who has without doubt taken 'em from Isidor for 't was the common custom of the Authors of those days to copy out one from another He says moreover in another place expresly That no Infidel can eat the Flesh of Jesus Christ and that all those whom he has redeem'd by his Blood must be his slaves circumcised in reference to Vice and so eat the Flesh of Jesus Christ And as Bede and Alcuinus made a particular profession to be S. Austin's Disciples so they have not scrupled to transcribe into their Books several passages taken word for word out of the Writings of this great man which confirm the same thing Bede amongst others has taken this out of the Book of Sentences collected by Prosper He that is not of the same mind as Jesus Christ neither eats his Flesh nor drinks his Blood altho for the condemnation of his presumption he receives every day the Sacrament of so great a thing And he and Alcuinus Beda in Cor. 11. Beda Alcu. in Joan. 6. have borrow'd from his Treatise on S. John these words Jesus said to them this is the work of God that you believe in him whom he has sent This is then what is meant by eating the meat which perishes not but remains to life everlasting Why prepare ye your teeth and belly believe and ye have eaten it this is the Bread which came down from Heaven to the end that he which eats of it may not die This is meant of the virtue of the visible Sacrament He that eateth internally not externally that eateth with the heart not with the teeth And a little further our Saviour explains what 't is to eat his Body and drink his Blood He that eateth my Flesh and drinks my Blood dwelleth in me and I in him To eat then this meat and drink this drink is to dwell in Jesus Christ and to have Jesus Christ dwelling in us So that he that dwells not in Jesus Christ and Jesus Christ in him does not eat spiritually his Flesh altho he sensibly bites with the teeth the Sacrament of his Body and Blood but rather eats and drinks to his condemnation the Sacrament of so great a thing And again The mark by which a man may know he has eaten and drank is that he dwells in Jesus Christ and has Jesus Christ dwelling in him We dwell in him when we are the Members of his Body and he dwells in us when we are his Temple And a little lower The words which I tell ye are spirit and life What is the meaning of that They are spirit and life That is they must be understood spiritually If ye understand them spiritually they are spirit and life if carnally this hinders not but they are spirit and life but not to you IN short we find these Authors of the 7th and 8th Centuries acknowledg no other Presence of Jesus Christ on Earth than that of his Divinity of his Grace or Providence and in no wise that of the substance of his Body Jesus Christ ascending up into Heaven says Isidor has absented himself Isidor lib. 1. sentent cap. 14. as to the flesh but is ever present in respect of his Majesty according to what he has said I am with you to the end of the world THE passages of Bede on this subject are too many to be mentioned Beda Expos allegor ipsam lib. 1. cap. 12. here I shall only relate some of ' em The Lord says he having performed the duties of his Oeconomy returned into Heaven where he is ascended in respect of his Body but visits us every day by his Divine Presence by which he is always every where and quietly governs all things There is his Flesh which he has assumed and glorified for our sakes Because he is God and man says he again he was raised up into Heaven where he sits as to his Humanity which he assumed on Earth Yet does he remain with the Saints on Earth in his Divinity by which he fills both Heaven and Earth Elsewhere he says that the man mention'd in the Parable of the Gospel who leaving his house went a journey into a far Country is our Saviour Christ who after his Resurrection Idem Comm. in Mare c. 13. ascended up to his Father having left as to his bodily Presence his Church altho he never suffered it to want the assistance of his Divine Presence Interpreting mystically in another place the words concerning Ann the Daughter of Phanuel who was a Widow and aged 84. years This Ann Idem in Luc. lib. 1. cap. 2. says he signifies the Church which is as it were a Widow since the Death of her Lord and Spouse The years of her widowhood represent the time in which the Church which is still burthened with this body is absent from the Lord expecting every day with the greatest impatience that coming concerning which it is said We will come to him and make our abode with him 'T was to the same effect that expounding these words of Job I have comforted the heart Idem Exposit alleg in Job lib. 2. c. 14. of the Widow he says that this Widow is the Church our Mother which our Saviour comforts and that she is called a Widow because her Spouse has absented himself from her as to his corporeal Presence according to what himself tells his Disciples The poor ye have always with you but me ye have not always IN one of his Homilies he acknowledges no other presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist than a Presence of Divinity and Grace For having exactly denoted how many times the Lord appeared to his Disciples after his Resurrection He designed says he to shew by these frequent appearances Idem Hom. ast de temp feria 6 Paschal that he would be spiritually present in all places at the desire of the faithful He appeared to the women that wept at the Sepulchre he will be likewise present with us when we grieve at the remembrance of his absence He appeared whilst they broke bread to those who taking him for a stranger gave him entertainment he will be likewise with us when we liberally relieve the poor and strangers He will be likewise with us in the fraction of Bread when we receive the Sacraments of his Body which is the living Bread with a pure and chast heart We find here no mention of any other presence in the Sacrament but that of the Divinity ALCVINVS teaches the same Doctrine for expounding these words of our Saviour The poor ye have ever with you but me not always He shews says he we must not blame those that communicated to him their good Alcuin in Joan. lib. 5. cap. 28. things whilst he conversed amongst 'em seeing he was to remain so short a a time with the Church bodily He introduces our Saviour elsewhere thus saying to his Church If I go away in respect of the absence of my Flesh I will
our Sence he must say if it be so that the Bread contains the Virtue of Christ's Body why does it not appear Flesh to us For this Doubt does not arise from the Bread's being Flesh in Virtue on the contrary 't is that which dissipates the Doubt and makes it vanish It comes either from the general Proposition that the Bread is Flesh and not the Figure of Flesh or from this other Proposition that it is Flesh even as the Bread which Jesus Christ eat was changed into his Flesh but the Doubt resolves it self by this last Proposition that it is changed into the Virtue of Flesh and Blood SECONDLY It appears likewise from thence that Theophylact had not Transubstantiation in his Thoughts For if he had it in his Thoughts he must have solved the Difficulty in another manner He must have said that the appearance of Bread remains but that its Substance is changed into the Flesh of Christ and for this Reason does not appear Flesh but Bread But yet notwithstanding the Doubts would not have ceased as they do now for it might be demanded how this appearance of Bread subsisted alone without its natural Substance how our Sences could be deceived by an appearance of Bread which was not Bread and by a real substance of Flesh which appears not Flesh how this same Substance of the Flesh of Christ can be in Heaven and on Earth at the same time and several other such like Questions which are not to be found in Theophylact's Text. 3dly It appears likewise that Theophylact believed that if the Bread was Flesh otherwise than by an Impression of Virtue it must needs appear Flesh For in saying that 't is in Condescention to our Weakness that God changes it into the Virtue of his Flesh he leaves it to be concluded that otherwise our Infirmities would not be succoured and we must unavoidably behold Flesh in its natural Form MR. Arnaud not liking this change of Virtue which is found thus described in proper terms in Theophylact's Discourse endeavours to give three different Explications of them and leaves us at liberty to choose either of them First that by the virtue of Flesh we must understand the Reality the internal Essence of this Flesh The second that this is a way of speaking which is usual with the Greeks to say 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Force or Power of Flesh to signify Flesh full of Efficacy The third that when two things are joyned together in Truth and in the Mind of those to whom we speak it often happens These 2. that in expressing them we denote but one without excluding the other and with a design to make the other understood which we do not express by that which we do Which he afterwards explains in these Terms It is certain that the Consecrated Bread is changed into the Body of Christ It is certain likewise that it becomes full of its Virtue and Efficacy These two Truths are joyned and are the Consequences of each other And therefore it oft happens that Authors do joyntly express them as does Euthymius who tells us in express Terms That as Jesus Christ deified the Flesh he took by a supernatural Operation so he changes the Bread and Wine after an ineffable manner into his proper Body which is the Fountain of Life and into his proper Blood and into the Virtue of both one and the other But as these two changes are still joyned in Effect and the Fathers supposing they were joyned in the Spirit of the Faithful It sufficed them to express the one to make the other understood And thus they tell us a hundred times that the Bread is changed into the Body of Christ without expressing it is filled with its Virtue because one follows the other and Theophylact having told us several times that the Bread is changed into the Body of Christ tells us once that 't is changed into its Strength as the sequel of a Mystery which makes it conceived wholy entire because the Faith of the Faithful does not separate the virtue of Christs Body from the Body it self nor his Body from its Virtue it never having entred into their Minds that Christ's Body was in Heaven and that we have only in the Eucharist its Strength and Virtue whereas they believe that we have only this Strength and Virtue upon the account of its being really and truly present in our Mysteries And 't is by these Engines Mr. Arnaud pretends to draw Transubstantiation from the Passage of Theophylact. BUT in general all these three Explications appear to us to be forced and neither of 'em to be chosen There needs not this great stir to find Theophylact's real Meaning He means no more than what his Expressions plainly intimate to wit That the Bread and Wine are changed into the Virtue of the Flesh and Blood of Christ and he means nothing else Had he believed a change of Substance he would have said so as well as a Change of Virtue and so much the rather as I observed that the Difficulty which he proposed to resolve obliged him to explain himself clearly about it Why does not the Bread being Flesh appear to be so Because its Substance is only changed and its Accidents remain A Man that believed Transubstantiation must needs say thus THE first Explication especially can have no grounds because that when we speak of the Virtue of a thing to signify its Truth Reality and inward Essence It is only when the Question concerns this Truth or this Reality in respect of its Operation or Effects and Mr. Arnaud's Instances confirm what I say For when St. Paul said speaking of Hypocrites that they have a Form or Appearance of Godlyness 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but that they denied the Power 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he means they have only a false Appearance of it a vain Shadow but not the Reality of it which is seen by its Effects So when Hesychius say's that it is to receive the Communion ignorantly not to know the Virtue and Dignity of it and to be ignorant that 't is the Body and Blood of Christ according to Truth That this is to receive the Mystery and not know the Virtue of them he did not mean that the Mysteries were the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ in Substance but according to the spiritual Understanding which is what he calls the Truth of the Mystery it is the Body and Blood of Christ because what offers it self to our sight is only the Shadow and Vale of the Mystery but that the Divine Object represented by these sensible things is the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ Which is what he calls the Virtue of the Mystery because its whole Operation and Effects depend only on them As to what he alledges of Paschasius besides that he is an Author who affects Obscurity as is usual with Innovators and that there is a great deal of Injustice in
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
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
is one it be also joyn'd to the Body of Christ and that it be but one only Body in truth WE find this same opinion in another Book of Divine Offices which Rupert lib. 2. de Divin Off. cap. 2. some attribute to Rupert and others to Walramus This Body which is taken from the Altar and that which is taken from the Virgin are not said to be nor indeed are two Bodies because one and the same Word is on high in the Flesh and here below in the Bread IT is likewise very likely that in the 11th Century during the greatest heats of the Dispute of Lanfranc against Berenger there were several adversaries of Berenger who followed this Opinion Which may be manifestly collected from an argument which Lanfranc attributes to the Berengarians in these terms If the Bread be changed into the true Flesh of Jesus Christ Lanfran de Corp. Sang. Dom. either the Bread must be carried to Heaven to be changed there into the Flesh of Christ or the Flesh of Jesus Christ must descend on the Earth to the end that the Bread may be changed into it Now neither of these is done This Argument necessarily supposes that the Berengarians did set themselves against persons who thought the Bread was changed into the Body of Jesus Christ by way of union and conjunction or as speaks Damascen by way of addition as the food is changed into our body On this Hypothesis they had some reason to say that either the Body which is above must come down here below or that the Bread which is here below must be carried above for it does not seem immediately that the conjunction can be well made otherwise But they could not have the least reason or likelihood of reason to form this objection against the Doctrin of Transubstantiation in the manner wherein the Church of Rome understands it For if the substance of Bread be converted into the same numerical substance of the Body of Jesus Christ which is in Heaven the distance or proximity of this Bread and of this Body make not this conversion either more easie or more difficult Tho the Bread here below be carried up into Heaven tho the Body of Jesus Christ which is above in Heaven descends here below on Earth this contributes nothing to the making of the one to be converted into the other For the conversion of one substance into another speaks quite another thing than a kind of local motion as is that of ascending or descending It is then evident that the opinion which the Berengarians opposed was that the Bread is made the Body of Jesus Christ by way of union WE may moreover justifie the same thing by a passage of Ascelinus one of Berenger's adversaries for observe here in what manner he explains his sentiment in his Letter to Berenger himself Neque vero mirari vel diffidere In notis d' Acheri in vitam Lanfr debemus Deum facere posse ut hoc quod in Altari consecratur virtute Spiritus Sancti ministerio Sacerdotis uniatur corpori illi quod ex Maria Virgine redemptor noster assumpsit quippe utrumque substantia corporea utrumque visibile si reminiscimur nos ipsos ex corporea incorporea ex mortali immortali substantia esse compactos si denique firmiter credimus divinam humanamque naturam convenisse personam 'T is neither a matter of admiration nor of doubt for God to make that which is consecrated on the Altar by virtue of the Holy Spirit and ministry of the Priest to be VNITED TO THIS BODY which our Redeemer took of the Virgin Both one and the