which the Divinity is joyned to change it But were this the sence of Nicholas Methoniensis what would this contribute to the clearing up the doubt proposed to him The Question is whether the Flesh and Blood would not appear if they were in the Sacrament and Nicholas Methoniensis answers that the Bread and Wine are the matter changed by the Divinity which effects this change This is certainly a very strange way of speaking to say he joyns his Divinity to them to signifie that he transubstantiates them We see few People thus express themselves But supposing this what relation has this to the Doubt he pretends to resolve If the Flesh of Christ were in the Sacrament say these Dubitants it would appear we should see it I answer say Nicholas Methoniensis according to Mr. Arnaud's Comment that the Bread and Wine are the matter which is changed and that the Almighty power of God changes them Can any Answer be more ridiculous This Author must certainly lost his Wits to make such a Reply They do not ask him what the matter is that is changed nor what the efficient cause of this change but why if it be use Body of Christ it does not appear to be Flesh but Bread Matter Cause efficacy contribute nothing to the solving of this Doubt This Gloss then of Mr. Arnaud's is absurd and if we suppose Nicholas Methoniensis spake sence it must be granted that his meaning is that the Bread and Wine remaining Bread and Wine are yet notwithstanding made the Body and Blood of Christ by reason of their Union to the Divinity and not otherwise Whence it follows that it must not be expected they should appear to be Flesh and Blood because they are not so in respect of their Matter or Substance but only by their Union to the Divinity which makes them in some sort to be the same thing with the Body and Blood THIS Opinion seems to be derived from Damascen whose expressions I desire I may have leave to mention altho we must use them also in another place For 't is certain that to judge aright of the Opinion of the Modern Greeks we must ascend so far Mr. Arnaud has himself observed that John Damascen is another Saint Thomas amongst the Greeks and has been ever the rule of their Doctrine touching the Eucharist Elsewhere he assures us That we need only read the Treatises of the Modern Greeks to find that they Lib. 2. cap. 6. pag. 155. Lib. 2. cap. 12. wholly conform themselves to the Sentiment and Expressions of this Father This then is a Principle with Mr. Arnaud so that to convince him touching the Belief of the Greeks there is a kind of necessity lying upon us to consult this Father OBSERVE here then what he say's in his Fourth Book of the Orthodox Faith The Bread and Wine are not the Figure of the Body and Blood of Damascen de Orthod fid lib. 4 cap. 14. Christ God forbid but they are the deified Body it self of Jesus Christ the Lord himself saying unto us this is not the Figure of my Body but my Body not the Figure of my Blood but my Blood He had said before to the Jews if ye eat not the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink his Blood you will have no life in you for my Flesh is Meat indeed and my Blood is Drink indeed And then again He that eateth me shall live Draw we near then with trembling with a pure Conscience a firm Faith and it will be unto us according to the constancy and firmness of our Faith Honour we it with a perfect purity of Body and Soul For it is double Approach we towards it with a fervent desire and placing our hands in manner of a Cross receive we the Body of him that was crucified for us Let us put it on our Eyes Lips and Forehead and take we thus the Divine Coal to the end our Devotion being inflamed thereby our sins may be consumed and our hearts inlightned and that by the participation of this Divine Fire we may our selves become inflamed and deified Esaias saw a Coal Now a Coal is not meer Wood but Wood in conjunction with Fire So the Bread of the Communion is not mere Bread being it is united to the Divinity Now a Body united to the Divinity is not one single nature but two one being that of the Body and th' other that of the Divinity annexed thereunto So that to take them together it is not one only nature but two THESE Words clearly shew that Damascen means that the Bread in the Eucharist which is the Body of Jesus Christ is double because 't is joyned to the Divinity that 't is not mere Bread but Bread united to the Divinity consisting of two natures one of Bread and th' other of the Divinity which is joyned to it in like manner as Esaias his live Coal was not meer Wood but Wood in conjunction with Fire Now this is what is exactly contained in my Proposition that the Bread and Wine keeping their proper nature are joyned to the Divinity according to the Greeks MR. Arnaud who saw the force of this Passage that he might get clear off it has bethought himself to say that the Duplicity which Damascen mentions must be understood as meant of Jesus Christ himself who consists of two Natures He rehearses the Passage in hand to these Words Duplex Lib. 7. cap. 4. pag. 654. est enim and then adds it is plain that hitherto these Words relate to Jesus Christ and his true and real Flesh and that 't is of him it is said Duplex est enim which is to say that he is composed of two Natures and a little farther It plainly appears that Saint John Damascen ' s Design is to exhort us to a double Ibid. purity of Soul and Body to honour the double Nature of Jesus Christ and to show that we receive in the Communion this double Nature So that these Words non est panis simplex sed unitus divinitati corpus autem unitum divinitati non est una natura sed duae una quidem corporis alter a conjunctae Divinitatis are the Exposition of what he said before that Jesus Christ was double And that which he shews us is that this double nature of Jesus Christ has been signified by the Coal which Esaias saw and that we receive this Divine Coal BUT all this is but an Errour and cunning Evasion of Mr. Arnaud who was not willing to consult the Greek Copy of Damascen for 't is true indeed these Latin Words Duplex est enim may refer to Jesus Christ or his Flesh because the Latin word Duplex is of all Genders so that being taken in the Masculine it relates to Christ himself and in the Feminine to his Flesh But had Mr. Arnaud been willing to consult the Greek Text he would have found no pretence for this evasion For there is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
arrived through several Ages to that Degree wherein we now see it Thus were the antient Ceremonies in the administration of Baptism abrogated and other new ones adopted in their places Thus has the Opinion of the absolute necessity of the Eucharist to the Salvation of little Children bin abolished and we have passed over into a contrary Opinion Null us saith St. Austin Qui se meminit Catholicae Epist 106. fidei Christianum negat aut dubitat parvulos non accepta gratia regenerationis in Christo sine cibo carnis ejus sanguinis potu non habere in se vitam ac per hoc poenae sempiternae obnoxios There is no Christian who holds the Catholick Faith that either denys or doubts but that little Children who have not received the Grace of Regeneration in Jesus Christ nor participated of the Nourishment of his Flesh and Blood are deprived of everlasting Life and consequently lyable to eternal Damnation LET Mr. Arnaud inform us how this publick Belief came to be changed St. Austin tells us that 't is an Article of the Catholick Faith he assures us there is no Christian who doubts of it that is it was a popular Opinion And yet at this day the contrary is held in the Church of Rome how comes this Change We might produce several other Instances if they were necessary but at present one Example is sufficient to overthrow this false Principle of Mr. Arnaud's and to establish that which appears to him to be so Unreasonable YET to speak a word on each of these Points he has handled does he think that on the Subject of Episcopacy his Discourses will carry it away from St. Jerom who tells us That before there were partialities in Religion Hier. Com. in Epist ad Tit. C. 1. and that the People cryed out I am of Paul and I of Cephas the Church was governed by a Common-Council of Priests but since every one esteeming them whom he had baptized belonged to him and not to Christ it was ordained throughout the whole World that one alone chosen from amongst the Priests should be set up above the rest and have the Charge of the Church committed to him to take away thereby all Occasions of Schisme DOES he think that in the Point of Praying for the Dead we will abandon the Doctrine of St. Paul who tells us in his second Epistle to the Cor. Chap. 5. That if our earthly House of this Tabernacle were dissolved we have a Building of God an House not made with Hands eternal in the Heavens These Words do not suffer us to doubt but that they who dye in the Faith of Jesus Christ do enjoy his glorious Presence in Heaven whence it follows they have no need of our Prayers That if the Antients have mentioned the deceased in their Prayers it is certain they never designed thereby to deliver them from the Pains of Purgatory which they undergo to satisfy for their Sins which is the end the Church of Rome doth at this day propose in its Prayers We Celebrate saith an antient Author in his Commentaries Com. in Job L. 3. on Job which are thought to be Origens Not the Day of our Birth but that of our Death for the day of our Birth is an Entrance into Sorrows and Temptations but that of Death is on the contrary the end of Sorrows and a Freedom from all Temptations We commemorate then the Day of Death because they who seem to dye do not so And for this reason we celebrate the memory of the Saints and devoutly commemorate our Fathers or Friends who have departed in the Faith as well to refresh our selves by the remembrance of the Felicity which they enjoy as also to desire of God that we may continue in the same Faith DOES Mr. Arnaud expect in that Article of the Church of Rome's touching the Invocation of Saints that we should believe him rather than Origen who speaks in the Name of all the Christians in his time in his Dispute against Celsus who would have them to worship the Sun Moon and Stars seeing they are Celestial Angels We believe saith he we ought not Origen Cont. Col. L. 5. to pray unto Creatures who do themselves pray unto God especially considering they had rather we should offer up our Petitions to him whom they likewise serve than to them not being willing we should after any sort share our Devotions AND as to the abstaining from certain kind of Meats Tertullian who was a Montanist will shew us better than Mr. Arnaud can the Judgment Tertul. de jejun C. 1. of the Catholicks in his time Arguunt nos saith he quod jejunia propria custodiamus quod stationes plerumque in vesperam producamus quod etiam Xerophagias observemus siccantes cibum ab omni carne omni jurulentia uvidioribus quibusque pomis ne quid vinositatis vel edamus vel potemus They censure us because we observe particular Fasts that we make them last till the Evening that we observe Xerophagies using dry Meats without Flesh and Juice and in that we abstain from Fruits which have over much Juice in them to the end we may not eat or drink any thing which hath the quality of Wine And a little farther as to Xerophagies they say that 't is the new Name of C. â—â— an affected Devotion and which comes near the Heathenish Superstitions such as the Mortifications of Isis Apis and the Mother of the Gods which purify by abstinence from certain Meats And this is in few Words what I had to say on those four Particulars WOULD we keep to the exact Rules of Controversy we need not proceed to any farther Examination of the rest of Mr. Arnaud's great Volumn which may be said without breach of Charity equally to offend both in its quantity and quality For having shewed as I have done that the Treatise of the Perpetuity of the Faith ought to be rejected upon the only consideration of its Method it is hence evident I am not obliged to follow Mr. Arnaud in his Voyages to Greece Muscovia Persia Syria Egypt Aethiopia and the Indias Seeing we will never part with our Proofs of Fact what need has he of travelling thro all these Countries Neither the Greeks nor other Christian Nations considered from the eleventh Century or from the seventh will decide the Question touching what has bin believed in the antient Church to the Prejudice of the Fathers and their Testimony Yet shall I make him an exact Answer not out of any Necessity but only out of Condescension and upon condition he will remember that I have proved in this first Book these following Particulars I. That his Censure touching what I said concerning Mr. Aubertin's Book is grounded on an extravagant Fancy That it cannot bear a rational Interpretation nor is made with any kind of Sincerity that it supposeth a great Mistake that we may conclude thence a Prevarication against the Church
Sun of our Souls which at this time appeareth and communicates himself to all them that are in the Bands of the Flesh in the manner he himself pleases but he shall then visibly manifest himself without a Vail when we shall see him as he is and shall gather together the Eagles about the dead Body He afterwards proves that the Souls seperate from the Bodies are far more fit to partake of the Mysteries than when cloathed with their Flesh that whatsoever rest or recompence they enjoy is nothing else but this Bread and this Cup of which the dead have as much right to participate as the living and for this reason our Saviour calls the Saints felicity a Supper to shew us thereby that 't is nothing else but this Table And this already gives us great cause to suspect that Cabasilas did not believe that which we eat in the Sacrament to be the proper Substance of the Body and Bloud of Christ for we must not imagine he thought the Souls of the dead did really partake thereof They do indeed participate of the Body and Blood of Christ but after a spiritual manner which is accomplished without our Saviour's Substance entring into them Yet Cabasilas say's the dead receive the Holy Gifts that they receive the Mystery and that which makes up their felicity is this Bread and Cup that they partake of it and that whatsoever appertains to this Mystery is common to them with the Living All which is well enough understood provided it be supposed we have no other Communion with our Saviour Christ in the Eucharist than what is Spiritual for the Souls seperate from the Body have this as well as we and partake of our Bread and Cup not in respect of their Substance and Matter but in respect of the Mystery they contain and Grace they communicate and thus it is certain that whatsoever belongs to this Mystery is common to them with the living But if we supposed the Substantial Conversion how could it be said They partake of the Holy Gifts that they receive what we receive that we have nothing more in the Mystery than they and that whatsoever appertains to the Mystery is common to them with us For in fine we should really receive the proper Substance of the Body and Blood of Christ which they do not BUT to manifest more clearly this Doctrine of Cabasilas and put it out of doubt we should consider the course he takes for the strengthening of his Proposition For it will appear that this participation of the Body and Blood of Christ which he makes common both to the dead and living respects not only the thing of which we partake but likewise the manner of partaking of it and in a word he means we communicate thereof no otherwise than Spiritually First then he always speaks of the Sanctification which is made by way of participation and reception of the Body of Jesus Christ as of one and the same thing without the least difference which is justifi'd by the bare reading of his whole Discourse Now this shews us he means not that we receive in the Sacrament the proper Substance of the Body of our Lord for if it were so the wicked would receive it without receiving Sanctification as the Church of Rome it self does acknowledge and the reception of this Substance and the Sanctification could not be considered but as two distinct things Yet Cabasilas confounds them and thereupon immediately considers this difficulty how the dead which neither eat nor drink can be sanctifi'd by this participation Are they say's he in a worse condition in this respect than the living No sure say's he for our Saviour communicates himself to them in Cap. 42. such a manner as is best known to himself He afterwards inquires into the causes of the sanctification of the living and their participation of Jesus Christ and say's 't is not to have a Body nor to come with feet to the Holy Table nor to receive the Communion with our hand and mouth nor to eat or drink but that 't is the purity of the Soul Faith Love of God and other motives of Piety these are the things say's he which make us necessarily partakers of Jesus Christ and without which it is not possible to be so Whence he concludes that the Souls seperate from the Body are capable of this participation and that in effect they have it seeing they have all these good affections Now it hence plainly appears that he grants the living but one kind of participation of Jesus Christ which is Spiritual and which they have in common with the dead and which immediately respects the Soul For if they be only the good dispositions of the Soul which make us partakers of Jesus Christ and that without them it is not possible for us to be so and that the dead have the same advantage we have it cannot then be said we receive the proper Substance of the Body seeing on one hand according to the Hypothesis of the Church of Rome the want of these dispositions hinders not men from receiving it and on the other that the dead with all these their qualifications cannot receive it THIS appears by the Sequel of his reasoning for what he say's concerning the dead the same he say's concerning the living which dwell in Deserts and that cannot personally come to the Lord's Table Jesus Christ Ibid. say's he sanctifies them invisibly with this Sanctification How can we know this I answer because they have the life in themselves and they would not have it were they not partakers of this Mystery For our Saviour himself has said unless you eat the Flesh of the Son of man and drink his Blood you have no life in you And for a further confirmation of this he has caused to be brought to several of these Saints the Gifts by the Ministry of Angels It is evident he attributes to these Inhabitants of Deserts the same participation of Jesus Christ the same manducation of his Flesh and Blood which we receive in the Sacrament without the least difference whence it follows that our Communion with Jesus Christ by means of the Sacrament is purely Spiritual and that our eating of his Flesh is Spiritual likewise there being no need of adding the reception of his Substance into our Stomacks BUT yet this does more plainly appear by what follows The Gift say's he is indeed communicated to the living by means of the Body but it first passes to the Substance of the Soul and afterwards communicates it self to the Body by the Ministry of the Soul Which St. Paul meant when he said that he that is joyned to the Lord is one and the same Spirit with him because this Union and Conjunction is made first of all in the Soul This being the Seat of this Sanctification which we obtain by the exercise of our virtues This is likewise the Seat of Sin 'T is here wherein is the Band of
