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
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
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
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
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 Russians Sacramentum religiosius Russis venerantur these are also his words Whence I conclude 't is not likely the Russians or Moscovites believe Transubstantiation the reason is sufficiently evident to wit that those that believe the Sacrament to be the proper Substance of the Son of God cannot but shew it more Respect than those that believe it to be a Substanee of Bread IT is to no purpose for Mr. Arnaud to say that my Argument supposes Lib. 5. C. 4. P. 448. according to this Author the Armenians do neither hold the real Presence nor Transubstantiation and that if I do not suppose this nothing can be less reasonable than my Discourse For if the Armenians adds he together with the Substance of Bread do moreover admit the real presence of Christ it is no wise improbable but that they have a greater respect for the Eucharist than those that do not admit this Substance of Bread The respect of the Eucharist comes only from the Presence of Christ and the presence or absence of the Bread contributes not any thing thereunto I hope Mr. Arnaud will not be offended if I tell him that his Authority is not yet great enough in the Church of Rome to counter-ballance that of Thomas Aquinas Now Thomas his Doctrine is directly opposite to his Contrariatur say's this Author venerationi hujus Sacramenti si aliqua Substantia creata esset ibi quae non posset Adoratione latriae adorari 'T would be Thom. Sum. 3. Part. Quaest 75. Art 2. contrary to the Veneration due to this Sacrament were there any created Substance in it to which may not be given the adoration of Latria Now let any man if he can make this agree with what Mr. Arnaud says Mr. Arnaud's Proposition say's that the respect due to the Eucharist proceeds only from the presence of Christ and that the presence or absence of the Bread does not at all contribute thereunto and Thomas assures us on the contrary that if the Substance of bread were present it would hinder the Adoration of this Sacrament whence it follows according to him that those that hold the Substance of Bread ceases to be ought more to reverence the Sacrament than those that believe it remains So that whether the Armenians do or do not believe the real presence this signifies nothing to my Argument 'T is clear according to Lasicius that they do not believe Transubstantiation and consequently 't is clear according to Thomas Aquinas that they hold an opinion which is contrary to the veneration of the Sacrament yet do they adore the Sacrament more religiously than the Moscovites How then can the belief of Transubstantiation be attributed to the Moscovites for if they held this Doctrine they must have a greater veneration for the Sacrament than the others This Argument cannot be otherwise denyed than by opposing the Doctrine of Thomas Aquinas So that with drawing my self out of the Lists I shall offer in my stead either Saint Thomas to be handled by Mr. Arnaud or Mr. Arnaud by Saint Thomas that is to say the Master by the Disciple or the Disciple by the Master MOREOVER our Question touching the Moscovites relating only to Transubstantiation 't is evident it would be a Digression from the Point in hand to discuss the intire passage of Lasicius to know whether he imputes to the Armenians the belief of the real Presence It will appear by what we shall say in the following Chapters what we may judge of them touching this particular The Question now concerns only the Moscovites and what Lasicius says concerning their worshipping less religiously the Sacrament than the Armenians is uncontroulable considering the testimonies we have produced in the second Book of Sacranus a Chanon of Cracovia John de Lasco Arch Bishop of Gnesne and Scarga the Jesuite who expressly depose that the Russians of whom the Moscovites are a part do indeed adore the Bread before its consecration but afterwards shew it no respect nor veneration scattering the Crums thereof on the ground It is to no purpose for Mr. Arnaud to say that that which hinders them from giving the Eucharist after consecration an external honour is that the Consecration is performed in a place separate from the people and that 't is out of respect to the Sacrament that the People are deprived for some time of the sight of this Mystery 'T is evident these are mere Subter fuges Did they worship the Sacrament with an internal adoration they would declare as much themselves and ease Mr. Arnaud of the trouble of searching their Secret thoughts They would shew it by some expression of external Reverence and for this effect expose the Sacrament to the Eyes of the People the People would at least make profession of adoring it before they received it and the Priests would adore it in the Sanctuary when they had consecrated it Yet do these Authors absolutely say that they give it no adoration This says Mr. Arnaud Lib. 5. C. 1. Pag. 432. is not so for Oderbornus tells us that the Priest comes from the Sanctuary and walking leasurely shows the People that which he has consecrated in secret that then the People fall down on their Knees the Priest saying to 'em in the Moscovit Language Behold the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ whom the Jews unjustly put to death But we have shewed in the third Book when we treated of the Adoration of the Sacrament that Oderborn is apparently mistaken having taken a Ceremony which is used before the consecration of the Bread as if it were used after this Consecration The Moscovites even as the Greeks do but once shew the People the Bread and Wine taking one turn round the Church before the Consecration which they call the great Entrance If Mr. Arnaud knows not this he is ignorant of a Matter well known by others and if he does know it he shews little sincerity in designing to prevail over us by means of Oderborn's mistake CHAP. II. Of the ARMENIANS That the Armenians do not believe Transubstantiation First Proof taken from that the Armenians believe the Humane Nature of our Saviour Christ was swallowed up by the Divinity WEE shall not here particularly treat of the Melchites or Syrians Lib. 5. C. 5. as well for that Mr. Arnaud acknowledges they differ not at all from the Greeks in their Religion as that likewise what he alledges concerning them out of the Notes of Abraham Echellensis Maronite on the Catalogue of Caldean Books made by Abed-Jesu a Nestorian Bishop deserves not our consideration The Testimony of Abraham Echellensis is of no credit and I refer my self thereupon to Gahriel Sionita his Country man who has set him forth as an ignorant and impertinent Fellow a Lyer and Impostor These two persons had both of them their Education at Rome in the Seminary of the Maronites both endeavouring to advance the Roman Interest but falling out about the Edition