other being a corporeal substance both one and the other visible if we consider that we our selves are composed of a corporeal substance and of another that is incorporeal of a mortal substance and of another that is incorporeal of a mortal substance and of another that is incorporeal and if in fine we firmly believe that the two natures the Divine and Humane are joyn'd together in unity of person IT is necessary to relate these passages to shew the Readers how greatly Mr. Arnaud deceives them when he would persuade 'em that this opinion of the conjunction of the Bread with the Body of Jesus Christ by means of the same Divinity which fills them is a chimera of the Ministers invention It appears on the contrary that 't is a sentiment which has been in effect held by divers Authors in the Latin Church not to mention here that 't is the Doctrin of Damascen and the Greeks which have followed him And this is the first conclusion which can be drawn hence but from hence also follow several other most important matters For first by this we see that the sentiment of Paschasus was not that of the Church of his time as some would persuade us seeing those very Authors which Mr. Arnaud alledges in his favour and who seem to come the nearest to Paschasus his expressions are at bottom and in effect infinitely distant from his Doctrin Secondly Hence it appears there was nothing regular in the Latin Church touching Transubstantiation neither in the 11th nor 12th Century seeing considerable Authors then publickly explain'd their belief concerning the Eucharist in a manner which suffers the Bread and Wine to subsist in their first substance In the third place from hence is apparent how little certainty and confidence a rational man can put in the principle of the Author of the Perpetuity and Mr. Arnaud who suppose it as a thing certain that in the time when Berenger was first condemned that is to say in the year 1053. the whole Latin Church was united in the Faith of the Real Presence and Transubstantiation seeing the contrary may be justifi'd as well by the argument which Lanfranc relates of the Berengarians as by the passage of Ascelinus In fine it may be seen here how frivolous and vain Mr. Arnaud's negative arguments be who would prove that the Greeks believ'd in the 11th Century Transubstantiation because they did not take Berengarius his part nor disputed on this Article against the Latins For if Transubstantiation was not then determin'd in the Latin Church if one might therein make a free profession to believe the union of the Bread with the Body of Jesus Christ by means of the Divinity as appears from the example of Ascelinus Berenger's great Adversary what reason could the Greeks have to dispute and make oppositions IT signifies nothing for Mr. Arnaud to raise objections against the sentiments of these Authors whom I last mention'd and to say that if the habitation Book 8. ch 7. p. 828. of the Divinity in the Body of Jesus Christ remaining in Heaven and in the Bread remaining on Earth and conserving its nature and the application of this Bread to serve for an instrument to communicate the graces merited by the Body of Jesus Christ rendred the Bread the Body of Jesus Christ the
the help of his Senses but his Reason he will turn it on every side and invent Distinctions which will signifie nothing as are the greatest part of them which have bin made on this Subject yet will he still keep firm to his Eye-sight and common Sense IT will be replied perhaps that unless we are extream Obstinate we cannot pretend our Proofs of Fact are of this kind which is to say that they have the certainty of our Senses for they are taken from the Testimony of the Fathers whose Faithfulness may be called in question by setting up this fantastical Hypothesis mentioned by Mr. Arnaud which is That all our Passages are false and invented by the Disciples of John Scot or else in saying that the Fathers are mistaken or some such like matter which may Lib. 1. Ch. 2. Pag. 1. make the Truth and Validity of these Proofs to be called in Question and moreover that our Passages are not so plain but they may well be questioned seeing there have bin great Volums written concerning them on both sides To which I answer in supposing two things which seem to me to be both undenyable by Mr. Arnaud we can pretend against him our Proofs of Fact have such a kind of Certitude as is that of our Senses MY first Supposition then shall be That the Writings of the Fathers are faithful Witnesses of the Belief of the Antient Church He cannot disagree with me in this Point for we have not receiv'd it but from them of the Church of Rome they produce it themselves and we use it only out of Condescension to them not having need as to our own particular of any thing but the Word of God to regulate our Faith in this Mystery of the Eucharist And when this Point should be questionable yet must then the Author of the Perpetuity put it out of Question by his refuting of it before he proposes to us his Arguments and not having done it we are at liberty to act against him on this Principle The other Supposition we must make is That we know very well what is the Church of Romes Belief touching the Eucharist and that we rightly apprehend it so that there is no danger of our Mistake in this matter and this is that which hath never yet bin disputed against us In effect we neither say nor imagine any thing on this Subject more than what we find in Books and hear discoursed on every Day which is that the whole Substance of Bread is really converted into the Substance of the Body of Jesus Christ and the whole Substance of Wine into the whole Substance of his Blood there not remaining any thing more of the Bread and Wine but their meer Accidents which are not sustained by any Subject and further that the Substance of our Saviour's Body is really present at the same time both in Heaven and Earth on all the Altars whereon this Mystery is celebrated that they which communicate eat and drink this Substance with the Mouths of their Bodies and that it ought to be Worshipped with the Adoration of Latria This is undenyable I say then on these Grounds we have reason to presume our Proofs of Fact are evident even to Sense it self For we read the several Passages of the Fathers which speak of the Eucharist our Eyes behold them and our Senses are Judges of them But there are not any of these Articles to be met with which do distinctly form the Belief of the Roman Church neither in express Terms nor in equivalent ones We are agreed in the Contents of these Articles and in what they mean we are likewise agreed of the Place where they were to be found in case the Antient Church had taught them We know likewise that it belongeth to our Eyes and common Sense to seek them and judge whether they are there or no for when a Church believes and teaches them she explains them distinctly enough to make them understood and we must not imagine they lie buried in far fetched Principles or couched in equivocal Terms which leave the Mind in Suspense or wrapt up in Riddles from whence they cannot be drawn but by hard Study If they are in them they ought to be plain according to the measure and Capacity of an ordinary and vulgar Understanding Yet when we seek them we cannot find 'em if they were set down in express Terms our Eyes would have discovered them had they bin in Equivalent ones or drawn thence by evident and necessary Consequences common Sense would have discovered them But after an exact and thorow Search our Eyes and common Sense tell us they are not to be found in any manner This altho a Negative Proof yet is it of greatest Evidence and Certainty After the same manner as when we would know whether a Person be at home we are agreed both touching the House and the Person that one might not be taken for the other and after an exact Search if a mans Eyes and Senses tell him that he is not there the proof of a Negative Fact hath all possible Force and Evidence Yet we are upon surer Terms for a man may easily hide himself in some corner of his House and steal away from the sight of those that seek him and therefore the Negative Proof serves only in this Respect to justifie we have made a full and thorow Search But if the Articles of the Romish Creed were established in the universal Consent of all Ages as is pretended it would not be sufficient they were hid in some one of the Fathers Writings they must near the matter have appeared in all of them whence it follows our Negative Proof is yet more certain by the Confirmation it receives from an Affirmative Proof which consisteth in that our Eyes and Senses find out many things directly Opposite to these Articles and these two Proofs joyned together do form one which appeareth to be so plain and intire that there needs nothing to be added to it And yet this is it which the Author of the Perpetuity doth pretend to strip us of by his Arguments But let him extend his Pretensions as far as he will I believe he will find few Persons approve of them and who will not judge that even then when our Eyes should have deceived us which is impossible after so diligent and careful a Search the only means to disabuse us would be to desire us to return to the using of them again and to convince us our Inquiry hath not bin sufficient we should at least have bin shewed what we our selves were not able to find For whilst nothing is offered us but Arguments they will do us no good we may be perhaps entangled with them if we know not how to answer them but they will never make us renounce the Evidence and Certainty which we believe to be contained in our Proofs of Fact WE are confirmed in this Belief when we consider the Nature of the Author
the great Particle in the Cup and mix them therein together it is no more then but one and the same thing For if we suppose that as well the great one as the lesser are the Body of Jesus Christ and mystical Saints I find no difficulty therein for he means that all these Particles put together make no more than one Mystery which expresses that perfect Unity which is between Christ and his Saints which together with him make but one Body But if on the contrary we suppose that the first Particle is Jesus Christ in Substance there will be found nothing more absurd than the expression of this Person when he tells us that little Saints made of Bread are converted into the very Substance of Jesus Christ He is one and the same with his true Saints whether they are in Heaven or on Earth but to say he becomes one and the same with their Figures and Representations or with Crums of Bread which represent them on an Altar is in my opinion such an extravagant fancy that we ought not to charge the Greeks with it IN fine Arcudius assures us that 't is customary to administer these Particles to the People after the same manner as we do the Sacrament He say's indeed that Simeon and Gabriel warned the Curats not to distribute them in this manner to the People but to administer them with the great Particle mixt and pressed together in the Cup. Yet adds he Simeon ambiguously Arcud lib. 3. cap. 10. expresses himself for he say's that the Particles are the Body of our Lord when they are mixt with the Body and Blood and are not so being separate and therefore the Faithful may partake of them in the Sacrament which is to say they may receive them as the real Sacrament Now tell me I beseech you whether 't is likely a man that believes the Eucharist to be the Body of Jesus Christ in its proper Substance would speak after this manner These Particles say's he become the Body of our Lord when mixt but separate they are not so Is it that the conjunction and mixture transubstantiates them and the separation untransubstantiates them If this be his meaning why does he so earnestly assert that they are not consecrated Why does Gabriel his Disciple say that they are not changed altho united He must certainly mean Ibid. they are the Body of Christ otherwise than in propriety of Substance and he sufficiently explains himself when he says in the second passage which Mr. Arnaud has alleged 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they participate Apud Arc. lib. 3. cap. 11. pag 331. of the Body and Blood of our Lord which Mr. Arnaud understood not amiss when he translated it they receive holiness by the participation of the Body and Blood Which is to say they are made the Body and Blood by a Communication of Sanctity which comes to them from the great Particle by means of the mixture even to the making them capable of being given in the Communion to the Faithful Now there are several things which do hence necessarily follow For first it follows that the Bread which is the Body of Jesus Christ not in Substance but in Sanctification is sufficient for the Communion of the Faithful Secondly that the great Particle is the Body of Jesus Christ in such a manner that it may be communicated to another piece of Bread without the change of its Substance and by consequence that it is not it self this Body substantially for besides that this manner of being the Body of Jesus Christ is incommunicable it is evident that if it could be communicated to another Subject even to the making of it the Body of Jesus Christ it then follows that this other Subject must be transubstantiated In a word Simeon's meaning is that the great Particle is in such a manner the Body of Jesus Christ that it may communicate this honour to the rest and make them become the Body of Jesus Christ in such a sort as renders them proper for the Communion And to the same effect are these words of Arcudius He saith say's he that the Particles are the Body of our Lord when mixt with the Body and Blood and therefore the Faithful may receive them in the Sacrament and these other words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they communicate or participate of the Body and Blood of our Lord. It is then evident he means not that the great Particle is the Body of Christ in propriety of Substance for this propriety cannot be communicated to another Subject if we suppose at the same time as Simeon does that this other Subject remains really Bread AND this is my Argument Mr. Arnaud who saw the force of it has endeavour'd to escape it by his usual Artifices for on one hand he has concealed from us what Arcudius has expressly declared to wit that these Particles are the Body of Christ being mixt and that the faithful may partake of them as of the Sacrament and on the other he has mis-represented Simeon's sence and pretended it to be to his advantage But all his Artifices cannot hinder us from perceiving that the real Sentiment of the Greek Church is 1. That the Substance of Bread remains in all the Particles that is to say as well in that which is consecrated as in all the rest 2. That the consecrated Particle becomes the Body of Jesus Christ in full virtue of Sanctification and is as it were a Fountain of Grace and Divine Efficacy 3. That the other Particles by mixture and union with the great Particle do partake of this Sanctification and become by this means the Body and Blood of our Lord not after a complete and perfect manner like unto the great Particle but in a far lower degree which is yet sufficient to make them proper to be distributed to the People in the Communion as being the Body and Blood of our Lord. WE shall be confirm'd in this opinion if we consider the eighth Proof which I shall here offer It consists in that the Greeks believe the Eucharist consecrated on Holy Thursday to have a greater efficacy than that which is consecrated at other times which may be verifi'd if 't were needful by the testimony of several Authors See here what Prareolus say's They assure us say's he that this excellent mystery consecrated on the day in which our Saviour celebrated his Supper that is to say on Thursday in the Holy Week hath a more excellent virtue and is more efficatious than when 't is consecrated on other days Prercol Elem. Heres lib. 7. pag. 201. and 't is for this reason according to Guy Le Carmes Relation that they consecrate the Eucharist for the sick on no other day of the year than in that wherein our Saviour made his last Supper which they keep all the year only for this purpose John de Lasko Archbishop of Gnesne and Ambassadour from the King of Poland to Leo X. in