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
has come to pass the Greeks of latter Ages have thus expressed themselves in relation to this part of their Belief we need only look back to the foregoing Ages for we shall there find Sentiments and Expressions on the same Subject if not wholly conformable to the Expressions of the Modern Greeks yet which come very near them and which have served for a Foundation to 'em as will appear by the following Passages WE may then here mark what the Fathers of the Council of Constantinople in the Eighth Century asserted As the Body of Jesus Christ is Holy In actis Concil Nic. 2 act 6. because 't is deified so likewise that which is his Body by Institution to wit his Holy Image is made Divine by a Sanctification of Grace For as by virtue of the Hypostatical Union our Saviour deified the Flesh he took on him by a Sanctification naturally proper to him so in like manner he will have the Bread in the Eucharist which is the real Image of his Flesh to become a Divine Body by the Descent of the Holy Spirit into it the Oblation being by means of the Priest transferred from a common State to a State of Holiness And therefore the natural Flesh of Jesus Christ endued with Soul and Understanding has been anointed by the Holy Spirit being united to the Divinity and so likewise his Image to wit the Divine Bread is filled with the Holy Spirit Who sees not in these words the Union and Composition of Bread with the Holy Spirit The Bread say they is made Divine by a Sanctification of Grace it becomes a Divine Body by the Descent of the Holy Spirit into it the Bread is filled with the Holy Spirit in like manner as the natural Flesh of our Lord has been sanctified deified and anointed with the Holy Spirit by virtue of the Hypostatical Union All this plainly favours the Composition of the Modern Greeks Now this Testimony is the more considerable in that the second Nicene Council having been held on purpose to overthrow whatsoever had been determined in that of Constantinople touching the Point of Images they censured the name of Image which their Adversaries had given the Eucharist but left untouched the other Clauses I now mentioned Which shews that these kind of Expressions were received by both Parties and that this was the common Doctrine of the whole Greek Church IN effect if we ascend higher we shall find that Saint Ephraim Bishop Apud Phol Bib. Cod. 229. of Antioch who lived about the Sixth Century thus expressed himself That the Body of Jesus Christ which the faithful receive does not leave its sensible Substance nor is seperated from the spiritual Grace Which does moreover favour the Duplicity or Composition of Bread with the Holy Spirit THEODORET who lived about the Fifth Century expresses himself Diog. al. 1. after the same manner Jesus Christ say's he has honoured the visible Symbols with the name of his Body and Blood not in changing their naturee but in joyning his Grace thereunto Chrysostom said the same thing in the Fourth Chrysost Hom. 44. in Joan. Century That the Bread becomes Heavenly Bread by means of the Holy Spirit 's coming down upon it THEOPHILUS of Alexandria in the same Century wrote That the Theophil Alex Ep. Pasch 1. Bibl. Patr. Tom. 3. Edit 4. Bread and Wine placed on the Lord's Table are inanimate things which are sanctified by Prayer and Descension of the Holy Ghost SAINT Irenaeus who lived in the Second Century spake to the same Irenae advers Hares lib. 4. cap. 34. purpose That the Eucharist consists of two things the one Earthly th' other Heavenly It is plain by the sequel of his Discourse that he means by these two things the Bread and sanctifying Grace of the Holy Spirit But it is also manifest that all these Passages have occasioned the Belief of the Composition THOMAS a Jesu tells us of an Errour wherewith almost all the Eastern Thom. Ã Jesu lib. de procur salute omn. gent. part 2. lib. 7. cap 7. Christians are infected which is That Jesus Christ soaked the Bread he was to give to Judas that he might thereby take away its Consecration I confess 't is a great absurdity to imagine the Consecration can be taken away by this means but 't is easie to perceive these ignorant People have fallen into this Errour by conceiving the Consecration under the Idea of a real impression made on the Substance of Bread for thereupon they have imagined this impression might be effaced in washing the Bread or soaking it AND thus far concerning the first part of my Proposition The second is That they believe the Bread and Wine keeping their proper nature are joyned to the Divinity Which is the same thing as the first only otherwise expressed They will then mutually assist and strengthen each other For this effect I shall produce the Testimony of Nicholas Methoniensis who lived in the Twelfth Century This Author in answering those that doubted whether the Eucharist was the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ because they saw neither Flesh nor Blood but Bread and Wine resolves the difficulty in this manner God say's he who knows all things and is perfectly good has wisely ordered this in respect of our weakness lest we should have in horror the Pledges of Eternal Life being not able to behold Flesh and Blood he has therefore appointed this to be done by things to which our nature is accustomed and has joyned to them his Divinity saying this is my Body this is my Blood MR. Arnaud pretends to make advantage of these Doubts which Nicholas Nicolaus Methon advers dubitantes c. Bibl. Patr. Craeco-Lat Tom. 2. Methoniensis treats of but we shall answer this Point in its due place It suffices at present that we behold this Author laying down on one hand the things to which our natures are accustomed that is to say Bread and Wine and on the other he assures us that the Divinity is joyned to them Which is exactly what I was to prove whence it follows that according to the Greeks the Bread and Wine remain in Union with the Divinity Mr. Arnaud who saw the force of this Passage has endeavoured to avoid it by a frivolous evasion God joyns say's he his Divinity to the Bread and Wine 'T is true but Lib 2 cap. 13. pag. 231. he has joyned it as the efficacious cause of the change of the Bread and Wine into the Body and Blood of Christ so often repeated by Nicholas Methoniensis but not as a means of Union between the Bread and Wine and Body of Jesus Christ He has joyned it to the Bread not to conserve it in the Substance of Bread but to transform it internally into his Body I say this is a frivolous evasion For according to this reckoning we must understand by the things familiar to our natures the Bread and Wine as the matter to
Wax imprints its Character thereon which does moreover represent this impression of virtue we now speak of VIII IN the Fifth Century lived Cyrillus Alexandriensis and Victor of Antioch which latter relates these Words of Cyrillus not to contradict but to approve them Lest we should conceive horrour at the sight of Flesh Victor Antioch Com. MS. in Marc. and Blood on the Holy Table God in regard to our weakness indues the things thereon offered with a VIRTUE of life and changes them into the efficacy of his Flesh to the end they may be to us a vivifying Communion and that the Body of life may be found in us as a living Seed IX IN the Fourth Century Saint Epiphanius held the same Language Epiph. Serm. de Fide Eccles in Anacephal They that come say's he to the Baptism receive the virtue which Jesus Christ brought to it when he descended into it and are illuminated by the communication of his light Thus is the Oracle of the Prophet accomplished which say's that there shall happen in Jerusalem a change in the virtue of Bread and Water and there shall be given to them a saving virtue For here to wit in Jesus Christ the virtue of Bread and force of Water are made strong not that the Bread is thus powerful to us but the virtue of the Bread For as to the Bread it is indeed an Aliment but there is in him a VIRTUE to inliven us X. GREGORY of Nisse in this same Century spake to the very same Greg. Niss in Bapt. Chr. effect You see say's he that Water is made use of in the Holy Baptism but you must not therefore despise it for 't is of great virtue and marvellous efficacy Do you see this Holy Altar where we attend As to its nature 't is a common stone which differs in nothing from others with which we build our Houses But when it has been sanctified by the Divine Service performed thereon and received the blessing it becomes a Holy Table an impolluted Altar which all the World cannot touch the Sacred Ministers alone touch it but yet with respect So the Bread is at first common Bread but after the Mystical Consecration it is called and is the Body of Jesus Christ I affirm the same concerning the Mystical Oyl and Wine these are things of small value before their Consecration but when bless'd by the Holy Spirit both the one and th' other operate after an excellent manner His Design is to shew how mere Water such as is used in Baptism comes to have such great virtue and produces such admirable effects For this purpose he alledges divers Examples of mean and despicable things in themselves which by their Consecration acquire an excellent virtue and efficacy Amongst which he especially reckons the Bread and Wine in the Eucharist As to the Wine he makes use of the Term of operate but as to the Bread he say's 't is the Body of Jesus Christ which plainly shews that in his sence to be the Body of Jesus Christ and to have an excellent operation is but one and the same thing XI WE find at the end of Clement Alexandrinus his Works a Treatise Epitome Theodot in calce oper Clem. Alex of a Greek Author named Theodotus who lived in the Third Century wherein he asserts this same change of virtue The Bread and Oyl say's he are sanctified by virtue of the Holy Spirit They are no longer then what they were before notwithstanding their outward appearance but are changed INTO A SPIRITUAL EFFICACY WE have here then the Doctrine of the Greeks cleared up by express Testimonies both from Modern and Ancient Authors So that methinks Mr. Arnaud has no reason to turn into sport and raillery as he has done this change of virtue in calling it our Key of Virtue Every man sees 't is no invention of ours and that we alledge nothing concerning it but what is authoriz'd by good and real Passages and by the Sentiments and proper expressions of the Greeks of greatest account in all Ages When Mr. Arnaud shall produce as many and solid Testimonies for his change of Substance we will give him leave to deride our change of virtue as he is pleased to term it But till then I have reason to desire him to stop his Laughter I should now pass on to the proving my Proposition That the Greeks believe the Bread and Wine only thus become the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ to the Faithful but having already established this Article in the Sixth Chapter and drawn from thence an Argument to shew they believe not Transubstantiation I shall therefore for the avoiding needless Repetitions refer the Reader to it I come then to the last Article which contains that the Greeks hold the Bread is made the proper and real Body of Jesus Christ by means of the addition of his Natural Body This Point calls for a particular consideration for not only it will further discover to us what the real Opinion of the Greeks is but likewise shew us whence come these emphatical expressions which they sometimes use in saying 't is the very Body of Jesus Christ and no other Body than that which was born of the Virgin Mary and likewise shew us in what sence we must understand them I. I say then among other Comparisons the Greeks use for the explaining the manner of this change which happens to the Bread and Wine they especially imploy that of Food which being received by us is changed into our Bodies Now every man knows that the Matter or Substance of Food is not changed into the first Substance which we had before we take it in such a manner that the one must be absolutely the other and by a Numerical Identity on the contrary each substance conserves its proper being and that of the Food is joyned to that of our Body and receives its Form it augments it and by way of Union Augmentation and Assimilation as they speak becomes ours and makes but one and the same Body and not two with that which we had before And this is the Comparison the Greeks do most often urge whereby to express their Conceptions touching the Holy Sacrament Theophilact in his Commentaries on Saint John's Gospel having told us the Bread we eat in the Mysteries is not an Antitype of the Flesh of Jesus Christ but the very Flesh it self immediately adds these Words The Bread is changed into the Flesh of Christ by the Ineffable Words the Mystical Theophil 1. Joan 6. Benediction and coming of the Holy Spirit No man ought to be troubled in being obliged to believe that Bread becomes Flesh For when our Lord was conversant on Earth and received his nourishment from Bread this Bread he eat was changed into his Body being made like unto his Flesh and contributed to augment and sustain it after a humane manner And thus now is the Bread changed into our Lord's Flesh THEODORUS Abucara
