the year 1514 relates the same thing of the Moscovites whose Religion as every one knows is in a manner the same with that of the Greeks As to the Sacrament of the Eucharist say's he which they consecrate Raynald ad ann 1514. on the day in which our Lord made his last Supper they say that this only is proper for the sick and not that which is consecrated at other times so that they consecrate Bread on that day for the whole year in a Chalice prepared for that purpose and put it dry and full of maggots as it is into the mouth of the sick with a spoon Possevin the Jesuit in the writing he presented to the great Duke of Muscovia in the year 158â In which he reckons up the Errours of the Greeks especially remarks this as one of the chief They err say's he Possevin in Mosc pag. 43. in saying the most excellent Sacrament of the Eucharist which is consecrated on the day in which our Lord made his last Supper is more efficacious and of greater virtue than that which is consecrated on other days Anthony Caucus Archbishop of Corcyra in his Relation of the Errors of the Greeks to Pope Gregory the XIII observes likewise in the 14th Article That they hold the Sacrament of the Eucharist which is consecrated on the day in which our Lord made his last Supper has a greater virtue than that consecrated on other times Allatius mentions this Article of Caucus amongst others which he censures as calumnies but altho he is very earnest to refute this Archbishop and treats him as unworthily as may be without any respect to his Dignity even to the calling of him os durum Stygium non nisi mentiri gnarum yet has not he Allat de perpet cons lib. 3. cap. 17. dared to touch on this Article in particular and his outrages only confirm in this regard the Authority of Caucus and the truth of his Relation ALPHONSUS de Castro attributes this same opinion to the Greeks Alphonsus de Castro adv baeres lib. 6. tit de Euchar. haeres 9. He alledges for this effect the Testimony of Guy Carmus and altho he has been accustomed not to spare him in his censures whensoever he can find the least occasion yet does he agree with him in this particular saying we must not wonder if the Greeks be in this Errour seeing the Genius of that People lies in expressing themselves after a vain manner and in inventing of Fables ARCUDIUS confirms the same thing There are say's he People so Areud lib. 3. cap. 55. impertinent as to believe the Holy Eucharist which is prepared on that day Holy Thursday hath a greater virtue to sanctifie them who receive it than that which is consecrated on another day As if it were not still the same Jesus Christ or as if our Lord was at sometimes more powerful than at others IF it be demanded what consequence we can hence draw against Transubstantiation I answer it appears plain enough in it self For if we suppose the Greeks hold the Eucharist to be made the Body of Jesus Christ in virtue and efficacy by means of this abundant sanctification which the Bread receives we shall not find any absurdity in this other Opinion which they hold concerning the Eucharist consecrated on Holy Thursday namely that it is more efficacious than that consecrated on other days for this sanctification of the Bread and quickning Grace which accompanies it may have its degrees it receives more and less as the Schoolmen speak but if you suppose the Eucharist to be made the Body of Jesus Christ by conversion of Substance this more and this less which they imagine cannot be admitted it is true indeed that the Sacrament will produce various effects according to the various dispositions of the Persons who receive it and according as there shall be more or less devotion in a man's Soul it will feel more or less the strength of Grace but the cause will be in them who shall receive the Sacrament and not in the Sacrament it self nor in the day of its Consecration If the Bread becomes the proper Substance of the Son of God it is always of equal virtue in it self and the time of Consecration can neither encrease nor diminish it It is then scarcely to be imagined that Persons who believe Transubstantiation can fall into this other Opinion for is it not the same Substance the same Jesus Christ personally is it not one and the same Conversion which terminates it self in the same Subject Whence then can proceed this more and less Would they say that the Transubstantiation is made more on one day than another This thought cannot happen in the mind of those that know what Transubstantiation means Do they mean that the Body of Jesus Christ has greater virtue in it one day than another This thought likewise cannot happen in the mind of those that know what our Saviour is Do they hereby only mean that he displays a greater efficacy one day than another altho he has ever the same measure of it in himself It is certain that this more and this less of Grace which the Faithful receive in the Communion supposing we take the proper Substance of Jesus Christ with the mouths of our Bodies cannot proceed from any other cause but that of more or less devotion which we bring with us to the Lord's Table So that this Opinion of the Greeks being found inconsistant with that of Transubstantiation and moreover it not appearing clearly to us that they have this latter whereas it is plainly manifest they have the other we are obliged to conclude they hold not the substantial Conversion I know we must not imagine that men do always so exactly adjust their Sentiments that they never contradict themselves and I acknowledge the Greeks are ignorant enough to have on the same Subject contradictory Opinions but besides that there are certain palpable contradictions of which few men how bruitish soever they be are capable as this would be to believe that the Eucharist is the proper Substance of the Son of God and yet to be of a more excellent virtue being consecrated on Holy Thursday than on other days besides this I say seeing it does not expresly and clearly appear to us from any thing else that they believe Transubstantiation it is far more just to give to their Terms on the subject of the Change which happens to the Bread a sence which agrees with this aforementioned belief than to give them another which wholly contradicts it and makes them ridiculous If they must be led to the Substantial Conversion or carried off from it by way of explication of their general expressions there is more reason to expound them in a sence conformable to their other Opinions than to make them guilty of manifest absurdities WOULD Mr. Arnaud lay aside for a while this Personal Interest wherewith he seems to be transported in this
to favour the Conversion of the Substances IT is no more favour'd by several other Clauses in the same Liturgy For in that of St. James there is a Prayer which the Priest directs to our Saviour in Heaven altho he has the Consecrated Bread before him ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã say's he ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Bibl. Patr. Graeco Lat. Tom. 2. ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã O thou Holy One that dwellest in the Holy Places sanctifie us by the Word of thy Grace and coming of thy Holy Spirit We find this same Prayer in St. Mark 's Liturgy In those of St. Basile and Chrysostom there is another directed after the same manner to our Saviour in Heaven Look down we beseech thee say's it O Lord Jesus Christ our God from the Holy Place of thy Habitation and Throne of thy Glory which is in thy Kingdom and come to sanctifie us thou that sittest at the right hand of the Father and art here with us invisibly Mr. Arnaud perverts these last words and who art here invisibly with us not considering they relate to that part of the Petition wherein they beseech him to come and sanctifie them and that they only signifie this invisible presence of his Grace and Divinity which he promised his Disciples when he left the World and ascended up into Heaven It plainly appears that the intention of the Greek Church is to send up their Devotions to the Place where our Saviour inhabits How comes it to pass we find not at least one Prayer wherein is expressed that he has clothed the proper Substance of his Humanity with the Veil of the Accidents or some such like words But on the contrary when the Priest reads with a loud voice ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Holy Things are for Holy Persons the Quire answers there is only one that is Holy only one Lord who is Jesus Christ at the Glory of God the Father For 't is clear that these words at the Glory of God the Father mean that he is above in Heaven In the Liturgy of the presanctifi'd Bread the Priest thus addresses himself to God beseeching him that his only Son may rest on this Altar by vertue of these dreadful Mysteries thereon Eurho Goar exposed thus manifestly distinguishing the Mysteries from Jesus Christ and immediately prays That he would sanctifie our Souls and Bodies by a perpetual Sanctification to the end that partaking of these Holy Things with a pure Conscience a holy assurance and enlightned mind and being quickned by them we may be united to Jesus Christ himself our true God who has said he that eateth my Flesh and drinks my Blood dwells in me and I in him By which words it is evident that the Mysteries are plainly distinguished from our Saviour himself and that those who receive them unworthily are not united with him In the Liturgy of St. Basil the Priest prays That receiving with the Testimony Vbi supra of a pure Conscience the Particle of the Sanctifications of God we may be united to the Body and Blood of his Christ and that receiving these things worthily we may have Jesus Christ dwelling in our hearts These words do moreover distinguish Jesus Christ from the Sacrament he has ordained and 't is certain these Terms of Jesus Christ dwelling in our hearts do more plainly intimate a Spiritual Communion than a corporeal one In fine in this same Liturgy the Priest having performed his Office in this particular makes a Prayer unto God in which he recapitulates whatsoever has passed in this Mystical Celebration but mentions not the least tittle concerning Transubstantiation We have say's he finished and consummated the Mystery of thy Oeconomy O Jesus Christ our God as far as we have been able For we have celebrated the memory of thy Death we have beheld the Figure of thy Resurrection we have been filled with thy never fading Life and been made partakers of thy immortal Pleasures grant we may be found worthy to enjoy the same in the World to come Is it not a wonderful thing there should not in all this be the least mention of the conversion of the Substances which is yet in the sence of the Roman Church the most essential part of that Mystery that whereunto all the rest does tend and whereon depends so much that the rest without this would signifie nothing Let Mr. Arnaud alledge what he pleases 't is not to be imagin'd the Greek Church would forget this part of the Mystery in such a solemn recapitulation which it makes to God at the end of its Office did she in effect believe any other Change in the Bread than that of its Virtue and Holyness CHAP. VI. The Tenth Proof taken from that the Greeks do often use an extenuating Term when they call the Eucharist the Body of Jesus Christ The Eleventh from their not believing the wicked who partake of the Eucharist do receive the Body of Jesus Christ The Twelfth from their believing the dead and those in Deserts remote from all Commerce do receive the same as we do in the Communion ALTHO the Greeks do frequently call the Eucharist the Body of Jesus Christ yet must we not thereupon immediately conclude that they are in this respect of the same opinion with the Church of Rome and adopted Transubstantiation or the substantial presence amongst the Articles of their Faith One Proof of the contrary of this is that sometimes when they mention the consecrated Bread and give it the name of the Body of Jesus Christ they add a Term of Diminution which shews they do not mean that it is his Body in propriety of Substance Which appears by a passage taken out of Balsamon on the Seventieth Canon of the Apostles This Canon ordains a punishment to those that shall fast with the Jews and celebrate their Feasts and Balsamon takes hence an occasion to inveigh against the Feasts of unleavened Bread in these words If a Balsam in Canon 55. Apost Can 70. man deserves to be deposed only for eating unleavened Bread with the Jews and expelled the Christian Communion what punishment do they not then deserve that partake of it as of the Body of our Lord and celebrate the Passover after the same manner as they do MATTHEW Blastarius speaks almost to the same purpose in Arcudius They say's he that celebrate the mystical Sacrifice with unleavened Bread Areud lib. 3. cap. 6. do greatly offend against the Christian Customs for if they who only eat the unleaven'd Bread of the Feast of the Jews ought to be deposed and excommunicated what excuse can they make for themselves who receive it as if it were the Body of our Lord. SIMEON of Thessalonica expounding that passage of the Liturgy where the Priest perfumes the Gifts in saying these words Be thou exalted O God above the Heavens and be thou glorifi'd thro out all the Earth the Priest say's he speaks of the Ascension of our Lord and the Glory
since the time of Berengarius's condemnation we cannot be of this Belief that the Eucharist is only the Body of Jesus Christ to the faithful and not to the wicked And in effect if the Substance of Bread be really changed into that of Christ's Body it hence evidently follows that all those that communicate thereof be they either righteous or wicked do receive this Body as it is that is to say in its proper Substance covered with the vail of Accidents So that the Greeks asserting the Eucharist not to be the Body of Christ to Sinners as I have already shew'd makes the Proof I draw hence concerning their not believing of Transubstantiation to be solid and convincing YET may there be two Objections made against my Argument the First That what the Greeks say concerning Christ's Body is to be understood only in respect of its salutiferous effect as has been declared by the Jesuit Chifflet and not in respect of its Substance which is to say their meaning is that the wicked do indeed receive the real Substance of this Body and Blood but receive thereby no advantage The Second that the Bread reassumes its former Substance when a wicked man approaches to receive the Communion and that that of the Body of Jesus Christ withdraws it self But first I say to make people of good sence contented with this explication they must be shewed these kind of meanings in the Writings of the Greeks themselves which without question would be met withall did they hold Transubstantiation It cannot be denied but this Doctrine they teach concerning the wicked does manifestly oppose that of the Substantial conversion and furnisheth us with this conception that if the Eucharist be not the Body of Jesus Christ to the wicked how can it then be said that the Substance of the Bread has been changed into that of this Body This scruple does naturally arise in the mind of those that believe Transubstantiation as appears by the example of the Jesuit Chifflet by that of the Authors of the Office of the blessed Sacrament and by the pre-caution of the Schoolmen and Lattin Writers who carefully shun these kind of expressions We need not doubt but if the Greeks believed the conversion of the Substances they would do one of these two things either they would renounce this other Opinion and deliver themselves after another manner or at least they would so expound and mollifie it as to shelter thereby Transubstantiation But besides this I say if we examine these pretended illustrations in particular one after another we shall find they are vain and ill apply'd to the Greeks In effect the first cannot be of any use because the Latins impute to them the Doctrine here in question as an Error Now this would not be an Error in respect of the Latins if the Greeks understood it only in this sence that the wicked do not receive the salutiferous effect of the Body of Jesus Christ in the Communion altho they received the Substance of it for even this is believed in the Church of Rome Yet Possevin does not only affirm they err but he opposes moreover against their Error a contrary Proposition to be held and on which he grounds his censure They err say's he Possevin ubi Supra for the wicked do really receive the Body of Jesus Christ although they receive it unworthily and to their condemnation AS to