own accord to forsake it than to be forced to it by a considerable number of Authoritys I confess this acknowledgment of Mr. Arnauds is praise-worthy but this confident Assertion of the Author of the Perpetuity is not so for altho a retractation is a vertuous effect yet methinks a man ought to be sparing in this particular But to go on with our Proofs THE Second shall be taken from the Testimony of Pope John 22. The Historian Raynaldus relates that in his time not only the Armenians which dwelt in Cilicia and Armenia embraced the Doctrines of the Roman Church but those also that were driven out by the Saracens and were withdrawn into Chersonnesus Taurique submitted themselves to the Bishop of Capha who was a Latin That he received them in the name of the Roman Church That the Pope thereupon congratulated them and shewed them that in the Divine Mysteries the substance of Bread and Wine were changed into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ and that there ought to be mingled some Water with the Wine before it be consecrated He afterwards produces this Popes Letter to the Arch-Bishop and Armenian Priests which were in the Diocess of Capha We have receiv'd says Pope John great satisfaction in Understanding how the Almighty Creator displaying his virtue in you has enlightned your minds with the Knowledge of his saving Grace and in that you have vowed to keep the Catholick faith which the Holy Roman Church truly holds which she faithfully Teaches and Preaches and that you have promised Obedience to the Roman Prelate and his Church in the presence of our Reverend Brother Jerome Bishop of Capha And therefore we earnestly desire that holding the saving Doctrines of this Church you likewise observe its Ceremonies especially in what relates to the most excellent of the Sacraments which is the ineffable Sacrament of the Altar For altho all the other Sacraments confer sanctifying Grace yet in this is contained intirely Jesus Christ Sacramentally under the species of Bread and Wine which remain the Bread being Transubstantiated into the Body of Jesus Christ and the Wine into his Blood Then he tells them they must mingle water with the wine in the Chalice because this mixture is a Commemoration of our Lords Death and of the Blood and Water which gushed out from his side 'T is evident that this Pope applyes himself only to these two Articles because the Armenians held neither of them and that in reference to them it was a new Doctrine and Ceremony in which they had need to be instructed For to what purpose should Transubstantiation be recommended to them if they before held it for a fundamental point of their Ancient Religion Why must all the other points of Controversy between the two Churches be laid aside as that of the Procession of the Holy Spirit the two Natures of our Saviour Christ Purgatory Confirmation and several others to stick wholly to Transubstantiation and the mixture of Water The thing declares it self MR. Arnaud who is of all men in the World the most ready at proofs makes one of this The Pope says he so little distrusted the Armenians believed not Transubstantiation that altho he proposes it to them expresly yet he Lib. 5. Ch. 6. p. 469. does it only occasionally and by way of principle to assert the Wine ought to be mixt with Water And this last particular is that to which he particularly applys himself and which is the Capital or Summary of his Letter whereas had he had the least thought that the Armenians believed not Transubstantiation he would without doubt have set about proving it and that with more care and earnestness than he does the mixture of Water in the Chalice MR. Arnaud must pardon me if I tell him 't is not true that the Pope does only occasionally mention Transubstantiation and by way of principle to establish the mixture of Water Raynaldus who relates this affair gives a better account of it than he ipsos instruxit says he ut in divinis mysteriis substantia panis et vini integris speciebus cum Christi corpore et sanguine commutaretur et vino consecrando aqua modica affundenda esset I believe I do not do ill in opposing against Mr. Arnaud's Illusion a truth attested by an Historian that faithfully relates the matter without the least regard to our dispute Moreover what can be more unreasonable than to say as Mr. Arnaud do's that the Pope proposes Transubstantiation only occasionally and by way of Principle to establish thereby the putting of Water into the Cup What Relation is there between these two things it do's not follow from the believing of Transubstantiation that Water must be put in the Chalice nor that those which do not do it oppose this Doctrine These are two distinct points which have their Proofs apart without any Coherence or mutual dependence and there cannot be perhaps any thing imputed to a Pope less beseeming the Dignity and Infallibility of the Head of the Church than to make him argue after this manner The Bread and Wine are Transubstantiated therefore you must put Water into the Chalice Mr. Arnaud ought to be more careful of the Honour of this Prelate and observe that Transubstantiation and the mixture of Water are not in his Discourse a kind of Principle and Conclusion this would be Ridiculous but a Doctrine and Practice which the Pope recommends to the Armenians to the end they may be henceforward conformable to the Roman Church in the subject of the Sacrament of the Altar and thus Raynaldus understood it who has been more sincere in this than Mr. Arnaud As to that minute observation that the Pope do's more insist on the mixture of Water than on Transubstantiation it is not worthconsidering for this proceeds not from the cause Mr. Arnaud imagins but only from the Popes declaring to the Armenians the mystical significations of this mixture which required some Discourse and which Raynaldus has well observed whodistinguishesthesethree particulars in the Popes Letter Transubstantiation the Mixture of Water and the mystical significations Ipsos instruxit ut indivinis mysteriis substantia panis vini integris speciebus cum Christi corpore sanguine commutaretur vino consecrando aqua modica affun denda esset acdivina ea re adumbratra mysteria aperuit that is to say he taught 'em the Doctrine of Transubstantiation the mixture of Water and shewed them the mysteries represented by this mixture MY third Proof is taken from the information which Benedict XII Successor to John the XXII caused to be made touching the Errours of the Armenians not at Rome as Mr. Arnaud has asserted through a mistake of which inadvertency were I guilty how severe would he be upon me but at Avignon where he kept his seat and whence his Bull is dated The 67 Article Raynauld ad Ann. 1341. is exprest in these Terms The Armenians do not say that after the words
quod sicut bestiae in morte expirant sic moriuntur ita Homines sicut bestiae cum semel morte fuerunt nunquam resurgent ita nec homines The Opinions held only in one Armenia are likewise denoted exactly in these Words In majori Armenia In minori Armenia or Catholicon majoris Armeniae Catholicon minoris Armeniae The common Opinions are expressed in these Terms Armeni dicunt Armeni tenent And altho in the Article which respects the real Presence and Transubstantiation we find these words Et hoc specialiter aliqui magistri Armenorum dixerunt videlicet quod non erat ibi Corpus Christi verum Sanguis sed exemplar similitudo ejus yet is this same sentiment imputed generally to all the Armenians for the Article begins thus Item quod Armeni non dicunt quod post verba consecrationis Panis Vini sit facta Transubstantiatio Panis Vini in verum Corpus Christi Sanguinem And towards the end of the same Article there is Quod etiam Armeni illud quod ponitur in eorum Canone Missae per quem panis Benedictus efficitur verum Corpus Christi exponunt quia efficitur ibi vera similitudo exemplar Corporis Sanguinis Christi Unde Damascenus propter hoc reprehendens eos dixit quod ducenti tunc anni erant quod Armeni perdiderunt omnia Sacramenta c. It is then clear that this information attributes this Opinion not