Bishop and Metropolitan of Carie and contemporary with Photius according to Gretzer the Jesuites conjecture borrowed the same Comparison whereby to explain how the Bread is made the Body of Christ He introduces in one of his Dialogues a Saracen disputing Bibl. Patr. Tom. 2. Graeco-Lat with him on this Subject The Saracen Tell me Bishop why do ye Priests so impose on other Christians Of the same Flower you make two Loaves the one for common use and th' other you divide into several pieces distributing 'em to the People which you call the Body of Jesus Christ and perswade them it confers remission of sins Do ye deceive your selves or the People whose Guides you are The Christian We neither abuse our selves nor others The Saracen Prove me this then not by Scripture but by reason The Christian What do ye say Is not the Bread made the Body of Jesus Christ The Saracen I know not what to answer to that The Christian When your Mother first brought you forth into the World was you then as big as you are now The Saracen No I was born a little one and became bigger by means of Food God thus ordering it The Christian Has the Bread then been made your Body The Saracen Yes The Christian And how was this done The Saracen I know not the manner thereof The Christian The Bread descends into the Stomach and by the heat of the Liver the grossest parts separating themselves the rest are converted into Chyle the Liver attracting them to it and changing them into Blood and afterwards distributes 'em by means of the Veins to all the parts of the Body that they may be what they are bone to bones marrow to marrow sinew to sinews eye to eyes hair to hair nail to nails and thus by this means the Child grows and becomes a Man the Bread being converted in to his Body and the Drink into his Blood The Saracen I believe so The Christian Know then that our Mystery is made after the same manner the Priest places Bread and Wine on the Holy Table and praying the Holy Spirit descends thereon and the efficacy of its Divinity changes them into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ neither more nor less than the Liver changes the Food into the Body of a Man THEODORUS Graptus a Greek Monk who lived in the Ninth Century Apud Leonem Allat post diatribas de Simeon â—â—ia Collect 1. uses likewise the same Comparison We do not call say's he the Holy Mysteries an Image or Figure of the Body of Jesus Christ altho they be a Symbolical Representation thereof but the very deified Body of Jesus Christ he himself saying if ye eat not the Flesh of the Son of man and drink his Blood ye have no life in you And this is what he taught his Disciples when he said to 'em take and eat my Body not a Figure of my Body for thus did he form his Flesh of the Substance of the Virgin by the Holy Spirit Which may be explained likewise by things familiar to us for as the Bread Wine and Water do naturally change themselves into the Body and Blood of him that eats and drinks them So by the Prayers of the Priest and Descent of the Holy Spirit these things are supernaturally changed into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ And this is done by the Priest's Prayer and yet we understand not that this is two Bodies but one and the same Body NICEPHORUS the Patriarch of Constantinople and Contemporary Allat de perp Cons lib. 3. cap. 15. M. Arn. lib. 7 cap. 5 p. 662. with Theodorus Graptus say's the same thing in a Passage which Allatius and Mr. Arnaud after him has related If it be lawful say's he to explain these things by a humane Comparison as the Bread Wine and Water are naturally changed into the Body and Blood of those that eat and drink them and become not another Body so these Gifts by the Prayer of him that officiates and descent of the Holy Spirit are changed supernaturally into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ For this is what is contained in the Priest's Prayer and we understand not that this is two Bodies but one and the same Body THIS way of explaining the change of the Bread and Wine is not peculiar to these Authors alone whom I now alledged Damascen who according to Mr. Arnaud is to be esteemed as the common Oracle of the Greeks made use of it in his Fourth Book of the Orthodox Faith As in Baptism Damascen de fide Orthod lib. 4. cap. 14. say's he because men are wont to wash and anoint themselves God has added to the Oyl and Water the Grace of his Holy Spirit and made thereof the Laver of our Regeneration so in like manner because we are wont to eat Bread and drink Wine and Water he has joyned to these things his Divinity and made them his Body and Blood to the end that by things familiar to our nature he might raise us above nature This is really the Body united to the Divinity the Body born of the Virgin Not that the Body which ascended up on high descends from Heaven but because the Bread and Wine are changed into the Body and Blood of God If you ask how this comes to pass it will be sufficient to tell ye that 't is by means of the Holy Spirit and after the same manner as he became Flesh in the Virgin 's Womb. All that we know of it is this that the Word of God is true efficacious and Almighty and that the manner of this change is inconceiveable Yet we may say that as naturally the Bread we eat the Wine and Water we drink are changed into the Body and Blood of him that eates and drinks and yet become not another Body than that which he had before so after the same manner the Bread and Wine which are placed on the Altar are supernaturally changed into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ by Prayer and Descension of the Holy Spirit and these are not two Bodies but one and the same Body IT is probable that Damascen and the others aforementioned who use this Comparison have taken it out of the Catechism of Gregory of Nysse wherein we find almost the same Conceptions For he say's that as the Gregor Nyss in Orat. Catâ—chet Bread which Jesus Christ eat was changed into his Body and received thereby a divine virtue the same likewise comes to pass in the Eucharist For there it was the Grace of the Word that sanctified the Body which was nourished with Bread and was in some sort Bread and here after the same manner the Bread is sanctified by the Word of God and by Prayer not being in truth made the Body of the Word by Manducation but by being changed in an instant by the Word into the Body of Christ according to what he said himself this is my Body THIS Comparison does already
Lib. 2. c. 13. p. 223. according to Mr. Arnaud are not so barren but they can furnish us with Expressions to say I doubt whether the Bread contains the Virtue of Christ's Body I doubt whether it is the Figure of the Body of Christ Can they not likewise supply them with proper Terms who would say I doubt whether the Substance of Bread is changed into the Substance of Christ's Body THERE is nothing then in the Doubt of these People which Nicholas Methoniensis handles which can favour Mr. Arnaud's Cause Neither is there any thing in his Answer which will do him any Kindness Nicolaus Methoniensis says that the Bread is changed into the Body of Christ That this Mystical Sacrifice takes its Original from our Lord himself That we must not despise what has been taught us by this Divine Mouth which cannot lye That 't was he himself told us this is my Body this is my Blood and if you eat not the Flesh of the Son of Man nor drink his Blood you have no Life in you That we must not charge him with want of Power seeing he is Almighty That his Body was born of a Virgin above the course of Nature and above the Thoughts and Apprehensions of Men. Mr. Arnaud is so well satisfied with these Expressions that he cries out in a Transport of Joy that they are just natural and befitting Ibid. p. 226. a Bishop to Utter that believes Transubstantiation and Refutes those that do not But what is there in all this which does not agree with the Sentiment of the Greeks being such as I have represented it in the thirteenth Chapter of the foregoing Book The Bread is changed into the Body of Christ by the Impression of his supernatural Virtue and is made this Body by way of Augmentation This is an Effect of his almighty Power which acts above the Course of Nature But it does not follow that this is a Transubstantiation Had Nicolaus Methoniensis meant a Change of Substance why could he not say so the Tongues which Mr. Arnaud has so inriched when the Virtue of the Body was in Question must they immediately become so poor again when the Question concerns that of Substance Could not they furnish this Bishop with proper Terms to say that the Substance of Bread is changed into that of the Body Which is what he ought to find in Nicholas his Expressions to bear him out in his Exultations But Mr. Arnaud can find matter of Triumph when he pleases NICOLAUS Methoniensis continuing his Discourse adds perhaps you doubt of this Mystery and do not Believe it because you do not see Flesh and Blood He means according to Mr. Claude say's Mr. Arnaud perhaps you do not believe P. 226. the Bread and Wine contain the Virtue of Christ's Body and Blood because you do not see Flesh and Blood as if there must appear Flesh and Blood that we may believe the Bread and Wine contain the Virtue of them These Peoples Reasoning adds he would consist according to Mr. Claude in a very pleasant Argument if the Bread and Wine Contain'd the Virtue of Christ's Body there would appear Flesh and Blood in the Eucharist but there does not appear Flesh and Blood Therefore they do not contain the Virtue thereof He enhaunceth this Remark by an Example taken from my Book which contains say's he morally my Virtue so that it may be demanded why my Person does not appear in all the Chambers wherein my Book is read THIS Discourse is so full of Error that I can scarce believe it is Mr. Arnaud's own 1st Supposing we do attribute to these Dubitants the Argument he has formed he cannot call it a pleasant and ridiculous Argument as he has done without contradicting himself and deriding his own Maxim which he laid down in his Chapter touching Theophylact That the Faith of the Faithful P. 188. doth never separate the Virtue of Christ's Body from the Body it self nor his Body from his Virtue and that it never entred into their Thoughts the Body of Christ was in Heaven and that we receive only in the Eucharist its Strength and Virtue whereas they believe we receive only this Strength and Virtue from its being really and truly present in our Mysteries Supposing that Nicolaus Methoniensis his Doubters reasoned on the Principle of Mr. Arnaud's Believers their Argument would contain nothing but what is natural and reasonable For if the Virtue of Christ's Body be only in the Eucharist upon the account of his Body being really and truly Present in it it naturally follows there must appear Flesh therein seeing the Virtue thereof cannot but be accompanied by this Flesh according to Mr. Arnaud and his Faithful This Reasoning must be wholly grounded on two Propositions the one that wheresoever the Body of Christ is substantially present there must appear Flesh this is a natural Consequence th' other that the Virtue of this Body is only in the Eucharist because the Body it self is substantially in it this is Mr. Arnaud's Faith If this Reasoning be Pleasant and Ridiculous it cannot be so upon the account of the first Proposition for as I said it is self Evident It must be so then by reason of the second that is to say upon the Account of Mr. Arnaud's Faith Is it not strange Mr. Arnaud should forget himself so soon as ever he has leap'd out of one Chapter into another and ridicule himself I confess it may happen that a Man altho otherwise considerative may fall into Contradiction for there are few Persons but what are lyable to Mistakes But it is strange a Man should combat and fall foul on himself because that when we are earnestly intent on any Subject the Ideas thereof return and Attention furnishes us with that Matter which offered not it self at first But that such a man of Parts as Mr. Arnaud should Contradict and Confute himself and Scoff at his own Assertions in the same Book at three Chapters Distance is in my Mind a little amazing II. BUT moreover 't is certain Mr. Arnaud has been plainly mistaken in the Arguing which he attributes according to us to Nicolaus Methoniensis his Dubitants For we never told him their Doubt was grounded on the Bread's being the Body of Christ in Virtue Perhaps say's Nicolaus Methoniensis Ye doubt of this Mystery and do not believe it because ye do not see Flesh and Blood in it Their Doubt was grounded on the general Proposition of the Greeks That the Bread and Wine were the Body and Blood of Christ Nicolas say's perhaps this Proposition appeared to them incredible because they did not see Flesh and Blood in the Eucharist We should know whether these Doubters acknowledged this was in effect the real Cause of their Doubt but supposing it were all that can be concluded thence is that they would Reason in this sort If the Bread be the Body of Christ it must appear Flesh But it does not therefore it
himself and howsoever he uses it that we may well say he loses both his time and his pains WOULD we really know what has been the sentiment of the ancients the way to be informed is not to take passages in a counter sense and captiously heapt up one upon another but to apply our selves to the testimony of the Ancients themselveâ— produced sincerely and faithfully some of which are these TERTULLIAN Those of Capernaum having found our Saviours Tertull. de resur car c. 37. discourse hard and insupportable as if he design'd to give them TRVLY his Flesh to eat To manifest to 'em the means he uses for the procuring us salvation were spiritual he tells them 't is the Spirit that quickens ORIGEN There is in the New Testament a letter which kills him that Origen hom 7. in Levit. does not understand spiritually the meaning of it For if we take these words in a literal sense if you eat not my Flesh and drink not my Blood THIS LETTER KILLS S. ATHANASIUS The words of our Saviour Christ were not carnal Athanas in illud si quis dixerit c. but spiritual For to how few persons would his Body have been sufficient and how could he be the food of the whole world Therefore he mentions his Ascension into Heaven to take them off from all carnal thoughts and to shew them he gave his Flesh as meat from above heavenly food a spiritual nourishment EUSEBIUS of Cesarea Our Saviour taught his Disciples that they must understand SPIRITVALLY what he told them concerning his Flesh Euseb lib. 3. de Theol. Eccles cap. 12. and Blood Think not says he to 'em that I speak of this Flesh which I now have on as if ye were to eat it nor imagin that I enjoyn you to drink this sensible and corporeal Blood know that the words I speak to you are spirit and life THE Author of an imperfect Book on S. Matthew under the name of Author oper imperf in Mat. hom 11. S. Chrysostom If it be a dangerous thing to transfer to common uses the sacred Vessels wherein THE TRUE BODY OF JESUS CHRIST is not contained but the MYSTERY of his Body how much more the vessels of our body which God has prepared as an habitation for himself S. AMBROSE The shadow was in the Law the IMAGE is in the Ambros lib. 1. de officiis c. 48. Gospel THE TRUTH IS IN HEAVEN The Jews offer'd anciently a Lamb an Heifer now Jesus Christ is offer'd he is offer'd as a man as capable of suffering and he offers himself as a Priest HERE IS THIS DONE IN A FIGURE but at the Fathers right hand where he intercedes for us as our advocate THIS IS PERFORMED IN TRUTH S. AUSTIN Before the coming of Christ the Flesh of this Sacrifice Aug. contr Faust lib. 20. cap. 21. was promised by Victims of Resemblance In the Passion of Jesus Christ this Flesh was given BY THE TRUTH IT SELF After his Ascension it is celebrated BY A SACRAMENT OF COMMEMORATION IN another place You shall not eat THIS BODY WHICH YOU Aug. in Ps 98. SEE nor drink this Blood which those that are to crucifie me will shed I have recommended to you A SACRAMENT if ye receive it spiritually it will quicken you AGAIN elsewhere The Body and Blood will be the life of every one Aug. Serm. 2. de ver Apost of us if we eat and drink SPIRITUALLY IN THE TRUTH IT SELF that which we take VISIBLY IN THE SACRAMENT si quod in Sacramento visibiliter sumitur in ipsa veritate spiritualiter manducetur Spiritualiter bibatur THE Author of the Commentary on the Psalms attributed to S. Jerom Hieronym Com. in Psal 147. Altho what Jesus Christ says He that eateth not my Flesh nor drinks my Blood may be understood in reference to the Mystery yet the word of the Scriptures the Divine Doctrine IS MORE TRULY the Body of Jesus Christ FACUNDUS The Bread is not PROPERLY the Body of Jesus Facundus def trium capit l. 9. Christ nor the Cup his Blood but they are so called because they contain the mystery of them RABAN Of late some that HAVE NOT A RIGHT SENTIMENT Raban in paenitent have said of the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of our Lord that 'T IS THE BODY it self and Blood of our Saviour born of the Virgin Mary OECUMENIUS The servants of the Christians had heard their Oecumen in 1 Pet. cap. 2. Masters say that the Divine Communion was the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ and they imagin'd that 't was INDEED flesh and blood CHAP. IX That the Fathers of the Seventh and Eighth Centuries held not Transubstantiation nor the Substantial Presence WE may judg by these passages which I now alledged as from a sampler what has been the Doctrine of the ancient Church in General That of the 7th and 8th Centuries in particular will soon discover it self upon the least observation WE shall not find therein either substantial Presence or conversion of substance nor existence of a Body in several places at once nor accidents without a subject nor presence of a Body after the manner of a Spirit nor concomitancy nor adoration of the Eucharist nor any of those things by which we may comprehend that the Church in those times believed what the Roman Church believes in these WE shall find on the contrary as I have already observed that the Greg. Mag. Isidorus Beda Haymo alii passim Beda in Ep. ad Heb. c. 7. Idem in Ps 3. in quest in 2 Reg. cap. 3. in Marc. 14. Carol. Mag. ad alcuin de Septuagint Isidor in alleg Vet. Test Idem Orig. lib. 7. Idem Comment in Genes cap. 12. Idem Comment in Genes c. 23. Authors of those Ages commonly called the Eucharist The mystery of the Body of Jesus Christ the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ the figure of Christ's Body which Bede calls the image of his Oblation which the Church celebrates in remembrance of his Passion Who in another place assures us That the Lord gave and recommended to his Disciples the figure of his Body and Blood And Charlemain to the same effect That he broke the Bread and delivered the Cup as a figure of his Body and Blood WE shall therein find that this Sacrament or figure is Bread and Wine properly so called without any equivocation The Sacrament says Isidor of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ that is to say the Oblation of Bread and Wine which is offered throughout the whole world Elsewhere Melchisedeck made a difference between the Sacraments of the Law and the Gospel inasmuch as he offered in sacrifice the Oblation of Bread and Wine Again in another place Jesus Christ is a Priest according to the order of Melchisedeck by reason of the Sacrament which he has enjoyned Christians to celebrate to wit the Oblation of Bread and Wine that