the other Objection 't is certainly groundless for not to take notice of the extravagancy of this Opinion that the Substance of the Bread is changed into that of Christ's Body and again that of the Body into that of the Bread the Terms of Cabasilas are so clear that they admit not any evasion for he distinguishes two Persons that give the Communion one the Priest and th' other our Saviour Christ and he attributes to our Saviour alone the glory of giving his Body and Blood 't is likewise he himself say's he that administers to Gabasilas ubi Supra them amongst the living who truly receive For all them to whom the Priest gives it do not truly receive it He himself that is to say immediately and without the Priests sharing in the honour thereof The Priest has the honour to distribute the Bread but not of giving the Body and Blood Now this does wholly overthrow Transubstantiation and refutes the second Objection which I examine for if the Bread were transubstantiated there would be no need of having recourse to our Saviour himself in order to his giving the Faithfull his Body and Blood the Priest would give it them for that which he holds in his hands and communicates to the Faithful would be this Body and Blood in propriety of Substance and Cabasilas would have no reason to oppose our Saviour to the Priest BUT before we leave this passage of Cabasilas it is necessary to observe two things one of which respects the Proposition he would establish and th' other the means he makes use of for this The Proposition he would establish is That the dead receive the same as the living when they partake of the Eucharist The purity of the Soul say's he the Love of God Faith an earnest desire to partake of this Holy Mystery a secret joy which accompanies this desire a fervant appetite and thirst which makes us run to it these are the things which procure our Sanctification with which qualifications it is not possible but those that approach the Communion do partake of Jesus Christ and without which it is impossible Cap. 42. they should Now all these things depend only on the Soul and are not corporeal There is nothing then which hinders the Souls of the dead from having these things as well as the living If then these Souls are in the state and disposition requisite for the receiving of the Mystery if he to whom it belongs to bestow Sanctification and Consecration is always willing to sanctifie and ever desires to communicate himself in all places what can then hinder this participation And a little further It is evident say's he by the things I now mention'd that whatsoever belongs to this Mystery is common as well to the dead as living and a little lower the participation of the Holy Gifts is a thing which necessarily attends Cap. 43. the Souls after death If their joy and repose sprang from any other Principle it might be said that even this would be the reward of that purity wherein they are and this Table would be no longer needful to them But it is certain that whatsoever makes up their delights and felicity whether you call it Paradice or Abraham ' s bosom or those happy seats free from sorrow and cares or that you call it the Kingdom of Heaven it self all this I say is no more than this Bread and Wine For these things are our Mediatour who is entred as our Forerunner into the Holy Places who alone conducts us to the Father who is the only
write in a superficial view only not penetrating into the bottom of things and that occasions my falling into such idle fancies that I multiply my may-be-so's and am one of the boldest and fruitfullest men in the World in Hypothesises and Systems To which I have nothing to answer but that in the Year 1059. Baron ad ann 1059. six years after the Synods held by Pope Leo Nicholas the Second condemned likewise Berengarius in another Synod held at Rome and made him sign a Formulary of Abjuration and that according to Lanfranc they earnestly desired Lanfr de corp sang Dum. lib. 2. cap. 5. to establish the real Conversion of Substances in this Formulary that Cardinal Humbert who drew it up did firmly believe this Doctrine as Mr. Arnaud protests for him and yet for all this it was asserted only in ambiguous Terms which might be expounded in a sence that does not at all contradict the Doctrine of the Greeks seeing Berengarius himself turned them to his own advantage And in effect the Formulary bears That the Bread and Wine are after Lanfr de corp sang Consecration not only the Sacrament but likewise the real Body and Blood of Jesus Christ and are sensibly touched and broken by the Priest's hands and chewed with the teeth of the Faithful not only sacramentally but really and in truth It cannot be denied but these words need a Commentary to make them signifie Transubstantiation seeing the natural sence of them is that those very things which are Bread and Wine are also the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ which is the Opinion of the Greeks as I already shewed in theforegoing Chapter How comes it to pass that what was done under Nicholas was not done likewise under Leo who preceded him and wherefore were the Terms of Leo more expressive and determinative than those of the Pope that came after him Is it the Custom in the Court of Rome to recede from and diminish Doctrines But howsoever if Mr. Arnaud will make advantage of Cerularius his Silence he must shew us that Leo decided the Doctrine of Transubstantiation in such Terms that the Patriarch of Constantinople could not when he saw them expound them in another sence But to suppose this without proving it is a mere Illusion SO far is Mr. Arnaud from shewing us that this formal decision was carried to Cerularius that he does not so much as undertake to inform us whether the Decrees of these Synods at Rome and Verseil be they what they will came to the hands of this Patriarch He contents himself with saying That it had been already eighteen years since Berengarius his Heresie became Lib. 2. cap. 5. pag. 141. famous in the World that Dedowin the Bishop of Liege and Adelman Bishop of Bresse testifie that the report of it o'respread all Germany and that there is no likelihood but the Latins at Constantinople and the Greeks in Italy were informed of it and that a Patriarch should be ignorant of so famous an occurrence FIRST he has forgot what his Friends observed in their Office that Sigibert speaks not of the troubles Berengarius his Heresie raised till 1051. which is to say that his eighteen years must be reduced to two even by his own Friends consent And as to what he say's of Deadwin 't is true his Letter produced by Baronius under the name of Durand has these Words That there was a common report throughout all Germany that Bruno Bishop of Anger 's and Berengarius renewed the Ancient Heresies in teaching that the Body of Jesus Christ was not so much a Body as a Shadow and a Figure and that they annulled the Sacrament of Marriage and that of Baptism of Infants And this was it according to this good Bishop which disturbed all Germany As to Adelman he expresses himself more to the purpose for he say's the report was that Berengarius deviated from the Catholick Faith touching the Body Baron ibid. and Blood of our Lord and to use the words of those that accused him they said he taught the Sacrament was not the real Body and Blood but a Figure or resemblance of them Does Mr. Arnaud believe that these Reports when they should come even to Cerularius his ears were capable of making him take the Field in favour of Berengarius On one hand they represented his Doctrine in Terms very different from the usual expressions of the Greeks which assert the Bread to be the real Body of Jesus Christ and not a Figure and on the other hand he had things laid to his charge which were mere Falsities and Calumnies Why will he needs have a Patriarch that was always at Constantinople and held little or no communication with the Latins to know better what Berengarius did in France than Dedowin Bishop of Liége or Adelman who had been Berengarius his School fellow and who by this long acquaintance might have some interest in his Affairs Why must it needs be that during these pretended eighteen years Cerularius has been better informed by his Spyes or Inquisitors than the Pope by his For it does not appear that the Court of Rome concerned themselves at the matter till 1053. which is as we observed the same year in which Cerularius wrote his Letter Nay 't is probable they had not so soon taken notice of it had not an Ecclesiastick of Rheims brought along with him to Rome some Letters which Berengarius wrote to Lanfranc If the Popes remained silent eighteen years notwithstanding this great disturbance in the West I see no reason why a Patriarch of Constantinople should be any more concerned I could wish Mr. Arnaud would tell us why since the year 1053. to which Baronius refers the Letters of Dedowin and Adelman Bennet the Ninth Gregory the Sixth Clement the Second Damasus the Second have taken no notice of so considerable a matter and why Leo the Ninth concerned not himself in it till the fifth year of his Popedom All Italy was full of French and Dutch France and Germany of Italians and yet no body all this while could think of waking these sleepy Popes and cautioning them against this damnable Heresie which overthrew the Faith of the whole Earth Let him tell us why the Patriarchs that preceded Cerularius or Cerularius himself reproached them not with this scandalous neglect For if on one hand they believed Transubstantiation as Mr. Arnaud supposes and on the other that there was nothing else almost talkt of in the West and being so probable that the Patriarchs of Constantinople were informed of so famous an occurrence how came they to be so mute in such an important Affair and prodigious neglect of the Popes Of this he must give us an account before he can require a reason of us for Cerularius his silence But to speak plainly Mr. Arnaud devises matters in his Closet and having clothed them with all the rhetorical colours wherewith the power of his invention
preserve Orthodoxy and stifle Heresies supposing the Eastern People believed Transubstantiation MR. Arnaud finding Berengarius his Affair would not do his Business betakes himself to another Artifice It concerns us not to know say's he whether Lib. 2. cap. 5. pag. 143. Cerularius and Leo D'Acrida could be ignorant of Berengarius his Condemnation Yet this was the Author of the Perpetuitie's Chief Argument But whether they could be ignorant of the Opinion of the whole Latin Church touching the Eucharist which was then by the Calvinists own Confession most clear distinct and determinate for the real Presence But let the Matter concern what it will his Proof will be never the better But instead of saying for the real Presence he should say for Transubstantiation for our Question touching the Greeks being only on this Point if Mr. Arnaud will make advantage of Cerularius and Leo d' Acrida's silence he must establish that the Latins made it then an Article of their Belief There is a great deal of ambiguity in these Terms of real Presence the Greeks do and do not believe it they believe as we already observed a real Presence of Virtue but not areal Presence of Substance And even we our selves who deny the real Presence Mr. Arnaud means profess to believe another which we hold not only for real but a thousand times more real than that which Mr. Arnaud intends If then he designed to explain himself clearly and to the purpose he must say that the Opinion of the whole Latine Church was plainly and distinctly for Transubstantiation BUT 't is not enough to say so it must be proved for endless and impertinent Stories will never satisfie our Reason He tells us that Cerularius having sent his Letter caused the Latin Churches at Constantinople to be shut Lib. 2. cap. 5. up and took away from the Latin Abbots and other Religious Persons their Monasteries That in the following year Pope Leo sent Cardinal Humbert and the Bishop of Blanche Selve and the Archbishop of Melphus in quality of his Legats to Constantinople with Letters to both the Emperour and Patriarch Which is no more than what we know already without Mr. Arnaud's telling us HE adds That Humbert wrote a refutation of Cerularius his Letter by way of Dialogue and amongst the rest that the Azyme is made by invocation of the Trinity the real and individual Body of Christ There are so many faults to be reprehended in this Allegation that a man scarce knows where to begin to refute it Were his Translation as it should be it would appear these words do not so clearly assert Transubstantiation as to give Cerularius an occasion to reproach the Latins with it For may we not understand that the Bread is made the real and individual Body of Christ in as much as he has not two Bodies but one only in the same sence Saint Chrysostom say's that Chrysost Ep. ad Ces although the nature of Bread remains even then when it becomes worthy to be called our Lord's Body Yet do we not say that the Son of God has two Bodies but one And in the same sence Damascen say's also That when the Bread Damascen I. pist ad Zac. Doar Humbert cont Graec. Bibl. Patr. 1. 4 Edit and Wine pass into the growth of our Lord's Body and Blood it becomes not two Bodies but one Moreover Humbert say's not what Mr. Arnaud makes him say viz. that the Bread becomes the Individual Body his words are Corpus Singulare the Singular Body that is to say the Body which singly and only belongs to Jesus Christ and not to the Father and Holy Spirit and there is so great blindness or rather unfaithfulness in this Translation that I cannot suppose it to be Mr. Arnaud's He has published it without doubt from the Collection of some of his Friends and not from Humbert's Text For how great soever his prejudice may be I do not believe he would venture his reputation for so small an advantage as might be expected from this false Translation Observe here what Humbert say's The Azyme being thus prepared is made by an hearty Invocation of the Holy Trinity the real and single Body of Christ Not as the Theopaschites would have it the Body of the Father Son and Holy Ghost Which it seems you believe likewise seeing you say the Azyme does not participate of the Father Son and Holy Spirit as the Leavened Bread does Leave this wicked Opinion unless you will be condemned with the Theopaschites In the Commemoration of our Lord's Passion the Holy and Impassible Trinity has nothing in common except the single Consecration wherein all the Persons co-operate For the death of the Humanity only of the Son of God is celebrated in this visible Sacrament the Apostle saying every time ye cat of this Bread and drink of this Cup ye shew the Lord's death till he comes Our Lord himself in this particular Commemoration delivering the Bread to his Disciples said to em this is my Body which was given for you Mine say's he which by the Grace of the Holy Spirit I who am the Wisdom of the Father have built as a Temple in 46 days in the Womb of the unspotted Virgin It now plainly appears what is the meaning of this Singulare Corpus Christi which is to say the Body which the second Person only assumed and not the Father nor Holy Spirit To make of this the individual Body of Jesus Christ to conclude from thence Transubstantiation is so gross and ridiculous a mistake that had Mr. Arnaud met with the like in my Writings in the humour he seems to be of he would have made it the Subject of a whole Chapter I shall only advise him to take more care another time and not labour so confidently hereafter upon other Peoples Memories This first Passage is attended by another almost of the same kind He say's say's he that the Latins honouring the Body of Truth that is to say the Body of Christ made of an Azyme and in the Azymes taste with their Mouths and Heart how sweet the Lord is This adds he is clear enough and a man must be very dull not to understand this Language I confess I am not quicker of apprehension than another yet I understand very well Humbert ' s Discourse without Transubstantiation We say say's he that the Azyme of the Christians is very different from that of the carnal Jews who observed and pursued the shadow of Truth invited hereunto by the promise and desire of a Terrestial Felicity such as a long Life Riches a numerous Off-spring and such like things But as to us honouring and retaining the Body of Truth which is of the Azyme and in the Azyme we taste with our mouths and heart how sweet the Lord is desiring of him no more but that he may dwell in us and we in him eternally Is not this to deride People to alledge such a Passage as this whereby to
