be likewise present with us when we grieve at the remembrance of his absence He appeared whilst they broke bread to those who taking him for a stranger gave him entertainment he will be likewise with us when we liberally relieve the poor and strangers He will be likewise with us in the fraction of Bread when we receive the Sacraments of his Body which is the living Bread with a pure and chast heart We find here no mention of any other presence in the Sacrament but that of the Divinity ALCVINVS teaches the same Doctrine for expounding these words of our Saviour The poor ye have ever with you but me not always He shews says he we must not blame those that communicated to him their good Alcuin in Joan. lib. 5. cap. 28. things whilst he conversed amongst 'em seeing he was to remain so short a a time with the Church bodily He introduces our Saviour elsewhere thus saying to his Church If I go away in respect of the absence of my Flesh I will
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
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
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
inconsistent with Transubstantiation 1. 40 Fathers in what manner they explain themselves when they design the nature of the Sacrament 2. 92 Feast of God rejected by the Greeks 1. 165 Formulary of the re-union between the Latins and the Greeks different in Greek from the Latin 1. 249 G. GEorgiens very ignorant 1. 68 Greeks very ignorant 1. 64 Greeks Bishops leave their Flocks to the Emissaries for Money 1. 98 Greeks superstitious 1. 72 Greeks much degenerated in their manners 1. 63 Greeks entreat the assistance of the Latins 1. 74. seq Greeks have always flattered the Popes with the hope of their re-union 1. 81 Greeks of two sorts the one united to the Roman Church the others not united 1. 109. seq Greeks re-united out of this Dispute 1. 110 Greeks Schismaticks of two sorts the one more rigid the others less 1. 87 Greeks do not believe the Real Presence of the Latins 1. 112. 234 Greeks reject the term of Transubstantiation 1. 114 Greek Apostat cenjured for putting into his Catechism the word Transubstantiation 1. 115 Greeks must use the term of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if they believe the substantial conversion 1. 115. seq Greeks in their re-union have changed the terms of the Latins 1. 224 seq Greeks of the Council of Florence held not Transubstantiation 1. 127 Greeks Proselytes of the Latins express themselves differently when converted 1. 128 Greeks only receive the seven first Councils 1. 122 Greeks say our Saviour is present in the Book of the Gospel 1. 131 Greeks speak of the Bread and Wine before the Consecration in the same manner as aster 1. 131 Greeks prostrate themselves to the Bread and Wine before they be consecrated 1. 132 Greeks make several Particles 132 Greeks call the Particles of the Body of the Virgin the Body of S. Nicolas c. 1. 131 Greeks joyn the small particles with the great ones 1. 131 Greeks say that these Particles participate of our Lord's Body and Blood 1 136 Greeks only establish a spiritual Communion with Jesus Christ 1. 148 Greeks disputing on the Azyms suppose the Eucharist to be real Bread 1. 169 Greeks neglect the substance of the Sacrament 1. 172 Greeks teach not the necessary consequences of Transubstantiation nor the Real Presence 1. 185 Greeks do not believe there 's made any impression of the physical form of the Body of Jesus Christ on the Bread 1. 231 Greeks prostrate themselves before the Book of the Gospel 1. 158 Greeks explain these words This is my Body in a sense of virtue 1. 307 Greeks reject the Apochrypha 1. 280 Greeks have nothing determinate amongst 'em touching the state of Souls after death 1. 209 Greeks in their re-union at Florence and elsewhere with the Latins never pretended to receive their Doctrin 1. 287 Greeks little solicitous about affairs of Religion 1. 287 Greek Bishops love not disputes 1. 287 Greeks contented with maintaining their Doctrins without condemning those of the Latins 1. 