Idem in Joan. lib. 6. cap. 34. come by the presence of my Divinity by which I shall be with you to the end of the world He retired from them says he again as to his manhood Ibid. cap. 35. but as God he did not leave them For the same Christ who is man is likewise God He left them then as to his manhood but remained with 'em as to his Godhead He went away in reference to that by which he is but in one place yet tarried with 'em by his Divinity which is every where LET Mr. Arnaud reflect if he pleases on these passages and on I know not how many others like 'em with which his reading will furnish him and tell us faithfully seeing on one hand there 's not to be found in Authors of the 7th and 8th Centuries either Transubstantiation or a presence of substance or any natural consequences of these Doctrines and seeing on the other so many things to be met with in them contrary thereunto as those I now mention'd whether he believes 't is likely we shall by the force of his preparations suppositions reticencies and supplements acquiesce in his Assertion that the then Church held constantly and universally as he speaks the Real Presence and Transubstantiation 'T is certain we must offer great violence to our minds and after all when we have endeavoured to imagin what Mr. Arnaud would have us we shall never be able to accomplish it We must imagin says he Christians persuaded that by the Lib. 8. cap. 2. p. 737. words of the Consecration the Bread and Wine were effectually changed into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ This Doctrine was known distinctly by all the faithful I know not where Mr. Arnaud has found any of these fanciful people that are able to persuade themselves what they list As to our parts we are not such masters of our imaginations and in an affair of this nature he must pardon us if we tell him that we cannot fancy a thing to be true when it appears so plainly to us to be false BUT lest he should again accuse us as indocible we 'l see what he has to offer us from these Authors of the 7th and 8th Centuries when they expound the nature and essence of the Eucharist S. Isidor says he calls Lib. 8. cap. 4. p. 755 756. the Eucharist the Sacrament of Christ's Body and if we desire to know in what manner 't is the Sacrament of it he 'l tell us That the Bread we break is the Body of him who says I am the living Bread He further adds That the Wine is his Blood and is the same meant by these words I am the true Vine But he should not suppress what he likewise immediately adds But the Isid lib. 1. de Offic. Eccles cap. 18. Bread is called the Body of Jesus Christ because it strengthens the body and the Wine alludes to the Blood of Christ because it produces blood in our flesh These two things are visible yet being sanctifi'd by the Holy Spirit they become the Sacrament of this Divine Body Is this the language of a man that believes a real conversion of substance HE expresly asserts says moreover M. Arnaud that this Body of Christ Ibid. which we receive in the Eucharist and of which we are deprived when 't is taken from us is the Flesh of Christ concerning which 't is said If ye eat not the Flesh of the Son of man nor drink his Blood ye have no life in you and that this is the Body the truth the original represented by the shadows and types in the Old Testament I answer that S. Isidor supposes we eat the Flesh of Christ in the Eucharist which is true He likewise supposes that if we eat not this Flesh we remain deprived of Salvation and this is moreover true From whence he concludes men ought not to abstain long from the use of the Sacrament because a total neglect of this means which Christ has ordained for the eating of his Flesh and drinking his Blood will put us in danger of being wholly deprived of them for without eating and drinking this Flesh and Blood there is no hope of salvation This is Isidor's sense whence there can be nothing concluded in favour of the Thesis which Mr. Arnaud defends For we spiritually eat our Lord's Flesh in the due use of the Sacrament and 't is this manducation which S. Isidor speaks of as appears from what he there says Manifestrum est eos vivere qui corpus ejus attingunt And as to what he asserts that this is the Body the Truth the Original represented by the ancient Figures we grant it but deny it ought to be hence concluded that the Sacrament is the Body it self of Jesus Christ in substance I have sufficiently elsewhere discoursed in what manner the ancient types related to our Sacraments and those that please to take the pains to read the first Chapter of the third part of my Answer to Father Nouet will find there if I be not mistaken enough to satisfie 'em in that particular BEDE adds Mr. Arnaud says that the creatures of Bread and Wine Ibid. are changed through an ineffable virtue into the Sacrament of his Flesh and Blood This is one of the expressions which arises from the nature of the Sacrament But what does it signifie in this Author He tells us in these following words And thus says he the Blood of Christ is no more shed by the hands of Infidels for their ruine but received into the mouths of the faithful for their salvation But this is a very weak objection The sense of Bede is that the Blood of Jesus Christ is received by the mouths of the Faithful because they receive the Wine which is the Sacrament of it Which is the meaning of this term And thus sicque for he shews in what manner the mouths of the Faithful receive the Blood to wit inasmuch as they receive the Sacrament of it Gregory the Great said before Bede in the same sense That we drink the Blood of the Lamb not only with the mouths of our bodies but with the mouths of our hearts Quando sacramentum passionis Greg. Mag. Hom. 22. in Evangel illius cum ore ad redemptionem sumitur ad imitationem quoque interna mente cogitatur When we receive with our mouths the Sacrament of his Passion and inwardly apply our selves to imitate his great Saviour I shall elsewhere in its due place examine what Mr. Arnaud alledges touching Amalarius Florus Drutmar and some other Authors of the 9th Century Contemporaries with Paschasus It only remains for the finishing of the discussion of the 7th and 8th to answer some slight Observations which he has made on a passage in the Book of Images which goes under the name of Charlemain's The Author of this Book will not have the Eucharist be called an Image but the Mystery or Sacrament of the Body
sense But to lay aside the Apostles and the first six Centuries to begin this enquiry after the simple and natural impression which these words have made in mens minds by the 7th and 8th following ones 'T is as if a man should go out of Paris to learn the news of France in the furthermost parts of that Kingdom But 't will be reply'd these Centuries were not prepossessed by our Disputes I grant it But they may have had other prejudices which have disturbed this simple and natural impression which we seek What likelihood is there of finding it pure according as we desire it in Greece since the fancies of Damascen have been in vogue whom the Greeks esteem as another S. Thomas according to Mr. Arnaud but whom Mr. Arnaud durst not follow himself no more than we whether Damascen believed the assumption of the Bread or only the union of it to the Body of Christ in the manner I have proved and explained How can it be expected to be found pure amongst the Copticks Armenians Jacobites Nestorians Egyptians since these people have fallen into ignorance gross Errors and Superstitions wherein they still remain A man that is acquainted with the History of the Emissaries sent from the Latins into all these Countries since the 11th Century till this time without intermission may not he justly suspect that the Emissaries have troubled the purity of this Impression Howsoever it cannot be denied but it was more pure in the six first Ages than in the following ones and consequently that we ought not to begin our inquiries since that time The third Reflection Mr. ARNAVD unjustly accuses the Ministers for embroiling the sense of these words This is my Body But we may with greater reason charge the Scholasticks and Controvertists of the Roman Church with it who have made I know not how many glosses and formed I know not how many opinions on the word This. We know what Ambrose Catarin has written of it Let the Reader consider says he the labour and anguish which Ambros Catâ—â—r Tract de verb. quibus conficitur c. almost all Writers have undergone when we demand of 'em the signification of this Pronoun This for they write such a multitude of things and those so contrary to one another that they are enough to make a man at his wits end that too closely considers ' em The Ministers give these words a sense very plain and natural which neither depends on obscure and abstracted Principles nor metaphysical notions If they argue either to establish their sense or shew that these words can suffer no other their arguings lie in observations which are clear and intelligible as for instance the word this cannot signifie any thing else but this Bread and that the whole proposition must be taken as if our Saviour had said this Bread is my Body and to make this proposition intelligible we must necessarily give it a figurative sense for one and the same subject cannot be literally both Bread and Body I grant we must not Philosophise on these words Lazarus come forth Neither is there ever a one of us that sets himself to Philosophise on 'em we understand simply by Lazarus a person whom our Saviour raised from the dead in the very moment he called him as God made light at that very instant wherein he said Let there be light The difficulties which Mr. Arnaud finds in our Saviours expressions are affected difficulties But those which arise from the sense of Transubstantiation attributed to our Saviour's words are real ones not by abstracted and metaphysical arguments but because never man said this is such a thing to signifie that the substance of the thing which he held was imperceptibly changed into the substance of another humane language will not suffer it The fourth Reflection Mr. ARNAVD in vain opposes the sense of Philosophers and Doctors to that of simple persons and such as are not capable of any deep reasoning to find out the true natural impression which our Saviours words make on the minds of men without study and reflection This natural impression since a thousand years to judg thereof only by History is a thing absolutely unknown and undiscernable to us for two reasons the first that the simple are not guided by the most natural impression they are led by that which their Doctors and Philosophers give them for we know very well that in matters of Religion the people usually believe what their guides teach 'em and not what their first sense dictates to ' em The other reason is that whatsoever we can know of the belief of Churches since a thousand years depends on the Writings which are come to our hands Now these Books were wrote by Doctors and Philosophers who may have given us their Speculations and those of the same opinion with them what they have learn'd in the Schools or what they themselves have imagin'd rather than the simple and natural impression of people The fifth Reflection 'T IS ill reasoning to say that the sense which seems to have prevail'd since the 7th Century be it what it will for I examine not at present what that is must necessarily be the true sense of our Saviour under pretence that he was not ignorant of the manner in which they would take his words in this Century and in the following ones The mysteries of his prescience and those of his providence touching the errors wherein he suffers men to fall are unknown to us Neither is it permitted us to pry into them He has suffered men to understand in the three first Centuries what is said in the Revelations touching his reign of a thousand years in the sense of a terrestial Kingdom He has permitted men in the 4th and 5th Centuries to understand commonly these words If ye eat not the Flesh of the Son of man nor drink his Blood ye will have no life in you of the necessity there is of receiving the Eucharist to be saved The ways of God are beyond our reach and we must never judg of the true sense of his word by the opinions which are prevalent amongst men Second Consequence Mr. ARNAVD's second Consequence is That the consent of all the Book 10. Ch. 2. Churches in the Doctrine of the Real Presence during the eleven last Ages being proved determines the sense of the words of the Fathers of the six first Ages His Arguments are the same which the Author of the perpetuity already offer'd That 'T is against nature sense and reason to suppose the same expressions were used for six hundred years space in a certain sense by all the Christian Churches and that in all the other ensuing Centuries they have been used in another sense without any bodies perceiving this equivocation That 't is contrary to nature to suppose all the masters of one opinion and all the Disciples to be of another and yet still to suppose they followed the sentiments of their Masters The first
manner in which the Bread might be the Body of Jesus Christ to wit in Figure aed Virtue In the mean time the doubt against which the Fathers have pretended to fortifie the Faithful is removed by the same Fathers by confirming and several times repeating that the Eucharist is the Body of Jesus Christ without the addition of an explication of Figure or Virtue Whence it follows that the doubt they would take away is not in any wise that which Mr. Claude attributes to three of his ranks For his doubt requires not proofs but illustrations that is to say the question is not to prove the Eucharist to be the Body of Jesus Christ but to explain in what sense this is true Now in all the passages of the Fathers wherein they mention a doubt they are only solicitous to prove that the Eucharist is the Body of Jesus Christ without any elucidation and they prove it by these words Hoc est corpus meum or by these Panis quem ego dabo caro mea est or by the divers examples of the Power of God the Creation of the world the Miracles of the Prophets and by that of the Incarnation I PRETEND not to examin here all the parts of this discourse 't will be sufficient to make some remarks which will clearly discover the impertinency of it First The division Mr. Arnaud makes of the doubts is insufficient for the subject we are upon for he should again subdivide into two the second kind of doubt and say that sometimes those that doubt in being ignorant of the causes or manner of the thing yet do nevertheless acknowledg the truth of the thing it self and hold it for certain altho they know not how it is Thus when a man doubts of the causes of the flux or reflux of the Sea he yet believes that this flux and reflux is true When Divines doubt of the manner after which God knows contingent matters this hinders 'em not from believing he knows them and when they doubt concerning the manner in which the three persons exist in one and the same essence this does not hinder them from believing that they do exist But sometimes the ignorance of the manner makes people doubt of the truth of the thing it self Thus Nestorius not being able to comprehend how the two Natures make but one Person in Jesus Christ doubted of this truth that there were in Jesus Christ two Natures and one Person and not only doubted of it but deny'd it Thus Pelagius because he could not understand how Grace operates inwardly on the hearts of the Faithful rejected this operation We may call this first doubt a doubt proceeding from mere ignorance and the second a doubt of incredulity Secondly Mr. Arnaud takes no notice that the doubt which arises from the inconsistency of these terms Bread and Body so far prevail'd in the minds of some as to make 'em doubt of the truth it self of these words How can this be said they seeing we see Bread and Wine and not Flesh and Blood Who will doubt Cyril Hieros Catech. myst 1. says Cyril of Jerusalem and say 't is not his Blood You will tell me perhaps says the Author of the Book De Initiatis I see quite another thing how will you persuade me I receive the Body of Jesus Christ And the same kind of doubt we have observ'd among the Greeks of the 11th Century in Theophylact Quomodo inquit caro non videtur and in the 12th in Nicolas Methoniensis for he entitles his Book Against those that doubt and say the Consecrated Bread and Wine are not the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ Perhaps says he you doubt and do not believe because you see not Flesh and