on the principal Point of the Conversion And yet notwithstanding all this if we will believe Mr. Arnaud my Proof is but a foolish and extravagant one He may say what he pleases but it seems to me by this that for the most part there is no agreeing with him under any other Terms than the renouncing of our Reason But to proceed I shall add to what I have already represented the Testimonies of some Modern Greeks who have given us exact descriptions of their Religion and yet not a tittle of Transubstantiation altho their design and occasions which set them on writing obliged them not to be silent on so important an Article I might begin with Jeremias the Patriarch of Constantinople for let a man read over never so many times his Answers to the Divines of Wittemberg yet cannot he find the least intimation of a substantial Conversion unless he suffers his mind to be corrupted by Mr. Arnaud's Declamations but it will be more proper to refer this examination to the following Book wherein the order and sequel of this Dispute will oblige us to mention it WE have Christopher Angelus his Letter given us by George Felavius a Lutheran Divine of Dantzic which Angelus was a Greek a man both pious and learned He greatly suffer'd amongst the Turks for his Religion and at length came into England to end there his Days in peace and quietness His Letter contains a large Account of the Customs of the Greeks touching the Eucharist wherein he is so far from asserting the substantial Conversion of the Latins that he expounds on the contrary these words of Body and Blood by them of Bread and Wine The Priest say's he carrying in his hands Status ritus Ecclesiae Graecae à Christoph Angel◠cap. 23. the Holy Things draws near to the People and stops at the door of the Sanctuary where at once he distributes to every one the Body and Blood of our Lord that is to say Bread and Wine mixed saying this Servant of God receives in the Name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost for the Remission of his Sins Amen WE have a Confession of Faith Compiled by Metrophanus Critopulus at Confession Cath. Apost in Orient Ecclesiae per Metrophanem Critopulum Helmstat in the Year 1625. He was not long after made Patriarch of Alexandria There is a whole Chapter in this Confession the Title whereof is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Lord's Supper In which having established the use of leavened Bread the Unity of this Bread to represent our Unity with Jesus Christ and one another he adds That the consecrated Bread is truly the Body of Christ and the Wine undoubtedly his Blood but the manner say's he of this change is unknown and unintelligible to us For the Understanding of these things is reserved for the Elect in Heaven to the end we may obtain the more favour from God by a Faith void of curiosity Those that seek after the reason of all things overthrow Reason and corrupt Knowledge according to the Observation of Theophrastus seeing then this Mystery is really the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ 't is therefore very pertinently called by Saint Ignatius a remedy against Mortality a Medicine that purifies us and an Antidote which preserves us from Death and makes us live in God by Jesus Christ HERE we find the Bread to be really the Body of Jesus Christ and that it suffers a change but we find not that the Substance of the one is really changed into that of another which is precisely the Transubstantiation of the Latins But on the contrary that the manner of this change is unknown to us whilst on Earth which is to say in a word he would have us indeed to believe a change for the Bread is not naturally the Body of Christ but will not suffer us to determine the manner of it which what is it but a plain rejecting of Transubstantiation seeing that it is it self the Determination of this manner It will be replied that they of the Church of Rome do likewise acknowledge Transubstantiation to be an unaccountable change that we must believe it without troubling our selves how 't is possible and Mr. Arnaud has not fail'd to produce in this sence the Passage of Metrophanus which I now mention'd according to his usual Custom which is to turn to his advantage even those things that are most against him But there is a great deal of difference between saying there is a change which makes the Bread become the Body of Christ altho we know not the manner thereof and affirming there is a substantial change which converts the Substance of Bread into that of the Body of Jesus Christ altho we know not how this comes to pass By the first we keep our selves in the general Idea of a change without descending to a particular determination By the second we determine what this change is to wit a change of one Substance into another In the first the expression is still retain'd which supposes the Bread remains to wit That the Bread is the Body of Christ but in the second this expression is willingly laid aside because it cannot be admitted but under the benefit of Figures and Distinctions The first is the Language of the Greeks the second that of the Latins BUT before we leave this Confession of Metrophanus it will not be amiss to make two reflexions thereon the one that when he establishes the necessity of the Communion in both kinds he grounds it on the necessity of partaking as well of the Body as Blood of Christ and alledges for this effect that saying in the sixth Chapter of Saint John If you eat not the Flesh of the Son Ibid. cap. 91. of Man and drink his Blood you will have no life in you Now this reason manifestly opposes the pretended concomitancy of the Latins and Transubstantiation it self for if there be made a conversion of the Bread into the proper Substance of the Body of Christ such as it is at present that is to say living and animate those that receive the Species of Bread do partake as well of the Blood as Body and it cannot be said there is any necessity of receiving the Cup by this reason that we must partake of the Blood without falling into a manifest contradiction which is likewise the reason wherefore in the Church of Rome it is believed to be sufficient to communicate of one kind THE second Consideration concerning Metrophanus is that this Author discoursing towards the end of his Chapter of the Sacrament which the Greeks reserve for the sick say's That they believe according to the Doctrine of the first Ibid. Oecumenical Council that the Mystery being reserved remains still a Holy Mystery and never loses the vertue it once received For as Wool say's he being once dyed keeps its colour so the Sanctification remains in these Mysteries ever indelible and as the remains which
that their Faith must be the rule of ours yet will I endeavour to satisfie the Reader in this particular I do also hope that this inquiry will not be useless towards the clearing up of the principal Question between Mr. Arnaud and my self because that in shewing what the Greeks do believe I do at the same time shew what they do not believe I shall do then three things in this Chapter the first of which shall be to shew the real Belief of the Greeks touching the Eucharist Secondly describe in what they agree and differ from the Church of Rome And thirdly likewise wherein we of the Reformed Church do agree with them and in what particulars we do not AS to the first of these Points to the end we may have a fuller and clearer understanding of the real Opinion of the Greeks it will be necessary we make several Articles of it and reduce them into these following Propositions FIRST in general the Eucharist is according to them a mystical representation of the whole Oeconomy of Jesus Christ They express by it his coming into the World his being born of a Virgin his Sufferings Death Resurrection Ascension into Heaven and the Glory he displayed on the Earth in making himself known and adored by every Creature Were it necessary to prove this Proposition we could easily do it by the Greek Lyturgies and Testimonies of Cabasilas Germain Simeon Thessaloniensis Jeremias and several others but this not being a matter of contest I shall not insist upon it SECONDLY They consider the Bread in two distinct respects either whilst it is as yet on the Table of the Prothesis or on the great Altar Whilst 't is on the Prothesis they hold 't is a Type or Figure Yet do they sometimes call it the Body of Jesus Christ sometimes the imperfect Body of Christ sometimes the dead Body of Jesus Christ although they do not believe the Consecration is then compleated This is confirmed by what I related in the Fourth Chapter of this Third Book and it is not likewise necessary to insist any longer thereon because this particular concerns not the matter in hand THIRDLY When the Symbols are carried and placed on the great Altar they say that by the Prayers of the Priest and Descent of the Holy Spirit the Bread and Wine are perfectly consecrated and changed into the Body and Blood of Christ To express this change they use these general Terms I already noted to wit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. which signifie a change They say the Bread is the Body of Christ and that it is made the very Body it self or the proper Body of Christ and hereunto refer all those Citations Mr. Arnaud has alledged out of Theophylact Euthymius Nicholas Methoniensis Cabasilas Simeon Thessaloniensis and Jeremias We do not deny that the Greeks use these Expressions it concerns us here only to know in what sence the Greek Church uses them and what kind of change they mean thereby I say then that when we come to examine this change and determine in what manner the Bread and Wine are made the Body and Blood of Christ they curb our curiosity and remit this knowledge and determination to God and for their own parts keep within their general Terms Which appears by the profession of Faith which the Sarrazins made in the Twelfth Century when they imbraced the Greek Religion I believe Bibl. Patr. Tom. 2. Graeco-Lat say's the Proselyte and confess the Bread and Wine which are mystically sacrificed by the Christians and of which they partake in their Divine Sacraments I believe likewise that this Bread and Wine are in truth the Body and Blood of Christ being changed intellectually and invisibly by his Divine Power above all natural conception he alone knowing the manner of it And upon this account it was that Nicetas Choniatus complains that in the Twelfth Century the Doctrine Nicetas Choniat Annal. lib. 3. of the Divine Mysteries was divulged and therefore censures the Patriarch Camaterus for his not having immediately silenced a Monk who proposed this Question to wit whether we receive in the Eucharist the corruptible or incorruptible Body of Jesus Christ He should have been condemned say's he for an Heretick that introduced Novelties all the rest silenced by his example to the end the Mystery may ever remain a Mystery John Sylvius in his Cathe'merinon Joan Sylv. aâ—rebat Cathem of the Greeks recites a Prayer wherein it is said That the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ are touched and changed on the Altar after a supernatural manner which must not be inquired into We have likewise already seen in the Tenth Chapter of this Book the Testimony of Metrophanus the Patriarch of Alexandria who having told us the consecrated Bread is really the Body of Jesus Confess Eccles Or. cap. 9. Christ and that which is in the Cup undoubtedly his Blood he adds That the manner of this change is unknown to us and the knowledge thereof reserved for the Elect in Heaven to the end we may obtain more favour from God by a simple Faith void of curiosity And thus acquits himself ANOTHER Greek Author cited by Allatius under the name of John Allat adversus Chreygton exercit 22. the Patriarch of Jerusalem You see say's he that Saint Paul scruples not to call this Body Bread But be it so if you will that it be no longer called Bread and being no longer Bread is neither leavened nor unleavened you see that it is not bereaved of these Appellations till after Sanctification But before this dreadful Sacrifice when you offer it to sanctifie it shall this be neither Bread nor an Azyme Now that which is done in this Oblation is by our selves but that which happens in this admirable change is not from us but God It appears by this passage recited by Allatius and taken if I be not deceived out of a Manuscript wherein this Author disputes touching the Azymes against a Latin who told him that this Controversie was vain seeing that after the Consecration it is no longer Bread but the Body of Jesus Christ and it seems this Patriarch maintains against him that 't was still Bread and proves it by the Authority of Saint Paul who so calls it It seems likewise by what he adds that he would say that supposing it was no longer called Bread and lost this name yet we must not speak of what it becomes by Consecration because God only knows that and not men ALTHO the Greeks are sometimes thus reserved restraining themselves within their general Terms yet for the most part they shew more particularly their thoughts touching the nature and kind of the change which happens to the Bread and Wine and which makes them to be the Body and Blood of Christ And they do it likewise in such a manner that 't is no hard matter to find out their meaning Which is what we have now to demonstrate But before we enter into
they hold touching this Augmentation of the Body of Christ For if the Bread in the Eucharist augments or gives growth to our Lord's Body as they believe it ceases not to be being certain that to make an Augmentation we must add one thing to another joyn them together conserve them both and destroy neither of them To this we are moreover led by all those Comparisons we find they used of Wool dyed of Paper that receives the Emperors Signet of Wax that receives the impression of the Seal of a burning Coal or Wood in conjunction with Fire and Food by which we are nourished for in all these Examples the subject matter looses nothing of its first Substance Moreover seeing they will have the Bread pass thro all the Degrees of the Oeconomy of Jesus Christ that 't is first corruptible then incorruptible this sufficiently denotes they mean the Bread remains whereby to receive all these changes SECONDLY From this difference there arises another which is that the Latins believe that in the change which happens in the Eucharist the Substance of Bread and that of the Body of Jesus Christ are as they speak the two Terms of the change and that of the Bread passes intirely into that of the Body by a Conversion not only mystical but really and which destroys the Existence or matter of the Bread which the Greeks do not believe Which appears by this Augmentation of the Body of Jesus Christ of which they tell us and which they confirm by the Simile of Food For common sence plainly shews us that that which augments a thing is not really changed into the thing augmented as the Latins understand their change For there must always be reckoned a real difference between the thing augmented and that which augments The Opinion of the Greeks then can in no wise agree with that of the Latins for according to the Latins the Substance of the natural Body of Jesus Christ receives neither more nor less by the Conversion of the Substance of Bread into it and according to the Greeks it is augmented by it THIRDLY It must then be granted the Greeks do not acknowledge this conversion specified by the Roman Church and differ from it in respect of the nature or kind of this change admitting only that of an Object which receiving a new Form remains what it was before and yet becomes what it was not which is to say that the Bread remaining Bread receives the supernatural and oeconomical Form of the Body of Christ that is to say its virtue and is thereby made this Body And this is what is meant by this change of Sanctification and Virtue which they establish and by which they pretend the Bread becomes our Lord's Body Their whole Doctrine centers in this and 't is not possible to see what I alledged from them in this Chapter and not make this Conclusion that their Opinion is there only happens in the Eucharist a change of virtue and that 't is only thus the same Substance which is Bread is likewise the Body of Jesus Christ FOURTHLY The Latins hold that the Substance we receive in the Sacrament is absolutely the same numerical Substance which our Saviour had when he was on Earth and which he still retains in Heaven The Greeks hold not this their Hypothesis manifestly opposes it For altho they say the Body born of the Virgin Mary and the Bread in the Sacrament are not two Bodies but one yet the manner after which they explain this Unity and the reason they give for it do clearly denote they mean not thereby