these things WE have seen that one of their Opinions is that the Wicked do not receive Christ's Body in the Sacrament Now every Man sees this Doctrine does not well agree with Transubstantiation in as much as that on one Hand 't is held the Bread is made the Body of the Son of God in propriety of Substance and on the other that the Wicked in receiving it eat not this Body Whence it follows according to all Rules of Sence that they are obliged to endeavour to make these two Opinions agree and remove the contrariety which appears betwixt them Yet so far are they from troubling themselves about this that we find not this Contrariety whether real or imaginary ever entred into their Thoughts NOW let any Man compare the Arguments we draw from their Silence touching all these Consequences with that of Mr. Arnaud's and faithfully tell us whether ours are not more Conclusive and Evident than his We have proposed several things which the Greeks might know without any Study Reflection Attention of Mind Legats and Interpreters only by the sight of their Eyes and help of common Sence Affairs which were neither carried on by Intrigues Negotiations nor publick Respects and wherein the Silence of the Greeks is certain there being no likelyhood but if they spake of 'em we should be soon made to know it and concerning which in fine they could not be silent as they are without doing a notable Prejudice to Religion and an extraordinary Violence to Nature Whereas Mr. Arnaud only offers us one thing which can scarcely be known by any but the Learned and which requires also great attention of Mind and reading a matter which for the most part was in the hands of some Deputies and mannaged by the help of Interpreters wherein Intrigues and Interests Complacency and Fear and other humane Passions have great share and touching which we cannot be assured whether the Silence of the Greeks be truly such as 't is represented to us seeing we have no more of their Writings but what the Latins were pleased to give us A matter in fine in which the Greeks might be silent without offering any Violence to themselves and without believing they did any Wrong to their Religion I shall show this more largely hereafter what I now mention'd being only to facilitate the comparison of my Proofs with that of Mr. Arnaud's to the end the Readers may more clearly and exactly judg of them III. IN the third place it is necessary that my first Proofs which I offered in the foregoing Book be remembred which were taken from that the Greeks do not teach the Doctrine of Transubstantiation in express terms I mean the substantial Conversion asserted by the Latins that they receive not the Councils which have determined it that they will not use the term of ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã that they explain themselves only in general Terms which may be understood in another Sence and which at farthest can admit only of a general Sence and that Mr. Arnaud is constrain'd to betake himself to Consequences and Arguings to render their Expressions favourable It is likewise requisite that the Reader call to mind the solid Grounds on which my Proofs are built and the Testimonies I have produced on this Subject and on the other Hand the Illusions I discovered in Mr. Arnaud's Dispute as well in the formulary of the Reunion with which he has made such a noise as the Testimonys of Samonas Agapius the Baron of Spataris Paysius Ligaridius the Synod of Cyprus and that of some Priests in the Patriarchate of Antioch for the Truth of my Principle results from the Examination of all these things the rest of Mr. Arnaud's Proofs consisting only in Arguings and Consequences I would likewise desire the Reader to compare his negative Argument with mine and judg which of the two Consequences is the better The Greeks say I when they explain the Mystery of the Eucharist use not the Term of Transubstantiation nor teach the thing which this Term signifies they own not the Councils that have determin'd it and in the rejection of them never except this Article nor shew by any thing else they are agreed in it They do not then believe the substancial Conversion of the Latins Mr. Arnaud say's on the contrary the Greeks reproach not the Latins with Transubstantiation they make not a Dispute thereof they condemn it not as an Errour they then Believe it I say that my Consequence is evident certain immediate and necessary whereas Mr. Arnaud's has none of these Qualities My Consequence is evident for 't is evident a whole Church that believes the Conversion of the Substance of Bread into the Substance of the Body of Christ and would have her Children Believe it must needs teach it them in clear and distinct Terms and such as are able to form the Idea which she would have them conceive of it But the Greek Church does not do this therefore she does not believe it For it would be prodigiously strange that a Church had concerning the Change which happens in the Eucharist a Belief as distinct and determinate as is that of the Conversion of one Substance into another and yet could not or would not explain her self in clear and distinct Terms altho she finds them already made to her Hands in the Language of a Church with whom she agrees in this Point But this the Greek Church does not do She does not thus explain her self She has not then this Belief My Consequence is immediate for the first and most immediate Obligation the first and most immediate Effect which arises from the Belief of Transubstantiation in a Church that holds it is that of teaching it and explaining how she believes it that is to say distinctly for it cannot be believed otherwise than distinctly But the Greek Church does not explain her self distinctly She does not then believe it I say in fine that 't is necessary For there is nothing that can hinder the Greek Church from expounding clearly and plainly this Opinion if she held it Not the Ignorance of proper Expressions for besides that they are easily met with the Roman Church furnishes her with them not the Fear of scandalizing her People for the Church of Rome asserts these People have held this Doctrine ever since Christianity was first planted amongst them not the fear of scandalizing the Infidels for the Turks amongst whom the Greeks live suffer all sorts of Religions and the Latins who were mixt with them and who scruple not to explain themselves clearly on this Doctrine have long since taken away this Pretence from the Greeks the fear of offending their Emperors when they had 'em could not withold them for the Greek Emperors as we have already seen have almost all of 'em favoured the Latins Much less moreover can it be said they were hindred by the Fear of the Roman Church and its Power for this was a means on the contrary to
demanded why then did they Dispute on the Procession of the Holy Spirit and the Azymes I answer because these two Points first occasioned the Separation of the two Churches Photius adhered especially to the first of these and Cerularius to the latter The reason why the Greeks have so earnestly stuck to these two Particulars seems to be out of a Principle of Constancy They have followed the first and original Causes of their Quarrel with the Latins treading in the Steps of their Predecessors Had they found the Article of the substantial Conversion in their way they had without doubt stumbled at it but not meeting with it 't is no marvel if they took no notice thereof no more than of other Doctrines But why was not this point at first comprehended amongst those that caused the Separation of the two Churches The Answer is easy because Transubstantiation was not then established in the Roman Church Photius began the Separation towards the end of the ninth Century Cerularius renewed it about the middle of the eleventh and the first that determin'd the substantial Conversion was Gregory the VII in the Year 1079 so that 't is no marvel if they disputed not about it VII NEITHER do I understand the Greeks could have just Cause to dispute this Point against the Body of the Latin Church in general before the Council of Constance that is to say before the fifteenth Century For altho Gregory the VII made his Determination in the Year 1079 as I already said and Innocent the III had done the same in the Council of Latran in the Year 1215 yet there were several People that did not esteem these kind of Decisions as legitimate and authentick Declarations of the Church Every body knows that Rupert who lived in the twelveth Century publickly Rupert in Joan lib. 6. in Exod. l. 2. c. 10. taught that the substance of Bread remains in the Eucharist and becomes the Body of Christ by an hypostatical Union with the Word Anselm wrote against him and Algerus disputed against his Opinion but he was never Condemned for an Heretick We know likewise what Durand of St. Porcien taught who lived in the beginning of the fourteenth Century to wit that the Substance of Bread remains and that losing its first form of Bread it receives the form of the Body of Christ in the same manner the Food we take receives the form of our Body * Bell. de Sacr. Euch. l. 3 c. 13. Thom. Waldens tom 2. de Sacr. cap. 65. cod Ms. qui asservatur in Biblioth S. Victor Paris cuititul Determinatio fratris Joan. de Pariscis praedieatoris de modo existendi corporis Christi in Sacr. Altare c. Intendo dicere vâram existentiam realem corporis Christs in Sacramento Altaris quod non est ibi solum in signo licet teneam approbem illârum solemnem opinionem quod corpus Christi est in Sacramento Altaris per conversionem substanciae panis in ipsum quod ipsi maneant accidentia sine subjecto non tamen audeo dicere quod boc cadet sub fide mea sed potest aliter salvari vera realis existentia corporis Christi in Sacramento Altaris Protestor tamen quod si ostenderetur dictus modus determinatus esse per Sacrum canonem aut per Ecclesiam aut per Concilium generale aut per Papam qui virtute continet totam Ecclesiam quicquid dicam volo haberi pro non dicto statim paratus sum revocare quod si non fit determinatus contingat tamen determinari statim paratus sum assentire In 4. Sent. Quaest 6. Art 4. Bellarmin acknowledges that this Opinion may be called a Transformation but not a Transubstantiation Yet was not Durand Prosecuted nor Condemned as an Heretick nor his Doctrine Censured We moreover know what was taught by John of Paris of the Order of Fryar Preachers and Divinity Professor at Paris who lived towards the end of the thirteenth Century That altho he approved of the common Opinion touching the Conversion of the Substance of Bread into the Body of Christ yet he durst not affirm this to be an Article of Faith necessarily to be believed as determin'd by the Church and that there was another more popular Opinion and perhaps more rational and conformable to the true Doctrine of the Sacrament namely the Assumption of the Substance of Bread by the person of the Word We know in fine what Peter Dailly Cardinal and Bishop of Cambray wrote who lived about the beginning of the fifteenth Century namely that it does not follow in his Opinion from the Churches Determination that the Substance of Bread ceases BUT to the end it may not be said these are the Opinions of particular Titulus Judicium facultatis Theologiae in presentia Collegij magisirârum in Theologia dictum est utrumque ââcdum ponendi corpus Christi esse in Altari tenet pro opinione prohabilâ approbat utrumque per hic est lacuna per dicta Sanctorum dicit tamen quod nullus est determinatus per Ecclesian idco nullum cadere sub fide Et si aliter dixisset minus benc dixisset qui aliter dicunt minus benc dicunt qui determinate asseveret alterutrum praecise cadere sub fide incurreret sententiam Canânis Anathcmatis Persons who might be mistaken I will here produce the Judgment of the Divines at Paris in the beginning of the fourteenth Century that is to say about the Year 1304 touching John of Paris and concerning the Assumption of the Substance of Bread as is contained in a Manuscript of the Library of St. Victor in these Words The Opinion of the Faculty in Theology in the Presence of the Masters of the Colledg touching both the Ways whereby the Body of Christ may be said to exist on the Altar to wit that of the Conversion of the Substance of Bread and that of the Assumption of this Substance by the Word both which Opinions it holds and approves by and by the Testimonies of the Fathers Yet it says that neither of these two ways has been determined by the Church and therefore never a one of them is an Article of Faith and if it said otherwise it would not have said so well and those that express themselves otherwise say not so well and he that positively asserts that either one or the other of these Modes is an Article of Faith incurs the Sentence of an Anathema I denote in the Margin the proper terms of the Manuscript according as they lye under this Title Judicium Facultatis Theologiae JOHN of Paris met with Opposition from William of Orillac Bishop of Paris and several other Bishops Yet did they not condemn his Sentiment nor contradict what the Faculty of Theology said but silenced him and forbad him the Chair Whereat he made his Appeal to Rome where he came himself and had a Committy appointed to hear
quod sicut bestiae in morte expirant sic moriuntur ita Homines sicut bestiae cum semel morte fuerunt nunquam resurgent ita nec homines The Opinions held only in one Armenia are likewise denoted exactly in these Words In majori Armenia In minori Armenia or Catholicon majoris Armeniae Catholicon minoris Armeniae The common Opinions are expressed in these Terms Armeni dicunt Armeni tenent And altho in the Article which respects the real Presence and Transubstantiation we find these words Et hoc specialiter aliqui magistri Armenorum dixerunt videlicet quod non erat ibi Corpus Christi verum Sanguis sed exemplar similitudo ejus yet is this same sentiment imputed generally to all the Armenians for the Article begins thus Item quod Armeni non dicunt quod post verba consecrationis Panis Vini sit facta Transubstantiatio Panis Vini in verum Corpus Christi Sanguinem And towards the end of the same Article there is Quod etiam Armeni illud quod ponitur in eorum Canone Missae per quem panis Benedictus efficitur verum Corpus Christi exponunt quia efficitur ibi vera similitudo exemplar Corporis Sanguinis Christi Unde Damascenus propter hoc reprehendens eos dixit quod ducenti tunc anni erant quod Armeni perdiderunt omnia Sacramenta c. It is then clear that this information attributes this Opinion not to some particular Persons but to the whole Body of the Armenians seeing that on one hand this Article bears the Character of Errors common to the Armenians and on the other there is applyed to 'em what Damascene say'd of 'um so long before that they had lost all the Sacraments Let Mr. Arnaud bestir himself as fiercely as he pleases he cannot hinder us from perceiving that if this Article related only to Particular Persons witnesses of the Fourteenth Century that depose what it contains would never have sought in the eight Century that is to say Six Hundred Years before the Authority of Damascen to confirm what they deposed and even to confirm it by a passage which respects the Church of the Armenians in general and which accuses it for having no true Sacrament MR. Arnaud observes afterwards that in this same Article there is accused another Armenian Doctor named Narces for saying when the Priest C. 9. P. 48. pronounces these Words Hoc est Corpus meum the Body of Jesus Christ is then in a state of Death and when he adds perquem the Body of Jesus Christ is then alive It is true says he the information adds that this Doctor do's not express whether he speaks of the true Body of Jesus Christ or of the Figure But the difference of these two states of Life and Death being to be found in a figure which does not change sufficiently shews that he spake of the true Body of Jesus Christ If these two states of Life and Death cannot be found in a figure much less in the true Body of Jesus Christ which is no more Subject to Death nor the Necessity of rising again Is Mr. Arnaud so greatly prejudic'd that he cannot perceive the sence of this Doctor is that the Eucharist is a mystery which expresses the whole oeconomy of Jesus Christ especially his Death and Resurrection according to the common Doctrine of the Greeks from which in this respect the Greeks do not vary IN the Seventyeth Error says he moreover the same Armenians are Ibid charged with believing that when any one receives the Eucharist the Body of Jesus Christ Descends into his Body and