to some particular Persons but to the whole Body of the Armenians seeing that on one hand this Article bears the Character of Errors common to the Armenians and on the other there is applyed to 'em what Damascene say'd of 'um so long before that they had lost all the Sacraments Let Mr. Arnaud bestir himself as fiercely as he pleases he cannot hinder us from perceiving that if this Article related only to Particular Persons witnesses of the Fourteenth Century that depose what it contains would never have sought in the eight Century that is to say Six Hundred Years before the Authority of Damascen to confirm what they deposed and even to confirm it by a passage which respects the Church of the Armenians in general and which accuses it for having no true Sacrament MR. Arnaud observes afterwards that in this same Article there is accused another Armenian Doctor named Narces for saying when the Priest C. 9. P. 48. pronounces these Words Hoc est Corpus meum the Body of Jesus Christ is then in a state of Death and when he adds perquem the Body of Jesus Christ is then alive It is true says he the information adds that this Doctor do's not express whether he speaks of the true Body of Jesus Christ or of the Figure But the difference of these two states of Life and Death being to be found in a figure which does not change sufficiently shews that he spake of the true Body of Jesus Christ If these two states of Life and Death cannot be found in a figure much less in the true Body of Jesus Christ which is no more Subject to Death nor the Necessity of rising again Is Mr. Arnaud so greatly prejudic'd that he cannot perceive the sence of this Doctor is that the Eucharist is a mystery which expresses the whole oeconomy of Jesus Christ especially his Death and Resurrection according to the common Doctrine of the Greeks from which in this respect the Greeks do not vary IN the Seventyeth Error says he moreover the same Armenians are Ibid charged with believing that when any one receives the Eucharist the Body of Jesus Christ Descends into his Body and is converted therein as other aliments which is a contrary Heresie to that of Berengarius But as Berengarius would not have scrupled to call the Bread which is the Sacrament of the Body of Jesus Christ the Body of Jesus Christ so neither would he have scrupled to express himself in the same manner as this Article makes the Armenians do That the Body of Jesus Christ that is to say the Bread which is the figure of it Descends into our Bodies and is changed into our Bodies So that this contrariety which Mr. Arnaud imagins has no Ground But there is a real Opposition between this Discourse of the Armenians that the Body of Jesus Christ is Changed into our Bodies as other food and the Opinion of Transubstantiation for how can it be conceived that the proper substance of the Body of Jesus Christ which is in Heaven should be changed into our Bodies that an incorruptible substance should be digested and changed that a substance which exists after the manner of Spirits should nourish us and become food to us It appears then from this very thing that by the Body of Jesus Christ the Armenians mean only the Sacrament or Mystery of this Body which in respect of its substance is real Bread NEITHER is it to any purpose to Remark as Mr. Arnaud do's Ibid. that those to whom was attributed the believing the Eucharist to be only the figure of Christs Body were not wont to call the Eucharist the Body of Jesus Christ and yet commonly the Armenians do thus call it as appears by their Liturgies For 't is evident the sence of this Article is not that absolutely the Armenians rejected this expression seeing it immediately afterwards attributes it to them but that it was not usual amongst them especially since they saw the Latins abused it and therefore they chose rather to use those of Host Sacrifice and Communion IT is also to no purpose to say the Liturgy of the Armenians is contrary Ibid. to this Opinion seeing it contained the Bread is made the real Body of Jesus Christ for they expounded it in this sence that the Bread is made the true resemblance or the representation of the Body of Jesus Christ This explication says Mr. Arnaud is so absurd and ridiculous that it could not be very common it being impossible the generality should entertain it But does Mr. Arnaud believe that Transubstantiation being fully and truly explained as it is in it self and consequences and dependencies can be more easily entertain'd by a People than this sence which the Armenians give to the terms of their Liturgy AS to what he adds that it is say'd in the Seventyeth Article that Ibid. according to the Armenians the Eucharist do's not effect the remission of Sins nor confer Grace and that this is contrary to the Words of the Liturgy of the Armenians of Leopolis and a passage of the Catholick of Armenia in the conference of Theorien which say's they Sacrifice in the Church the son of God for the Salvation of the whole World All that Mr. Arnaud can conclude hence is That the Armenians residing in Armenia do not well agree in this point with those of Leopolis in Poland and that the Catholick which conferred with Theorien was of no great consideration amongst them but it cannot hence follow
that these People hold so monstrous an Opinion whence comes it that both Ancient and Modern Authors make no mention of it never examined the Consequences of such a Conversion have vehemently argued against the conversion of the Humane Nature into the Divine to shew that 't is impossible and not mentioned a word of this conversion of Bread into the Divinity How happens it the Emissaries never discovered to the World so important a secret never disputed against them on this point nor the Popes ever made them abjure such an absurd Opinion in the reunions made between these People and the Church of Rome Whence comes it the Greeks who have bin mixtwith them since so many ages never reproached 'um with this kind of Transubstantiation about which there may be great Volumes written Mr. Arnaud who is so ready at arguing from the silence of all these People Authors Travellers Emissaries Popes Greeks c. ought to inform us of the reason why not one of 'um has mentioned a word of this pretended change of Bread into the nature of the Divinity ALL this I think should oblige Mr. Arnaud to suspend a while his judgment touching Mr. Picquet's Letter which say's that all the Levantine Christians who are Hereticks and consequently such as have entred into a Confederacy against the Roman Church yet hold as an Article of Faith the real Presence of Jesus Christ and Transubstantiation of the Bread and Wine into the Body and Blood of our Lord. He ought at least to desire him The Contents of this Letter are thus elated by Mr. Arnaud in his 12 Book to consult what they mean in saying there is but one Nature in Jesus Christ and that the Divine one and yet the Substance of Bread to be really changed into the Substance of Christ's Body BUT this ought to oblige him likewise not to draw so lightly his Consequences from several Passages of the Liturgies which are attributed to these People wherein the Eucharist is called the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ and said to be truely this Body and this Blood For besides that these Expressions import not Transubstantiation as I have often proved and shall farther prove in what follows 't is to be considered that we have no certainty that these pieces are real or faithfully Translated seeing that in those few Passages which Mr. Arnaud