Blood but Bread and Wine Thirdly Mr. Arnaud takes notice that when we have to do with these kind of doubters who will not acknowledg the truth of the thing it self because they are ignorant of the manner of it we usually take several ways to persuade them sometimes we confirm the thing it self without expounding to 'em the manner altho it be the ignorance of the manner which makes them doubt of the thing Thus our Saviour seeing the doubt of the Capernaits How can he give us his flesh to eat did not set about explaining the manner of this manducation to 'em but opposes 'em by a reiterated affirmation of what he had told ' em Verily verly says he if you eat not the Flesh of the Son of man and drink his Blood you will have no life in you c. Sometimes the explication of the thing and the manner of it are joyn'd together and thus our Saviour dealt with the doubt of Nicodemus How can a man be born when he is old can he enter again into his Mothers womb and be born Verily verily says our Saviour I say unto you unless a man be born of Water and of the Spirit he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God These words do at the same time both confirm and explain But when we have to do with doubters that are only ignorant of the manner without calling into question the truth of the thing then we usually explain only the manner without confirming any more the thing because this alone is sufficient to instruct them and 't is thus the Angel bespeaks the Virgin How said she can this be for I know not a man The Holy Spirit says he shall come upon thee and the virtue of the most high shall overshadow thee therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God TO apply these things to the present occasion I say the Fathers had to do with two sorts of Doubters the one who were only ignorant of the manner how the Bread is or is made the Body of Jesus Christ but yet who held the proposition to be true altho they knew not the sense of it and they are those that make up the third second and fourth ranks in my Answer to the Perpetuity others who went so far as to call in question the truth of the proposition under pretence they understood not the manner of it As to these last supposing the Fathers contented themselves with sometimes confirming their proposition by the words of Jesus Christ who is Truth it self it must not be thought strange the nature of the doubt led 'em to this yet is it true they have always added to the confirmation of the thing the explication of the manner as may be apparently justifi'd by several passages which we have elsewhere cited But when they had only to do with the first sort of Doubters then they contented themselves with explaining the manner without pressing the truth of the words Thus does S. Austin after he had proposed the doubt of those that were newly Baptiz'd How is the Bread his Body and the Wine his Blood make this answer My Brethren these things are called Sacraments because that which we
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
conformable to these words of Jesus Christ This is my Body nor to these others The Bread which I shall give is my Flesh nor to these He that eats my Flesh and drinks my Blood dwells in me and I in him Let but Mr. Arnaud read Paschasus his Text and he 'l find what I say to be true Jesus Christ says he did not say this is or in this mystery is the virtue or figure of my Body but he has said without feigning This is my Body S. John introduces likewise our Lord saying the Bread which I shall give is my Flesh not another than that which is for the life of the world And again He that eats my Flesh and drinks my Blood dwells in me and I in him Vnde miror adds he quid velint c What can be concluded hence for the novelty of this solution of virtue IN fine Frudegard himself says moreover Mr. Arnaud to whom Paschasus Page 857. wrote about the latter part of his life to remove some doubts he had on this mystery may serve further to confute the falsity of Mr. Claude ' s fable who pretends no body could have the idea of the Real Presence unless he took it from Paschasus his Book Dicis says Paschasus to him te sic antea credidisse in libro quem de Sacrament is edidi ita legisse sed profiteris postea te in libro tertio de doctrina Christiana B. Augustini legisse quod tropica sit locutio Mr. Arnaud will have these words Dicis te sic antea credidisse to denote that the Doctrin of the Real Presence was the Faith in which he had been brought up and that the following Et in libro quem de Sacramentis edidi ita legisse denote that the reading of Paschasus his Book had confirm'd him in it But who knows not that in these kind of discourses the Particle Et is very often a Particle which explains or gives the reason of what was before said and not that which distinguishes as I have already observ'd in another place He would only say that before he thus believed it having so read it in Paschasus his Book And that Mr. Arnaud's subtilty might take place he must have said not that he had thus believ'd it before but thus believ'd it from the beginning in his youth that he afterwards thus found it in Paschasus his Book who had confirm'd him in his belief but that afterwards he had found in S. Austin that 't was a figurative locution In this manner he had distinguish'd the three terms of Mr. Arnaud whereas he distinguishes but two antea and postea and as to the first he says he had thus believ'd it and thus read it in Paschasus his Book denoting by this second clause the place where he drew this Faith AND these are Mr. Arnaud's objections but having examin'd them 't will not be amiss to represent the conclusion he draws from ' em I do not believe says he that having considered all these proofs seriously one can imagin that Paschasus in declaring the Eucharist to be the true Flesh of Jesus Christ assum'd of the Virgin has proposed a new Doctrin Neither can I believe that amongst the Calvinists themselves any but Mr. Claude will be so obstinate as to maintain so evident a falsity and one so likely to demonstrate to the world the excessive boldness of some of their Ministers Thus does Mr. Arnaud wipe his Sword after his victory Can you but think he has offered the most convincing proofs imaginable oblig'd us to be everlastingly silent and that the Minister Claude must be a strange kind of a man seeing he alone of all his party will be able to harden himself against such puissant demonstrations and clear discoveries CHAP. IX Proofs that Paschasus was an Innovator I SAID in the preceding Chapter that the best way to be informed whether Paschasus has been an Innovator was to search whether those that went before him and wrote on the same subject have or have not taught the same thing as he has done I repeat it here to the end it may be considered whether after the discussion which Mr. Aubertin has made of the Doctrin of the Ancients and what I have wrote also thereupon either to the Author of the Perpetuity or Father Noüet or Mr. Arnaud we have not right to suppose and to suppose as we do with confidence that no body before Paschasus taught the conversion of the substances of Bread and Wine or substantial Presence of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist Whence it follows he was the first that brought this new Doctrin into the world BUT besides this proof which is an essential and fundamental one we shall offer several others taken from the circumstances of this History which do much illustrate this truth The first of this rank is taken from Paschasus himself 's acknowledging he moved several persons to understand this mystery Altho I wrote nothing worth the Reader 's perusal in my Book Epist ad Frud which I dedicated cuilibet puero I had rendred these words to a young man because that in effect his Book was dedicated to Placidus Mr. Arnaud would have it rendred to young people this is no great matter yet am I inform'd that I have excited several persons to understand this mystery Now this shews that before his Book came forth his Doctrin was unknown whereunto we may also add the passages wherein he declares how the Church was ignorant of this mystery as we have already observ'd TO judg rightly of the strength of this proof and to defend it against Mr. Arnaud's vain objections we should first shew what kind of ignorance and intelligence Paschasus here means For Mr. Arnaud has wonderful distinctions on this subject Ought not Mr. Claude to know says he that besides Book 8. ch 10. p. 860. this knowledg common to all Christians which makes 'em believe the mysteries without much reflection there is another clearer one and which is often denoted in S. Austin by the word intelligence which does not precede but follows Faith as being the fruit and recompence of it sic accipite sic credite says this Father Vt mereamini intelligere fides enim debet proecedere intellectum ut sit intellectus fidei proemium As then all Christians believe the mysteries they believed likewise all of 'em the Eucharist in Paschasus his time in the same manner as we believe it which is to say that they all believ'd the Real Presence and Transubstantiation but they had not all of 'em an understanding of it that is to say they had not all considered this adorable Sacrament with the application which it deserves That they did not all know the mysteries contained in the symbols the relations of the Eucharist with the Sacraments of the ancient Law the ends which God had in appointing them those that have right to partake of 'em the dispositions with which
knew the Church understood these expressions in one sense rather than in another seeing she never express'd her self about 'em in a clear and incapable manner of being perverted Who has given liberty to Paschasus to determin what the Church did not determin and t' express in particular terms what the Church only express'd in general ones Mr. Arnaud who plainly foresaw these inconveniencies has thought best to expess himself in an aenigmatical manner as those generally do who on one hand are urged by the force of truth and sequel of their own arguing but who on the other are retain'd by the fear of saying too much They pervert says he to their sense most of the common expressions And hence it happens that if any body else in following the common notions makes use of any term which they cannot in the same manner reduce to their particular sense they accuse this person of rashness This is exactly what we have reason to believe hapned in Paschasus his time Here 's exactly the description of a man that flies but fears to be taken in flying and therefore provides for himself another evasion against all occasions MY third proof is taken from Paschasus his proposing his Opinion in the manner of a paradox which must ravish the world with admiration Altho these things says he have the figure of Bread and Wine yet must we Lib. de Corp. Sang. Dom. believe that they are nothing else after Consecration than the Flesh and Blood of Jesus Christ And therefore the truth it self said to his Disciples This is my Flesh for the life of the world And to explain my self in a more wonderful manner Et ut mirabilius loquar 't is entirely nothing else but the Flesh which was born of the Virgin and suffered on the Cross and is risen from the Sepulchre These terms ut mirabilius loquar are the expression of one that pretends to say something extraordinary and surprizing Mr. ARNAVD answers That all Miracles are not Paradoxes I grant Book 8. ch 10. p. 865. it and therefore they are not all express'd in this manner ut mirabilius loquar Did S. Chrysostom adds he offer a Paradox when he broke forth into this expression concerning the Eucharist O wonderful he that is at the right hand of God is between the hands of the Priests I answer that in effect this discourse of Chrysostom is a true Paradox a Paradox of an Orator which seems at first to contradict common sense altho that in effect being rightly understood it does not but that of Paschasus is a false Paradox because it opposed in effect and at bottom not only common sense but likewise truth As to what remains I know not why Mr. Arnaud will have these terms translated ut mirabilius loquar by these The better to explain to you this marvail The Rules of Grammar must be changed to favour this Translation ut mirabilius loquar naturally signifies to speak or explain my self in a more admirable manner or at most to say something more admirable which is to say that the expression which he was going to use or the thing it self which he was about to speak was extraordinary and surprizing Now this shews he acknowledg'd at least that his expressions or conceptions were new whence 't is not difficult to conjecture that his Doctrin was as new as his expressions WE may make another conjecture from his submitting his Doctrin to the judgment of Frudegard and intreating him to see what is reprehensible in it He tells him he sends to him his Commentary on the 26. of S. Matthew and adds Vt ex ipso considerare queas quid intelligibilius credendum sit vel quid in me reprehendendum cum charitate To the end that you may know what is more rationally to be believed or what there is in me that may be charitably blamed Mr. Arnaud is mistaken if he believes I ground my conjecture in general on this deference of humility which Paschasus had for Frudegard We know that wise Authors are wont to acknowledg themselves liable to mistakes and submit themselves to the censures of their friends 'T is not this Here is something more particular which I desire may be considered Paschasus declares in his Letter that he was censured for teaching the Real Presence and taking the words of our Lord in a wrong sense Even Frudegard himself proposes to him an objection against his Doctrin he defends himself the best he can he desires Frudegard to read his Book over often he sends to him his Commentary on S. Matthew wherein he treats of the same thing and leaves Frudegard to the liberty of his judgment to see what may be more rationally believ'd or what may be charitably reprehended in him Quid intelligibilius credendum sit vel quid in me reprehendendum cum charitate Who sees not the question is only of the Real Presence and that what he submits to the judgment of Frudegard is to know which is most reasonable either to believe it or not to believe it to know whether it be or be not worthy of reprehension to have offer'd it But who does not likewise see that this cannot be the language of a man that taught nothing but what the Church then believed for people do not thus submit the Faith of the whole Church and such a clear certain and undeniable Faith as Mr. Arnaud supposes this was to the judgment of a particular person leaving him at liberty to take that part which he finds most reasonable and that of reprehending him that is to say of censuring him provided he does it with charity Mr. ARNAVD reckons for my 6th proof this That Paschasus does Page 868. never vaunt this his Doctrin was formally that of the whole Church This remark consists in a fact which we have already discuss'd and found to be true I need only add that if ever man was oblig'd loudly to offer and without hesitation the formal consent of the Church of his time and to protest he had said nothing but what all the Bishops and Religious of his time spake in conformity with him and what all the Faithful made profession to believe with him 't was Paschasus He was set upon in particular he was reprehended for ill expounding the words of Christ his Doctrin was opposed by a contrary Doctrin he was accused for being a rash person a visionary Now how could he after all this neglect the shelt'ring himself from all these insultings and making 'em return with confusion upon his Adversaries by saying clearly that all the faithful people in the Church at that time whether Pastors or others spake no otherwise than he did and that his Adversaries were faln into the utmost excess of impudence But instead of this he has recourse to some passages which he perverts as well as he can to his sense and to a clause of the Liturgy wherein there is Corpus Christi PASCHASVS furnishes us likewise
and Blood of Jesus Christ 'T IS also no less in vain that Mr. Arnaud endeavours to make advantage of some terms of Amalarius his Letter to Guntard which may be seen in Spicilege's seventh Volume Guntard was a young man that was scandaliz'd at his seeing Amalarius spitting without any scruple immediately after his receiving the Communion Amalarius answers him that this was a thing natural and necessary to the preservation of health and that he thought he did nothing herein which cast any dishonor on the Body of Christ that if he imagin'd he cast out in spitting the Body of Christ he was deceived That he would say to him touching the Body of Jesus Christ which we receive what the Emperor Valentinian said to his Army 'T was in your power to choose me Emperor but now 't is in mine to choose whom I please for my Collegue 'T is the same here for 't is your part to have a pure heart and to beseech God to give it you but 't is his to disperse his Body throughout our members and veins for our salvation For 't is he who in giving the Bread to his Apostles has said This is my Body which shall be given for you His Body was on the Earth when he would and it is there when he pleases yea after his Ascension he has not disdain'd to shew himself to S. Paul in the Temple of Jerusalem which was on earth His sense is that we ought not to trouble our selves about what becomes of the mystical Body of Jesus Christ which we receive in the Eucharist that 't is our part to purifie our hearts and his to give us his Body in the manner which he thinks fitting because 't was he that said of the Bread of the Eucharist that 't was his Body What he adds concerning his Body being on the Earth c. he says it not with respect to the Real Presence as Mr. Arnaud imagins but in reference to the right which our Saviour has to make his Eucharistical Body what he pleases For 't is an argument à pari as we call it by which he undertakes to prove that Jesus Christ is the master of his Eucharistical Body as well as the master of his natural Body having left it on Earth as long as he thought fitting and after his Ascension was not so taken up with his abode in Heaven as not to shew himself to his Apostle in the Temple of Jerusalem And this appears from the sequel of his discourse I say this says he to the end that if thro ignorance or without my consent there should proceed out of my mouth any part of the Lords Body you may not believe presently hereupon that I am void of Religion and that I despise my Lords Body or that this Body be carried into any place where he would not have it come Our Soul lives by this Body as the Lord himself says If you eat not the Flesh of the Son of Man nor drink his Blood you have no life in you If then this Body be our life it will not lose being separated from us what it has in it self and what we receive from it My Son desire your Priests to take heed they lose not out of their hearts any of those words which the Lord has spoken in the Gospel for they are likewise our Life as well as the Consecrated Bread He means that altho he casts out of his mouth in spitting some part of the Eucharistical Body yet we must not believe this Body is carried to any place where our Saviour would not have it or this Body being in this place lies stript of the advantage which it has to be the life of our souls no more than the words of the Gospel which altho neglected be yet also our life What signifies this to the Real Presence Will not his discourse be every whit as coherent and as well followed if we suppose that the consecrated Bread is the Body of Jesus Christ in Sacrament as he teaches elsewhere as if we suppose it to be so in propriety of substance which we believe that Amalarius never taught THE conclusion which he draws from all this is yet if you will less favourable to Mr. Arnaud Thus says he having taken with an honest and faithful heart the Lords Body I have nothing to do to dispute whether it be invisibly carried up into Heaven or reserved in our Body till the day of Judgment or whether exhaled up in the Air or whether it flows from our Body with the Blood when our Veins be opened or issues out thro the Pores the Lord saying Whatsoever enters by the mouth into the belly goes into Excrement Which is to say that it belongs not to us to make all these questions about the Sacrament because our Saviour does with it what he pleases As to our parts adds he we ought only to have a care lest we receive it with a Judas ' s heart lest we despise it but on the contrary discern it salutarily from other common aliments I confess Mr. Arnaud has some reason to conjecture hence that Amalarius was of the number of those which they call Stercoranists but on what side soever he turns himself he cannot conclude he held the Real Presence and this very thing that Mr. Arnaud believes Amalarius was a Stercoranist ought to convince him on the contrary that this Author did not believe the change or conversion of the substance in the Eucharist HAD Mr. Arnaud consulted the Letter of the same Amalarius to Rangar which is within two pages of that which he wrote to Gruntard he had seen that Amalarius expounds these words of Jesus Christ This is the Cup of the New Testament in my Blood which is shed for you in this manner This Cup is a figure of my Body in which is the Blood which shall issue from my side to accomplish the ancient Law and when 't is spilt it shall be the New Testament because 't is a new and innocent Blood the Blood of the Man without Sin which shall be spilt for the Redemption of Mankind Explaining aftetwards what is said in the Liturgy Mysterium fidei This Blood says he is called the mystery of Faith because it profits to the Salvation and Eternal Life of him that believes himself Redeemed by this Blood and makes himself an imitator of our Lords Passion And therefore the Lord says If yee eat not the Flesh of the Son of man nor drink his Blood yee will have no life in you Which is to say if ye partake not of my Passion nor believe that I died for your salvation yee will have no life in you The mystery is Faith as S. Augustin teaches in his Epistle to Boniface as in some manner the Sacrament of the Body of Jesus Christ is the Body of Jesus Christ the Sacrament of the Blood of Jesus Christ is the Blood of Jesus Christ so the Sacrament of Faith is Faith 'T is plainly seen this
of nature Then answering this objection Totum says he quod est Christus proedicatur non in figura sed in re in proprietate atque in natura 'T is then plain that Paschasus and Bertram are directly opposite not only as to sence but terms So that when Paschasus acknowledges there is a figure in the Eucharist meaning by this figure either the accidents of Bread and Wine which cover the substance of the Body of Jesus Christ or the representation of the Passion of Jesus Christ this expression in this sense does not hinder but Bertram formally contradicted it and that the testimony of the anonymous is true For Paschasus expresly denies the Eucharist to be the Body of Jesus Christ in figure and Bertram expresly affirms it AS to wherein both of 'em seem to agree in saying that our senses shew it to be Bread but that inwardly our Faith discovers therein the Body of Jesus Christ this is but an equivocation Paschasus means we must not refer our selves to the testimony of our senses in respect of the substance hidden under the accidents and by the term of inwardly he means this substance covered with accidents which he would have us believe to be the substance of the Body of Jesus Christ Bertram on the contrary argues from the testimony of our senses and concludes that 't is real Bread and real Wine in substance For he maintains from the evidence of sense that there happens no real change According to the species of the creature says he and the form of visible things the Bread and Wine do not suffer any change And if they do not suffer any change they are not any thing else but what they were before And in another place We see not any thing that is changed in these things corporally We must then confess either that they be changed in another respect than that of the Body and consequently that they are not what appears in truth which is to say they are not the substance of the Body of Jesus Christ in truth because 't would be then invisible were it there but that they are another thing which yet we plainly see they are not by their proper existence Or if this will not be acknowledg'd it must of necesssity be denied that they are the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ which will be impious to say or think And immediately after he concludes that the change which happens to the Bread and Wine is a change of figure Vt jam says he commutatio figurate facta esse dicatur He also proves there that the change which happens to the Eucharist does not make the Bread and Wine cease to be in truth what they were before We do not find says he that such a change happens here but we find on the contrary that the same species of the creature which was before remains still And a little lower in respect of the substance of creatures they are after the Consecration what they were before they were before Bread and Wine and we see they remain in the same kind altho they be consecrated And again he concludes that 't is not the Body of Jesus Christ in specie but in virtute because our eyes do not see it 'T is Faith says he that sees whatsoever this is the eye of the flesh discovers nothing therein these visible things then are not the Body of Jesus Christ in specie but in virtue He understands then that the testimony of our senses which shew us that they are still Bread and Wine in substance are true and that were the substance of the Body therein our senses would discover it Now this wholly contradicts the sense of Paschasus I will not examin says Mr. Arnaud whether Bertram understands these Page 881. words in another sense than Paschasus But why will not Mr. Arnaud do this seeing on it depends the real opposition which is between these two Authors They that will contradict an Author says Mr. Arnaud directly do oppose not only his sense but his words and they never borrow the words of those whom they combat to express their own opinion Whosoever designs to contradict an author solidly minds particularly his sense without troubling himself about his expressions 'T was enough for Bertram to refute the new Doctrin of Paschasus and this very thing that he uses his expressions only more shews their opposition for Bertram does not speak of the testimony of our senses on the subject of the Eucharist in the same terms of Paschasus but to draw thence arguments to overthrow the pretended change of substance and the Real Presence which Paschasus had advanced so that this apparent conformity is no less in effect than a real contradiction THIS contrariety of sentiment appears still more in the second question which Bertram discusses which is Whether what the Faithful receive with the mouths of their bodies in the Communion is this same Body which was born of the Virgin that has suffered for us died and rose again and is now at the right hand of the Father Paschasus affirms it and endeavours to establish it by his Book Bertram denies it and proves most strongly his negative The one says that these things nourish in us that which is born of God and not that which is born of Flesh and Blood The other answers us that in respect of what we see and receive corporally which is bit with the teeth swallowed and received into the stomach they do not communicate eternal life for in this respect they nourish our mortal flesh and do not communicate any corruption The one says That we must not stop at the savour nor colour of Bread for were it changed into flesh to wit visibly and sensibly as he explains himself in the same place 't would be no longer the Flesh of Jesus Christ The other teaches That seeing 't is Faith and not the eye of the Body which discovers the Bread to be the Body of Jesus Christ we must hence conclude that 't is not so in specie but in virtute The one ever says that what we receive from the Altar is this same Flesh which is born of the Virgin The other says that this Flesh which was Crucified and born of the Virgin consists of bones and sinews distinguish'd into several members and enliven'd by the spirit of a reasonable soul having his proper life and motions Whereas this spiritual Flesh which nourishes spiritually the Faithful in respect of its outward species consists of grains of Wheat and is made by the hands of man that it has neither nerves nor sinews nor bones nor different members that 't is animated with no rational soul nor can exercise any vital functions Whence he concludes that 't is not then this Flesh of Jesus Christ which was born of the Virgin In a word the opposition therein is so formal and so evident that it cannot be more plain WHAT we have hitherto seen touching Authors Contemporary with Paschasus
to examine their Style in other like Matters it being impossible but in comparing their expressions some of 'em will give light to others Had Mr Arnaud followed this method he would never have valued so highly several expressions in Greek Authors for he would have seen at the same time that they deliver themselves almost after the same manner on other Subjects where there 's no Transubstantiation to be suspected I know 't is a hard matter for a Person that is prejudiced to consider the question he handles in those respects which are disagreeable to him but besides that this prejudice is a fault and therefore to be avoided especially when men write on a Publick Account or take upon them to instruct People besides this I say there are several considerable matters which so offer themselves to be seen that we cannot abstain from beholding them and 't is more especially in respect of these that mens neglect is blame-worthy because 't is affected and is inconsistant with the Rules of Sincerity As for instance how can we approve of Mr. Arnaud's proceeding who has scarcely mentioned a word in his Book touching that prodigious ignorance which has overspread the East in matters of Religion How can we approve his taking no notice of that multitude of Emissaries wherewith all that Country has been filled for I know not how many Ages together nor of the means used for the propogation of the Romish Doctrines nor the progresses they made These are things he could not be ignorant of and are not matters of small importance seeing the Judgment to be made of this whole Controversie does in some measure depend thereon But not to rehearse what we already mention'd how can we bear with him when he passes over in silence several Greek expressions like unto those from which he would draw advantage and yet are applied to Subjects which have not the least relation to Transubstantiation These expressions offered themselves to him and there needed little deliberation to determine what use was to be made of them and what rank they hold in the decision of this Controversie Yet has he taken no notice of them for his desire of vanquishing has far exceeded his love to Truth BUT howsoever 't is certain the Greeks speak almost after the same manner concerning the Church it being likewise the Body of Christ as they do concerning the Eucharist Cabisilas is one of the Authors Mr. Arnaud has quoted with most complacency having filled a long Chapter with Passages taken out of him he alledges amongst others these words of his 38 Chapter The Church is represented in the Mysteries of Religion not as in the Signs but as the Members are marked by the Heart the Tree by the Root and the Vine-branches by the Vine forasmuch as the Mysteries are the Body and Blood of Christ and that this Body and Blood are the Nourishment of the Church So far is his Allegation but 't is requisite to hear Cabisilas himself in the full extent of his Discourse to judge of the Style of this Author and Mr. Arnaud's Delusion The Church say's he is represented in the Mysteries of Religion not as in the Signs but as the Members are in the Heart the Branches of the Tree in the Root and the Vine-leaves in the Vine as speaks our Lord. For here is not only a Communion of Names or a reference of likeness but 't is the Identity of the thing it self For the Mysteries are the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ Now they are the real nourishment of the Church and when she partaketh of them she does not change them into a humane Body like unto other Food but she her self is changed into them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 forasmuch as the most excellent part has the predominancy Behold the iron when 't is joyned with the fire it becomes fire and it does not make the fire become iron for the fire effaces all the properties of the iron so in like manner if any one could see the Church of Christ in that respect whereby 't is united to him and partakes of his Flesh he would behold nothing but the Body of Christ and therefore St. Paul say's you are the Body of Jesus Christ and each of you are his Members For when he calls him the Head and us the Members he does not represent to us thereby the cares of his Providence nor our subjection to him in the same sence as we call our selves the Members of our Parents or Friends by an hyperbolical way of speaking But he means what he says That the faithful by the efficacy of this Blood live the Life which is in Jesus Christ and have their real dependance on him as their Head and are clothed with this Body It needs not now be demanded of Mr. Arnaud why he cut short this passage of Cabisilas seeing the reason manifestly appears for if we take but the pains to compare what he alledges from this Author touching the Eucharist with what I now related touching the Church we shall soon find that these last expressions are far stronger and significant than what he say's concerning the Sacrament He excludes the bare communion of name and resemblance between Christ and the Church and establishes a perfect Identity He say's the Church is changed into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ He uses the comparison of iron inflamed which others apply to the Eucharist and as if he design'd to make us understand that the Church is Christ's Body in a litteral and complete sense he assures us this is no Hyperbole and that St. Paul speaks the same thing I am greatly deceived if there can be any thing found so pressing and comprehensive in relation to the Eucharist either in this Author or any other of the true Greeks and this shews on one hand how vain and groundless Mr. Arnaud's Triumphs are and on the other how requisite and necessary a thing it is for men to shew the Substantial Conversion clearly and expresly in the Doctrines of a Church before it be concluded she believes it CABISILAS is not the only man who speaks after this manner touching the Church for others borrow his proper Terms to explain themselves fully like him for we may find the same passage at large in the first Answer of Jeremias the Patriarch of Constantinople to the Divines of Wittemberg PHOTIUS spake likewise to the same purpose and Oecumenius after him as appears by the Commentaries of the latter of these on the Tenth Chapter of the first Epistle to the Corinthians The Apostle say they tells us that the Bread is the Communion of the Body of Jesus Christ but forasmuch as it seems that that which is communicated is of a different nature from him to whom 't is communicated he would now shew us that we do not communicate but that we are all of us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the same Body of Jesus Christ For as one piece of Bread is made of several