is converted therein as other aliments which is a contrary Heresie to that of Berengarius But as Berengarius would not have scrupled to call the Bread which is the Sacrament of the Body of Jesus Christ the Body of Jesus Christ so neither would he have scrupled to express himself in the same manner as this Article makes the Armenians do That the Body of Jesus Christ that is to say the Bread which is the figure of it Descends into our Bodies and is changed into our Bodies So that this contrariety which Mr. Arnaud imagins has no Ground But there is a real Opposition between this Discourse of the Armenians that the Body of Jesus Christ is Changed into our Bodies as other food and the Opinion of Transubstantiation for how can it be conceived that the proper substance of the Body of Jesus Christ which is in Heaven should be changed into our Bodies that an incorruptible substance should be digested and changed that a substance which exists after the manner of Spirits should nourish us and become food to us It appears then from this very thing that by the Body of Jesus Christ the Armenians mean only the Sacrament or Mystery of this Body which in respect of its substance is real Bread NEITHER is it to any purpose to Remark as Mr. Arnaud do's Ibid. that those to whom was attributed the believing the Eucharist to be only the figure of Christs Body were not wont to call the Eucharist the Body of Jesus Christ and yet commonly the Armenians do thus call it as appears by their Liturgies For 't is evident the sence of this Article is not that absolutely the Armenians rejected this expression seeing it immediately afterwards attributes it to them but that it was not usual amongst them especially since they saw the Latins abused it and therefore they chose rather to use those of Host Sacrifice and Communion IT is also to no purpose to say the Liturgy of the Armenians is contrary Ibid. to this Opinion seeing it contained the Bread is made the real Body of Jesus Christ for they expounded it in this sence that the Bread is made the true resemblance or the representation of the Body of Jesus Christ This explication says Mr. Arnaud is so absurd and ridiculous that it could not be very common it being impossible the generality should entertain it But does Mr. Arnaud believe that Transubstantiation being fully and truly explained as it is in it self and consequences and dependencies can be more easily entertain'd by a People than this sence which the Armenians give to the terms of their Liturgy AS to what he adds that it is say'd in the Seventyeth Article that Ibid. according to the Armenians the Eucharist do's not effect the remission of Sins nor confer Grace and that this is contrary to the Words of the Liturgy of the Armenians of Leopolis and a passage of the Catholick of Armenia in the conference of Theorien which say's they Sacrifice in the Church the son of God for the Salvation of the whole World All that Mr. Arnaud can conclude hence is That the Armenians residing in Armenia do not well agree in this point with those of Leopolis in Poland and that the Catholick which conferred with Theorien was of no great consideration amongst them but it cannot hence follow
same habitation of the Divinity in the Water of Baptism and the use which God makes of it to communicate his graces would render it likewise the Body of Jesus Christ and give occasion to say that altho there be different Waters to Baptize in yet these Waters make but one and the same Body of Jesus Christ that they are changed into the Body of Jesus Christ that they pass into the Body of Jesus Christ that altho they appear to be Water yet in truth they are the Body of Jesus Christ Besides that it does not follow that Authors have not had a sentiment that one may form objections to the contrary there being no opinion so clear against which we may not raise difficulties One may moreover answer him from the part of Remy and others that the habitation of the Divinity does not always produce this effect in all the material things which it makes use of whereby to communicate the graces merited by the Body of Jesus Christ to unite them to the Body of Jesus Christ and to make them become this Body by way of conjunction and addition 'T is an habitation and a particular union of the Divinity to the Bread of the Eucharist which produces in it alone this effect which must not be extended to other things which Jesus Christ did not say were his Body as he said of the Bread All that can be hence concluded then is that according to these Authors there must be some difference allowed between the habitation of the Divinity in the Bread and the habitation of this same Divinity in other things as there is between the habitation of the Divinity in the Faithful and Saints and the habitation of this same Divinity in the human nature of Jesus Christ seeing this difference appears in the difference of the effects which they produce Now this is a thing which these Authors would gladly allow One may say the same thing touching the Soul and Body of Jesus Christ which are filled with the same virtue of the Divinity and yet of which it cannot be said that one is the other For altho the same Divinity dwells in the Body and Soul of Jesus Christ yet this is another kind of habitation design'd to produce not the above-mention'd effect but another The Divinity dwells in all things and fills them with its virtue but in a different manner and this difference discovers it self only by the difference of the effects which it produces in the things themselves THIS is near what these Authors would have answer'd had any body offered them these objections But I am persuaded they would never have approved of this new Philosophy by which Mr. Arnaud endeavours to accommodate their expressions to the sense of the Roman Transubstantiation Remy says he tells us that the Divinity which is in the Body of Jesus Christ P. 832. and in the Bread joyns them together but not by a simple habitation for it would thus joyn all the creatures where it resides but by a true operation which renders them not distant but immediately united And this union does not determin it self to a simple conjunction but makes that the Bread passes into the Body of Jesus Christ that it becomes the Body of Jesus Christ as wax becomes fire according to the comparison of S. Chrysostom and as the Bread eaten by Jesus Christ became the Body of Jesus Christ according to the comparison of other Fathers This union then is only the way to Transubstantiation Remy and other Authors who have followed this opinion explain the manner how the Bread is the Body of Jesus Christ and they say that 't is inasmuch as 't is joyn'd to this Body 'T is says Remy one only Body and Blood with that which he took of the Virgin for the Divinity fills it and joyns it to it self and makes that as it is one so it must be joyn'd to the Body of Jesus Christ and be one Body of Jesus Christ in truth The Divinity of the Word says the pretended Alcuinus fills this Body which is every where which is to say that which is Consecrated in an infinite of places adding it to self and makes that as it is one it be also joyn'd to the Body of Jesus Christ and be one only Body in truth These words do not put us upon imagining they thought of laying open a certain way to Transubstantiation nor a preambulatory or preparative union to the conversion as Mr. Arnaud would have us believe This is a mere illusion 'T is clear they teach in what manner the Bread is the same Body with that which he took of the Virgin and settle here to wit inasmuch as 't is joyn'd to it by the link of the same Divinity which fills both the one and the other Which is what appears from the bare reading of their passages and especially that of Ascelinus Berenger had told him that if he follow'd the opinion of Paschasus he went contrary to all the laws of nature And Ascelinus answers him that 't is neither a subject of admiration nor a subject of doubt that God can make that which is Consecrated on the Altar to be united to this Body which our Saviour took of the Virgin which shews he made the ground of his sentiment to consist in this union and that he respected it not as a way to Transubstantiation but as that which formally made the Bread the Body of Jesus Christ The examples which he adds of the Soul and Body which are joyned together and of the two natures united in Jesus Christ confirm the same thing for the union of the soul and body and the union of the two natures are not in any wise ways and preparations to any Transubstantiation they are on the contrary unions wherein the two things united subsist and on which the mind settles What Mr. Arnaud says that this union does not terminate it self to a simple conjunction but makes the Bread pass into the Body of Jesus Christ is equivocal For if he means that the formal effect of this union is that the Bread remaining what it was becomes the Body of Jesus Christ we will grant him that this was in effect the sentiment of these Authors but if he 'll have the Bread ceasing to be what it was to become really the same numerical substance which was the Body of Christ before this change we deny that these Authors have taken it in this sort The comparisons which he alledges of Wax which becomes Fire and Bread eaten by Christ which became his Body do contradict this last sense for the Wax devoured by the Fire becomes not the same substance of Fire in number that it was before and the Bread which our Saviour aet became not likewise so properly the same substance in number which was before his Body So what he says afterwards That to joyn the Bread to the Body of Jesus Christ p. 842. and to make it to be the Body of
the Blessed Virgin in her Particle of Bread and what likelihood is there Persons endued with the least sense should fall into this Opinion if the expressions of the Greeks gave them not some reason for it Arcudius assures us that in Arcud lib. 3. de Euch. C 9. his time there was a certain Person in Poland otherwise both Pious and Learned who perswaded a Lady of Russia to receive no more the Sacrament from the hands of the Priests of her Religion because they administred not the Body of Jesus Christ but that of the Virgin Mary and St. Nicholas c. This man's mistake to whom Arcudius gives another kind of Character than that of a Calumniator was no otherwise occasioned but by the manner of speaking usual amongst the Greeks who called these Particles the Body of this or th' other Saint For 't is not likely he invented this Fable himself which Histor Eccl. part 4. p. 20. is so impertinent and ridiculous Hottinger affirms there 's to be seen in the Library of Zurich a Manuseript which bears the name of one Peter Numagen in which is expresly mention'd that the Greeks affirm the remainders of the Consecrated Bread which is to say of that Bread from whence the great Particle has been taken in remembrance of our Saviour and which they distribute to the People at the end of the Action calling it ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã to be the remainders of the Body of the Virgin Mary Guy Carmus relates the same thing the thirteenth Errour of the Greeks say's he is that they affirm the remainders of the Consecrated Bread are the remains of the Body of the Blessed Virgin GERMAIN the Patriarch of Constantinople speaks after this manner Theoria rer Eccles we need not doubt say's he but there are great spiritual blessings and advantages which do follow from the communication of this Bread which is the Body of the Blessed Virgin And the same kind of expressions are to be seen in Sacred Nosegay lib. 4. c. 3. Boucher's relation touching the Greeks They all of 'em hold say's he a most ridiculous and extravagant opinion for they believe that under these Particles of the Consecrated Host is really contain'd the Body of the Virgin after the same manner as the Body of her Son under the principal parts of the said Host so that they receive these Fragments with new Prayers and Preparatives in honour of the Mother of our Saviour I do not doubt but that Boucher is mistaken as well as those mentioned by Goar and this good man of Poland mention'd by Arcudius in imputing to them such a ridiculous Superstition but 't is certain the occasion of this charge was the manner of the Greeks expressing themselves who attribute to these Fragments and Particles of Bread the name of the Body of the Virgin and Saints in the same manner as they call the great Particle our Saviour's Body NOW this manifestly shews we ought not to abuse as Mr. Arnaud do's their Mystical expressions for seeing they apply them to the Bread when as yet unconsecrated and speak of it as if it was our Saviour himself behaving themselves as if he was present in his Humane Nature who then can find it strange if they express themselves above the ordinary rate concerning the Consecrated Bread which is the consummation of the whole Mystery And seeing they are not sparing of their Mystical expressions touching the Particles of Bread divided and set apart in honour of the Virgin Mary and Saints what likelihood is there they should be more reserv'd in respect of that which they consecrate in remembrance of the Son of God and on which they express with so great Ceremony and Pomp the whole Oeconomy of our Salvation It is evident that to attribute to them the belief of a real and substantial Conversion according to the sence of the Roman Church they must have explain'd themselves in clear and proper Terms for should we be guided by Mr. Arnaud who makes the most trivial matters serve for Proofs and draws Consequences from all Sides either right or wrong we should run the hazard of being deceived as well as those that imagined the Greeks believed the real presence of the Virgin Mary's Body and that of St. Nicholas CHAP. V. The Seventh Proof taken from that the Greeks do not believe the Particles of the Virgin Mary and the Saints ought to be consecrated on the great Altar as is that of our Saviour and yet they distribute them to the People in the same manner as they do the Body of Jesus Christ. Mr. Arnaud's Tenth Fallacy laid open The Eighth Proof taken from their believing that the Eucharist consecrated on Holy Thursday has a greater virtue than that which is consecrated at other times The Ninth Proof taken out of several Passages of their Liturgies WE have seen in the preceding Chapter that the Greeks when as yet at the Prothesis that is to say at the little Altar do separate eleven Particles of Bread the first and principal Particle in honour of our Saviour the second in honour of his Holy Mother and the rest in honour of the Saints and that they carry all these and place them on the high Altar where the Consecration is perform'd WE must here observe they believe not that all these Particles are consecrated for they restrain this effect to that which bears the name of our Saviour the others remaining unconsecrated Arcudius affirms Simeon of Arcud de Sacr. Euch. lib. 3. c. 10. Thessalonica who lived in the beginning of the Fifteenth Century to be the Author of this Opinion against which he with much passion inveighs Mr. Arnaud tells us we must not attribute this Error to all the Greeks because say's he that Simeon protesteth before he proposed it that he did not offer it dogmatically but only as a probable Opinion But Arcudius does not fully say this he only tells us that Simeon at the end of his whole Discourse adds that he mentions not these things as Points of Doctrine because he always follows the Sentiments of the Church This is a Clause of Submission but this is not to protest before the proposal of the Opinion that he offers it but only as a mere Opinion Mr. Arnaud adds That 't is likely the Greeks in the Council of Florence did answer the Latins according to the sence of Simeon for the Acts mention that the Bishop of Mytilene fully satisfi'd them touching the Questions proposed amongst which this was one But he is mistaken for the Question of the Latins was not concerning the Consecration of the small Particles but touching the Making of these Particles and uniting them with the great one ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã They demanded of us wherefore we divided the Particles in the Oblation that is to say on the Prothesis and afterwards joyned them to the Divine Bread or great Consecrated Particle Now this Question does not respect the Consecration of these Particles