an absolute Unity nor an intire or numerical Identity as the Schools speak such as the Latins establish They say that as that which a Child eats and drinks makes not another Body but the same altho he receives growth thereby so the Bread in the Sacrament which augments the Body of Christ makes not two Bodies but one Now this necessarily supposes that this Substance which we receive with the mouths of our Bodies in the Eucharist is different from that which our Saviour had on Earth and which he still has in Heaven For a Body that is augmented is the same it was before but the Augmentation can never be absolutely the same thing as that which receives Augmentation In effect if the Latins be asked and all those that follow their Hypothesis why the Bread in the Eucharist and the Body born of the Virgin are not two but one only Body they will answer 'T is because they are but one and the same Substance in number But instead of this the Greeks take a different course saying 't is because the Bread is an Augmentation of the Body of Christ which puts a real difference between the two Substances Whence it follows that that which they believe they receive in the Sacrament is not the same Substance as that of our Lord 's natural Body FIFTHLY Hence it appears the Greeks do not believe the Real Presence of the Latins For the Latins by the Real Presence mean a Presence of Substance which is to say that this same Substance of the natural Body of Jesus Christ in which he lived and died and rose again and which now exists in Heaven the same I say in Number really likewise exists substantially and by it self in the Eucharist Now this the Greeks do not hold as I already shewed They on the contrary believe that this Substance we receive in the Eucharist and that of the natural Body of Christ are two Substances really different one of which is the Augmentation and th' other the thing augmented the one a true Substance of Bread and th' other the Substance of the natural Body of Christ The one to wit that of Bread receives according to them the impression of the virtue of th' other and the other communicates this to it They do not then believe that this same natural Body of Christ this same numerical Substance in which he died and rose again and which now exists in Heaven does likewise really exist in the Eucharist which is exactly as I already said the real Presence of the Latins They hold the Bread becomes by Consecration not a Figure of the Body of Christ but an Augmentation inasmuch as it receives its Virtue and Efficacy If this must be called a kind of Real Presence I say this is but a mere amusement of Words not worth our consideration In short the Presence of the Greeks is a Presence of Virtue that of the Latins a Presence of Substance so that upon this account they are at a great difference In effect if the things I alledged as well in this Chapter as in this whole Third Book be exactly considered it will appear that the most part of the Proofs I produced to justifie that the Greeks believe not Transubstantiation do equally conclude against the Substantial Presence and that they also believe not there is made any impression of the physical Form of Christ's Body on
more impertinent than Anastasius his Argument if what Mr. Arnaud imputes to him be true He concludes that the Body of Christ was corruptible before his Resurrection that is to say whilst he was in the World because it is corruptible in the Eucharist Now to the end his State in the Eucharist may be of Consequence to that wherein he was before his Resurrection It follows that when he was in the World he was in it under the Sensible Accidents of Bread intirely such as he is in the Eucharist Which is to say that when he Talked Walked and Conversed he did all these things under the form of Bread For unless this be so there can be no Consequence drawn from one to the other Anastasius could not have denyed that the incorruptible Body of Christ could not take on it a corruptible Form seeing he knew that this Body is now incorruptible in Heaven and that yet according to the Hypothesis which Mr. Arnaud attributes to him it becomes every Day corruptible in the Eucharist which cannot be but by changing its Form It must needs be then that Anastasius supposed the Body of Christ was in the World in the same Form 't is now in the Sacrament for supposing it changes its Form I understand not the Conclusion The Heretick Gaynite might still alledg that as it does not follow this Body is corruptible in Heaven altho it be so in the Eucharist neither does it follow that it was corruptible during the time he was on Earth and that 't is the Form he takes upon him in the Sacrament that renders him corruptible And thus Anastasius his Argument concludes nothing unless we suppose Christ's Body had absolutely the same Form when he was conversant on Earth that it has now in the Sacrament Now this Supposition being the greatest Degree of Folly there being no Man of Sence that will own it we may easily then perceive what Judgment to make of Anastasius as Mr. Arnaud handles him BUT 't is certain by what I now said that Anastasius believed neither Transubstantiation nor the real Presence for had he believed it he would never have reasoned as he does nor supposed as he has done a Principle altogether inconsistent with the Romane Doctrine BUT what is then this Author's Sence I answer that when he say's the Eucharist is not common Bread such as is sold in the Market His meaning is manifest to wit that it is consecrated Bread when he adds That it is not a Figure as that of the He-goat which the Jews offered It is clear he does not absolutely reject the Figure but in the Sence of a legal Figure which represented Christ only obscurely and imperfectly whereas the Eucharist is a Mystery which clearly and perfectly represents the whole Oeconomy of Christ's Incarnation and Mr. Arnaud himself acknowledges That altho the Greeks deny the Eucharist to be the Figure of Christ's Body yet do they affirm it Ibid. p. 630. is a Representation of the Mysteries of his Life and that the same Authors which teach the one teach the other So that so far there is nothing in Anastasius's Discourse but what is easy When he adds That it is the real Body of Jesus Christ He means that it is the Mystery of his Natural Body which not only is so perfect a Representation of it that one may say it is the true Body and not a Figure but which even has received the supernatural Form thereof or if you will the Character of it which is its Virtue in the same Sence that we say of Wax which has received the Impression of the King's Seal that it is his real Seal If we find any roughness in this Expression we must remember Mr. Arnaud finds the same in the Sequel of his Discourse and that we have shewed that what he calls Roughness is meer Absurdity Whence it follows that it is more reasonable to suffer that which is only a bare Roughness and Offensiveness in the Terms and which moreover does well agree with Anastasius his Reasoning than that wherein common Sence is not to be found We must likewise remember the Exposition which the Greeks themselves do give to these kind of Expressions that the Eucharist is the true Body the Body it self the proper Body of Christ to wit inasmuch as it is an Augmentation thereof which makes not another Body but is the same as we have already shewed in the foregoing Book We must know in fine that the Eutychiens against whom Anastasius Disputes were wont to attribute to Christ in their Discourses when urged no other than a phantastical and imaginary Body and not a real humane Body which obliged Anastasius to say that the Eucharist is the real Body of Christ that is to say the Mystery not of a chimerical but real Body THIS being thus cleared up the Sence of Anastasius his Argument lyes open before us He means that seeing the Bread is a Mystery in which is expressed the whole Oeconomy of Christ's Incarnation being as it is corruptible it must necessarily be concluded that the Body of Christ was in like manner corruptible before his Resurrection because the Bread was the Mystery of the Body before its Resurrection and that the same Oeconomy which was observed touching the natural Body whil'st it was in the World is observed in the Bread Let but Anastasius his Discourse be compared with that of Zonaras which I related in the ninth Chapter of the foregoing Book and Damascen's in the short Homily which I likewise mentioned in the Chapter touching the Belief of the Greeks and with what I said in the eighth Chapter of this Book for the explaining Cabasilas his Sence and there will appear no difficulty in it AS to that other Passage of Anastasius which Mr. Arnaud proposed wherein this Author disputes against an Heretick called Timotheus who affirmed Ibid. p. 634. the Nature of Christ after the Incarnation to be the only Divinity We must make the same Judgment of it as the former For as to what he say's That the Divinity cannot be Detained Chewed Divided Changed Cut c. as is the Eucharist and that we must according to this Hereticks Doctrine deny the Eucharist to be in truth Christ's visible terrestial and created Body and Blood He means that the Accidents which happen to the Eucharist being in no wise agreeable to the Divinity of Christ who is not subject to Change and Alteration but only to his Body we must therefore say the Bread does not pass through the same Oeconomy under which our Saviour passed whence it follows that it could not be said as it is that the Bread was in truth the Body and Blood of Christ being said to be so only upon the account of the Unity and Identity of this Oeconomy Had he believed Transubstantiation how could he miss telling his Adversary 't is not to be imagined the Substance of Bread is really changed into the very Substance of the Divinity and
Great Cham of Tartar that after the Union there was only one Nature in Jesus Christ BROTHER Bieul of the Order of Preachers affirms the same in the Relation of his Travels The Jacobites say's he are Hereticks and Schismaticks They say there is in Christ but one Substance one Operation and one Will which is the Divine This is false and contrary to our Catholick Faith For in Christ with the Divinity is a true Substance Operation and Humane Will For the true Faith is that God was real God and real Man And a little further speaking of a Dispute which he had with them We shewed them say's he wherein they erred when they denyed our Saviour Christ to be real God and Man and yet would still retain and affirm that in Jesus Christ there was only one Substance one Operation one Nature and one Will which according to them is the Divine POPE John XXII writing to Raymund the Patriarch of Jerusalem Raynald ad ann 1â—26 num 28. complains to him of the Jacobites being tolerated in the Kingdom of Cyprus and grounds his complaint on that these Hereticks dared maintain against the truth of the Orthodox Faith that there was but one Nature in our Saviour Christ GUY Carmes expresly observes this amongst the rest of their Errors Guid. Car. sum de baeâ—â—s tit de Jacob. Barth a Salignaico itiner terrae Sanctae fol. 31. de Jacobitis Pratcol Elench haret Lib. 7. de Jacob. art 3. Joann Cotov Itiner Hieros Syriac Lib. 2. Cap. 6. that they affirm there is in Jesus Christ but one Nature no more than one Person and therefore they make the sign of the Cross only with one finger THE same may be seen in Barthol Salignac's Voyages into the Holy Land They hold say's he speaking of the Jacobites that there is but only one Nature in Jesus Christ which is the Divine THEY profess to believe but one Nature in Jesus Christ say's Prateolus THEY are corrupted by several Errors say's Cottovic and especially in reference to our Saviour Christ For they confound our Saviours Divine and Humane Nature and make thereof but one Will and one Operation They deny there was in Jesus Christ after the Union of the Word with the Flesh two Natures intire and perfect without confusion of Person Moreover they maintain that the Flesh which our Saviour Christ took was not of the same Nature as ours and that the Word was not changed into true Flesh but into I know not what kind of Phantastical and apparent Flesh and that he rather seemed to be a Man to be born and dye than really to do and be so Thus do they teach that all the Mysteries of our Salvation the Incarnation Passion Resurrection of our Saviour his Ascension into Heaven and his Second Coming are only things feigned and appearances and by this means make invalid all these Mysteries And to confirm their Heresy by an external Testimony Cottovic Ibid. Voyages and Observ of the Sicur de la Boulay le Goux 3. part ch 12. pag. 371 they make the sign of the Cross only with one finger thereby representing that there is but one Nature in Jesus Christ HE tells us the same thing of the Copticks They follow say's he the Heresy of Dioscorus and Eutiches which is common to them with the Jacobites THE Copticks are Schismatical Christians say's the Sieur Boulay le Goux and hold the same Errors as the Armenians Jacobites and Aethiopians following in every thing the Opinion of Dioscorus and Eutyches THE Copticks say's Mr. Thevenot are Christians but Jacobites Thevenot's Voyages part 2. Ch. 75. p. 501. that is to say followers of Eutyches and Dioscorus IT will be needless to produce any more Testimonies for the confirming a thing so well known that Mr. Arnaud cannot but acknowledge it neither need we say much concerning the Ethiopians who are in all particulars like to the Copticks and receive from them their Abuna that is to say their Patriarch as Mr. Arnaud acknowledges Yet will I here relate the Answers which an Abyssin Priest named Thecla Maria returned to the questions offered him at Rome by some Cardinals who Colloquy'd with him by order of Pope Sixtus V. in the year 1594. as we find them set down by Thomas a Jesu Being askt say's he how many natures Thomas à Jesu Lib. 7. p. 1. C. 13. wills and operations the Aethiopians held to be in our Lord Jesus Christ He answered that the Aethiopians professed to believe only one Nature in Jesus Christ after the Union one Will and one Operation yet without confusion and he added he knew well that the Aethiopians Copticks and other Eastern Christians that hold this Opinion deviated greatly from the truth Being askt whether the Aethiopians believe one Nature in Jesus Christ resulting from two He answered that the Aethiopians do not say so but profess to believe that there is only one Nature in our Saviour without mixture or confusion which they affirm to be the Divine Being moreover demanded whether the Aethiopians received the Decrees of the Council of Chalcedon He answered they condemned this Council because therein was confirmed the two Natures in Jesus Christ and that therein was Condemned Dioscorus the Patriarch of Alexandria The Relations of Ethiopia confirm the same thing IT now concerns us to know whether all these Nations to wit the Jacobits Copticks and Ethiopians can hold Transubstantiation that is to say the question is whether they be People indued with common sence For what can be more contradictory than to maintain on one hand that our Saviour Christ has no real Body that there is nothing in him but the Divine Nature that his whole converse in the World his Birth Death and Resurrection were only bare Appearances without any Reality And to believe on the other that the Substance of Bread is really changed into the proper Substance of his Body into the same Substance he took of the Virgin and which he retains still in Heaven Mr. Arnaud will tell us they hold Transubstantiation after their manner But let him shew us then what this manner is Will he have 'um believe the Substance of Bread is inwardly changed into the Substance of these Appearances with which they say the Divinity heretofore clothed it self Besides that it would be ridiculous to attribute a Substance to simple Appearances which are nothing and that according to them these appearances are no longer in being having ceased with the Oeconomy will not this be excellent sence to say that the Substance of Bread changes it self into the Appearances which do not appear for they will be concealed under the Vail of the Accidents of Bread that is to say they will be invisible Appearances lying hid under other Appearances WILL Mr. Arnaud say they hold the Transubstantiation of Bread into the Nature of the Divinity which is to say that the Substance of Bread becomes it self the Divine Essence But if it be true
