thing with that of the Latins Substantia Panis mutatur in Carnem licet remaneant adhus accidentia Panis quae sub sensum cadunt And hence when upon an unusual expression happening in the Council at Constantinople under Constantinus Copronymus that the only Image adorable was the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Corporis Christi in the Holy Sacrament the Real and corporal presence from a jealousie though causless as this Council explained it self that this expression might vary or derogate something from it began now to be more particularly insisted upon and explicated a curious Question arose among the Greeks as well as Latins Whether upon the Bread being thus changed and becoming our Lord's Body the Body of our Lord were digestible and corruptible which caused to some affirming it the imputation of Stercoranism But such odious name surely these could never have incurred no more than now Protestants do had they held at least as the opposite party understood them only a vivificating vertue of our Lords Body to reside in the Bread and not the very Substance of his Body to be present instead of it according to the then common Opinion This of the 2d thing wherein M. Claude's explication is deficient the change the Greeks held of the Bread into the Substance of our Lord's Body at least so far as our Nourishment is into the Substance of ours the principal reason of their using this similitude Yet wherein M. Claude deserts it though in some other things more advantagious to him as in the matter of the nourishment still remaining and that numerically distinct from the Body nourished he presseth it too far Now this 2d thing the Bread in the Eucharist its receiving such a change as our Nourishment once granted will be at least an half-Transubstantiation of it the Substantial Form of Bread being gone the former Qualities of Bread gone viz. from their any longer inherence in the Bread So that the Substance not of Bread but of Flesh is also under the former Accidents of the Bread The name also gone with the thing it being in truth now no more to be called Bread but the Flesh of our Lord. And so when the Bread is said by S. Damascen to be united to the Divinity it must be understood so as that in the Union it becomes another thing though still it remains a diverse thing from the Divinity Hence also the pretence of the Bread its being made our Lord's Body only in Vertue not in Substance gone and all M. Claude's quest after this word Vertue in the Greek Authors useless and his Descants upon it unsound of which enough hath been said already § 6. § 13 The 3d. If we may prosecute their similitude of nourishment to its utmost extent That there is a local Union of the Bread and Body of our Lord not by way of Accumulation and Addition or of Continuation only as a Leg and an Arm are joined in the same Body but by way of an interior reception one into the other and the most intimate commixtion and confusion of them as to the least natural parts that are divinble and capable of digestion one within the other So as the least part of one cannot be severed from the other or communicated without the other and as to any actual separation of them a thing not fecible they may be said to be numerically the same which comes also the nearest to a total transition even of its matter also into another Substance though as to this total Conversion we must permit the operation of Gods Omnipotency out of his infinite kindness to us in the Holy Eucharist to stand singular and unparallel'd by any work of Nature All these three therefore the Author in dealing ingenuously with the Greeks Comparison and their Expressions as it seems to me ought to have allowed But this probably he much dreaded as seeing he might as well nay in some respects better have admitted a total Transubstantiation of Matter as well as Form which would have avoided those many prejudices and indignities which an Impanation labours under But yet thus the Sentiment of the Greeks supposing no total Conversion is advanced far beyond not only M. Claude's and the Calvinists vertual presence but also the Lutherans Consubstantiation For whereas these hold only Bread and Christs natural Body joined in the Eucharist so that the Body and the Bread are two several things still this Opinion holds the one changed into the other so as that as Jeremy the Patriarch of Constantinople replied upon the Lutherans in his second Answer ‖ c. 4. and as Damascen also said long before ‖ De Fid. Orthod l. 4. c. 14. Non duo jam sunt i. e. as the Lutherans said Panis and Corpus Christi joined sed unum idem i. e. Corpus Christi only The Bread made his natural Flesh animated with his Soul Hypostatically united to his Divinity in fine the same with his Body as much at least as our Nourishment interiorly