reads ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ipse autem salvus erit sic tamen quasi per ignem which they have translated he shall be saved but must pass thro the fire The respect due to St. Paul could not save his quasi from the fury of these Gentlemen And thus do they deal with the Holy Scripture when it speaks not according to their mind I know not whether the quasi's of Balsamon Blastarius Simeon of Thessalonica Germane Nicetas and those of Athanasius are less distastful to 'em than that of St. Paul But howsoever these diminutive Terms do sufficiently evidence the Greeks do not believe Transubstantiation for thâse that do believe it study rather to strengthen by clear and precise expressions the name of the Body of Jesus Christ which is given to the Eucharist than to weaken it by restrictions and diminutions BUT to go on with our Proofs It is an opinion generally received amongst the Greeks That the wicked who participate of the Eucharist do not receive the Body of Jesus Christ And that they do hold this opinion may be proved by the Testimony of several good Authors PRATEOLUS expressly mentions this amongst their Errors They affirm say's he that those who live in the practice of any known sin do not receive Prateol Elen. Heresic lib. 7. cap. de Graecis the Body of Jesus Christ altho they draw near to the Table of our Lord and receive the consecrated Bread from the hands of the Priest POSSEVIN the Jesuit confirms the same thing They err says he Possevin in Mosc p. 43. in affirming those that are defiled with sin do not receive the Lord's Body when they come to the Altar NICHOLAS Cabasilas does fully set forth the Belief of the Greek Church touching this Point The causes say's he of our sanctification or if Gabisil in explicat Litur cap. 22. you will the dispositions which our Saviour requires of us are purity of Soul and love of God an earnest desire to partake of the Sacrament and such a thirst after it as shall make us run to it These are the things which procure our Sanctification and with which it is impossible but those that come to the Communion must partake of Jesus Christ and without which it is impossible they should And a little further endeavouring to prove that the Souls seperate from their Bodies do receive the same as the Faithful which are living in this World of the Sacrament If the Soul say's he has no need of the Body whereby to receive Sanctification but on the contrary the Body has need of the Soul what more of the Mystery do the Souls receive which are clothed with their Bodies than those which are stript of them Is it that they behold the Priest and receive the Gifts from him But the Souls that are out of the Body have the Eternal Priest who is to them more than all these things being the same likewise that administreth it to them alive who receive it as they ought to do For all those to whom the Priest administers it cannot be said truly to receive it The Priest administers it to all that come to him but our Saviour gives it only to those that are worthy to partake of it Whence it clearly appears that 't is our Saviour alone who by means of this Sacrament consecrates and sanctifies the Souls as well of the living as the dead LEO Allatius has made a Catalogue of Simeon the Abbot of St. Mamant's Works who lived about the end of the Eleventh Century and whom the Greeks call Simeon the Divine Now in one of his Treatises there is a Hymn expressly relating to this Subject before us to wit that the wicked do not partake of the Body of Jesus Christ when they receive the Sacrament Allatius tells us that he has seen this particular piece being a Manuscript in a certain Library in Italy and that the Title of it is That they which receive unworthily the Sacraments do not receive the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ And 't is unto this whereunto relates what Nilus say's in his Sentences Keep your selves from all corruption and partake every day of the Mystical Supper Apud Allat de Simeon Nil in Par. Bibl. Patr. Graeco-lat Tom. 2. for 't is after this sort that the Body of Jesus Christ becomes ours And what we find in the Verse of Psellus on the Canticle of Canticles Jesus Christ gives his Body to the Children of the Virgin that is to say to the Church for thus does he speak to them but 't is Only to those that are worthy whom he calls his near Kindred come my Friends eat and drink and be merry my brethren you Comm. trium Patr. in Cant. Cant. that are my brethren in good Works eat my Body and drink my Blood And these words of Joanicius Cartanus the Saints are made partakers of holy things not they that are unworthy and sinners who having not cleansed themselves from Apud Allat de perpet Cons lib. 3. their sins remain still polluted and elsewhere when we shall draw near unto God with Love Fear Reverence and Repentance and be in charity with all men then shall we be meet partakers of the Body and Blood of Christ NOW if you would know of what importance the Argument is which we draw from this Doctrine of the Greeks you need but read what Chifflet the Jesuit and others have written touching a passage of the Confession attributed Chifflet praefat ad Lector in Confess Alcu. to Alcuinus which bears That the virtue of this Sacrifice is so great that it is the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ only to the just sinners tanta est virtus hujus Sacrificii ut solis justis peccatoribus Corpus sit Sanguis Christi If the Sacrifice or Sacrament say's this Jesuit be the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ to some only and not to all what remains then but to confess that Alcuinus has been the Forerunner of Berengarius and Calvin and that he has denied the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist He tells us this passage has given him no small trouble and endeavours to expound it saying that Alcuinus speaks of the Body and Blood of Christ in respect of their salutiferous effect which appertains only to the Just But the Authors of the Office of the B. Sacrament having told us that it seems we must read tanta In their Historical and Chronological Table under the title of B. Alcuin est virtus Sacrificii ut solis justis non peccatoribus Sanguis sit Corpus Christi they have added that this expression has not been used since the Heresie of Berengarius and that the Schoolmen who have been more scrupulous as to Terms have after the rise of the Heresies touching this Mystery avoided it Which is as much as to say in my opinion that if we believe Transubstantiation as the Church of Rome has believed it
these and yet teaches a Doctrine that is easie full of piety and free from contradiction She affirms then that the Bishop or Priest in the Divine Service holds the place of Christ making the Propitiation for the sins of the People and that by the Holy Invocation of God's Name and mention of the Divine Words of our Saviour the spiritual Grace descends that sanctifies the Bread and Wine and changes them not into the sensible but spiritual Body of Jesus Christ And as to those that assert the Substance of Bread and Wine is changed into the natural Flesh of Jesus Christ if they understand hereby a supernatural change after a spiritual manner those that do thus speak concur in their Opinion with the Eastern Church But seeing they will have this to be sensibly effected our Church does therein disagree with them altho they have recourse to another way of speaking in telling us of Accidents and Species and such like things which none of the Ancients ever thought of much less mention'd For the Fathers of the Eastern Church have been ever averse to Novelties and Contentions which tend to the ruine of Souls not only detesting those Doctrines which are heretical and divide the Church but which in disturbing its Peace eclipse its Glory The Superscription is ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Jeremias Doctour of Divinity in the Eastern Church ALTHO we learn no new thing from the Testimony of this Author yet does it confirm and illustrate several matters First that the Sentiment of the Greeks touching the Eucharist is not in any thing the same with that of the Church of Rome but a middle way betwixt the Doctrine of the Latins and Protestants Secondly That although the Greeks do use the Term ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã change yet do they not understand thereby a real change of one Substance into another which the Latins have invented but a spiritual change wrought by the Grace of the Holy Spirit which sanctifies the Bread and Wine Thirdly That when 't is said the Substance of Bread and Wine is changed into the natural Flesh of Christ this must be understood in a spâritual manner to be conformable to the Sentiment of the Eastern Church Fourthly That those of the Church of Rome understanding it as they do in a sensible manner the Greeks reject them and their Communion Fifthly To the end there may be no pretence left for cavilling on the Term of sensibly in saying the Roman Church understands not that the Body of Christ is visible and palpable in its natural form in the Sacrament he declares that he well knows she makes use of other expressions namely of Accidents and Species meaning that this is still to understand it sensibly to assert our Saviour's proper Substance is in this Mystery although covered with the Species and Accidents of Bread And that this is a Novelty the Greeks have ever rejected and of which the Ancients have not made the least mention If Mr. Arnaud likes this let him make the best use he can of it in the mean time we will pass on to another Proof MATTHEW Caryophilus titular Archbishop of Iconia a Latinised Greek and almost of the same stamp and temper as Arcudius and Leo Allatius has published a refutation of some Propositions taken out of a Catechism made by a Greek Gentleman whom he calls Zacharias Gerganus Allatius say's he was a Bishop But be he what he will Caryophilus uses him after a dreadful manner terming his Propositions Blasphemies and calling him Serpent Basilisk Wolf the Devil's Instrument worse than the Devil himself a Lutheran But 't is a usual thing with these Gentlemen to load mens Persons with Injuries when their Doctrines agree not with theirs They thus begin continue and end their Refutations It cannot then be taken ill if laying aside their Injuries I only affirm that Caryophilus very impertinently charges this Greek with his being a Lutheran for it is apparent from the Propositions he recites and what he say's in his Preface that he was a true Greek and maintain'd the Maxims of his Religion and Church and moreover a real lover of his Country He opposes amongst other things the addition of the filioque in the Symbol and attacks the Azuma of the Latins He affirms there is but one Holy Church which is the Catholick Apostolical and Eastern which does not well agree with the Title he has given him of a Lutheran and 't is plainly seen he has given it him only to make him suspected by his own Countrymen and hinder us from any advantage by his Testimony SO that the single Authority of Caryophilus being not sufficient to hinder us from considering this Author's Testimony notwithstanding his pretended Lutheranism I shall therefore produce here some of his Propositions which he himself has taken out of his Catechism The LXI is this Râfutatio pfeudâ-Christianae Catechesis editae à Zacharia Gergano Graeco Auctore Matthaeâ Caryophil Romae 1631. Blasph 61. The Holy Communion consists of two Substances the one visible and th' other invisible the visible Substance is the Bread and Wine the invisible Substance is the Word of Christ This is my Body this is my Blood The Question in this Dispute being only Whether the Greeks believe Transubstantiation it will be therefore sufficient for me to show by this Testimony that the visible Substance of Bread and Wine remain so that I am not concerned to know in what sence this Author calls the Words of Christ the invisible Substance of the Sacrament Yet will I affirm his sence is clear enough for in respect of the Bread and Wine which are in effect Substances it is plain we must take the Term of Substance in its natural signification but in respect of the Words of Christ which in effect are not Substances it is likewise apparent we must understand this expression in a metaphorical sence seeing by it is meant no more but that the internal and mystical virtue of this Sacrament is contain'd in these words This is my Body because these words shew us we must not take these things as mere Bread and Wine but as the Body and Blood of Christ of which they are the Mystery Which is what he understands by this invisible Substance that is to say the force and efficacy of the Sacrament for had not our Saviour said of the Bread This is my Body it would be no more than Bread proper to nourish our Bodies whereas the Faith we have in these words shews us in it another spiritual Substance which nourishes our Souls THE LXV Proposition does no less oppose the substantial Conversion Ibid. Blas phem 65. for it contains these words That the Laity which communicate but of one only kind receive an imperfect Communion which is directly opposite to one of the necessary Consequences of Transubstantiation which is the Concomitancy And to prevent any cavilling touching the sence of this Proposition as if he would say only that this
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
they hold touching this Augmentation of the Body of Christ For if the Bread in the Eucharist augments or gives growth to our Lord's Body as they believe it ceases not to be being certain that to make an Augmentation we must add one thing to another joyn them together conserve them both and destroy neither of them To this we are moreover led by all those Comparisons we find they used of Wool dyed of Paper that receives the Emperors Signet of Wax that receives the impression of the Seal of a burning Coal or Wood in conjunction with Fire and Food by which we are nourished for in all these Examples the subject matter looses nothing of its first Substance Moreover seeing they will have the Bread pass thro all the Degrees of the Oeconomy of Jesus Christ that 't is first corruptible then incorruptible this sufficiently denotes they mean the Bread remains whereby to receive all these changes SECONDLY From this difference there arises another which is that the Latins believe that in the change which happens in the Eucharist the Substance of Bread and that of the Body of Jesus Christ are as they speak the two Terms of the change and that of the Bread passes intirely into that of the Body by a Conversion not only mystical but really and which destroys the Existence or matter of the Bread which the Greeks do not believe Which appears by this Augmentation of the Body of Jesus Christ of which they tell us and which they confirm by the Simile of Food For common sence plainly shews us that that which augments a thing is not really changed into the thing augmented as the Latins understand their change For there must always be reckoned a real difference between the thing augmented and that which augments The Opinion of the Greeks then can in no wise agree with that of the Latins for according to the Latins the Substance of the natural Body of Jesus Christ receives neither more nor less by the Conversion of the Substance of Bread into it and according to the Greeks it is augmented by it THIRDLY It must then be granted the Greeks do not acknowledge this conversion specified by the Roman Church and differ from it in respect of the nature or kind of this change admitting only that of an Object which receiving a new Form remains what it was before and yet becomes what it was not which is to say that the Bread remaining Bread receives the supernatural and oeconomical Form of the Body of Christ that is to say its virtue and is thereby made this Body And this is what is meant by this change of Sanctification and Virtue which they establish and by which they pretend the Bread becomes our Lord's Body Their whole Doctrine centers in this and 't is not possible to see what I alledged from them in this Chapter and not make this Conclusion that their Opinion is there only happens in the Eucharist a change of virtue and that 't is only thus the same Substance which is Bread is likewise the Body of Jesus Christ FOURTHLY The Latins hold that the Substance we receive in the Sacrament is absolutely the same numerical Substance which our Saviour had when he was on Earth and which he still retains in Heaven The Greeks hold not this their Hypothesis manifestly opposes it For altho they say the Body born of the Virgin Mary and the Bread in the Sacrament are not two Bodies but one yet the manner after which they explain this Unity and the reason they give for it do clearly denote they mean not thereby an