produces there may be observed a Remarkable difference The Liturgy which is in the Biblictheca Patrum under the Title of Canon generalis Aethiopum mentions that the People say after the Priest has Consecrated Amen Amen Amen credimus confidimus laudamus te Deus noster hoc verè Corpus tuum est We believe it We trust in thee and praise thee O Lord our God this is really thy Body but Athanasius Kircher otherwise relates these words Amen Amen Amen credimus confidimus laudamus te Mr. Arnaud Lib. 5. C. 13. p. 518. O Domine Deus noster hoc est in veritate credimus caro tua We believe thee we trust in thee we praise thee O our God this we believe is thy Flesh in truth In one place the People are made to say they believe that 't is truely the Body of Jesus Christ and here that they believe 't is the Body of Jesus Christ in truth Now there is a difference between these two Propositions for in one the Adverb truely refers to the Body and in th' other to the Faith of the People This alteration is not so inconsiderable but that we may see by this Example that those who have given us this Liturgy which is in the Bibliotheca Patrum have not scrupled to accommodate their Translation as much as in them lay to the sence of the Roman Church and to wrest for this effect the Terms of the Original I never say'd this whole Piece was absolutely fictitious as Mr. Arnaud wou'd make the World believe But only that that passage which speaks of the Elevation of the Host is Answer to the Perp. part 2. C. 8. Lib 5. C. 13. p. 516. a mere Forgery and this we have proved by the Testimony of Alvarez and Zaga Zabo one of which positively denies the Ethiopians elevate the Sacrament and th' other declares they do not expose it 'T is to no purpose for Mr. Arnaud to endeavour to justify this alteration in saying perhaps there be different Ceremonies in Ethiopia that they elevate the Sacrament in some places and not in others that they elevate it in a manner so little Remarkable that it has given Occasion to Alvarez and Zaga Zabo in comparing it with the elevation of the Roman Church to say they elevated it not at all that is they do not elevate it so high as to make it be seen as is usual amongst the Latins 'T is plainly seen these are mere Subterfuges and vain Conjectures Had Alvarez and Zaga thus meant they would have so explain'd themselves and distinguished the Places or the manner of the Elevation whereas they speak absolutely Mr. Arnand do's not know more than these two Authors and were he to correct or expound them he ought at least to offer something that might justify his Correction or Exposition We may confirm the Testimony of Alvarez and Zaga Zabo by that of Montconies a Traveller into those parts who describing the Mass of the Copticks who as every Body knows are of the same Religion and observe the same Ceremonies as the Abyssins say's expresly that they use no Elevation IT is then certain that this Liturgy such as it is in the Bibliotheca Patrum is an altered Piece and therefore 't is inserted in it without any mention whence 't was taken or who Translated it as I already observed in my answer to the Perpetuity Yet forasmuch as the Almighty taketh the crafty in their own Nets there are several things left untouch'd which do not well agree with the Doctrine of Transubstantiation such as for Instance is this Prayer which the Priest makes after the Consecration commemorating say's he thy Death and Resurrection we offer thee this Bread and Missa sive Canon univers Aethiop Bibl. patr tom 6. Cup and give thee thanks inasmuch as that by this Sacrifice thou hast made us worthy to appear in thy Presence and exercise this office of Priesthood before thee Wee most earnestly beseech thee O Lord to send thy Holy Spirit on this Bread and Cup which are the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour for ever Did they understand the Bread and Wine were the Body and Blood of the Son of God in proper Substance would they say to him himself that they offer to him the Bread and Cup in Commemoration of his Death and Resurrection and would it not likewise be impious to desire him to send on this Bread and Cup his Holy Spirit 'T is not to Jesus Christ himself that the Latins do offer his Body and Blood those that believe the Roman reality do not
the 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
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
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
to say really which is not true and on the other it hinders us from perceiving that the ignorant taking the naturally of S. Hilary according to the letter would have had the idea of a corporal and natural Presence and not that of a spiritual and invisible Presence These are a kind of faults for which people are not wont to be over-sorry when they happen for they have a desir'd effect for some time and when they chance to be discover'd may be laid on the Printer But howsoever 't is certain that all the impression which this passage of S. Hilary could make on the mind of an ignorant person was only to put him upon conceiving a corporal Presence which he might easily reject by the testimony of his proper senses But to speak the truth there 's little reason to suppose the Books of S. Hilary De Trinitate came to the knowledg of such ignorant and simple people as we speak of THE passage of Gregory of Nysse gives naturally the idea of a change of Bread into the Body of Jesus Christ by the union of the Bread into the Word and by way of augmentation of the natural Body of Jesus Christ as appears from the example which he brings of the Bread which Jesus Christ ate which became the Body of the Word which is far remote from the Transubstantiation of the Church of Rome who will have the substance on the Altar to be the same in number as that which our Saviour Christ assum'd from the Virgin and which is now in Heaven There 's little likelihood that simple and ignorant people understood what Gregory meant even supposing they were acquainted with his Catechism which is not very likely But supposing they knew it all by heart and comprehended the sense of it they could thence only conceive this change by union to the word and augmentation of the Body of Jesus Christ which Damascen has since explained more clearly And this is what Gregory supposes also not as the true Faith of the Church but only as a probable opinion according as he formally explains himself Perhaps says he we are in the right AND this is what we had to say concerning Mr. Arnaud's sixth Book Whatsoever success this Dispute might have had he could not thence promise himself any advantage because as we have already observ'd more than once the eight first Centuries being out of the time wherein we suppose the change was wrought when he shall have proved the Real Presence or Real Absence was distinctly held therein he will be still told the question concerns not those Ages but the following But 't is not the same with me who draw thence several advantages For first neither Mr. Arnaud nor the Author of the Perpetuity can henceforward prevail by the equivocation of the term of Real Absence which may be taken either for the rejection of the visible or corporeal Presence or for the rejection of th' invisible Presence seeing we have shew'd 'em that in this debate the question concerns not the Real Absence in the first sense but the Real Absence in the second Secondly They can no longer confound these two things as if they were but one to wit to be in a condition to acknowledg that the Real Presence does not agree with the lights