received and digested is with ours § 14 Thus far the Greeks usual Simile carries us But their Common Doctrine farther even to a total Transubstantiation as I think will appear from what follows 1. For 1st They hold that the same Numerical Body of our Lord 1. that was born of the Virgin and Crucified is exhibited to us in the Eucharist Present not by his descending from Heaven but by the Conversion of the Consecrated Elements into the self-same Body and by the multiplication of its local Existence in more places than before 1. Which appears 1st From this That the Identity of the Body Consecrated and that Crucified quoad suppositum or as both united to and filled with the same Divinity which well consists with a Real Substantial Numerical diversity between themselves is not sufficient that the one of them therefore may be denominated of the other or this said to be that nor yet sufficient that all the same things may be said of them both Some general things indeed may be predicated of them wherein both agree but their Properties individual as local presence Motion any particular Qualities or applications of them cannot Yet which Individual properties are usually applied by the Greeks to the Body Crucified and to that distributed in the Eucharist as one and the same Any Individual Properties of the one or the other I grant may always be truly denominated of our Lord's Body in general as we will But cannot be truly said of both or either of these the Consecrated and the Crucified as we please if these not numerically the same So we cannot say That ones Soul is his Body or a Leg an Arm or the one in the same place or motion or every way affected as the other is because that both are parts of one and the same Person or Body and both animated with one and the same Soul And for a Grecian Priest to tell his Communicants that he delivers them the same Body that was
THE Greeks Opinion TOUCHING THE EUCHARIST MIS-REPRESENTED BY Monsieur CLAVDE IN HIS ANSWER TO Mr. ARNOLD Printed in the Year MDCLXXXVI A DIGRESSION Reflecting on the Opinion of the Greek and other Oriental Churches holding a Real Presence of our Lord's Body and Blood whether by Transubstantiation or not much mis-represented by Mr. Claude a French Minister § 321. Whose various Artifices are detected in * Insinuating the Greek's Ignorance Poverty Imbecillity the Latin's Power Missions Industry to gain them n. 1 2 3 4. * Wresting the Greek's sayings to the Protestant's sense contrary to their plain expressions * Affirming the Greeks to retain their former church-Church-Doctrine as high as Damascen or Gregory Nyssen yet not freely declaring the ancient and modern Greeks to differ from or agree with the Protestant opinion n. 5. * Waving the main point viz. Real Presence which infers a Soveraign Adoration contending about Transubstantiation and that as an Article of Faith n. 6. * Barring all Testimonies save such as press Transubstantiation * Vsing the term Vertue unreasonably as excluding Substance and thereby making the Greek opinion contradictory absurd and indefensible and then leaving them to make it good whereas he ought to have confessed their holding a Presence as well in Substance as in Vertue n. 7 8. * Shifting all Testimonies against him by disingenuously requiring testimony upon testimony or by personal exceptions taken against them n. 9. The Greek Opinion concerning Transubstantiation if made good how prejudicial to the Protestant's Cause n. 10. 1. Concerning Transubstantiation M. Claude in receding from the Latins makes the Greeks fall short of their own Similitude and usual Expressions in three Particulars n. 13 c. That Vertue may be taken as well augmentatively adding to Substance as diminutively excluding it n 14. The Common Doctrine of the Greeks carrying further than their Simile to a total Transubstantiation Proved 1. From their holding the same numerical Body of our Lord born and crucified to be exhibited in the Eucharist present not by descending from Heaven but by a conversion of the Elements and by a multiplication of its local existence in more places than before n. 15 16. 2. From holding the Body thus present by Consecration to be Incorruptible and its Incorruption to depend on its Resurrection and so to relat◠to that numerical Body crucified and raised again Now the Bread remaining intire for its substance or its matter and qualities cannot be such a Body of our Lord as suffers no digestion or corruption Yet something in the Sacrament suffers this For the Greeks then whilst holding the Substance of Bread to remain to lay these changes only on the Accidents not the Substance eating bread fed only by the accidents were without a Transubstantiation to espouse the difficulties of it and therefore their opinion implies an entire change of the Bread as well its matter as form n. 17. 