absolute Unity nor an intire or numerical Identity as the Schools speak such as the Latins establish They say that as that which a Child eats and drinks makes not another Body but the same altho he receives growth thereby so the Bread in the Sacrament which augments the Body of Christ makes not two Bodies but one Now this necessarily supposes that this Substance which we receive with the mouths of our Bodies in the Eucharist is different from that which our Saviour had on Earth and which he still has in Heaven For a Body that is augmented is the same it was before but the Augmentation can never be absolutely the same thing as that which receives Augmentation In effect if the Latins be asked and all those that follow their Hypothesis why the Bread in the Eucharist and the Body born of the Virgin are not two but one only Body they will answer 'T is because they are but one and the same Substance in number But instead of this the Greeks take a different course saying 't is because the Bread is an Augmentation of the Body of Christ which puts a real difference between the two Substances Whence it follows that that which they believe they receive in the Sacrament is not the same Substance as that of our Lord 's natural Body FIFTHLY Hence it appears the Greeks do not believe the Real Presence of the Latins For the Latins by the Real Presence mean a Presence of Substance which is to say that this same Substance of the natural Body of Jesus Christ in which he lived and died and rose again and which now exists in Heaven the same I say in Number really likewise exists substantially and by it self in the Eucharist Now this the Greeks do not hold as I already shewed They on the contrary believe that this Substance we receive in the Eucharist and that of the natural Body of Christ are two Substances really different one of which is the Augmentation and th' other the thing augmented the one a true Substance of Bread and th' other the Substance of the natural Body of Christ The one to wit that of Bread receives according to them the impression of the virtue of th' other and the other communicates this to it They do not then believe that this same natural Body of Christ this same numerical Substance in which he died and rose again and which now exists in Heaven does likewise really exist in the Eucharist which is exactly as I already said the real Presence of the Latins They hold the Bread becomes by Consecration not a Figure of the Body of Christ but an Augmentation inasmuch as it receives its Virtue and Efficacy If this must be called a kind of Real Presence I say this is but a mere amusement of Words not worth our consideration In short the Presence of the Greeks is a Presence of Virtue that of the Latins a Presence of Substance so that upon this account they are at a great difference In effect if the things I alledged as well in this Chapter as in this whole Third Book be exactly considered it will appear that the most part of the Proofs I produced to justifie that the Greeks believe not Transubstantiation do equally conclude against the Substantial Presence and that they also believe not there is made any impression of the physical Form of Christ's Body on
virtue And therefore they bring the comparison of Food which becomes one with our Bodies and invented this way of Growth or Augmentation of a natural Body for all this ends only in establishing a Unity between the Bread and the Body which may make us say literally and without recourse to a Figure that the Bread is the Body As to what concerns us we need not take such a great circuit because the Question concerning a Sacrament we believe we may take the Words of Christ in a sacramental and figurative sence IV. IT seems likewise that the Modern Greeks understand some real or physical impression of the Holy Spirit and inlivening virtue of Jesus Christ on the Bread with some kind of inherency yet I will not positively affirm this was the general Belief of their Church altho their expressions intimate as much But howsoever this is not our Opinion We do indeed believe that the Grace of the Holy Spirit and virtue of Christ's Body accompany the right use of the Sacrament and that in the Communion we participate of the Body of Christ by Faith in as great a measure and more really than if we received him with the Mouth of our Bodies but we hold not this impression or real inherence of virtue which it seems the Greeks admit whence it happens that our expressions are not so emphatical as theirs AND this is what I had to say touching the real Opinion of the Greeks with its principal Circumstances and in reference to that of ours and the Church of Rome's I do not doubt but several People reading this Chapter will say I charge the Greeks with a very foolish and unreasonable Doctrine They 'l make Objections touching this composition of Bread and Holy Spirit this Union of the Symbols with the Divinity and especially concerning this manner of being the Body and Blood of Christ by way of Growth or Augmentation But to this I need say no more than that it concerns me not to justifie the Opinion of the Greeks Our business here is to know what it is and not whether it be justifiable nor to answer the Objections may be made against it because we adopt not either their Expressions or Opinions Yet I shall endeavour to solve two difficulties which may trouble the Readers the one is that according to the Hypothesis of the Greeks it seems as if it might be said in some sence that the Bread is changed into the Substance of the Body of Jesus Christ after the same manner we say the Bread we eat is changed into our Substance Th' other is that by this Union of Bread to the Divinity it seems they understand a real hypostatical Union like unto that which joyns the natural Body to the Word TO the first I answer the Greeks mean not the Bread receives the natural or physical form of the Flesh of Christ as we have proved neither do they say the Bread is changed into the Substance of the Body of Christ because this way of speaking which we use in respect of the Bread we eat is grounded upon the Food 's receiving the Substantial or physical form of our Flesh Now they mean no other impression on the Bread in the Eucharist than an impression of the inlivening virtue of Christ's Body by means of the Holy Spirit And thus the Bread keeps its proper and natural Substance wholly intire and yet is augmented by an Augmentation of the Body of Christ in asmuch as the supernatural virtue which is proper to this Body is communicated to the Bread As to what remains altho this pretended Augmentation of the Body of Jesus Christ by means of the Bread is absurd enough yet we may give it a plain sence in saying 't is not necessary for this that the Bread and Body be locally joyned it being sufficient to conceive the Holy Spirit is the mutual link which unites them together and the Bread receiving only the virtue of the Body by a dependance thereon and in asmuch as 't is the Mystery of it this is a kind of Growth and Augmentation a Mystery being as it were an Appendix or Circumstance to the thing of which 't is the Mystery TO the second Question I answer that altho the whole Hypothesis of the Greeks and especially some of their expressions seem to induce us to attribute to 'em the Belief of the hypostatical Union of Bread to the Divinity yet their Authors not plainly expressing themselves in this matter and it not appearing elsewhere by their practice that they hold this Opinion there is more justice in not charging them with it than in imputing it to 'em and so much the more because there is none of their usual expressions how emphatical soever but may agree with a simple Union of efficacy The Term of Assumption used by Damascen Panis Vinum ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã assumuntur induced me to believe at first with Mr. Aubertin he meant thereby a real hypostatical Lib. 4. de Fid. Orth. cap. 14. Assumption but having since carefully examined this Passage it seemed to me this ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã may be easily referred not to the foregoing Words in the same Discourse but to that which follows in the simple sence That the Bread and Wine are used in the Eucharist because they are things familiar to us BUT howsoever we may here observe that ever since both Greeks and Latins deviated from the simplicity of the Gospel and natural Exposition which the Ancients gave this Mystery how they have fallen I say into vainand idle Speculations both of 'em wandring from the Truth Which commonly happens to such as love rather to follow their own imaginations than the Word of God Our Saviour tells us concerning the Sacrament that 't is his Body and added that it was for a remembrance of him and Saint Paul thus commented on it This is a Declaration of the Lord's death till his coming What could be more easie than to keep here and to judge thereof by the very nature of a Sacrament by the expressions of our Saviour and his Apostle and other parts of Christian Religion But instead of this we have abused several excessive expressions of the Fathers taking no notice of divers others by which they explain themselves these have been extended and altho innocent yet are made a Rock of Offence The Latins proceed to a real Presence a real Transubstantiation and Accidents without a Subject and all the rest of those Doctrines unknown to the Ancients which they heap up without number The Greeks on their side have imagined a Union of the Bread with the Divinity a kind of real impression of supernatural virtue of Christ's Body on the Bread a Growth or Augmentation of this Body I hope I shall have this Justice done me that it will be acknowledged I have produced nothing touching the Doctrine of the Greeks but what has been taken out of their best Authors from them I say that are of greatest account
him and so much the more because Mr. Arnaud acknowledges this Cardinal was very hot in this Dispute and on the other 't is very uncertain whether the Greeks went so far as this Consequence Besides this I say the Consequence it self is neither demonstrative nor unavoidable for it does not follow from a mans denying the Eucharist is digested and breaks ones Fast that he acknowledges no other Substance than that of the Body of Christ He may believe the Substance of Bread becomes incorruptible as soon as 't is in the Stomach and that it passes immediately without Digestion into our Substance according to the Opinion of Damascen Zonaras and almost all the Eastern Churches as we shall see hereafter For in Humbert's sence all Food that breaks our Fast is digested and passes into Excrements as the common nourishments do Whence I conclude that Mr. Arnaud deceives us when he say's this Dispute does invincibly prove the Roman Church then believed Transubstantiation and that her Belief was sufficiently made known to the Greeks for neither one nor the other of these do hence necessarily follow NEITHER can it be thence concluded she believed the real Presence I mean this local and physical Presence of the proper Substance of the natural Body of Jesus Christ as she does believe it at this day nor that Humbert thought the Greeks believed it and this Mr. Arnaud's last Consequence is moreover found defective altho this is not the Point in question betwixt us For supposing the Bread remaining Bread becomes the Body of Christ by way of Augmentation of this Body being united to the Divinity and receiving by the Holy Spirit the impression of the inlivening virtue which is Jesus Christ according to the Sentiment of the Greeks Humbert might without being thought senceless or extravagant tell Nicetas that in teaching the Eucharist breaks our fast he exposed the Body of Jesus Christ to the condition of common Food For altho on this Hypothesis the Bread is not the Body of the Son of God in propriety of Substance yet is it his Body in such a manner that seems to exempt it from the quality of other Food which is sufficient to occasion Humbert's Reproach and render ineffectual all these little Subtilities of Mr. Arnaud I replied in my Answer to the Perpetuity that this Dispute of Humbert Answer to the second Treatise and Nicetas furnished us wherewith to shew that the Greeks did not believe the Transubstantiation of the Latins forasmuch as Nicetas maintains therein that the Eucharist breaks our Fast which supposes it conserves its first nature of corporeal Aliment and that he believed it descends into the Stomach like other Food which moreover shews he held it still for real Bread I strengthened this Proposition by the Testimony of Humbert Algerus and Cellot the Jesuit I added likewise that Durand Abbot of Troarn tells us that those heretofore called Stercoranists were the Berengarians which is to say those held the Bread keeps its first nature and I confirmed my Proof by several weighty Considerations as that it was not to be imagined men that were Christians would expose the proper Substance of the Son of God to these Accidents of Corporeal Food that this Opinion would be inconsistent with that State of Glory wherein we all believe it to be as also with that Sacramental State wherein 't is made to be in the Eucharist MR. Arnaud finding he could not establish his own Proof applies himself to the refuting of mine and immediately making use of his Priviledge he singles out what he pleases and leaves the rest He takes no notice of Cellot the Jesuit's Testimony for what reason he best knows He passes over in silence what I said touching the State of Glory wherein the Son of God now is and so likewise what I mentioned concerning his Sacramental State And from the remaining part of my Proof he is pleased to make this Argument The Greeks are Stercoranists according to Humbert and Algerus The Stercoranists are Berengarians according to Durand The Greeks Lib. 2. cap. 6. pag. 153. then are Berengarians But seeing my Proof is to be modelled I crave leave to take it out of his hands and state it my self Observe here then how I reasoned Those that believe the Eucharist breaks our Fast and give cause to charge them with Stercoranism hold the Substance of Bread remains But the Greeks believe the Eucharist breaks our Fast and yield occasion to accuse them of Stercoranism They hold then the Substance of Bread remains And thus do I reason but by misfortune Mr. Arnaud can neither deny the major minor nor Conclusion of this Argument He was constrained therefore to new mould it and then knew not how to give it a direct Answer IT is true say's he that Humbert charges Nicetas with believing the Body Ibid. of Christ was digested but this is only as a Consequence of what he offered touching the Eucharist ' s breaking our Fast and not as a Doctrine which he expresly asserted It is all one to me whether he attributes to him this Opinion either as a Doctrine or a Consequence either of 'em being sufficient to establish the solidity of my Proof Mr. Arnaud may dispute this Point with Cellot or Algerus it not lying upon me to prove it When it should be true this Consequence were not well drawn from the Principle which Nicetas lays down from the part of the Greeks and that the Greeks might reply thereunto there would be still enough in the Principle it self to make my Conclusion just and necessary For those that absolutely and sincerely believe the Eucharist breaks our Fast cannot but likewise believe that it nourishes after the manner of Food which is to say that it distributes it self through all the parts of our Body being added to our Substance and consequently that 't is still real Bread And it will be to no purposE to say the Greeks might believe That the troublesomeness of fasting is effectually eased thereby and that we are really Ibid pag. 155. nourished not with the Body of Christ but by some other means known only to God For there being in the Eucharist only the Substance and Accidents those that believe 't is in Substance the proper Body of Christ and yet affirm it nourishes must attribute this nourishment either to the Body of Christ or to the Accidents As to the Body of Christ it is absurd to affirm that a Substance which exists after the manner of an invisible and insensible Spirit can nourish our Bodies that is to say augment the Substance of them And as to the Accidents besides the absurdity there is in supposing Accidents alone nourish us the Greeks know not what belongs to the existence of Accidents without a Subject which Mr. Arnaud himself grants when he say's they trouble not themselves with these Phylosophical Consequences To affirm likewise as Mr. Arnaud does that the Greeks perhaps only asserted the Lib. 2.