of nature and to be in a condition to acknowledg 't is a novely which was never held in the Church seeing we have shew'd 'em there 's a great deal of difference between these two dispositions and that it does not follow hence that those who are in the first are also in the second which is precisely that which is here in question Thirdly Neither will they I think any more confound two sorts of very different doubts the one of incredulity which deny the thing it self and the others of simple ignorance which consist only in not knowing the manner yet without denying the thing seeing they have been shew'd clearly enough the difference of 'em and that they ought not to refer to one of these doubts what belongs to the other Fourthly They can no longer blind the world by this vain distinction of three ways of rejecting the Real Presence or by a general rejection without denoting any one kind of 'em or by a formal rejection of all the kinds or by a bare view of the nature of things seeing we have shew'd 'em that the first is impossible that the third brings no advantage to 'em and that there 's only the second which they can reasonably stick to and which yet they renounce because they find it unjustifiable Fifthly 'T is likely they will no longer obstinately maintain that a known inconsistency that is to say a pure impossibility and respected as such is a sense after th' illustrations given on this subject Sixthly They can no longer say that the ancient formulary of the Communion Corpus Christi must necessarily direct the minds of the Faithful to conceive the Body of Jesus Christ present in the Eucharist which they receiv'd seeing it had another use which was to raise 'em up to meditate on the Death and Resurrection of their Saviour this other use being sufficient to employ many of their minds Seventhly They will henceforward in vain pretend that the terms which the Father 's used in their ordinary instructions brought naturally the idea of the Real Presence into their Auditors minds seeing we have shew'd that the natural sense of their Propositions did not depend on the natural signification of each term but on the matter in hand which determin'd them to a figurative sense Eighthly They have had no reason to pretend that all the Faithful have always had a distinct belief either of the Presence or Real Absence in the sense wherein the Roman Church understands these terms seeing we have shew'd them five ranks of persons in the Church of the first eight Centuries who had no formal knowledg of either the one nor th' other Ninthly It being thus in reference to the first eight Centuries it hence follows 't was the same by greater reason in the following which were far darker Tenthly And that which is most important is that one may already know by this that the change which occasions our principal question has been not only possible but easie For there being only two things which can hinder it the one the distinct belief of the Real Absence that is to say the formal and positive belief that the Body is not in the Eucharist by its proper substance neither visible nor invisible and th' other the knowledg diligence and fidelity of the Pastors watching over their Flocks ready to acknowledg and repel the new errors and make them known to their people 'T is already apparent that the first of these things is an unjustifiable supposition and contrary to all probability And as to the other 't is certain it calls in question the credit of all Historians and the judgment of all learned men who agree in this that
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
confute those that durst not shew themselves SEEING therefore on one hand the Doctrin of the Real Presence taught in the 10th Century and on the other the contrary Doctrin preached and publickly held it seems to me we may say with boldness that this Century was mix'd and Mr. Arnaud cannot give us a greater prejudice against his way of arguing by pretended moral impossibilities than to use them in a case wherein the matter of fact so plainly appears 'T IS moreover very strange that Mr. Arnaud should endeavour to persuade us 't was not possible there could be in this Century ignorant people that had no other than a confused knowledg of Gospel Mysteries after the testimonies we have brought him of so many Authors who unanimously depose the contrary Does he expect we will believe him sooner than William of Tyr an Historian of the 12th Century who tells us speaking of the 10th and 11th That the Christian Faith was decayed amongst those who William of Tyr. lib. 1. cap. 8. called themselves Christians that there were therein no more justice equity or any other virtue that the world seem'd to draw towards an end and was about returning to its former Chaos that the lives of Church-men were no better than the peoples for the Bishops grew negligent of their charge were dumb dogs that could not bark Does he hope we shall give a greater deference to his reasons than to the testimony of Hérivé Arch bishop of Rheims an Author of the 10th Century who assures us that Christian Religion was nigh decayed Prâ—f ad Concilium Trosl and standing as it were on the edg of a precipice We have says he in the Council of Trosly scarcely any good order observed amongst us the whole state of the Church is overthrown and corrupted and not to spare our selves we that ought to correct the faults of others are as bad as the rest we are called Bishops but do we do the office of a Bishop We leave off Preaching we behold those committed to us forsake God and plunge themselves in all manner of lewdness and yet are silent we reach not forth to 'em the hand of correction If at any time we tell 'em that which does not please 'em they answer us in the words of our Saviour the Scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses his seat c. So that in this manner are we struck dumb and the Lords flock is lost are drowned in vices and exposed to the cruel teeth of wolves There being no body to shew 'em the way of life how can it be but they must wander into the paths of error Thus in them is accomplished what is said by the Prophet This ignorant people shall be struck with jealousie and again My people are gone into captivity because they had no knowledg Where are they who are converted by our Preaching and have brought forth fruits worthy of repentance Who is the man that by hearing us has left his luxury covetousness or pride This good Bishop who deserves without doubt for his zeal not to be Concilium Trosl cap. 3. comprehended amongst the number of others describing in a decretal of his Council assembled at Trosly the condition of the Monasteries of his time says That as well the Monks as the Nuns lived without Rule and Discipline applying themselves to worldly affairs that some of 'em were constrained by necessity to return into the world again that the Monasteries were possess'd by Lay-Abbots who lived therein with their Wives Children Soldiers and Dogs that the Abbots were not in a capacity t' examine the Rules of their Convents to read or understand 'em and if at any time the Book was offered 'em their reply was Nescio literas He afterwards represents the violence of those that ravish'd the goods of the Church persecuted and put to death the Priests forcibly took away their Neighbors Estates laying snares for the innocent putting 'em to death and plundering their houses and says the number of these latter was infinite and that they imagin'd 't was a gentile thing to live by Rapine Afterwards he turns his discourse to the