3. From holding this Body in the Eucharist whenever broken whole and entire in each piece to all distributed no way diminished The Lamb broken not impaired ever eaten yet not consumed Which things cannot be said of our Lords Body if the matter of bread still remain n. 18. Whereas Greeks and Latins former and later times may be accorded this Author to maintain the variance seems to fasten on the Greeks an opinion less eligible than Transubstantiation and to offer violence to the natural sense of their words leaving the Greeks to stand apart by themselves from Protestants as well as other Catholicks n. 20. The Greeks confessed by him not to have opposed the Latins for holding Transubstantiation the Latins never to have accused the Greeks as not holding it n. 21. 2. Concerning Adoration of the Eucharist 1. As to their Doctrine Granted 1. That the Greeks allow and pay to the Mysteries in the Eucharist an inferior relative Adoration 2. A Supreme Adoration lawful and due to our Lords Humanity where-ever present and given by Protestants in their Communion 3. No soveraign Adoration pretended by Greeks or Latins to be given to the Symbols venerable only with an inferior cult but to the Body and Blood of our Lord. 4. Real Presence not being contested but only Transubstantiation From such Presence granting its true consequences followes a lawfulness of Adoration n. 22. 2. As to their Practice 5. The Greeks adore after their mode by inclining the head and body Whether this be only relative or soveraign Adoration is understood from their Doctrine and Belief For not to allow the extent of their Adoration as far as their belief of the Presence of the Person adored and their Worship the same latitude with their Faith seems unjust and groundless as also to pretend only an inferior adoration given where the same Communicants hold a supreme due to the Person there present n. 22. More Devotions performed in the Western Churches than in the East from the Berengarian Errors here n. 23. M. Claude 's Concessions and their Consequences sufficient § 1. To diswade from a Communion opposed both by Greeks and Latins concerning the Eucharist 2. To perswade rather to the Roman Communion n. 24. For trying our Obedience God permits Evil with many Allurements Error with many Verisimilities yet hath always left evidence enough to clear all necessary Truth to the humble and obedient not to force the self-confident and interessed n. 25. In a Search by comparing Scriptures and Councils what endless labour and distraction in Obedience to Councils what peace and vacancy for better employments Besides that the rude and illiterate the most of men cannot search Must these believe a former Church now or submit to an inferior Church-Authority against a Superior But this is Schism in them both and he justly ruined by believing an Authority usurped that denies to believe one whereto he is bound n. 25. The Issue of Scripture-Trial long since was a double sense of Scripture that Sense was declared by one nay several Councils The Party condemned appealed to Fathers and Primitive Church whose sense as formerly that of Scripture being double was decided again by Councils but their Authority rejected And now it is desired that the Controversie begin anew and return to the Scriptures or that the Question determine the Controversie and whilst Protestants are the weaker party that all have liberty for when the stronger they too well discern the necessity of Synods for ending differences among themselves which tho not held infallible yet upon the Evangelical Promises of our Lord's assistance require on pain of Suspension subscription to their Decrees and excommunicate persons teaching the contrary Witness the Dort Synod n. 26. M. Claude's strange Method for exempting from Obedience to the Church those that pretend not to a Certainty of their new Opinions considered That if it prove valid it serves as well Catholicks against Protestants upon the same pretensions and affords both sides the same plea one against the other in any controversie arising amongst Protestants Ibid. If searching the