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. 1ââ 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
Precaution our selves to prevent being surpriz'd by it When the Christian Religion came into the World and reform'd the Abuses of Men who believed their Idols were Gods She at the same time Corrected their Expressions She no longer suffered Men to speak of Gods in the Plural nor of Jupiter and Mercury and these other false Divinities as formerly especially in the Pulpit and Sermons or in the Decrees of Councils AS to the Example of Philosophers we must not wonder if they accommodate their Expressions to the Language of other Men altho it be contrary to their Hypotheses For they are not the Masters of it the necessity of making themselves understood and the fear of passing for Extravagants should they affect a new Style obliges them to express themselves as the World does seeing they cannot make it unlearn their Language and accustom it self to speak according to their Opinions This shews their Opinions did not reign when humane Language established it self and that moreover at this Day they are not Popular but this does not shew 't was the same in the Christian Religion in respect of the Eucharist The Language of the Church touching this Mystery was not found ready made it was formed on the Sentiments Men began to have of it as soon as ever 't was Mention'd Supposing then that from the first rise of Christianity it were believed the Testimony of our Senses was False and Deceitful and that the Substance of Bread was really changed into that of the Body of Christ Men would have avoided speaking according to Sense and Religion which was the Master of it would never have suffer'd it And so much the rather if the Supposition be made which I mentioned it must be necessarily acknowledged that this Mystery is popular there being none of the People but ought to know that the Substance which he receives is not that of Bread but of the Body of Christ Besides this there is a great deal of Difference betwixt Religion and Philosophy Philosophical Opinions do not so greatly concern the World in general nor in particular those that hold them that Men ought to be so much troubled about common Expressions how contrary soever they may be to these Opinions and lyable to Error No Man will be damned for believing a dead Body is the material Part of Man which remains that Animals are not Automates but real living Bodies nor that Colours really in the Objects nor for believing the Sun and Firmament move and not the Earth These Carthesians and Coperniciens have not yet asserted their Sentiments to be necessary to Salvation nor obligatory on the Conscience So that if the contrary Sentiments be erroneous they are not believed to be so dangerous as that humane Speech must be therefore altered But if Christian Religion has proposed Transubstantiation or the Substantial Presence it is to be supposed she has offered it as an Article of Faith necessary to be Believed in order to Salvation as an Article which obliges the Conscience and rejected the contrary Opinion as a damnable Error inconsistent with Salvation and consequently she ought to warn Men touching the Expressions and not leave to our Sences that is to say to Cheats and Impostors the Power of making a Council say in a Determination of Faith that we offer in the Eucharist a Substance of Bread TO say in fine this Council only denoted the Matter of the Eucharist as Mr. Arnaud does is an Unjustifiable Evasion For when we denoted P. 693. the Matter of it by the Term of Substance of Bread we consider it before its Consecration supposing 't is believed that by the Consecration 't is no more the Substance of Bread but that of the Body of Jesus Christ Yet these Fathers considered it after the Consecration as appears by their whole Discourse Those of Nice have thus observed it for they censure them for calling the Eucharist an Image after Consecration Now in the same place wherein those of Constantinople call it Image they call it likewise a Substance of Bread If the Censure of those of Nice be just the Eucharist must be according to the Council of Constantinople an Image after Consecration What likelyhood is there Mr. Arnaud should at this time understand better the Sence of this Council of Constantinople than the Fathers of Nice who had amongst them several Bishops that Assisted at that Assembly and amongst others him who presided over it But I will grant the Nicene Fathers were mistaken and that Mr. Arnaud understands the Point better than they yet it is certain they ought to have Censured the Expression of Substance of Bread seeing they could not take it but as spoken of the Eucharist after its Consecration These of Constantinople call the Eucharist in the same Place and Period Image and Substance of Bread They take the Name of Image as a Quality attributed to the Eucharist after Consecration They must then necessarily have taken the Substance of Bread as an Attribute applyed likewise to the Eucharist after the Consecration Yet those of Nice Censure the first and do not in any manner Censure the other they are Offended at the one and not at the other which concludes as I already said that their Hypothesis was not Transubstantiation THE Bishops of Constantinople comparing the Eucharist with Christ's natural C. 7. p. 6 6. Body say that as the natural Body is Holy being made Divine so that which is his Body by Institution to wit his Image is Holy ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã I Translated these last Words being made Divine by a certain Sanctification of Grace Mr. Claude say's Mr. Arnaud has falsly Translated that the Eucharist is made Divine by a certain Sanctification of Grace If this be a Fault in me 't is the same with the Latin Translator of the Council in Binius his Edition for he has inserted these very Words Utpote per quandam sanctificationem gratiae santificata and in the Margin deificata that is to say Word for Word As being Sanctifi'd or made Divine by a certain Sanctification of Grace Mr. Arnaud who justifi'd heretofore Forbesius saying he could not be justly accused for falsifying the Passage of Jeremias the Patriarch of Constantinople seeing he only followed the Translation of Socolovius has he so soon changed his Mind and forgot his own Maxim without any other Reason than that there it concerned Forbesius and here my self Was that which was then Unjust become now Just and Reasonable by the only Difference of Persons But let us see whether it is in effect a Falsification He say's it should be rendred Being made Divine by a Favour intirely Gracious by means of a certain Consecration because we must joyn ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã to ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã but why rather to ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã than to ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Why rather Translate ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã gracious Favour than Grace Why rather ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Consecration than
about fifty years since that they have wholly renounced this Fancy But this confession on which Breerewood grounds his supposal is at most only the private sentiment of this Catholick of Armenia and not that of this Church If Breerewood adds any thing of his own Head without any Proof his bare word is not to be preferred before the Testimony of other Authors whom we have already alledged that which we have seen of Cyril and his dispute against Barsabas in the presence of all the People and in the very Temple of Jerusalem is later than the confession he mentions And so is that also which Cottovic relates The Letter of Barbereau the Jesuit bears Date 1667. The Relation of the Bishop of Heliopolis which says as we have already seen That the Patriarch of the Armenians to whom he gave a visit resided near the City of Herivan in a famous Monastery of Eutychien Hereticks who are no less obstinate than ignorant and being desirous to confer with one of these Monks on the principal Point of the Heresie of Eutyches he cunningly shunned the occasion This Relation I say is Dated 1668. All these Testimonys shew us that the Armenians do still keep their Ancient error and have in no wise changed their belief BUT supposing they were changed within these fifty or sixty years as Breerewood imagins yet would what Euthymius Isaac and other Authors say be no less true on the contrary the change which Breerewood attributes to them would only more Authorize their Testimony For if it be true as Breerewood says that they have now renounced that Fancy they had it then heretofore for People are not wont to renounce those Opinions which they never held so that the Argument drawn from their Doctrine touching the unity of the Nature of Jesus Christ to shew they do not believe Transubstantiation do's still continue in full force as to the time past and all that Mr. Arnaud can conclude hence is that it is possible for the Body of a Church to change an Opinion and pass over to another which is quite Opposite without any noise or disturbance whence it follows that the pretensions of the Author of the Perpetuity touching the impossibility of a change are vain and groundless As to those other late Authors Mr. Arnaud speaks of when he pleases to give us a particular Account of them we will examine 'em but there 's no body but sees after what I have related that he ought not to speak so generally as he has done That other Modern Authors are agreed therein seeing John Cottovic Pietro Della Vallé Cyrillus Thomas a Jesu Barbereau the Bishop of Heliopolis are late Authors and yet assert the contrary of what Mr. Arnaud affirms NEITHER can Mr. Arnaud meliorate his cause by the Letter which was written by a Patriarch of Armenia and sent to the Emperour Emanuel nor by the conference which Theorien this Emperour's Deputy had with this Patriarch altho it were true that this Letter has these Expressions we hold there is but one Nature in Jesus Christ not in confounding it as Theorien Dial. advers Arm. Bibl. Patr. Graeco lat tom 1. Eutyches does nor in denying Christs humane Nature like Apollinairus but according to Cyrillus Patriarch of Alexandria in the Books he wrote against Nestorius in saying there was but one Nature of the Word which is Incarnate But we must not immediately Imagine that this was the sentiment of the Armenian Church It was the Patriarchs in particular as appears by the Dialogue of Theorien For after Theorien had for a long time disputed that our Saviour had two Natures two Wills and two Operations the Patriarch himself confessed this had been ever his Opinion since he read the sacred Writings Whereupon Theorien having demanded of him why he inserted in his Letter to the Emperour that there was but one only Nature in Jesus Christ The Patriarch answered that he had at that time in his thoughts the instance which is commonly made use of touching man who is made up of Body and Soul and yet is said to have but one Nature altho the two Natures of which he consists remain without confusion and change and that he believed St. Cyril meant the same In fine he told him he would shew him a secret which had not yet been Divulged amongst his People That there was a Patriarch of Armenia named John who was a bitter Enemy to the Monophysits which is to say to those that believe only one Nature in Jesus Christ and that he had the writings of this John together with the approbation of another of his Predecessors named Gregory who added thereunto these words I believe likewise what the holy Patriarch has here written and Anathematise those that do not believe it It is evident by all these circumstances that the belief of the two Natures in Jesus Christ thus united to make thereof but one was not the publick sentiment of the Armenian Church but the private Opinion of the Patriarch who disputed with Theorien and that he had taken this Opinion from the secret writings of this John and Gregory BUT it will be perhaps here demanded how this person could in conscience continue a Patriarch in the Armenian Church being of a contrary judgment To answer this Objection I need only give the Character of this person such as it appears to be in this same conference and this will more confirm the truth of what I now said This says he do I intend to do I will immediately write to all the Armenian Bishops whithersoever they be to assemble in Council And when met I will produce all the Arguments alledged by the Armenians and which in effect do seem to favour them Then will I propose on the other hand all the contrary proofs which you have now offered me and at first will take the Armenians part and dispute against you But insensibly and by degrees and with great caution will begin to discover the Error of the Armenians which has hitherto so greatly obtained amongst them I will convince them by John the Patriarchs Book and all the other Proofs you have furnished me with In fine I will declare my self openly for the Greeks or to speak better I will contend for the truth against the Armenians I hope by Gods assistance my sheep will hear my voice and follow me so that there will be but one Flock and one Shepherd If all the Bishops shall be for me nothing will be more welcome to me But if not I will notwithstanding confirm the true Doctrine together with those on my side and send to the Emperour and your Patriarch a writing under my Hand and Seal and signed by my Bishops containing the Orthodox Faith Now this writing shall contain amongst other Articles this same That we receive the Holy and universal Council of Chalcedon and all the Holy Fathers which that Council has receiv'd That we Anathematise all those Anathematised by that Council espcially