Dispute and consider things without passion I am perswaded he would soon acknowledge that the sence he imputes to the Greeks has no resemblance with the Terms of their Liturgies nor other usual expressions As for example we would know how we must understand this Clause of their Liturgies Make this Bread the precious Body of thy Christ and that which is in this Cup the precious Blood of thy Christ changing them by the virtue of thy Holy Spirit Mr. Arnaud understands them as mentioning a change of Substance I say on the contrary these are general Terms to which we cannot give at farthest any more than a general sence and that if they must have a particular and determinate one we must understand them in the sence of a Mystical change and a change of Sanctification which consists in that the Bread is to us in the stead of the Natural Body of Jesus Christ that it makes deep impressions of him in our Souls that it spiritually communicates him to us and that 't is accompani'd with a quickning grace which sanctifies it and makes it to be in some sence one and the same thing with the Body of Jesus Christ and yet does not this hinder but that the Natural Substance of Bread remains Let us examine the Liturgies themselves to see which of these two sences are most agreeable thereunto WE shall find in that which goes under the name of St. Chrysostom and which is the most in use amongst the Greeks that immediately after the Priest has said Make this Bread to become the precious Body of thy Christ and that Euchar. Graecorum Jacobi Goar Bibl. patr Graecor Lat. Tom. 2. which is in the Chalice the precious Blood of thy Christ changing them by thy Holy Spirit he adds to the end they may purifie the Souls of those that receive them that is to say be made a proper means to purifie the Soul by the remission of its sins and communication of the Holy Spirit c. These words do sufficiently explain what kind of change we must understand by them namely a change of Sanctification and virtue for did they mean a change of Substance it should have been said changing them by thy Holy Spirit to the end they may be made the proper Substance of this Body and Blood or some such like expressions In the Liturgy which goes under the name of St. James we find almost the same thing Send say's it thy Holy Spirit upon us and these Holy Gifts lying Bibliot Patr. Graeco Lat. Tom. 2. here before thee to the end that he coming may sanctifie them by his holy good and glorious presence and make this Bread to become the Holy Body of thy Christ and this Chalice the precious Blood of thy Christ to the end it may have this effect to all them which shall receive it namely purifie their Souls from all manner of sin and make them abound in good works and obtain everlasting life And this methinks does sufficiently determine how the Bread is made the Body of Jesus Christ to wit in being sanctifi'd by the presence of his Spirit and procuring the remission of our sins and our Sanctification The Liturgy which bears the name of St. Marc has almost the same expressions Send on us and on these Loaves and Chalices thy Holy Spirit that he Ibid. may sanctifie and consecrate them even as God Almighty and make the Bread the Body and the Cup the Blood of the New Testament of our Lord God and Saviour Jesus Christ our Sovereign King to the end they may become to all those who shall participate of them a means of obtaining Faith Sobriety Health Temperance a regeneration of Soul and Body the participation of Felicity Eternal Life to the glory of thy great name A Person whose mind is not wholly prepossessed with prejudice cannot but perceive that this Clause to the end they may become c. is the explication of the foregoing words change them into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ and that it determines them to a change not of Substance but of Sanctification and Virtue This Truth is so evident that Arcudius has not scrupled to acknowledge that if this Clause be taken make this Bread the Body of thy Christ in an absolute sence Arcud lib. 3. cap. 33. that is to say that it be made the Body of Christ not in respect of us but simply in it self it will have no agreement nor coherence with these other words that follow to the end they may be made c. And he makes of this a Principle for the concluding that the Consecration is not performed by this Prayer but that 't is already perfected by the words this is my Body directly contrary to the Sentiment of the Greeks who affirm 't is made by the Prayer So that if we apply Arcudius's Observation to the true Opinion of the Greek Church to wit that the Consecration is performed by this Prayer we shall plainly perceive that their sence is That the Bread is made the Body of Jesus Christ in respect of us inasmuch as it sanctifies us and effects the remission of our sins AND with this agrees the Term of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to Sanctifie which the Greeks commonly make use of to express the Act of Consecration and that of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Sanctifications by which they express their Mysteries as appears by the Liturgies and those of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the holy Gifts the sanctified Gifts the holy Mysteries the quickning Mysteries the holy Bread which are common expressions amongst them All which favours the change of Sanctification ON the other hand we shall find in the Liturgy of St. Chrysostom that the name of Bread is given three times to the Sacrament after Consecration in the Pontificia four times and in the declaration of the presanctifi'd Bread it is so called seven times In the Liturgy of St. Basil the Priest makes this Prayer immediately after the Consecration Lord remember me Archi. Habert Apud Goar in Euchol a sinner and as to us who participate all of us of the same Bread and Cup grant we may live in Union and in the Communion of the same Holy Spirit Likewise what the Latins call Ciborium the Greeks call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is as much as to say a Bread Saver and 't is in it wherein they put that which they call the presanctifi'd Bread being the Communion for the sick I know what is wont to be said in reference to this namely that the Eucharist is called Bread upon the account of its Species that is to say of its Accidents which remain sustain'd by the Almighty Power of God without a Subject but the Greeks themselves should give us this explication for till then we may presume upon the favour of the natural signification of the Term which we not finding attended with the Gloss of the Latins it must therefore be granted not
follow we must mingle Water with the Wine in the Cup the Wine alone being sufficient to be transubstantiated into the Blood and Water which accompanies the Blood We must then necessarily if we suppose Zonarus speaks sence understand the Term of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the sence of Representation and then his Discourse will appear rational The Mysteries represent the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ as they were upon the Cross Now in this State there issued from the pierced Side of Jesus Christ Blood and Water we must then express in the Mystery this Circumstance and to express it we must mingle Water with the Wine in the Sacred Chalice to the end that as the Wine represents the Blood so the Water may represent this Divine Water which gushed out together with â—e Blood from our Saviour's Side And this being thus cleared up it is hence evident that Zonarus understood these words of our Lord This is my Body this is my Blood in a sence of a Mystical Representation CHAP. X. The Nineteenth Proof that we do not find the Greeks do teach the Doctrines which necessarily follow that of Transubstantiation The Twentieth is the Testimony of sundry Modern Greeks that have written several Treatises touching their Religion The One and Twentieth from the Form of Abjuration which the Greeks are forc'd to make when they embrace the Religion of the Latins I Did affirm in my Answer to the Perpetuity that we donot find the Greeks do teach any of those Doctrines which necessarily follow the Belief of the change of Substances whence I concluded there was no likelyhood they were in this Point agreed with the Latins This Consequence has disturbed Mr. Arnaud and as he makes his own Dictates and those of Reason to be one and the same thing so he has not scrupled to affirm That Reason rejects this as a silly extravagancy But forasmuch as we have often experienced Lib. 10. cap. 8. pag. 59 that in matters of Reason Folly and Extravagancy it is no sure course absolutely to rely upon Mr. Arnaud's words therefore will we again lay aside the Authority of his Oracles and examine the thing as it is in it self FIRST The Greeks do not teach the Existence of the Accidents of Bread and Wine in the Eucharist without any Subject or Substance which sustains them Now this is so necessary a Consequence of Transubstantiation that those which believe this last cannot avoid the teaching and acknowledging of the other supposing they are indued with common sence In effect it would be to charge the Greeks with the greatest folly to suppose they imagin'd that the proper Substance of the Body of Jesus Christ even the very same Body which was born of the Virgin and is now in Heaven does really exist on the Altar being the same in all respects as the Bread of the Eucharist does appear to us to be that is to say white round divisible into little pieces c. and that the same things which as they speak did qualifie and affect the Bread before do qualifie and affect the same Body of Jesus Christ We must not charge the whole Greek Church with such an absurdity Whence it follows we must not attribute to her the belief of Transubstantiation for did she make profession of believing and teaching it she would teach likewise the existence of Accidents without a Subject these two Doctrines being so closely linked together that 't is impossible to separate them unless they fall upon this fancy that the Accidents of Bread do exist in the Body it self of Jesus Christ or this other namely that which appears in the Eucharist is not really the Accidents of Bread but false appearances and pure Phantasms which deceive our sences which is no less absurd nor less contrary to the Doctrine of the Greeks SECONDLY Neither do we find that they teach what the Latins call the Concomitancy which is to say that the Body and Blood are equally contained under each Species but we find on the contrary that they establish the necessity of communicating of both kinds and ground it on the necessity there is of receiving the Body and Blood of Christ as will appear in the Sequel of this Chapter which is directly opposite to this Concomitancy Yet is it not to be imagined but that those People who believe the Conversion of Substances do at the same time establish this other Doctrine For if we suppose as the Church of Rome does that we receive with the mouths of our Bodies this same Substance of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ which he had when on Earth and has still in Heaven it is not possible to separate in such a manner his Blood from his Body and his Body from his Blood as to reckon the Body to be contain'd in the only Species of Bread and the Blood in the only Species of the Wine seeing 't is true that this Separation cannot be conceived without breaking the Unity of the Life which is in Jesus Christ THIRDLY Neither do we find the Greeks have ever applied themselves to shew how 't is possible for our Lord's Body to exist in the Eucharist stript of its proper and natural Figure deprived of its dimensions impalpable indivisible without motion and action which is moreover another Consequence of Transubstantiation FOURTHLY We do not find the Greeks do in any sort trouble themselves touching the nourishment our Bodies receive when they partake of the Eucharist and yet is it certain that if we suppose they believed Transubstantiation 't is impossible for them to obtain any satisfaction touching this matter For should they deny this nourishment they may be convinced of it by experience and if it be referred to the proper Substance of Jesus Christ they plunge themselves into an Abyss of Absurdities and Impieties If it be said the Accidents nourish besides that common sence will not suffer us to say that Colours and Figures nourish they that affirm this do expose themselves to the derision of all the World who know our nourishment is made by the Addition of a new Substance to ours To affirm that God causes the Bread to reassume its first Substance or that he immediately creates another this is to make him work Miracles when we please and to be too free in our disposals of the Almighty Power of God And therefore the Latins have found themselves so perplexed that some of 'em have taken one side and some another Some have boldly denied this nourishment whatsoever experience there is of the contrary as Guitmond and Algerus others chosen rather to affirm the Accidents do nourish as Thomas Aquinas and Bellarmin Others have invented the return of the first Substance of Bread as Vasquez and others the Creation of a new Substance as Suarez and others Mr. Arnaud has chosen rather to affirm That we are nourished not with the Body of Lib. 2. cap 6. pag. 155. Jesus Christ but after another manner known only to