designs upon the matter of the Differences between the two Communions Catholick and Protestant which they pretend to accommodate and reconcile So he Censures Casaubon out of Spondanus †Levitatem animi Vacillantem eum perpetuo tenuisse cum his illis placere cuperet nulli satisfecisset Where indeed whose judgment ought sooner to be credited than theirs who appear more indifferent between the two contending parties So To Archbishop Lanfrank's words to Berengarius Interroga Graecos Armenios seu cujus libet Nationis quoscunque homines uno ore hanc fidem i. e. Transubstantiationis se testabuntur hahere cited by Dr. Arnauld He answers ‖ p. 361. That Pre-occupation renders his Testimony nothing worth Urge the Socinians because the Fathers oppose so manifestly their own opinions therefore more apt to speak the truth of them in their opposing also those of other Protestants and particularly in their differing from them in this point of the Eucharist He tells us they are not creditable in their Testimony because so much interested to decry the Doctrine of the Fathers in their own regard and thus they imagine Protestants will have less countenance to press them with an Authority that themselves cannot stand to Urge the Centurists confessing Transubstantiation found in some of the Fathers and in magnifying their new-begun Reformation more free plainly to acknowledge those they thought errours of former times He ‖ l. 1. c. 5. denies them fit witnesses in this Controversie because themselves holding a Real Presence they had rather admit a Transubstantiation in the Fathers than a Presence only Mystical And suppose such excuses should fail him yet how easie is it to find some other whereby a person may be represented never to stand in an exact indifferency as to whatever Subject of his Discourse With such personal exceptions M. Claude frequently seeks to relieve his Cause where nothing else will do it Whereas indeed such a common Veracity is to be supposed amongst men especially as to these matters of Fact that where a multitude though of a party concern'd concur in their Testimony they cannot reasonably be rejected on such an account either that their being deceiv'd or purpose to deceive and to relate a lie is possible or that what they say can be shewed a thing well-pleasing and agreeable to their own inclinations For as it is true that ones own interest if as to his own particular very considerable renders a Testimony less credible So on the other side almost no Testimony would be valid and current if it is to be decried where can be shewed some favour or engagement of affection to the thing which the person witnesseth and cannot be manifested an equal poise to all parties and so for Example in the Narration of another Country's Religion often made by all Parties none here can be believed save in what he testifies of them against his own Such things therefore are to be decided according to the multitude and paucity and the Reputation of the Witnesses rather than their only some way general interest and the Credibility of such things is to be left to the equal Reader 's Judgment § 8 But 7ly Should all that is said touching the later Greek's from the eleventh or the eighth to the present age their holding Transubstantiation be undeniably made good and all the Testimonies concerning it exactly true Yet he saith ‖ l. 2. c. 1. It will not follow that a change of the Church's former Faith in this Point is impossible or hath not actually happened and consequently that all M. Arnauld 's long dispute about it is vain and unprofitable I add and then so his Replies But here since the true sense and meaning of Antiquity on what side this stands is the thing chiefly questioned and debated between the Roman Church and Protestants unless he will throw off this too and retreat only to sense of Scripture I suppose to wise men it will seem little less than the loss of the Protestant cause and too great a prejudice to it to be so slightly yielded up if that not the Roman only but the whole visible Catholick Church besides themselves from the eleventh to the present age doth defend a Corporal Presence and a literal sense of Hoc est Corpus meum or also Transubstantiation and so consequently doth concur and Vote against them touching the sense of former Antiquity for this each side in their present Doctrine and Practice pretend to follow And I can hardly think M. Claude would seem to spend so great a part of his Book to defend a Post the loss of which he thought no way harm'd him Again thus it is manifest that in an Oecumenical Council if now assembled the Protestants would remain the Party Condemned § 9 8. After all these Defences wherewith he seems sufficiently guarded He proceeds l. 3. c. 13. thus to declare the true opinion of the Modern Greeks on this Subject which I will give you in his own words p. 310. They believe saith he That by the Sanctification or Consecration is made a Composition of the Bread and Wine and of the Holy Ghost That these Symboles keeping their own Nature are joined to the Divinity and That by the impression of the Holy Ghost they are changed for the Faithful alone the Body of our Lord being supposed either to be not present at all or to cease to be so in the particles of the Symbole received by the unworthy into the vertue of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ being by this means made not a Figure but the proper and true Body of Jesus Christ and this by the way of Augmentation of the same natural Body of Jesus Christ To which they apply the comparison of the nourishment which is made our own Body by Assimilation and Augmentation Again p. 237. more briefly The Doctrine of the Greek Church is That the substance of Bread conserving its proper Being is added to the Natural Body of Jesus Christ that it is rendred like unto it That it augments and by this means becomes the same Body with it By this also he saith p. 334. and see the same in his 4th l. c. 7. the Greeks would observe in some sort the literal sense of the words Hoc est Corpus meum which saith He we do not we understand them in this sense This Bread is the sacred sign or Sacrament of my Body Or which comes to the same pass The Bread signifies my Body They on the contrary taking the word is in some sort according to the letter would have that the same subject which is the Bread is also the Body of Christ. From preserving this pretended literal sense it is also That they would have it That the Bread is made one with the Body by its Vnion to the Divinity by the Impression of the Holy Ghost and by a change of vertue Or as he hath it in his 6th l. c. 10. That there is an Vnion of
Resp p. 514. in Answer to D. Arnauld 's Objections touching Remigius that if the Bread were made the body of Christ in its Substance it would follow that our Lord would have so many Bodies as he is united i.e. in his Divinity to different Breads this he grants notwithstanding Remigius his arguing all these Breads but one and the same Body from the same Divinity replenishing them of which more below But the Bread not being made Christ's Body save only in Vertue and in Efficacy this consequence is null because this Vertue through the whole world is one and the same For this is indivisible and is all of it entire where-ever it is Thus he And that such are his Answers and Explications of these expressions of the Greeks as I have here represented You may see in his 2d Answer part 3. c. 2. 4. His last Answer l. 3. c. 9 10. l. 4. c. 7. l. 5. c. 7. l. 6. c. 10. and frequently elsewhere § 6 Where chiefly you may observe that how punctual soever the Expressions of the Greeks are concerning the presence of Christ's very Body yet he expounds them only of the Vertue exclusive to the Substance of Christ's Body And yet this person confesseth that the Greeks hold †l. 4. c. 7. That the Bread is made the proper Body of Christ opposed to figure by the way of Augmentation of his Natural Body so as our Nourishment is made our Body And yet elsewhere more fully †l. 6. c. 10. That upon the Consecration they held an Vnion of the Bread with the Divinity of our Lord and by the Divinity an Vnion to his natural Body and that they understood that by the means of this Vnion or of this Conjunction the Bread becomes the Body of Christ and is made the same Body with it I add as our nourishment by its union to the same Soul is made the same Body with ours Now then when we say that our nourishment upon such an operation passing upon it is or is changed into or is made our Body or Flesh did he candidly here interpret our meaning who should say that we affirm only that this nourishment is our Body or Flesh in Vertue or changed into the Vertue of it exclusively to its being also made the Substance of it So doth this person deal candidly for instance when Euthymius a Greek Author that held this opinion expresseth himself thus †Comment in Mat. c. 64. Quemad-modum Jesus Christus supernaturaliter assumptam carnem deificavit Etiam Haec the Bread and Wine ineffabiliter transmutat i. e. by his united Deity in ipsum vivificum Corpus in ipsum pretiosum sanguinem suum in gratiam ipsorum Which Grace he explains presently after by this Body strengthning us as Bread doth and this Blood exhilarating and encouraging us as Wine †See Psal 103.15 I say doth he deal ingenuously to expound the here by a C ' est a dire or id est Transmutat ineffâ—biliter in ipsum Corpus in ipsum Sanguinem id est in gratiam ipsorum Making the Body a Synonyma with its Vertue Such a Synonymon saith he as that of St. Paul in 1 Tim. 4.3 They who believe and know the Truth Or 1 Tim. 6.3 Wholesom words and Doctrine of Godliness But might he not have said more aptly such a Synonymon as that in Psalm 32. Verbo Domini Caeli firmati sunt omnis virtus eorum firmati sunt Caeli id est virtus eorum Or Psalm 147. Magnus Dominus magna virtus ejus Dominus id est virtus Domini But if the Greeks mean as he saith indeed they do That the Bread by Consecration is made our Lord's proper Body though not that Numerical one born of the Virgin yet another added to it by way of Augmentation and so in some sense made the same with it viz. so as our nourishment is with ours by the Union and inhabitation of our Lord's Divinity