far as the salutiferous waters There the Tyrant was drowned in the Sea here the Devil is suffocated in the water of Salvation THOSE that considered the effect of the consecration of the Bread which makes it to be really and not by a simple imagination the mystery of our Lord's Body might they not say that 't is truly the Body of Jesus Christ the Body of Jesus Christ in truth not to insinuate it to be so in proper substance but to signifie its being the mystical Body of Jesus Christ is not a thing which has no other foundation than our own imagination but that which is grounded on the things themselves either because our Saviour Christ has thus ordained it in instituting his Holy Sacrament in the Church or forasmuch as the Eternal Father has ratifi'd this Institution or that the Holy Spirit really descends on the Bread to consecrate it An adopted Son considering his adoption was real and not illusory or conceited may rightly say that he is truly the Son of such a one and in this sense every faithful person may say with assurance he is truly the Son of God 'T is in this same sense that S. Basil tells us That if our flesh be worthy of God it becomes Basil in Ps 14. Theophyl in Joan. 10. Cyril Hieroscal myst 3. Hierom in Epist ad Gal. c. 4. truly his Tabernacle And Theophylact That the Jews were truly blind in respect of the Soul And Cyril of Jerusalem That we have been truly anointed by the Holy Spirit and that Jesus Christ is truly the Primitiae and we the mass or lump And S. Hierom That we be all truly one Bread in Jesus Christ For they would say not that these titles of Tabernacle and Blind this Unction these Primitioe this Mass and this Bread ought to be understood in a literal sense but that their metaphorical signification was grounded on the things themselves and may be found entirely true THOSE in fine who consider the opinion of the Greeks that the Bread is made the Body of Jesus Christ by an union with the natural body and by way of growth and augmentation may not they likewise say that 't is truly this body and yet not establish 't is the same numerical substance which our Saviour has in Heaven but to signifie that this substance here and that there are not two different Bodies but one and the same Body as we have already more than once explained in the same sense as the augmentations which are made to a House or Ground become truly this House or this ground or the Kings Conquests added to his Kingdom become truly his Kingdom by virtue of their union ALL which clearly shews that Mr. Arnaud has much misreckoned himself when he believed there were but two occasions wherein men used these terms of true and truly the one when they affirm the figure of the Original as when we say that our Saviour Christ is the true Melchisedec the true Son the true Vine and the other when we would prevent any kind Ch. 5. p. 780. of doubt or contest as when we say of a suspicious piece of Gold that 't is true Gold or a Pope that has an Anti-Pope for his rival that he is the true Pope This enumeration is defective and the conclusion which he pretends to draw hence is void and refuted by what I now offer'd The Fathers might say that the Bread of the Eucharist is truly the Body of Jesus Christ without intending the prevention of any doubt BUT supposing they designed to prevent a doubt can there arise no other from the subject of the Eucharist but what relates to Transubstantiation or the substantial Presence May not a man doubt of the truth of the Body of Jesus Christ considered in it self and in reference to the Incarnation All those ancient Hereticks Marcionites Manichees have not only doubted of it but boldly affirmed that 't was only a Phantasm The Eutychiens have affirm'd and do still affirm that this Body was swallowed up in the abyss of the Divinity Cannot a man doubt of the truth of Jesus Christ his words The Jews and Pagans do not only doubt of them their impudence proceeds so far as to make a mock at 'um and how many impious and prophane wretches are there amongst such as profess Christianity that mock at 'um in their hearts Cannot a man doubt of the efficacy and spiritual virtue of this Bread We have already observed from Palladius that this was precisely the doubt that possessed the mind of a Religious And how many weak persons are there who seeing only Bread and Wine cannot imagine we ought to attribute to them so great an efficacy There is nothing says Tertullian that more perplexes mens minds Tertul. de Baptismo Ch. 5. p. 783. than to see the simplicity of the Divine operations when they are celebrated and to hear the magnificent effects issuing from them THIS doubt says Mr. Arnaud must have two qualities For first As this expression has been generally received by all people this must therefore be a general doubt and must naurally arise in the minds of all men Secondly As no body ever made use of this expression but only on the subject of the Eucharist this must be a particular doubt belonging to the Eucharist and which cannot be extended to all the other Sacraments How excellent is Mr. Arnaud at engrossing of objects He has gathered here and there from several Authors that lived in sundry Churches and at divers times some thirty passages taken in a counter sense that speak differently one in one manner others in another in different significations and this he makes to be the language P. 774. of all people In another place he assures us this is the language of all Nations and all Ages A man cannot say an expression has been generally received by all people and in all ages unless he has run over the Authors of all Ages and shew'd that this expression was received by the greatest part amongst 'um for which purpose thirty passages gathered at random are not sufficient Moreover the expression in question should appear in all the passages and not one in some of 'em and another in others Besides the expression must be used every where in the same sense But we find no such thing here We have only about some thirty passages in one of which there 's the term of same in another that of proper or properly in another that of true or truly and they are used in different senses too as will appear from the particular examination we shall make of them How can this then be called an expression generally received by all people the language of all Nations and that of all ages For my part I call it an illusion BUT supposing the expression of true or truly to have been generally received by all people as Mr. Arnaud supposes it was why must it needs proceed from a general doubt that
condition he can understand no other than that and 't is it which he rejects because 't is on it whereon falls the first conception of his mind This will yet farther appear if we consider that the eyes of a Communicant will determin his thoughts to the corporeal Presence when of it self it were not therein determined for 't is not possible for a man who never heard of the spiritual and invisible Presence to raise in his mind at the same moment wherein he communicates this question Is the Body of Jesus Christ substantially present in this Eucharist which I receive but that he must at the same time use his eye-sight to inform himself This inclination is so natural that if he does not follow it it must necessarily be said that he has in his mind the idea of an invisible Presence of which his eyes cannot be witnesses and that 't is this idea which diverts him from having recourse to his sight and if he does follow it his eyes which tell him that it is not therein derermin his thoughts to the idea of the corporeal Presence to make him reject it BUT is it impossible that a man in conceiving the idea of the corporeal Presence and in rejecting it should conceive at the same time that there may be invented other manners of a substantial Presence but must reject them all be they what they will without specifying or considering them I answer that in this case he will conceive these other manners of presence in opposition to the corporeal and visible one and consequently will specifie them at least as incorporeals and invisibles and conceive them under this quality In a word when nature offers us but the idea of one single species there arises not up immediately a general consideration in our minds our fancy leads us to that particular species and if afterwards we conceive any other 't is always in opposition to that which nature it self offers to our knowledg Whence it follows that this first manner of believing the Real Absence by a general rejection of every kind of presence yet without specifying so much as any one in particular neither visible nor invisible is a mere chimera which resides only in Mr. Arnaud's brain AS to the third it is moreover invalid and illusory seeing it answers not the design of the Author of the Perpetuity For as we have already said he is obliged to shew that if people had not believed the Real invisible Presence they would have had in their minds dispositions and prejudices which would have made them respect it not barely as a Doctrin that appears contrary to natural reason this is not sufficient to produce actually an entire rejection and opposition when the matter concerns a point of Faith but as an innovation in the Churches Belief Now this third manner of believing the Real Absence without any reflection by a bare view of the nature of things in the same manner as we know Paris is not Rome nor France Holland that the Sun is not the Moon nor an House an Elephant thar the Kings Picture is not the King himself to use Mr. Arnaud's examples without having made this express and formal reflection this manner I say may make men capable of knowing that the Real Presence is contrary to the order of nature that it agrees not with common sense but not make 'em discern whether it be a mystery of the Churches Faith as 't is said to be or whether 't is a new humane invention This simple view of the nature of things which consists in knowing that the Eucharist is Bread that the Eucharist is an image of the Body of Jesus Christ that this Body is a humane Body and that 't is in Heaven does not hinder a man from being surprized with the matter of novelty by being persuaded that 't is the true Doctrin of the Church as 't is assured to be and on this persuasion Reason must yield to Faith 'T is in vain Mr. Arnaud tells us that supposing the Faithful had no other Lib. 6. cap. 2. pag 564 565. than these simple notions that the Sacrament of the Eucharist is Bread and Wine which represent to us the Body of Jesus Christ supposing they conceiv'd the Body of Jesus Christ to be in no wise therein that they imagin'd this Body to be only present in Heaven and that all the usual expressions form'd only in their minds the idea of a figurative Presence they would immediately have judg'd that the belief of the Real Presence was false and impertinent as we would immediately judg that man who would persuade us that Paris is Rome or that the Popes Picture is the Pope himself or that the seven stalks of Corn which Pharaoh dreamed of were really seven years or the Paschal Lamb a real passage and Sacrifices for Sins real Sins to be mad and sensless When a man judges of these things he simply judges of them according to the light of nature and 't is certain the light of nature will render that man impertinent who shall say what Mr. Arnaud makes him say It would be the same concerning the real invisible Presence should a man judg of it on this ground But those that offer it in any age oppose against the light of Nature the splendid name of the Churches Faith They endeavour to insinuate it under the pretence of its being a mystery of the Christian Religion which has been always believed and for this purpose they spare no colours By which means they stop the course of nature and hinder men from judging according to its Principles reducing the question to know whether it be true that this be the Faith and perpetual sense of the Church by which means 't is no hard matter t' impose on the ignorant 'T IS moreover in vain that Mr. Arnaud brings in the Statute of Henry IV. for an instance which all the Parisians know to be only Brass and that his body is only at S. Dennis He says perhaps they never thought of formally rejecting the opinion that this Statue is really the Body of Henry IV. and yet be ready to oppose this opinion should any extravagant person offer to make them believe it But howsoever the Parisians stand affected towards the Statue of Henry IV. there 's a great deal of difference between this example and that of the Eucharist here in question The Statue of Henry IV. is a work of humane institution wherein men suppose there 's nothing supernatural whereas the Eucharist is a Divine mystery in which there has been always believed to be something above nature The Statue of Henry IV. is a thing absolutely popular concerning which every man believes he has liberty of judging according to the principles of Sense and Reason The Eucharist is a mystery which has been endeavour'd to be made long since in some manner inaccessible to mens curiosity by concealing it under a cloud of Ceremonies Henry the Fourth was indeed a
things FIRST then Mr. Arnaud makes me contradict my self He says That Lib. 6. cap. 4. pag. 550. if it be not true I admitted the confused Belief during ten Ages if I included it in the 9th and 10th it follows that I knew that during eight Centuries the Faithful had a distinct knowledg of the mystery of the Eucharist I acknowledg this Consequence to be just enough But adds he Mr. Claud bethinks himself and finds 't is more for his advantage to grant nothing to the Author of the Perpetuity and even to affirm that during these eight Centuries the Faithful had no distinct knowledg of the Presence or Real Absence Why does Mr. Arnaud call this recollecting a man's self What contrariety is there between these two things Not says he but that there 's an equivocation in all this If there be any equivocation Mr. Arnaud ought not to make a contradiction of it nor say I am at discord with my self But the truth is there is neither equivocation nor contradiction in it for we have already told him that to know distinctly the mystery of the Eucharist is neither to know distinctly the Real Presence nor Real Absence and that there 's a difference in these things To know distinctly the Real Absence in the sense wherein we take this term in this Dispute is to reject formally and by a positive act this invisible Presence as an error But to know distinctly the mystery of the Eucharist is according to us to know clearly that the Eucharist is Bread and Wine as to the substance of it that by Consecration this Bread and Wine are made signs or mystical figures of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ that this signification is grounded on several relations which are between the Bread and Wine and the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ that those who receive these Symbols with Faith and Devotion towards Jesus Christ who died for us and rose again and is reigning in Heaven they spiritually eat of his Body and drink of his Blood that these Symbols are called the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ by a Sacramental way of speech because they do both represent them to our Faith or because there 's a great conformity between them and the things which they represent or because they communicate them to us and several other like Articles In a word to understand the mystery of the Eucharist is to know positively wherein consists the nature and essence of a Sacrament which does not include any distinct knowledg either of the Real invisible Presence or Real invisible Absence I acknowledg 't is not easie to surprize people that are in this capacity nor persuade them that this Real Presence has been ever believed in the Church especially if they have Pastors that are learned and honest who acquit themselves of their Duty and watch diligently over their Flocks But howsoever this is not to understand distinctly the Real Absence in question IN the mean time to the end Mr. Arnaud may no longer equivocate on this subject let me tell him that when we attribute this distinct knowledg of the mystery of the Eucharist to the eight first Centuries we would not be understood either that they had it in a degree always equal and uniform or that all persons who lived in each of those Ages have been equally enlightned We know the light of those Ages was diminished by degrees so that the 7th and 8th had much less of it than the first six We know likewise there has been always in the Church I mean even then