cap 6. pag. 155. Eucharist broke our Fast because they believed the Oblation of the Sacrifice did not belong to the Fast and that they were permitted to eat after they had communicated is a mere Evasion which plainly denotes Mr. Arnaud's perplexity For the Greeks accuse the Latins not for their eating so soon after the Communion in Lent for this Accusation would be false and slanderous seeing they know the contrary But he accuses them in that they break their Fast by receiving the Eucharist Whence have you this Custom say's Nicetas to celebrate Nicetas Contra Lat. Bibl. Patr. Tom. 4. Edit the Oblation of the Paschal Mass every day even on the Holy days of fasting as well as on Saturday and Sunday What Doctors thus taught you Were they the Apostles No For the Apostles made a Canon to this effect that if any Bishop Priest Deacon Reader or Chanter that is in health fasts not on the Fridays and Saturdays in Lent he ought to be degraded Seeing then you celebrate Mass at nine of the Clock which is the hour in which the Sacrifice is to be offered how then keep you the Fast till three in the Afternoon breaking it as you do in the time of the Administration You do not at all observe it and therefore you are accursed It is plainly seen here the matter concerns the reception of the Eucharist and that he means it breaks the Fast for he say's they break it in tempore ministrationis Missae Where then has Mr. Arnaud found this Evasion that the Greeks say the Eucharist breaks the Fast only because they believe the Oblation of the Sacrifice does not belong to the Fast and that it was lawful to eat after the participation of the Communion This is say's he the conjecture of a very Learned man who has taken the pains to read over this Treatise Is Mr. Arnaud so tired with his Work and his time so mightily taken up that he cannot afford one half hour for the reading this Treatise himself for it requires no more These Anonymous Learned men do often deceive us with their Conjectures and when a Person makes a Book which he designs to render famous throughout all Europe in sending it to all the Courts in Christendom it is absolutely requisite not to trust all sorts of People He say's in his Epistle Dedicatory to the Pope that his Friends have laboured with him In the Twelfth Book he gives us a Dissertation of a Religious man of Saint Genevieve on John Scot's Case and that of Bertram Moreover he tells us he has desired some Persons to translate for him that Passage of Herbert's about which we have made such a noise here he gives us the conjecture of an Anonymous I am afraid some indiscreet Person or other will judge hereupon that Mr. Arnaud's whole Book is made up only of incoherent Fragments As for my part I do not thus judge but I wish Mr. Arnaud had rectified and digested himself what others have furnished him with and not been like the Sea in this particular which receiving into its Womb all the Waters of Rivers communicates only to them its bryniness HUMBERT never thought of giving any of these Sences to the Passage proposed to us out of Nicetas He never imagined that the Greeks believed the Communion breaks the Fast either because they were permitted to eat immediately after or because our Bodies receive the same impressions and the same strength by receiving of the Eucharist as by any other common Food But he only understood they taught that the Eucharist does really nourish us in the same manner as other Food which changes it self into our Substance and 't is thereupon that he grounded his charge of Stercoranism Do Mr. Arnaud and his Anonymouses know better now in Paris the true meaning of Nicetas than Humbert who lived in that time and was at Constantinople with this Religious Leo the Ninth having affirmed the latins have the same Faith as the Greeks Mr. Arnaud thereupon takes occasion to insult over me and tells me he will be judged by my self Whether 't is likely Lib. 2. cap. 50 pag 141. Leo that lived amongst the Greeks did not know better than I their Opinion who now come six hundred years after assuring the World upon my own bare word of the contrary without any Proof or Testimony And ten or twelve Pages further he would perswade us that Humbert who was Contemporary with Nicetas and in the same City with him did not well comprehend Nicetas his meaning and that himself Mr. Arnaud and Mr. his Anonymous understand it better than Humbert Whence comes this partiality BUT say's he Nicetas asserts Transubstantiation as fully as Humbert Lib. 2. cap. 6. pag. 1â—â— could do Which we must examine Those say's Nicetas who walk in the Light eat the Bread of Grace which is the Body of Christ and drink his immaculate Blood In the Bread say's he moreover that is to say in our Saviour's Body there are three living things which give life to those that eat worthily thereof to wit the Spirit the Water and Blood according to that saying there are three that bear witness and these three are in one He proves the Water and Blood are in our Saviours Body by the Water and Blood which gushed thence in his Crucifixion and as to the Spirit observe here what he say's The Holy and living Spirit remains in his inlivening Flesh and we eat this Flesh in the Bread which is changed by his Holy Spirit and made the Body of Jesus Christ We live in him by eating his living and deified Flesh Could Nicetas adds Mr. Arnaud more plainly shew his Opinion touching the Eucharist and more positively exclude Mr. Claude ' s vain Conjectures AND this is that which in the Style of Mr. Arnaud is precise and positive I answer that by the Bread of Grace Nicetas means the Bread of the New Testament in opposition to the Azyme of the Law and that his Sence is that this Bread is the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ which the Azyme cannot be which he proves 1. Because the Azyme is not Bread till it receives the perfection of Leaven 2. Because the Azyme is a dead thing having no inlivening virtue in it whereas the leavened Bread has Leaven which is to it as it were Life and Soul whence he concludes 't is proper to become the Mystery of the Body of Christ seeing there is in this Body three living things the Spirit the Water and Blood the Water and Blood because they run down from his pierced side and the Spirit because his Flesh was ever joyned to his Divinity Whence he inferrs 't is in the Bread and not in the Azyme we eat this Flesh and that the Bread being changed by the Holy Spirit and made Christ's Body we live in him by eating his living and deified Flesh And this is Nicetas his reasoning which I confess is a little odd but howsoever 't is
express themselves in such a manner much less can they desire of him to send down his Holy Spirit on them for as soon as ever 't is conceived to be the proper Body and Blood of our Lord in the sence wherein the Latins understand it 't is believed there is a fulness of the Holy Spirit in them I cannot but here relate what Mr. Faucheur has observed touching the Egyptian Liturgy commonly called St. Gregory's by which will appear that the complaints we make concerning these pieces are not without cause The Egyptian Liturgy say's he attributed to St. Gregory imports I offer to thee O Lord the SYMBOLS OF MY RANSOM For Faucheur on the Lords Supper Book 3. C. 6. there is in the Egyptian NICYMBOLON that is to say 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as I have bin informed by Mr. Saumaise who has an ancient Manuscript of it and not as Victor Scialach a Maronite of Mount Libanus has Translated it who being of the Seminary at Rome designed by a Notorions falsity to favour the cause of our Adversaries praecepta liberationis meae BUT besides this way of corrupting the Liturgies by false Translations it is moreover true that when these Levantine Christians were Reunited as they often have bin with the Latins the Latins never fail'd to examine their Books and take out of 'um whatsoever they found therein contrary to the Doctrine of the Church of Rome for example there has bin inserted in the Bibliotheca Patrum the Liturgy of the Nestorian Christians of Mallabar but under this title corrected and cleansed from the Errors and Blasphemies of the Nestorians by the Illustrious and Reverend My Lord Alexius Menenses Arch-Bishop of Missa Christian apud Indos Bibl. patr tom 6. ed. 4. Ibid bibl patr tom 6. Goa Victor Scialach in his Letter to Velserus on the Egyptian Liturgies called St. Basil's Gregorie's and Cyril's say's that the new Manuscripts have bin corrected by the order of the Holy Roman Church into whose Bosom as into that of a real Mother the Church of Alexandria has lately returned under the Popedom of Clement VIII THERE 's all the likelyhood in the World that this Clause which appears in the Egyptian Liturgies of St. Basil and Gregory of Victor Schialch's Translation and from which Mr. Arnaud pretends to make advantage is an Addition made thereunto by the Latins in some one of these Reunions for if we examine it well we shall easily find that 't is a confession of the reality of the Humane Nature in Jesus Christ which is a confession directly opposite to the Error of the Copticks who only acknowledge the Divine Nature OBSERVE here the terms It is the sacred and everlasting Body and the real Blood of Jesus Christ the Son of God Amen it is really the Body of the Emmanuel Ibid. our God Amen I Believe I Believe I Believe and will confess till the last breath of my Life that this is the living Body which thy only Son our Lord God and Saviour Jesus Christ took from the most holy and most pure Mary the Mother of God our common Lady and which he joyned to his Divinity without conversion mixture or confusion I make the pure confession which he made before Pontius Pilate he gave his Body for us on the Cross by his own will He has really assumed this Body for us I believe that the Humanity was never seperate from the Divinity no not a Moment and that he gave his Body to purchase Salvation Remission of Sins and eternal life for all those that shall believe in him There needs no great study to find that the design of this whole Prayer is to confess the Truth of the Mystery of the Incarnation and the reality of the Humane Nature in Jesus Christ and that these words without conversion mixture or confusion are precisely those which have bin ever opposed against the Heresy of the Eutichiens with which the Copticks are tainted Whereupon we cannot doubt but that this is an addition of the Latins who in reuniting these People to themselves have inserted in their very Liturgy several Clauses expresly contrary to their old Error that they might the more absolutely bring them off from it LET not Mr. Arnaud then any longer glory in these Eastern Liturgies for if we had 'um pure and sincere I do not question but we should find several things in 'um that do not well agree with the Belief of the Substantial Presence nor with that of Transubstantiation Neither has he reason to brag of the general Consent of all the Churches call'd Schismatical with which pretence he would dazle the Eyes of the World Upon a thro consideration of what we have so farrepresented to him whether in respect of the Greeks or other Christian Churches he must acknowledge he has overshot himself and bin too rash in his Affirmations on this Subject Which I believe I have evidently discover'd and in such a manner as nothing can be alledged against it I dare assure him he will find in this dispute no Sophisms on my part Having proceeded faithfully and sincerely in it I have taken things as they lye in their Natural order I have offered nothing but upon good grounds from Testimonies for the most part taken out of Authors that are Roman Catholicks I have never taken Mr. Arnaud's words as I know of in any other sence than in that wherein he meant them I have followed him step by step as far as good order would permit me I have exactly answered him without weakning his Arguments or Proofs or passing by any thing considerable In fine I have not offered any thing but what I my self before was convinced and perswaded to be true and I am much mistaken if I have not reduced matters to that clearness that others will be no less perswaded of what I say than my self CHAP. VII Mr. Arnaud's 8 th Book touching the Sentiment of the Latins on the Mystery of the Eucharist since the year 700. till Paschasius's time examined THE order of the dispute requires that having refuted as I have done the pretended Consent of all the Eastern Churches with the Latin in the Doctrines of the Substantial Presence and Transubstantiation I should now apply my self to the examination of what Mr. Arnaud alledges touching the Latins themselves from the 7 th Century till Paschasius's time exclusively that is to say till towards the beginning of the Ninth And this is the design of the greatest part of his 8 th Book and which shall be the greatest part of this of mine BUT not to amuse the Reader with fruitless matters 't is necessary to lay aside the first of his Proofs which is only a Consequence drawn from the belief of the Greek Church with which the Latin remain'd United during those Centuries whence Mr. Arnaud would infer that the Latin Church has believed Transubstantiation and the real Presence seeing the Greek Church has held these Doctrines as he pretends to have
effect as Mr. Claude supposes it in every workman just as the workman says that when the light of the day fails him he had rather have the light of the Lamp than that of the Candle for this or that kind of work CHAP. III. A Defence of the second third and fourth Rank of persons against the Objections of Mr. Arnaud THE first rank of persons being defended against Mr. Arnaud's subtilties it now concerns us t' examin his Objections against the three others but to do it with greater brevity I shall not trouble my self with his useless words but as to matters of moment I shall not pass by any of ' em THE second rank is of those that proceeded so far as the question how this visible Bread this subject called Sacrament is the Body of Jesus Christ but finding an inconsistency in the terms their minds settled on the only difficulty without undertaking to solve it Mr. ARNAVD says That the Fathers have not known these kind of Lib. 6. ch 7. pag. 575. people he means they have not mention'd them in their Writings But supposing the Fathers never knew 'em does Mr. Arnaud believe the Fathers must needs know or expound all the several manners of taking things which were practis'd by all particular persons Had they nothing else to do but to make general inventories of mens fancies to find out and denote distinctly the strength or weakness of each individual person If he imagins 't is a sufficient reason to affirm there were not any persons in the ancient Church who finding great difficulty in this proposition that the Bread is the Body of Jesus Christ stuck here without undertaking to clear the point to say the Fathers have known none of this kind he must acknowledg at the same time that there were none likewise that took these words in this sense That the substance of Bread is chang'd into the substance of the Body of Jesus Christ For I maintain that the Fathers have not known any of these kind of people never spake of 'em never offer'd 'em as an example to doubters nor declared that this was the true sense of their expressions Neither can it be answer'd that if they have not mention'd 'em 't was because all the Faithful took them in this sense For Mr. Arnaud confesses himself 'T is probable Lib. 6. ch 1. pag. 529. that the belief of the Faithful has been ever clear and distinct on the subject of the Real Presence and that they have ever known whether what was given them was or was not the Body of Jesus Christ altho they knew not always so expresly and universally whether the Bread did or did not remain in the Sacrament Any man may see what means such an acknowledgment from Mr. Arnaud I repeat it here again that 't is possible the Faithful did not always so expresly and universally know whether the Bread remains or not in the Sacrament which is without doubt at this time a very considerable acknowledgment But not to extend it further than the terms will bear we may at least conclude thence that the Fathers ought to suppose there were persons who probably would not take these words The Bread is the Body of Jesus Christ in this sense The substance of the Bread is changed into the substance of the Body of Jesus Christ and hereupon may be askt why they have not observ'd the exactness and quickness of understanding in the one to deliver the rest from the ignorance wherein Mr. Arnaud acknowledges they may have been AGAIN who told Mr. Arnaud that the Fathers knew not at least in general there might be persons who met with difficulty in this question How the Bread can be the Body of Jesus Christ because of the inconsistency of the terms of Bread and Body This is the difficulty S. Austin proposes in express terms on behalf of persons newly Baptiz'd in a Sermon he preach'd to ' em How says he is the Bread his Body and the Wine his Blood Serm. ad iâ—s The same difficulty is proposed by Theophylact Let no body be troubled says Theophyl in Joan. 6. he that he must believe Bread to be Flesh This was the difficulty which the Fathers were willing to prevent or resolve by this great number of passages which explain in what sense we must understand the Bread to be the Body of Jesus Christ to wit because 't is the Symbol of it the sign or figure the Sacrament of it because there 's some kind of proportion between Bread and Body c. as I shew'd in my Answer to the Author of the Perpetuity Now what were all these explications for but to help those that were perplext with these ways of speaking The Bread is the Body of Jesus Christ the Bread is made the Body of Jesus Christ and who for want of such assistance might make thereof a rock of offence NEITHER need Mr. Arnaud make so many exclamations How Lib. 6. cap. 7. p. 575. should those people discern the Body of our Saviour who were not solicitous to know him and that the Eucharist bore its name What Devotion could they have for this mystery seeing Devotion supposes Instruction Altho they knew not how 't was meant the Bread was the Body yet did not this hinder 'em from having a respect for our Saviour's Body from having a real Devotion considering that our Lord was dead and risen for 'em unless according to Mr. Arnaud it be no real Devotion to meditate on the Death and Resurrection of Christ Neither did this hinder 'em from receiving with great respect the Bread and Wine as pledges and remembrances of our Lords Body and Blood For 't is not impossible for persons to know the Eucharist to be a remembrance of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ and that also the Bread and Wine are said to be the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ without knowing that the first of these expressions is the cause of the second which is to say that the Bread and Wine are said to be this Body and Blood because they are the memorials and pledges of it BVT says Mr. Arnaud This laziness which makes the character of this Page 576. second order would last their whole life and not only some little space of time That it would do so we never told Mr. Arnaud 't is his addition 'T was a lazyness in a matter of the greatest concernment I confess 't is very important to make a good use of the Sacrament which is what I suppose these persons did but when a man shall find difficulty in knowing how the Bread is the Body of Jesus Christ and knows not how to solve it we must not therefore despair of his salvation This says he again is a laziness from which a man may be freed by the least question offer'd to a Priest or Laick that is knowing by the instructions which the Pastors gave to those that were admitted to the Communion