to and in them both and lastly that by its being thus made our Lords Body it hath also the vivificating vertue of his natural Body inherent in it then I say in plain dealing this Person expounding the Expressions of the Greeks ought to have confessed their maintaining the presence in the Eucharist of this Substance of Christ's Body as well as of its Vertue this Substance I say of which they affirm that it is the same with the other crucified so far as to be united to the same Divinity and in the same person of our Lord and from this to receive the same vivificating Vertue though indeed this new Substance from that crucified numerically distinct Nor consequently ought he to impose upon the Greeks as every where he doth their holding the Bread after Consecration to remain still so entirely Bread as it was before but only the matter of it so to remain as the matter of our Nourishment doth when yet that which was Bread is now truly our Flesh and no more Bread our Flesh not by I know not what Mystical Relation to it but by a most interior Reception and Incorporation into it and dispersion through that our Substance or Flesh which was existent before Nor lastly using the same integrity ought he to have said this new Substance to have been held by the Greeks augmentative of Christ's Natural Body or also to be the same with it as the Greeks always say it is by reason of a supernatural vertue of Christ's Natural Body communicated to it as he usually explains them for one thing may have the Vertue of another without being an augmentative part of it or contracting any Identity with it But that this new Substance is held by the Greeks an accruit to our Lord 's Natural Body and the same also with it from its Vnion to the Divinity and so its change into Christ's Flesh and so its partaking also the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Graces or Vertues of it which the Greeks speak of with much reason as well as of the substance because in these we are most concern'd Thus perhaps with much less labour might this ingenious Person have comprehended in his Answers and explications of the Greek's opinion more Truth and gained from his Readers more belief And for this I appeal to any other sober Person when he shall have considered M. Claude's concessions set down below § 9. and the necessary consequences of them § 10. But this Person well saw the great prejudice he should do to his Cause in explaining these Authors in such a manner which would have made a fair way at least toward a Total Transubstantiation and therefore judged it safest to hold fast to a vertual presence Now in this way he takes many of these Expressions seem so clearly to say the contrary to what he would have them as a proof can hardly be brought against such answers that will not have as little or perhaps less evidence in it than the thing that
is proved And in such manifest wresting of an Authors clear sense it is Conscience only must confute such gain-sayers not an Argument And in such cases it concerns the Reader not easily to resign his Reason to anothers engagements nor suffer his Judgment to be figured with the impressions of every mans fancy especially when opposing Church-Authority nor to apprehend difficulty in every thing so long as he sees it to be contested This of M. Claude's Art in evading of such as seem very evident and indisputable Testimonies § 7 6. But 6ly Suppose such clear and express Testimonies produced as that no such answers can discountenance them nor no exceptions be made against them then especially out of the 1st and 2d Observations precedent he hath some at least against the Person Urge against him the Testimonies of the Modern Greek Writers such as will admit none of his Qualifications He tells us many of them are Greeks Latiniz'd and won over to Rome Or the writing quoted wants another testimony that it is not forged such as lived in the same times having in their writings not mentioned such a Piece thus he throws off Samonas and Agapius †l. 4. c. 3. Proceed in adding to these the testimonies of several Dignified persons of the present Greek Clergy and that in several Countries and Churches of the East distinct and averse from the Roman Communion By a diligent Collection of which his prudent Adversary hath done the Church Catholick great service * in manifesting that the doctrine and practice of the Greeks not only touching Real Presence and Transubstantiation but most of the other Controversies agitated in the West consents and agrees with the Church of Rome and * in representing to the more ingenuous amongst Protestants how singular they stand and divided in their Faith from the whole Christian world he tells us They are the Declarations only of Greeks Latiniz'd and corrupted by the Roman Missions Though the same