when 't was most flourishing a great number of pious Christians in truth but little advanced in knowledg and with them multitudes of prophane worldly wretches who little concerned themselves touching what they believed of the mysteries of Christian Religion IN the second place Mr. Arnaud reproaches me with having done two things which would be strange enough were they true the one that I ill explain'd the Author of the Perpetuity's sentiment and th' other that I granted him in effect whatsoever he pretended to He grounds these two reproaches on that I said somewhere to the Author of the Perpetuity That if Answer to the second Treatise part 2. chap 3. he meant that the Faithful who took the instructions of the Fathers in a metaphorical sense believed Jesus Christ present corporeally in Heaven without thinking on what has been said since that he is at the same time in Heaven and on Earth there after the manner of a Body here after the manner of a Spirit I acknowledged that the Faithful had in this sense a most distinct idea of the Real Absence which is to say they did not at all believe that he was substantially present in the Sacrament applying their whole mind to the presence of his Grace and Merit setting themselves to meditate on his infinite love c. without exerting their thoughts to this presence of substance invented of late by the Roman Church But if by having an idea and distinct belief of the Real Absence that Author meant they knew and rejected distinctly this means of existence of the Body of Jesus Christ on the Altar in multiplying his Presence in several places I affirm'd they had it not at all BUT these two reproaches are without grounds for in respect of the first it appears from what we have seen in the preceding Chapter that the Author of the Perpetuity must have pretended to that which I charge him with to wit that the Faithful have had the distinct idea of the substantial invisible Presence such as the Church of Rome believes and that they formally rejected it as an Error For there 's only this manner of believing the Real Absence which can have place in this Dispute seeing that of the three which Mr. Arnaud has proposed the first as we have seen is impossible and the third useless for the design of the Author of the Perpetuity so that necessarily his sense must fall upon the second which is precisely that which I have attributed to him And as to the second reproach 't is clear that if the Author of the Perpetuity pretended to no more than what I granted him his Argument will fall to the ground for it does not follow from persons not fixing their minds on the presence of an invisible substance such as the Church of Rome teaches and their applying themselves only to meditate on a presence of Grace which is precisely what I grant him it does not hence follow I say that they are led by this alone to reject the Real Invisible Presence as a novelty contrary to the Faith of the Church There needs something more than this I mean there needs greater lights to inevitably effect this rejection For a man must have for this not only the idea of this substantial invisible Presence such as is fancied in the Church of Rome but likewise distinctly know that such a Presence was never taught in the Church For
an inconsistent sense but on the contrary a sense that appears consistent and reasonable to abused persons altho at bottom it be otherwise Whilst a man judges of it according to the false lights of these persons he calls it a sense because his mind acquiesces therein as seeing nothing therein impossible but as soon as he judges of it upon th' account of th' inconsistency of the terms 't is no longer a sence 't is a mere contradiction that has no sense and which is unintelligible I confess that as mens minds are subject to fearful capricio's it sometimes happens that they advance propositions wherein contradictions are so evident that they must needs have seen 'em themselves such as is that of this Philsosopher mention'd by Mr. Arnaud who affirmed That if God pleas'd two and two should not be four but in this case 't is requisite to say that these persons impose on the world and understand not themselves what they say For for to say that a man can make to himself a sense of a contradiction when it appears to him to be a contradiction that he can unite two ideas by affirming one of the other at the same time wherein he sees they cannot be accorded that is to say that he can persuade himself that a thing is possible ev'n then when it seems to him to be impossible If this be Mr. Arnaud's Philosophy he must Philosophise by himself for me 'T IS then clear I had reason to say that this second rank of persons which I supposed in the ancient Church who found inconsistency in the terms of this proposition The Bread is the Body of Jesus Christ conceiv'd properly no sense at all in it For as to their parts they could not find any in it seeing the proposition to them seem'd inconsistent Neither could their Pastors help 'em seeing 't is laid down for a maxim that they knew not in what sense the Fathers understood it But says Mr. Arnaud not knowing Page 580. any other way to make the Eucharist to be the Body of Jesus Christ they must make an entire separation of the Bread and Body and absolutely deny the presence and existence of Jesus Christ in the Bread which is rejecting the Real Presence I answer that this is not a good conclusion the persons of which we speak found no sense in the proposition The Bread is the Body of Jesus Christ the two ideas of Bread and Body appeared to them inconsistent they knew no other means of making the Bread to be the Body I grant but seeing 't was a proposition of their Pastors whom they would not charge with falsity and being taught it as from the authority of Jesus Christ himself 't is not to be doubted but they acknowledg'd in general that it must have a good sense altho they knew not which was this good sense and therefore I said in my answer to the Perpetuity that their minds stopt at the only difficulty without undertaking to resolve it 'T is fruitless to enquire whether they rejected by a positive judgment the unity of these two substances Bread and Body or whether their minds hung in suspense notwithstanding what appear'd to 'em from th' inconsistency of the terms I have not attributed to them this rejection as Mr. Arnaud says I have in impertinently transferring what I said of them who went as far as the Sacramental sense to those of this second rank who proceeded not so far But whether they formally rejected this unity of two substances or only suspended their judgments it is clear they neither rejected Transubstantiation nor Consubstantiation for neither one nor the other of these two opinions establishes th' unity of these two substances Bread and Body in the sense we understand it here that is to say by affirming that the Bread remaining Bread is the Body of Jesus Christ They may have deny'd the Real Presence in this last sense that is to say judged that the Bread remaining Bread cannot be the Body of Jesus Christ but as to other ways since found out to make the Bread to be the Body having no knowledg of 'em they could not reject them They rejected if you will the unity of the two substances they conceived no sense in this expression the Bread is the Body of Jesus Christ yet they acknowledg'd it must have a good and a true one altho they knew not in particular which that was they carry'd off their minds from this difficulty but in all this they conceiv'd no distinct notice either of Transubstantiation or Consubstantiation IN vain does Mr. Arnaud endeavour to persuade us That the natural Page 583. idea of these words The Bread is the Body of Jesus Christ in explaining them in the usual manner was that appearing Bread 't was not so but the very Body of Jesus Christ and that 't is a renouncing all the lights of reason to pretend that this so common true and authoriz'd sense by custom never entred into the thoughts of any man during eight hundred years All this signifies nothing seeing his pretended sense is contrary to nature the question concerning Bread which a man seeth and which all the notices of sense and reason assure to be Bread these same notices do not inform us that 't is not Bread or that 't is only an appearance of it The question likewise concerning a Body which we know is in Heaven and which is like unto that which we have the notices of reason urge not a man to understand that this Body is there under the appearance of Bread So that should we suppose that during eight hundred years this sense entred not into any bodies thoughts we shall suppose nothing but what 's very natural and reasonable But says Mr. Page 582. Arnaud when Raphael led young Toby if any one that knew who he was should say this Man whom you see is an Angel Toby would not have imagin'd that he was both Man and Angel too but easily conceive he meant only that appearing Man he was really an Angel But does not Mr. Arnaud consider that this example is quite different from our case When the Angels appear'd under the form of men there was always some sensible character that distinguish'd them and easily shew'd there was something more than natural in ' em There 's nothing like this in the Bread th' apparition of Angels in a humane shape was very frequent under the old Testament and Toby was instructed in his infancy in the belief of this This apparition of the Body of Jesus Christ under the form of Bread was unheard of in the Church We know that an Angel leaves Heaven when he comes to appear on Earth in a humane shape whereas we know on the contrary that the Body of Jesus Christ is so in Heaven that it will not leave that place till the last Judgment We know an Angel is of a spiritual nature and a man consults not his eyes to know whether he is
present or not but we know that the Body of Jesus Christ is of a sensible nature th' object of our sight and feeling Had then any one said to Toby This man whom you see is an Angel perhaps Toby had taken this proposition in Mr. Arnaud's sense because he would have been led to it by what I now come from representing touching th' appearance of Angels But suppose as we ought to suppose in this place of our dispute a man that knows not as yet the Doctrin of Transubstantiation nor that of Consubstantiation that knows not the Principles of it that never heard of it nor of an appearance of Bread without its substance nor of a humane Body impalpable invisible and existent in several places at a time and moreover knows that the Body of Jesus Christ is in Heaven Let this man be told the Bread is the Body of Jesus Christ 't is certain that the light of reason will never lead him to this violent explication That that which appears Bread and is not is the very Body of Jesus Christ in substance As to the rest Mr. Arnaud ought not to abuse several passages of Calvin Beza and Zuinglius disputing against those called Lutherans Their sense is that if these words this is my Body may be literally understood we must rather admit the sense of the Roman Church than that of the Lutherans But it does not hence follow that the sense of the Roman Church is the most natural one nor that the people must find it of themselves this consequence does not any ways follow SO that here are two of the ranks of persons which I asserted delivered from the unjust pursuits of Mr. Arnaud The third says he is less troublesome Book 6. ch 8. pag. 586. than the others Why Because adds he it consists only of persons that believed the Real Presence and had a distinct Faith of it This rank is of those who going as far as the question How the Sacrament is the Body of Jesus Christ proceeded also to the solution of it but their minds stopt at general terms as that Jesus Christ is present to us in the Sacrament and that we receive therein his Body and Blood without searching a greater light 'T is certain says Mr. Arnaud there might be in effect faithful persons in the ancient Church that penetrated no farther into this Mystery than barely to believe that Jesus Christ is therein present and that we receive therein his Body and Blood God be praised that we have at length once said something which Mr. Arnaud does not contradict And to return him the same kindness do tell him that what he grants here does not at all displease me For this plainly shews there were faithful people in the ancient Church that knew nothing of Transubstantiation but conceiv'd only a Presence of Jesus Christ in the Sacrament and a reception of his Body and Blood under a general notion yet Mr. Arnaud pretends that this notion how general soever it might be was distinctly the Real Presence Which is what I deny and must examin The question is then only whether these persons believ'd distinctly the Real Presence he pretends it and I deny it THEY knew says Mr. Arnaud neither the key of Figure nor the key of Page 587. Virtue according to the Hypothesis it self So that neither the presence of Virtue nor the presence of figure came into their thoughts I grant it What presence then could they conceive but the Real Presence but the Real Reception And why must they have given to these words another sense than that which they naturally have This is ill concluded They would have conceiv'd a confus'd and general idea of Presence without descending to a particular and precise distinction I confess 't is very hard for persons that have their sight and never so little of common sense not to acknowledg that the Body of Jesus Christ is not in the Eucharist in this ordinary and corporeal manner by which a body is naturally in one place and I am sufficiently persuaded that those persons in question could not come so far as to enquire how the Eucharist is the Body of Jesus Christ without conceiving the idea of his visible and sensible Presence to reject it but we shall suppose nothing that is unreasonable in saying that in carrying off their thoughts from this corporeal Existence they conceiv'd it present under a very confused notion for 't is a usual thing with persons that are unlearned to consider things in a confused manner and therefore we commonly see they cannot express themselves otherwise than in certain obscure and general terms which do never well shew what they have in their minds It cannot be deny'd but this kind of confused ideas are usual among people But Mr. Arnaud must not imagin that these persons of whom we speak believed the substantial Presence of the Body of Jesus Christ in the Sacrament for rejecting the idea of the corporal Presence as 't is likely they did by the very instinct of nature to maintain they believ'd a substantial Presence we must suppose either that they had the idea of another manner of substantial presence of a body than the corporeal one or at least that they knew there was some other which was not less a substantial Presence than the corporeal one altho they knew it not Now of these two suppositions the first is acknowledged to be false by Mr. Arnaud himself and the second is wholly contrary to reason for who should inform them there was another manner of a substantial presence of a body than a corporeal one Nature shews us no other the expressions of their Pastors mention'd no other whence then must they have it It must then be said they had a confused idea of another manner of presence than the substantial one they beheld it in the expressions of their Pastors felt it in the motions of their Consciences but to denote precisely what that was was what they could not otherwise do than by general terms of presence reception and such like Now this was in effect to believe not a substantial Presence but a Presence of union a Presence of salutary efficacy in reference to the Soul altho they comprehended it not in its full distinction THE fourth rank is of those who after they had been puzled with the inconsistency of the terms of Bread and Body of Jesus Christ found the real knot of this difficulty to wit that the Bread is the Sacrament the memorial and pledg of the holy Body of our Redeemer They found it says Mr. Arnaud because it pleases Mr. Claude to suppose so but 't was after a long search My supposition contains nothing but what we see happens every day in the world 'T is certain there are persons who be full of doubts this is no wonder and we find 'em not so easily freed from them they esteem themselves happy when after a long search they get them resolved