287 I. JAcobits believe that Jesus Christ was man only in appearance 2. 17 Jacobits believe not Transubstantiation nor the Real Presence 2. 54 Jacobits reject Auricular Confession 1. 282 John le Fevre a fabulous Author 2. 9 John the Parisian maintain'd in the 14th Century that Transubstantiation was not an Article of Faith 1. 288 Jesus Christ alone not the Priest gives in the Communion his Body and his Blood 1. 148 Jesus Christ preached his Gospel to the damned according to the Greeks 1. 280 Infallibility of the Roman Church is a thing of which the ordinary sort of people cannot assure themselves 1. 29 Infallibility of the Roman Church overthrown by the Author of the Perpetuity 1. 53 Infallibility popular is a Principle to be proved 1. 54 Infallibility double 1. 55 Invocation of Saints rejected by the Greeks in one sense 1. 203 Judgment of the Faculty of Paris on the affair of John the Parisian 1. 289 K. KNowledg distinct is taken in two senses 2. 168 Knowledg distinct and popular knowledg are not the same 2. 170 Knowledg distinct and knowledg popular are not the same 2. ibid. L. LAnguage double of Mr. Arnaud on the subject of the Eucharist refuted 1. 347. seq Latins establish Latin Bishops in Palestin and drive out the Greek ones 1. 75 Latins constrain the Greeks to embrace their Religion 1. 77 Latins fill Greece with Inquisitors 1. 78 Latins have done all they could to introduce Transubstantiation amongst the Eastern people 1. 106 Latins in the re-union at the Florentin Council leave their usual expressions 127 Latins greatly perplexed touching the nourishment which our bodies receive in the Eucharist 1. 187 Latins cause their Greek Proselytes to profess the Doctrin of Transubstantiation 1. ibid. Latins have never disputed with the Greeks about their general expressions 1. 290 Latins dreaded by the Greeks 1. 285 Legats Excommunicate the Patriarch of Constantinople 1. 82 Liturgies Greek denote the Bread to be made the Body of Jesus Christ in sanctification 1. 140 Liturgies Greek commonly term the Eucharist Bread 1. 141 Liturgies Greek direct Prayers to our Saviour in Heaven after the Consecration of the Bread 1. 142 Liturgies contain not one clause which denotes the substantial Presence 1. 142 M. MAronits believe neither Transubstantiation nor the Real Presence before their union to the Church of Rome 2. 52 Maronits very ignorant 1. 69 Manuel Comnenus Greek Emperor favours the Latins 1. 83 Matter subsists in the Eucharist after Consecration 2. 90 Method lawful whereby to examin the Controversie of the Eucharist Pref. Methods of Father Maimbourg and Nouet compared ibid. Method of Mr. Arnaud yields new advantages ibid. Method of the Perpetuity four considerations thereon 1. 5 Method of Controversie ought to be grounded on Principles either granted by both sides or well proved ones 1. 9 Method of prescription of the Author of the Perpetuity fruitless 1. 26 Method of the Perpetuity reduces us after many disputes to begin again 1. 52 Michael Paripanacius Greek Emperor favours the Roman Church 1. 82 Paleologus earnestly labours for a re-union 1. 84 Moscovits very ignorant 1. 69 Moscovits have no Preachers 2. 2 Moscovits very superstitious 2. ibid. Moscovits differ in many things from the Greeks 2. 3 N. NEstorians very ignorant 1 69 Nestorians believe not Transubstantiation c. 2. 50 Nestorians use not Auricular Confession nor confirmation 1. 282 Nisetas Pectoratus forced to burn his Book which he wrote against the Latins 1. 82 O. ORiental parts o'respread with Monks and Emissaries since the 11th Century 1. 90 Odeâ—born a Lutheran was deceived touching the Adoration which the Greeks give the Sacrament 1. 163 Oriental people say that our Saviour dipt the Bread which he gave to Judas to take off its Consecration 2. 52 Oriental people hold that the substance of the Eucharist disperses it self immediately over all the parts of our body 2. 52 Oriental people say we must read This is the Sacrament of my Body 2. 53 P. PAisius