persons still maintain their dissent from the Latins as to those Points formerly in Controversie between the two Churches and there is much less cause considering the repugnance to natural Reason for their corruption in this point of a Corporal Presence wherein they are made so easily to be won than in any other of those wherein they still stand out against Rome and cannot at all be tainted Lastly tho' the Testimony they give is not so much concerning their own particular perswasion as what is the Common Tenent and Profession of the Greek i. e. those no way reconciled to the Roman Communion or other Oriental Churches A matter wherein a false testimony as it would carry a greater guilt so lies too open to discovery Urge to him the testimony of the Orientals especially persons dignified in the Clergy that have travelled about some negotiations into the West He saith l. 5. c. 5. p. 594. There is little credit to be given to this kind of People who come not usually into the West but for their own Interest and who fail not to speak in such a manner as one would have them Urge to him the testimony of those of the Greek Communion inhabiting in the West and here indulged their own Service and Rites easily enquired into as for example the Greek Church in Venice See Respon 2. part 2. c. 8. his answer to what was urged out of Gabriel Arch-Bishop of Philadelphia the Prelate there That we are not to think it strange if one who had lived some forty years in that place suffered himself and so those under his charge to be wrought upon by the ordinary commerce they had with the Latins Urge the Oriental Liturgies which though not denied to be different in several Regions or perhaps several also used in the same as both S. Basil's and 9. Chrysostom's are by the Greeks yet have a great congruity and harmony both amongst themselves and with the Greek and Roman as to the Service and Ceremonies of the Eucharist His answer is †His last Answer l. 5. c. 5.606 608. That we have not any certainty that these Pieces are sincere or faithfully translated or some of them not corrected by the Missions As for the Liturgies and other witnesses produced for the Faith of the Jacobites of Syria the Armenians Cophtites or Egyptians Ethiopians or Abyssines agreeing in this Point with the Roman he thinks them all sufficiently confuted from Eutychianism being held by these Eastern and Southern Church For saith he †l. 5. c. 6. p. 604. What can one find more directly opposite than to maintain on one side that Jesus Christ hath no true Body that there is nothing in him save only the Divine Nature that all that which hath appeared of his Conversation in the World of his Birth Death Resurrection were nothing but simple appearances without Reality and on the other side to believe that the substance of the Bread is really changed into the proper substance of his Body the same he took of the Virgin Thus he for his advantage applying the extremities of that Heresie to all these Nations contrary to the Evidence of their publick Liturgies But Eutychianism taken in the lower sense as Eutyches upon the mistake of some expressions of former Fathers Athanasius and Cyrill Patriarchs of Alexandria which perhaps also induced the engagement of Dioscorus their Successor on his side maintained and the Ephesin Council i. e. above 90. Bishops under Dioscorus allowed it affirms no more than that the two Natures of our Lord the one Divine the other Humane Consubstantial with us and received of the Blessed Virgin after their conjunction become one yet this without any confusion or mixture or conversion of the two Natures into one another Now that these Nations adhere to Eutychianism only in this latter sense they not well distinguishing between Nature and Personality I refer him that desires further satisfaction to the Relations of Thomas a Jesu l. 7. c. 13 14 17. and Brerewoods Enquiries c. 21 22 23. and Dr. Field on the Church l. 3. c. 1. p. 64 c. and of the several Authors cited by them and to the testimony of Tecla Mariae a Learned Abyssin Priest cited by M. Claude †l. 5. c. 6. who saith They hold after the Union only Vnam Naturam sine tamen mixtione sine confusione i. e. of those two Natures of which the One afterward is compounded Which Testimony may serve either to expound or to confront one or two of the other he brings that seem to say otherwise Urge to him the Confession of Protestants Grotius Bishop Forbes and others though themselves of a contrary perswasion that the Modern Greek Church believes Transubstantiation for which they cite their late Writers the Reading of whom convinced them in this though it cannot Mr. Claude Of these two Grotius and Forbes he replies ‖ l. 4. c. 4. That they are persons who admitted themselves to be pre-possessed with Chimerical fancies and