Saviour did not scruple to say This is my Body when he gave the sign of his Body that he made Bread his Body in saying This is my Body that is to say the figure of my Body that we must distinguish between the Bread of our Lord and the Bread which is the Lord himself that the consecrated Bread is honored with the name of our Lords Body altho the nature of Bread remains that the nature or substance of Bread ceases not to be and that that which we celebrate is the image or resemblance of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ who knew that the humanity of Jesus Christ is local absent from Heaven when on the Earth and left the Earth when it ascended up into Heaven that to eat the Flesh of Jesus Christ is to believe in him that this locution is figurative and must not be taken according to the letter signifying we must communicate of our Lords Passion and call to remembrance that his Flesh has been Crucified for us 'T IS such kind of persons as these who are well instructed in the sense of the Fathers that are to be consulted to find the natural sense of these other expressions which Mr. Arnaud alledges in his favour What likelihood is there that with these preparatives which they receiv'd daily from their Pastors they should stick at these expressions they heard 'em use That the Bread is the Body of Jesus Christ that 't is made the Body of Jesus Christ changed into the Body of Jesus Christ that the Body of Jesus Christ enters into us that we are refresh'd with his Blood and nourish'd with his Flesh and other expressions of this nature what likelihood is there they should hesitate at 'em or see any other sense in 'em than the Sacramental or figurative one Now these are the persons whereof my fifth rank consists whom I supposed to have a knowledg of the truth more distinct and clear than the others and a mind better fitted to understand the stile and ordinary expressions of the Church Let the same instructions the same expositions be given now to the people which the Fathers gave them let neither Transubstantiation nor the Real Presence nor the conversion of the substance of Bread into the very substance of Christs Body nor the Body of Jesus Christ concealed under the vail of accidents without a subject nor th'existence of these accidents without a subject nor the real existence of the Body of Jesus Christ in several places nor his double Presence that is to say his visible and invisible one nor his Sacramental state after the manner of a Spirit be mention'd let 'em not be enjoyn'd t' adore the Sacrament of the Eucharist with that Sovereign adoration which is due to Jesus Christ alone and in a word let all things be suppress'd which we find the Fathers did not speak or do and let the impressions and prejudications which these novelties have introduc'd into mens minds be lost let the same instructions and expositions I say be given to the people now which the Fathers gave them and then let 'em be told as long as you will that the Bread is the Body of Jesus Christ that 't is chang'd into the Body of Jesus Christ for I am persuaded and believe every reasonable man will be so too that the people will never conceive from these expressions either Transubstantiation or Consubstantiation but understand 'em without difficulty in a Sacramental sense Where Where 's then this great noise which the Real Presence made knocking as the Author of the Perpetuity words it millions of times at the gate of the hearts of all the Faithful Is not this clatter a mere dream and has Mr. Arnaud any reason to reproach me with the deafness of my ears BUT 't will perhaps be question'd whether persons of mean capacity whom we do not suppose to have this knowledg of the style and sense of the Church did not receive by these words th' impression of the Real Presence I answer we shall do 'em no wrong by supposing they did not understand them You have commanded us to believe said they in S. Austin Serm. ad inf explain to us then how the Bread is the Body of Jesus Christ to the end we may understand it They did not understand it then before the explication In effect the greatest part of the Fathers words taken literally are void of any natural sense Philosophy must give 'em one for how can we understand naturally that the Bread is the Body of Jesus Christ according to a literal sense or chang'd into the Body of Jesus Christ seeing we behold it still to be Bread I confess there are some of these expressions which are apt to offer to ignorant people the idea of a Real Presence but not of the real invisible and incorporeal Presence touching which we contend but on the contrary the idea of a corporeal Presence for a mans mind especially that of an ignorant man does not imagin th' existence of a human invisible insensible and impalpable Body I moreover say that this idea of the corporeal Presence would be immediately rejected as false by the most stupid and ignorant from the testimony of their own senses which they could not but consult supposing at least they knew Christ's Body was a human one But supposing they did not 't is likely their simplicity would lead them to believe that the natural Body of Jesus Christ was really upon Earth in the form of Bread such as they saw in the Eucharist and this is what S. Austin says little Children would do were they earnestly and gravely told 'tis the Body of Jesus Christ AS to the passages of S. Hilary and Gregory of Nysse which Mr. Arnaud alledges as offering the idea of the Real Presence I confess the first is able to surprize th' ignorant and make 'em conceive a corporeal Presence seeing it has these words that Jesus Christ is in us in reality of nature and not by a simple consent of will and then again that Jesus Christ dwells in us naturally which literally signifies that our Lords Flesh exists in us in such an ordinary and corporeal manner as the flesh of animals exists in us when we eat 'em which was the sense wherein the Capernaits took the words of Jesus Christ Mr. Arnaud himself seems to have acknowledg'd this seeing he believ'd himself oblig'd to add in his Translation a corrective that mollifies or explains this term naturally Naturally says he that is to say really But this that is to say really ought not to be written in Italick as if 't were S. Hilary's own explication and if the fault be the Printer's and not Mr. Arnaud's he should at least have set it in the Errata because it causes two illusions at a time on one hand it makes a man believe S. Hilary taught the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in us in proper terms seeing he says that he remains in us naturally that is
find therein the consolation of our Souls this without doubt is popular It is popular to hearken to the testimony of sense which tells us that 't is Bread and yet to hear that 't is the Body of Christ the Sacrament of the Body of Christ its pledg its memorial It is popular to know that Jesus Christ is in Heaven and that from thence he shall come to judg both the quick and dead Whence he concludes with Authority that the distinct knowledg which I give to the first Ages and the confused one which I attribute to the 10th are but one and the same thing IT must be allowed that never any consequence was more violently drawn than that of Mr. Arnaud's First It is not true that the Articles which I give of the distinct knowledg are the same with those of the popular knowledg Among the first is found That the Bread and Wine lose not their natural substance That they are called the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ because they are the Sacraments of 'em which is not found in the Articles of the popular knowledg How will he have this to be then one and the same thing There is a great deal of difference between harkning to the testimony of ones proper senses which shew the Eucharist to be Bread and Wine and learning from the instructions of Pastors that the Eucharist is Bread and Wine The first induces a man to believe that to judg of it by sense 't is real Bread and Wine but the second goes farther for it shews this very thing which the senses depose to be the true belief of the Church Now these two things are wholly different as any man may see The first does not dispose men to reject Transubstantiation as a novelty contrary to the Faith of the Church for it remains still to know whether the Faith of the Church be not contrary to the testimony of sense The second does dispose 'em to it for it shews that the Doctrin of the Church is according to the deposition of the senses Now the first is according to my rule belonging to the popular knowledg and the second belongs to the distinct knowledg What reason is there then in having these two knowledges to be the same Thirdly Mr. Arnaud has not observed that when I spake of the distinct knowledg of the eight first Centuries I did not pretend exactly to denote all the Articles of it this was not my business in that place But only t' observe some of the principal ones which were sufficient to make known the sense of these Propositions The Bread is the Body of Jesus Christ it is changed into the Body of Jesus Christ But it does not hence follow but that there were therein some others very considerable ones which may be gathered from the passages of the Fathers which I produc'd in my first part as that the change which happens in the Eucharist is not a change of Nature but an addition of Grace to Nature that Jesus Christ as to his human Body or human Nature is so in Heaven that he is no more on Earth that the manducation of the Body of Jesus Christ is spiritual and mystical that we must not understand it literally it being a figurative expression that the Sacrament and the verity represented by the Sacrament are two distinct things and several others which are not necessary to be related Supposing it were true that the Articles of the popular knowledg were the same with those I mark'd of the distinct knowledg which is evidently false yet would it not follow that these two knowledges according to my sense would be the same thing seeing I never pretended to make an exact enumeration of all the points of the distinct knowledg nor exclude them which I now denoted which are no wise popular In fine Mr. Arnaud has not considered that of the same Articles whether popular or not popular a man may have a distinct knowledg and a confused one according as he makes a greater or lesser reflection on them according as they are respected with more or less application according as each of those that has the knowledg of 'em has more or less understanding natural or acquired so that supposing we attributed to the distinct knowledg of the eight first Centuries only the Articles which I specifi'd supposing these Articles were the same as those I attribute to the popular knowledg which is not true supposing again there were no difference in 'em as there is in respect of some of these Articles between the knowing of 'em popularly that is to say either by the help of the Senses or by the natural motion of the Conscience and to know them by the instruction of the Pastors as a thing which the Church believes and from which a man must not vary it would in no wise thence follow that the confused knowledg were according to what I laid down the same thing the object of these two knowledges would be the same but the knowledges would be distinct And thus have we shewed Mr. Arnaud's subtilties CHAP. VI. Mr. Arnaud's Objections against what he calls the Machins of Mollification and the Machins of Execution Examin'd The state of the Twelfth Century MR. ARNAVD will not suffer me to say in my Answer to the Answer to the second Treatise Part 2. chap. 7. Author of the Perpetuity That Error does not insinuate it self by way of opposition or a formal contradiction of the truth but by way of addition explication and confirmation and that it endeavours to ally it self with the ancient Faith to prevent its immediate opposition And this is what he calls my Machins of Mollification which he pretends to overthrow in his fifth Chapter The inventions says he of Mr. Claude are Book 9. ch 5. page 899. usually attended with very considerable defects To which I have no more to say but this that the pretensions of Mr. Arnaud are commonly very high but generally very ill grounded well offer'd but ill defended 'T IS false says he that Paschasus did not teach his Doctrin by expresly condemning those that were of a contrary Opinion Mr. Arnaud hides himself under a thin vail pretending not to understand what he does very well We do not say that Paschasus did not propose his Doctrin by condemning those of a contrary Opinion This is not the point in question The question is Whether he did not propose his Doctrin as the Doctrin of the Church which was not sufficiently understood and which he therefore more clearly explain'd Now Paschasus himself decides this difference as I have shewed in my Answer to the Perpetuity For speaking in the beginning of his Book touching his design he says That all the Faithful ought to understand the Lib. De Corpore Sang. Dom. cap. 2. Sacrament of our Lords Body and Blood which is every day celebrated in the Church and what they ought to believe and know of it That we must seek the
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
Bread The aforesaid Waldensis disputing in the sequel against Wicliff says Ibid. cap. 26. that Wicliff proved that the Eucharist was Bread by the experience of nature because a man may be fed with Hosts Whence adds he I conclude that as he admits the digestion of the Eucharist he must likewise grant that it passes into Excrements And thus is he agreed with Heribald and Raban of Mayence who have taught that the true Sacrament was subject to the casualty of other food 'T is plain he puts no difference between the Stercoranism of these two Bishops and the subsistence of the Bread of Wicliff Elsewhere he also more clearly proves that Honorius of Autun believed that the substance of Bread remained or as he speaks that he was of the Sect of the Panites because he alledges the passage of Raban which bears that the Sacrament passes into our food Et ipse enim says he de secta Panitarum Rabani versum Ibid. cap. 90. ponit infra ubi agit de partibus Missoe Sacramentum inquiens ore percipitur in alimentum corporis redigitur BUT if we will besides the testimonies of these Authors hearken moreover unto reason we shall find that there is nothing more inconsistent with the belief of the Real Presence than this pretended error of the Stercoranists and that those who will have these two opinions agree together have never well considered what they undertook to establish It is not possible to believe the Real Presence of the Body of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist I mean of this same numerical substance which was born of the Virgin and is now in Heaven without believing at the same time that this substance is not sensible in it palpable visible extended capable of being divided in the same manner as 't was when our Lord conversed on Earth 'T will be the greatest folly imaginable to impute to persons that have eyes and see the Eucharist and have some remains of common sense to make therein exist this Body without making it therein exist insensible indivisible impalpable after the manner of spirits as they also do of the Church of Rome Now with what likelihood can one make this opinion agree with that of Stercoranism which asserts that this Body is digested into the stomach after the manner of other meats that one part of it passes into our nourishment and the other is subject to the common necessity of aliments What is digested is touched by the substance of our stomach penetrated by our natural heat divided and separated into several parts reduced into Chyle then into Blood distributed thro all the several parts of our Body and joyn'd immediately to 'em after it has been made like 'em whilst that which is most gross and improper for our nourishment passes into Excrement What likelihood is there that persons who are not bereft of their senses can subject to these accidents an indivisible and inpalpable substance which exists after the manner of Spirits Moreover they were not ignorant that the Body of Jesus Christ is animated with its natural Soul and that what passes into our nourishment is animated by ours what a monstrous opinion then is it to imagin that the same numerical Body can be at the same time animated with two Souls with that of Jesus Christ and ours to be united hypostatically to the Word and hypostatically to us On what hand soever we turn 't is certain that 't is an inexpressible chimera to say that those which were called Stercoranists believ'd the Real Presence in the sense