Ravishers of Virgins and Women and those that contracted clandestine and incestuous Marriages and shews the number of these was not small Thence he comes to the scandalous conversation of Priests with Women to perjured Persons Quarrels Murthers and in fine concludes by an exhortation to the Bishops his Suffragans to do henceforward their duty Alas says he Ibid. in Epil alas thro our negligence and ignorance and by the neglect and ignorance of our Predecessors and that of our Brethren who are still living several do perish in their Vices and at this time there are an infinite number of people of both Sexes Ages and Conditions ignorant of the Faith know not their Creed or Pater noster How can these people supposing they were of honest conversation do good Works having not the foundation of Faith And what excuse can we make for our selves when they die they enter not into life for they are unacquainted with it but they enter into eternal death which they cannot avoid being without Faith for the just live by Faith We are then as Gregory says the murtherers of these people that perish whereas we should be their guides to save them For 't is for our sins this multitude are degenerated because we carelesly neglect the giving them the instructions of life Will Mr. Arnaud now persuade us 't was impossible there should be persons in the 10th Century that had only a confused knowledg of Christianity THE ignorance says he of the mystery of the Eucharist cannot subsist with Book 9. ch 7. pag. 915. a million of Preachers of the Real Presence and a million of people that rejected it When Mr. Arnaud is in his Closet a million of Preachers costs him no more than thirty and his Commission is as soon given to a great number as a small But what is most admirable is that when we come to count these Preachers of the Real Presence we do not find 'em to be above four or five at most one of which as I already observed plainly tells us that those of his time that personated learned men had small knowledg of this mystery till they read Paschasus his Book which must be according to him the fountain of their light 'T is moreover to be observed that what I now alledged of Hérivé in the Council of Trosly is of the year 909 that is to say in the beginning of the 10th Century Now it is certain the darkness waxed greater after this Century but we see to what degree it arrived then Most of the Abbats knew not how to read The Pastors left off Preaching to and instructing of the people and an infinite number of people of either Sex both young and old could not say their Creed nor the Lords Prayer during their whole lives Methinks it cannot be well concluded hence there were at
Bertram Now Bertram does not any where name Paschasus and not only he does not attack him openly but shuns to appear contrary to him so that it cannot be concluded from the testimony of this Author that Raban was an adversary to Paschasus his Book Why can it not be concluded from the testimony of this Author seeing this Author formally says it Can Mr. Arnaud that never saw this Letter to Egilon better judg of it than this Author that did see it Supposing Raban did not name Paschasus it will not follow that he did not attack his Book for a man may write against a Book and yet not name the Author of it 'T was a sufficient attacking the Book to combat precisely and directly the fundamental and essential proposition which Paschasus came from establishing in it which was that what we receive in the Communion is the same Flesh of Jesus Christ which was born of the Virgin THIS anonymous Author says moreover Mr. Arnaud is the only person Ibidem that speaks of this Letter of Raban to Egilon 'T was never cited either by Berenger nor by any other Author 't was unknown to all the Writers of the 11th Century Supposing what Mr. Arnaud says were true yet would it not be sufficient for the calling in question the sincerity of this anonymous Author who speaks of this Letter as of that which he saw But besides this Mr. Arnaud hazards himself too much when he positively affirms that this is the only Author who speaks of this Letter of Raban to Egilon He may be convinced of the contrary by Raban himself who acknowledges it and makes express mention of it on the same subject of Paschasus his Doctrin and in the same sense which the anonymous does excepting the name of Paschasus which he does not express which plainly defends the sincerity of this nameless Author Quidam nuper de ipso Sacramento Corporis Sanguinis Poen Rab. c. 33. Domini non rite sentientes dixerunt hoc ipsum Corpus Sanguinem Domini quod de Maria Virgine natum est in quo ipse Dominus passus est in cruce resurrexit de Sepulchro cui errori quantum potuimus ad Egilum Abbatem scribentes de corpore ipso quid vere credendum sit aperuimus BVT supposing 't were true says Mr. Arnaud that Raban did in effect Page 875. contradict Paschasus this will be but of small advantage to Mr. Claude Which he endeavours to prove afterwards by the example of several great Wits and famous Bishops who have attack'd the Divinity of Jesus Christ He adds That Raban was as other men are as appears by one of his Letters which the Church of Lyons refuted that it cannot appear strange he should fall into an error touching the Eucharist and that the qualities of a Philosopher Rhetorician Astronomer and Poet could not render him incapable of being deceived Supposing we had only Raban to oppose against Paschasus the advantage would not be inconsiderable Paschasus was only a mean Religious when Raban was Abbot of Fulde and when Paschasus came to be Abbot of Corbie Raban was Arch-Bishop of Mayence whence it follows that the authority of the one was far greater than that of the other As to knowledg it cannot be denied but Raban infinitely excelled Paschasus not in the mere qualities of a Philosopher Rhetorician Astronomer and Poet altho these qualifications do much set off a Scholar but by the Epithet which Baronius gives him Audi says he quid vertex hujus temporis Baron ad ann 847. Theologorum Rabanus decreverit Mr. Arnaud cannot propose Paschasus but only as the single person of his Party now were it the same with us in respect of Raban 't is certain that the presumption would be wholly for this last and that 't is apparently better to bring the Church on Raban's side than on Paschasus's But we are not in these Circumstances The Doctrin of Raban agrees very well with that of other Authors his Contemporaries that of Paschasus agrees with none of ' em The Doctrin of Raban has disturb'd no body but that of Paschasus set several persons against him of his own time There 's not the least reason for accusing Raban of Innovation but there are very strong proofs whereby to conclude that Paschasus was an Innovator It signifies nothing to say that Raban was as other men are as appears by one of his Letters which the Church of Lyons has refuted for should a man rigorously examin Paschasus his Writings he will find more marks of human weakness than in those of Raban besides that from this very thing that Raban had the Church of Lyons for his Adversary one may hence conclude according to Mr. Arnaud's way of reasoning that his Doctrin on the Eucharist differed not from that of his time for otherwise 't is likely that the Church of Lyons would not have spared him on such an important Article and yet instead of this we find on the contrary that when this Church her self spake of the Eucharist it has been in terms which do not at all favour the Real Presence When our Saviour Christ says she gave Lugd. Eccles