which the Roman Church understands it It must be acknowledged that they were Panites as Thomas Waldensis calls them that is to say they believ'd that the Eucharist was a Real Substance of Bread And seeing we shew'd that Amalarius Heribald and Raban were of the number of these pretended Stercoranists it must be necessarily acknowledged that they were contrary to the Doctrin of Paschasus whence it evidently follows that this Doctrin was not commonly held in the Church then as Mr. Arnaud pretends it was For these three great men held in it too considerable a rank to permit us to believe they were contrary to the publick Belief in a point so considerable and Mr. Arnaud himself will not have us think thus of ' em One of 'em to wit Amalarius was sent to Rome by the Emperor Lewis to seek the Antiphonaries as he himself testifies The other to wit Heribald was Bishop of Auxerre and reputed a Saint after his death as appears from the Inscription of his Sepulchre Here lies the Body of S. Heribald and the last to wit Raban was Abbot of Fulde and afterwards Arch-Bishop of Mayence accounted one of the most learned men of his Age as appears by the testimonies of Baronius and Sixtus of Sienne TO these three we must add Bertram for it cannot be doubted but that he was also one of those who were afterwards called Stercoranists which is to say he believ'd that this substance which we receive in the Sacrament was subject to digestion and passed into our nourishment He clearly shews his sense in several places of his Book For having related these words of Isidor The Bread and Wine are compared to the Body and Blood of Jesus Bertram de Corp. Sang. Dom. Christ because that as the substance of this visible Bread and Wine inebriate the outward man so the Word of God which is the living Bread chears the faithful Soul when she participates of it he makes this remark Saying this he clearly confesses that whatsoever we take outwardly in the Sacrament of our Lords Body and Blood is used for nourishment to our Body And a little further Secundum visibilem creaturam corpus pascunt And speaking afterwards of the Eucharistical Body of Jesus Christ Negari non potest corrumpi quod per partes comminutum disparitur ad sumendum dentibus commolitum in corpus trajicitur And again Non attenditur quod corpus pascit quod dente premitur quod per partes comminuitur sed quod in fide spiritualiter accipitur THESE two last Authors to wit Raban and Bertram besides this Doctrin which is common to 'em with the rest have especially this that they have formally opposed the novelties of Paschasus by publick Writings Which is what appears by the testimony of the anonymous Author whose words we have already related for he says in proper terms that Raban and Ratram wrote against Paschasus to wit Raban a Letter to the Abbot Egilon and Ratram a Book dedicated to King Charles and that they defamed him for offering this proposition that what we receive from the Altar is nothing else but the same Flesh which was born of the Virgin and suffered on the Cross and rose again from the Sepulchre and is at this day offered for the sins of the world WE have no reason says Mr. Arnaud to believe that Raban attack'd Paschasus Book 8. ch 12. p. 874. otherwise than
his Disciples Here then adds he we have people who said in the time of Charles the Bald and who must say according to their Principles That the Body of Jesus Christ has all the external accidents which appear to our senses and that there was no difference between the Body of Jesus Christ born of the Virgin and the Sacrament So that here are persons against whom may be maintain'd in an Orthodox sense that the Sacrament of the Eucharist is not the Body of Jesus Christ born of the Virgin He afterwards endeavours to shew that Bertram's Book directly attacks only these persons TO solve this difficulty it must first be supposed as a thing already proved that those who have been since called by way of reproach Stercoranists cannot be those of whom Mr. Arnaud here speaks who according to him believing the Real Presence yet affirm'd that the Body of Jesus Christ had all the sensible accidents which appear in the Eucharist and that Mr. Arnaud could say nothing less to the purpose than what he has offered That this opinion was a necessary consequence of that of Amalarius that 't is from thence he concluded the Body of Jesus Christ issued out thro the pores applying to it these words Omne quod in os intrat in ventrem vadit insecessum emittitur We have already seen from the testimony of Tho. Waldensis that these Stercoranists were Panites which is to say that they conserved the substance of Bread in the Sacrament and said all of 'em that the Sacrament was natural Bread We have already seen that in effect the belief of the Real Presence is absolutely inconsistent with this opinion that the Sacrament passes into our nourishment that it is digested that one part of it is changed into our flesh and another part into Excrements SECONDLY we must observe that supposing 't were true the Stercoranists believ'd as Mr. Arnaud would have it that the sensible accidents really affect the Body of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist there could be nothing more absurd than to imagin they were those whom Raban and Bertram opposed For as to Raban it appears as well from the testimony of the anonymous Author as by that of Waldensis that he was himself a Stercoranist The same thing appears from the proper passages of Raban which I have already related Whereunto I shall add another taken out of his Penitential Touching what you have demanded of me whether the Eucharist Cap. 33. when it has been consum'd and pass'd into Excrements like other meats returns again to its first nature which it had before 't was Consecrated on the Altar This opinion is contrary to that of Pope Clement This Period which I have included in this Parenthesis has no coherence with the discourse of Raban and my conjecture is that it is a remark which some body put in the Margin and which has been afterwards forced out of the Margin into the Text. and several other Holy Fathers who say that the Body of our Lord does not go into the draught with other meats Such a question is superfluous seeing our Saviour says himself in the Gospel Whatsoever enters into the mouth descends into the stomach and is cast into the draught The Sacrament of the Body and Blood is made of visible and corporeal things but operates invisibly our sanctification and salvation of both Body and Soul What reason is there to say that what is digested in the stomach and passes into Excrements returns again to its first state seeing no body ever maintain'd that this happens I think we have clearly here the opinion of Raban on this subject and that now it cannot be any longer question'd whether he was a Stercoranist As to Bertram the passages which I related out of his Book do clearly shew that he was of the same sentiment What can be more unreasonable and worse contriv'd than this thought of Mr. Arnaud that Raban and Bertram have combated the opinion of the Stercoranists which is to say that they have fought against themselves and wrote Books against persons without knowing they were themselves of their party Mr. Arnaud could not say any thing more unlikely and therefore we see that great Wits who believe ' emselves able to overthrow every thing do oft-times overthrow themselves and fall into labyrinths whence they cannot get out IN the third place how little soever we consider this opinion mention'd by Mr. Arnaud and the manner in which he conceives it we shall find 't is impossible it should ever come into any bodies mind unless he were excessively extravagant Not to mention how difficult it is to state how the natural accidents of Bread do unloose themselves from their proper and natural substance to fasten on that of the Body of Jesus Christ nor how the same numerical substance can be above in Heaven indued with its own proper accidents and here below indued really with the accidents of Bread and Wine I shall only say that unless a man doats extremely he cannot imagin that the same numerical Body which is above exists on Earth in a corporeal and material manner as a subject ought to exist that has accidents really inherent and yet is there in the natural manner of a real substance of Bread For every substance that receives and really sustains the accidents of Bread must receive and sustain them in the manner of a true substance of Bread to accommodate it self to the nature of these accidents A substance which receives really the accidents of Bread must have all its parts in ordine ad se as the Schools speak made as the parts of real Bread to the end there may be some proportion between them and the accidents which it receives And is it not an extravagancy to say that the parts of the human body of Jesus Christ to wit his head his arms and other members do exist inwardly in ordine ad se in the manner of the parts of Bread as little crums Who ever saw any thing more hollow than this Philosophy a human Body really divisible really palpable really sensible of a divisibility a palpability and a sensibility which is proper to it and yet is not natural to it but borrowed of another subject This divisibility and this palpability of the Bread which reside really in the same substance of the Body of Jesus Christ made it capable of all the changes which the Bread suffers it was digested by the natural heat in the stomachs of the Communicants and one part was reduced into their proper substance animated with their soul living with their life and united to them personally What did they then believe did they imagin that this same Body of Jesus Christ was at the same time animated with two souls and living with two lives or to speak better with an hundred thousand souls and an hundred thousand lives to wit that of Jesus Christ and of those of all the Communicants of the world personally
united to the Son of God and personally to an hundred millions of men at a time or do they imagin that the Body of Jesus Christ is loosed from his proper and natural Soul and dis-united hypostatically from the Word Believe me a man must be fallen into a dreadful disorder of mind to be guilty of these kind of fooleries But if these persons of the 9th Century against whom Raban and Bertram wrote believed in effect all these matters how happens it there 's no such thing to be found in Authors of those Ages nor the following ones and that to establish this fact to wit that there were persons who believ'd that the proper Body of Jesus Christ the same numerical substance which is in Heaven is here below really endued with the accidents of Bread Mr. Arnaud could offer nothing but some few conjectures impertinently drawn from a Principle of Amalarius BUT you will say how happens it that the passages which Mr. Arnaud alledges out of Bertram seem not directly to oppose the Doctrin of Paschasus and that sometimes they both meet in their expressions Bertram declares his design was against people who maintain that the mystery of the Body of Jesus Christ which is celebrated in the Church is not made under any figure nor under any vail but that the truth appears therein naked and manifest He makes to himself the questions Whether the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ which is received in the Church by the mouth of the Faithful be made as a mystery or as a truth which is to say Whether it contains any thing conceal'd which is only perceiv'd by the eyes of Faith or whether without the vail of any mystery the sight of the body sees outwardly that which the sight of the mind sees inwardly so that whatsoever is done in this mystery is discovered to the view of sense And in the second place Whether it be the same Body which was born of the Virgin Mary that suffered and died Paschasus on the other hand declares That it ought not to be denied that this Sacrament is a figure He distinguishes that which is felt outwardly from that which is hid inwardly and teaches that one is the figure of the other Est autem figura vel character hoc quod exterius sentitur sed totum veritas nulla adumbratio quod interius percipitur ALL the force of this objection consists in an equivocation Paschasus takes the term of figure in one sense Bertram takes it in another Bertram affirms that the Eucharist is a figure in a sense which Paschasus denies So that their Doctrins in the main cannot be more opposite than they are And of this the readers needed not to have been ignorant had Mr. Arnaud been pleased to relate in what manner Bertram explains himself For having proposed two questions in the terms which we have seen he adds Let us examin the first of these questions and to clear it from all ambiguity define what we mean by a figure and what by truth to the end that having something that is certain before our eyes we may better find the reasonable way which we ought to follow The figure is a kind of shadow which by means of some vails shews us what it proposes to shew us As for example when we would signifie the Word we call it Bread as in the Lords Prayer where we ask our daily bread or as our Saviour says in the Gospel I am the living Bread that came down from Heaven Thus does he call himself a Vine and his Disciples the Branches I am says he the true Vine and you are the Branches In all which there is one thing said and another signified The truth on the contrary is a manifest demonstration of the thing without using either shadow image or vail it being discovered by simple and natural expressions there being nothing to be understood but what is contained in the terms 'T is not the same in these other examples for our Saviour Christ is not substantially either Bread or Vine nor the Apostles Branches Here then we have a figure but in the last examples the truth is uttered in plain and open terms Now to apply this to the things in question to wit the Body and Blood of Christ Were this mystery celebrated without a figure it could not be call'd a mystery for one cannot call that a mystery wherein there is nothing secret nothing remote from the corporal senses nor hid under any vail Yet this Bread which is made the Body of Christ by the ministry of the Priest shews another thing outwardly to the senses and offers another thing to the intelligence of the Faithful Outwardly one discovers the form of Bread its colour and savour such as it was before But there is another thing far more precious and excellent which is taught inwardly a divine and heavenly thing to wit the Body of Jesus Christ which is therein represented and 't is not by the corporal senses but by the spiritual intelligence of the Faithful that this thing is considered taken and eaten He says the same of the Vine and concludes seeing no body can deny but this is so 't is manifest that this Bread and this Wine are the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ figuratively A man must shut his eyes if he cannot see he means that the Bread and Wine of the Eucharist are a mystery which represent to us the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ and that when they be called the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ 't is a figurative locution like in some sort to these others in the Gospel where our Lord is called Bread a Vine and his Apostles Branches Now 't is precisely in this sense that Paschasus denied the Eucharist was a figure When our Saviour says he brake and gave the Bread to his Disciples Câ—mment in Mat. 26. he does not say that this or there is in this mystery a certain virtue or a figure of my Body but he says plainly This is my Body And a little lower I marvail at some peoples saying 't is a figure and not the truth a shadow and not the Body And in his Letter to Frudegard Sacramentum Corporis Christi Sanguinis quamvis Sacramentum dicatur non est aliud quam veritas quod ipsa veritas repromisit which he proves by the same examples which Bertram alledges of simple locutions to wit of the Birth Incarnation and Passion of our Saviour These things says he which our Saviour did as God and Man be Sacraments of his Grace and a mystery of Faith and yet are they nothing but the truth altho they be called Sacraments And he afterstards makes this objection These things being mysteries cannot to wit in this quality be either seen or toucht and consequently this is not a Body and if it be not a Body they are a figure of the Flesh and Blood of Jesus Christ and not this Flesh and this Blood in propriety
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