de tenend ver Script to his Disciples the Sacrament of his Body and Blood he says Take eat this is my Body which is given for you which insinuates that she understood these words This is my Body in this sense This is the Sacrament of my Body And a little further The Oblation of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ which is to say the mystery of his Passion and Death The example of these great Wits and Bishops that have attackt the Divinity of Jesus Christ does indeed shew that 't was not impossible for Raban to fall into error which is what we do not at present dispute for there 's no body infallible no not Mr. Arnaud himself but this example concludes the same thing of Paschasus who was no more infallible than others So far they stand upon equal ground both men and both liable to error It remains to know which of the two actually fell into error and that this example of the Bishops does not decide IT signifies nothing adds Mr. Arnaud to say that no body ever reproach'd Book 8. ch 12 p. 875. him with this error for it does not appear that any other Author save the Anonymous saw this Letter to Egilon so that the only person that had knowledg of it has condemned it Raban did not keep this Letter secret seeing he has himself made mention of it in his Penitentials and says he did it against the error of those who say that the Sacrament was the Real Body and Blood of Jesus Christ born of the Virgin Those who saw not his Letter might easily comprehend by these words the substance of it and for what end he design'd it if they have not condemned it 't was their fault Yet do we not pretend to draw hence any great
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
and particular or such equivalent ones as may prevent a mans being mistaken in them MOREOVER It cannot be denied that Transubstantiation of it self is a hard matter to be believed and that humane nature is naturally averse to the belief of it What likelihood is there then if the Fathers designed to teach it they should be content with these general expressions which six not the mind being as they are capable of several senses Had they no reason to fear lest humane inclinations would be apt to turn peoples minds on the other side and carry 'em off from the true sense of their words IN fine we need only consider the greatest part of those expressions themselves which are proposed to prejudicate according to appearance that they signifie nothing less than Transubstantiation or the Real Presence For they can no sooner have this sense given 'em but they become immediately difficult and perplexed whereas in taking them otherwise they become easie and intelligible What can there be for example more perplexing than this usual proposition of the Fathers That the Bread and Wine are the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ if a man takes it in a sense of Transubstantiation For what must we conceive by this Bread and Wine Is it real Bread and real Wine They are not the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ Are they the appearances of Bread and Wine How can these appearances be this Body and Blood Is it that which appears to be Bread and yet is not so But why must not that be Bread which appears to be Bread Why if it be not Bread is it called Bread Is it that which was before Bread and Wine But how is that which was before Bread and Wine now the Body and Blood seeing there is no common subject of which we can rationally say that it was before Bread and Wine but now Body and Blood After this rate a man knows not on which side to turn himself whereas if you understand that the Bread and Wine are the Sacrament of Christ's Body you 'l meet with no difficulty for the Sacraments usually assume the names of the things of which they are Sacraments and these ways of speaking create no trouble to amans mind Now when we contend about two senses our reason will lead us to prejudicate in favour of that which is the most easie and less intricate and make us suppose it without proof till such time as it evidently appears that the other altho more difficult yet is the truest COMPARE now I pray our pretension with that of Mr. Arnaud and judg which of the two is the most just and natural He grounds his on two reasons whose strength and truth we question and have already overthrown and I ground mine on Principles which must be granted by both parties and which are apparently conclusive For it cannot be denied but we must prejudicate in behalf of nature of common lights which regulate the judgments of men the manner of the Sacramental expressions and the most easie and least perplexed sense Neither can it be denied that the nature of the Doctrine in question guiding men of it self to explain themselves about it in precise terms and indeed necessarily obliging them by reason of the natural repugnancies of mens minds does not entirely favour this prejudication It is then a thousand times more rational than the other Mr. ARNAVD grounds his pretension on an advantage which we are in possession of as well as he For he says he understands the expressions of the Fathers which are alledged in a literal sense we say the same in respect of those which we alledg but I ground mine on particular advantages to which he cannot pretend Now 't is far more reasonable to establish a particular right on particular advantages than to establish it on a common thing For from that which is common to both parties there can arise no particular privilege The third Reflection ALTHO we have this right to suppose without any other proof that the expressions of the Fathers which the Roman Church alledges in her own favour must be taken in a Sacramental sense and not in a sense of Transubstantiation or Real Presence yet in the answers we make we do not absolutely make use of this right For before we return our answers we establish the real sentiment of the Fathers by authentick passages taken out of their Books so that our Answers be only an application of that which the Fathers themselves have taught us Thus has Mr. Aubertin used them and thus have I used them against the Author of the Perpetuity There is then a great deal of injustice in Mr. Arnaud's proceeding when he produces some of my Answers and offers 'em to be considered dislocated from my proofs whereas they ought only be considered in their reference to these proofs from which they draw their light and strength FOR example when I answered the passage of S. Ignatius taken from Theodoret's Collections which bears That Hereticks receive not the Eucharist Answer to the Perpetuity part 2. ch 2. and the Oblations because they do not acknowledg the Eucharist to be the Flesh of our Lord that suffered for our sins I said that Ignatius's sense was That our Saviour did not adopt the Bread to be his Body as if he had no real Body which was the foolish imagination of those Hereticks as appears by Tertullian ' s Disputes against Marcion but that the Bread is the Sacrament of this true Body which died and rose again This Answer is grounded on the express Declarations of the Fathers which I had already produced and which shew they meant by the term of Flesh or Body of Jesus Christ applied to the Eucharist not the substance of this Flesh but the Sacrament or Symbol of it which is in it self Bread To take this Answer alone separate from the proof which authorises it to declaim afterwards that I return Answers without grounding them on proofs is a thing that is neither honest nor ingenuous Moreover what I said touching these Hereticks believing our Saviour Christ adopted the Bread for to be his Body as having no true Body of his own is grounded on Tertullian's attributing this opinion to Marcion who as every one knows follow'd in this the ancient Hereticks and 't is to no purpose to say That those that taught this ridiculous adoption of the Bread received the Eucharist and that S. Ignatius speaks on the contrary of Hereticks that did not receive it For 't is certain that these ancient Hereticks still retained some use of the Eucharist celebrating it in their manner but did not receive it according to the just and true design of its institution which is to represent and communicate to us the true Flesh of Jesus Christ who suffered death and is risen again because they denied our Saviour assumed real Flesh affirming he appeared in the world only in a phantasm If Mr. Arnaud will contest hereupon besides that I can
tell him my Answer will be no less good in the main when he shall shew that the Hereticks mention'd by Ignatius did absolutely reject the Eucharist I may moreover oppose against him Cardinal Bellarmin who expresly says touching this passage That these ancient Hereticks combated not so much the Bell. de Sacram. Euchar. l. 1. c. 1. Sacrament of the Eucharist as the mystery of the Incarnation for as Ignatius himself insinuates the reason of their denial of the Eucharist to be our Lords Flesh was because they disown'd our Lord assumed true Flesh Mr. Arnaud will not I hope pretend to understand more of this matter than Bellarmin THE same thing may be said touching the Answer I return'd to a passage Answer to the Perpetuity p. 2. ch 2. of Justin which says That we take not these things as mere Bread and Drink but that this meat being made the Eucharist with which our flesh and blood are nourished by means of the change becomes the Flesh and Blood of Jesus Christ incarnate I answer'd not barely what Mr. Arnaud makes me answer That this food is made the Body of Christ by a Sacramental union to the Body of Christ but that in effect the Eucharist is not common Bread and Drink but a great Sacrament of our Lords Body and Blood which is celebrated in remembrance of his taking on him our nature it being honored with the name of Body and Blood of Jesus Christ according to the very form of our Lords own expressions I at the same time grounded this Answer on Justin's very words and 't is moreover established on the proofs which I had already alledged touching the sense of the Fathers when they call the Eucharist the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ Yet has Mr. Arnaud been pleased to say That my sence is without proof and Authority contrary to the Letter and Experience Lib. 10. cap. 5. p. 34. and consequently not worth considering And this is Mr. Arnaud's way of solving matters HE does the same in reference to the answers I returned to the passages of Gelazus Cyzique and Cyril of Jerusalem for whereas I have backt them with arguments drawn from the passages themselves and that they have moreover their foundation on the proofs I offer'd in the beginning of my Book Mr. Arnaud recites of 'em what he pleases and separates that which he relates of 'em from their true Principle Whosoever shall take the pains to read only what I wrote touching these two passages in the second Chapter of my Answer to the second Treatise and the second Part and especially touching that of Cyril in the sixth Chapter of the aforesaid second Part and compare it with all these Discourses which Mr. Arnaud here gives us that is to say in the fifth Chapter of his tenth Book I am certain will not like his proceedings finding so much passion and so little solidity in his Discourses The fourth Reflection Mr. ARNAVD's passion does yet more discover it self in his sixth Chapter Wherein he makes a very bad use of his Maxim He would extend it so far as to hinder us from supposing there is no express declaration of the Doctrines of Transubstantiation and the Real Presence in the Scripture and that they are not distinctly asserted therein He says every Book 10. ch 5. pag. 34. Ch. 6. pag. 38 39. body knows that the first notion of the Evangelists words concerning the institution of the Eucharist is most favourable to the Catholicks that the evidence of it ever appeared so considerable to Luther that notwithstanding his great desire to vex the Pope he could never resist the perspicuity of them That Zuinglius could not immediately find the solution of these words of our Saviour and needed to be instructed in them by the revelation which a Spirit made to him of them of whom he himself writes that he knew not whether he was a black or a white one which has says he all the lineaments of a diabolical Revelation whatsoever passages out of Cicero and Catullus are alledged to justifie this expression He adds That these words This is my Body do far more naturally signifie that the Eucharist is effectually the Body of Jesus Christ than that 't is the figure of it and this the consent of all Nations who have taken them in this sense shews us in a convincing manner He adds to this the sixth Chapter of S. John wherein there 's mention of eating the Flesh and drinking the Blood and what S. Paul says in the 11th Chapter of the Epistle to the Corinthians that those that eat and drink thereof unworthily are guilty of our Lords Body and Blood Whence he concludes That if it be lawful to make suppositions without any proof the right thereof belongs to the Catholicks that it appertains to them to say their Doctrine is clearly apparent in the Scripture in the sixth Chapter of S. John ' s Gospel in the three Evangelists and in S. Paul ' s Epistles But that equity and reason oblige the Calvinists to be very scrupulous and modest on this point SEEING Mr. Arnaud is so kind to people as to prescribe 'em after what manner they shall present themselves before him without doubt he expects they will henceforward obey him in this particular Yet must I tell him I have reason to suppose without any other proof that there is not in the Holy Scripture any formal declaration touching the Doctrines of Transubstantiation and the Real Presence nor are they distinctly asserted in them Every body knows in what terms formal declarations must be conceived and in what manner Doctrines must be clearly and distinctly exprest If Mr. Arnaud has discovered in the Scripture any particular matter in relation to this subject let him communicate it to us But if he knows no more than we have seen hitherto we shall still have reason to say that the Doctrines in question are not formally declared in them IT cannot be denied but these words This is my Body are capable of the sense which we give them Whether it be the true one or no I will not here dispute 't is sufficient the words will bear it to conclude they are not a formal distinct declaration of Transubstantiation nor the Real Presence seeing what we call a formal declaration cannot be capable of a sense contrary to that which we pretend it formally establishes 'T is to no purpose for Mr. Arnaud to say that Luther found them evident for besides that he found no evidence in them for Transubstantiation but only for the Real Presence with which he was much prepossessed One may oppose against Luther's prejudice the judgment which Cardinal Cajetan made of them who has found no Cajetan in 3. Thoma quest 75. art 1. Lugduni apud Stephanum Machaelem 1588. evidence in them neither for the one nor th' other of these Doctrines but only by adding to 'em the declaration of the Church Neither I suppose is Mr. Arnaud ignorant that