Eutyches and Dioscorus and Severus and Timotheus Aylurus and in general all those that have opposed this Council This Discourse plainly shews that this good Patriarch was a little Jesuitical and did not make it a case of Conscience to Act a Deceitful part in his Council much less in his Church But 't is likewise Easy to gather hence that the sentiment which he in the beginning proposed in his Letter to the Emperour and which occasioned all this intrigue was not that of his Church but his own particular for had the difference between the Armenians and Greeks consisted only in the use of some terms as Mr. Arnaud tells us it did there would have been no need of Stratagem to effect this design It would have been sufficient to shew plainly that it was but an Equivocation a mis-understanding or at most but a question concerning words which must not hinder the effects of Christian Charity Neither was there any Necessity of promising the Emperours Deputy that there should be inserted in this new confession of Faith an express Article containing the Condemnation of Eutyches and Dioscorus if in effect the Armenians followed not their Opinions IT appears then from what I have said that Eutymius and Isaac were neither Impostors nor Calumniators when they attributed to the Armenians the Heresie of Eutyches and said their belief was that our Saviour Christ had no real Humane Nature but that his Humanity was swallowed up or changed into the Divine Nature After the deposition of those Authors I mentioned there can be no reason for the calling in question a thing so certain now it hence manifestly follows that the Armenians cannot hold the Transubstantiation of the Latins that is to say the conversion of Bread into the substance of the Body of Christ seeing they hold our Saviour has no longer a Body and all Mr. Arnauds exceptions are vain and to no purpose CHAP. III. The Testimony of some Authors who expresly say or suppose that the Armenians hold not Transubstantiation ALTHO the Proof I already Alledged in the preceding Chapter decides the question and needs not to be confirmed by others yet will we here produce the Testimony of several Authors of good credit that unanimously assert the Armenians do not hold Transubstantiation nor the real presence THE First is Guy Carmus who assures us of it in express terms The Guido Carmel suma de Heres de Her Arm. Cap. 12. Twenty second Error says he of the Armenians consists in their not believing that after the consecration is performed by the words of our Saviour Christ pronounced on the Bread and Wine the Body of Jesus Christ is truly and really contained under the species of Bread and Wine but they hold they are only so by resemblance and figure saying that our Saviour Christ did not Transubstantiate the Bread and Wine into his real Body and Blood but established them only as a resemblance and figure And in another place Arguing against their Opinion The Armenians says he have no Salvo for the truth of these words which they themselves utter in the Canon of their Mass to wit and that they may be made the real Body and Blood of Jesus Christ They thus expound them the true Body that is to say the true resemblance of the Body but this exposition will not pass because the true resemblance of the Body of Jesus Christ is not the true Body of Jesus Christ as the Image of a Man is not a real Man Man is the true Image and resemblance of God but he is not true God by Nature if then this be only the resemblance and not the truth or the true Body of Christ as the Armenians falsly say it cannot be called the true Body The Author of the Perpetuity and Mr. Arnaud reject this testimony ask e'm why they can give you no other reason but this That they believe Guy Carmes was mistaken 'T is indeed my Opinion that we must not decide questions of this importance by the Testimony of some particular Persons who may deceive others or be deceiv'd themselves But as to Guy Carmes what likelyhood is there that a Religious who was all his life time devoted to the interests of the Roman Church and often employed by the Pope upon several Occasions as a most trusty Servant and moreover a Person of good parts and considerable Learning in those Days being Prior General also of his order Inquisitor General of the faith and Bishop of Majorca in the Balearian Isles and wrote of the Armenians in a Book which he made concerning Heresies what likelyhood is there he should write a thing so positively and clearly that the Armenians deny the real presence were he not well assured of it What advantage could he expect by imputing falsly to a whole Church an Opinion which he himself held to be a Damnable Error and that at the same time wherein the Romans that persecuted in the West those who were in this point of the same judgment and why would he give this advantage against Truth to those deem'd Hereticks It is moreover to be observ'd that Guy Carmes flourished under the Popedom of John 22 that is to say in an Age wherein all the East was overspread with Emissarys and especially Armenia Raynald ad ann 13. 18. whose King Ossinius embraced the Roman Religion receiv'd the Preachers which the Pope sent him for the Instruction of his People and set up Schools thoughout all parts of Armenia to teach the Religion and Language of the Latins It was then no difficult matter for a Person in those circumstances wherein Guy Carmes was who undertook to give an account of divers Heresies to inform himself exactly what were the Opinions of the Armenians THE Author of the Perpetuity to get clear from this Testimony bethought Perp. of the faith part 3. Ch. 8. himself to say that Guy Carmes was the only Author that accused them of not agreeing with the Roman Church in the subject of Transubstantiation Despensus Alphonsus de Castro say'd the same before him and 't is likely he grounded himself on their testimony But so confident an assertion deserved well perhaps to be examined before it be taken up and the Authority of two prejudic'd Persons ought not to be of so great weight with him but that he ought to have considered whether what they say be true Mr. Arnaud has bin a little more circumspect than the Author of the Perpetuity I will not dissemble says he that several Authors as well Catholicks as Hereticks have accused the Armenians for not believing the real presence Guy Carmes expresly imputes to them this Error Prateolus says the same thing because he coppys Guy Carmes his Words We shall soon see that Prateolus is not the only Person that has followed Guy Carmes It is sufficient to Remark here that Mr. Arnaud has believed the Author of the Perpetuitys Thesis was not justifyable and therefore has chose rather of his
naturally arises in the minds of all men May it not happen that the same expression has been used in divers ages and amongst divers people under different respects and yet have been used for different ends and on different occasions 'T is not good reasoning to conclude there has been an universal and uniform reason in all Ages and amongst all people that has obliged them to make use of a term under pretence that it has been every where and at all times used For how many ancient terms are there which are at this day in use altho the reason of their being at first used no longer subsists The use of terms is a thing unaccountable enough and sufficiently subject to change either in regard of divers People or Ages and the occasions the reasons or principles of this use are no less unaccountable too SUPPOSING this expression has been generally received by a general reason why must this reason be a general doubt that naturally arises in the minds of all men Is it not sufficient that it was a general interest which all Christians had to establish the truth of the Nature and Humane Substance in the Person of Jesus Christ and to make thereof a common confession in the Sacrament it self of his Incarnation I mean in the Eucharist for so the Fathers have called it Is it not sufficient 't was a general interest which they had in all places and in all Ages to receive with a profound respect the words of Jesus Christ who has said of the Bread This is my Body and to acknowledg publickly the truth of them These two interests are general belong to all times and all Nations and are a sufficient reason of this expression in question were it as general as Mr. Arnaud says it was BUT in fine supposing it was a general doubt that occasion'd these terms of true and truly I say 't is sufficient 't was a doubt likely to happen in the minds of weak persons and not necessarily in those of all men For there have been weak Christians at all times and in all places the Church having never been without 'um and of whom there ought always to be a particular care taken Now this doubt touching the virtue of the Eucharist that it can spiritually communicate to us the Body of Jesus Christ that it procures us the remission of our Sins the Grace of Sanctification the hope of Everlasting life that by it we obtain the Communion of our Saviour this doubt I say easily arises in the minds of weak persons who as I have already said are sufficiently puzled at the simplicity of this Sacrament wherein there only appears Bread and Wine Supposing then one should say that the terms of the true Body of Jesus Christ or of truly the Body of Jesus Christ were only used to prevent this doubt to strengthen the weak in this regard and conciliate more respect to the Sacrament what can Mr. Arnaud find in this which is not reasonable and conformable to the sense of the Church WERE there any body now says he tempted with this doubt and Page 783. needed to be strengthened against it does not common sense shew that he would express it in proper terms to make himself understood and disacknowledg it by expressions which are directly contrary to it He will say for example that he doubts whether God works on our souls by means of the Bread of the Eucharist and whether he fills it with his efficacy He will say that he does not doubt but the Eucharist is endowed with the virtue of the Body of Jesus Christ but he will never think of expressing this doubt in these terms I doubt whether the Eucharist be the Body of Jesus Christ nor of rejecting it in these here I believe the Eucharist to be the true and proper Body of Jesus Christ LET Mr. Arnaud tell us if he pleases why these pretended doubters whom he introduces without any occasion or reason would not consult common sense whereby to express their doubt in intelligible terms supposing they doubted of Transubstantiation or the substantial presence Why should they not say We doubt whether the substance of Bread be changed into the substance of the Body of Jesus Christ or we doubt whether the substance of the Body of Jesus Christ be contained under the vail of the appearances of Bread Those that have now their minds possessed with these doubts do they think of proposing them in these equivocal terms which need a Commentary to explain them We doubt whether the Eucharist be the Body of Jesus Christ Clear and proper terms are not so hard to be found had the Church then believed the substance of Bread to be converted into the substance of Jesus Christ and the common opinion it self against which they would form their doubts would have furnished them with requisite expressions Let Mr. Arnaud likewise tell us why this doubt was not repelled in formal terms by saying We must believe that the substance of Bread is changed into that of the Body of Jesus Christ and that under the accidents of Bread is contained the proper substance of this Body Let him shew us from Antiquity his pretended doubt explained in requisite terms according to the sense he gives it and I will shew him that which he finds so ridiculous stated according to my sense in Palladius How are the gifts said a Religious Pallad Hist Laus cap. 75. person able to sanctifie me I will shew him that this is in effect the doubt which was heretofore design'd to be prevented as appears by Cyril of Alexandria God says he changes the things offered into the efficacy of his Flesh Apud Vict. Ant. Miss AND WE NEED NOT DOUBT BUT THIS IS TRUE and by Elias of Crete God changes the things offered into the efficacy of his Flesh Elias Cret in Greg. AND DOUBT NOT BUT THIS IS TRUE Let him shew us the Fathers have said that the Eucharist is the true Body or truly the Body of Jesus Christ in reference to the question of the Conversion and the substantial Presence and I will shew him they have said it in reference to the question touching the virtue For Walafridus Strabo an Author of the 9th Century having given this Title to one of the Chapters of his Book De Virtute Sacramentorum says afterwards in the Text of the same Chapter Valafridus Strabo de rec Eccles cap. 17. Rupert in Mat. cap. 10. by way of confirmation That the Mysteries are truly the Body and Blood of our Lord. And Rupert altho he lived in the 12th Century that is to say in a time wherein Transubstantiation had introduced it self into the Latin Church yet said That the Bread is rightly called and is TRVLY the Flesh of Jesus Christ because in reference to us it effects the same thing as the Flesh of Jesus Christ Crucified Dead and Buried Moreover Mr. Arnaud has no reason to be so positive in affirming
and particular or such equivalent ones as may prevent a mans being mistaken in them MOREOVER It cannot be denied that Transubstantiation of it self is a hard matter to be believed and that humane nature is naturally averse to the belief of it What likelihood is there then if the Fathers designed to teach it they should be content with these general expressions which six not the mind being as they are capable of several senses Had they no reason to fear lest humane inclinations would be apt to turn peoples minds on the other side and carry 'em off from the true sense of their words IN fine we need only consider the greatest part of those expressions themselves which are proposed to prejudicate according to appearance that they signifie nothing less than Transubstantiation or the Real Presence For they can no sooner have this sense given 'em but they become immediately difficult and perplexed whereas in taking them otherwise they become easie and intelligible What can there be for example more perplexing than this usual proposition of the Fathers That the Bread and Wine are the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ if a man takes it in a sense of Transubstantiation For what must we conceive by this Bread and Wine Is it real Bread and real Wine They are not the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ Are they the appearances of Bread and Wine How can these appearances be this Body and Blood Is it that which appears to be Bread and yet is not so But why must not that be Bread which appears to be Bread Why if it be not Bread is it called Bread Is it that which was before Bread and Wine But how is that which was before Bread and Wine now the Body and Blood seeing there is no common subject of which we can rationally say that it was before Bread and Wine but now Body and Blood After this rate a man knows not on which side to turn himself whereas if you understand that the Bread and Wine are the Sacrament of Christ's Body you 'l meet with no difficulty for the Sacraments usually assume the names of the things of which they are Sacraments and these ways of speaking create no trouble to amans mind Now when we contend about two senses our reason will lead us to prejudicate in favour of that which is the most easie and less intricate and make us suppose it without proof till such time as it evidently appears that the other altho more difficult yet is the truest COMPARE now I pray our pretension with that of Mr. Arnaud and judg which of the two is the most just and natural He grounds his on two reasons whose strength and truth we question and have already overthrown and I ground mine on Principles which must be granted by both parties and which are apparently conclusive For it cannot be denied but we must prejudicate in behalf of nature of common lights which regulate the judgments of men the manner of the Sacramental expressions and the most easie and least perplexed sense Neither can it be denied that the nature of the Doctrine in question guiding men of it self to explain themselves about it in precise terms and indeed necessarily obliging them by reason of the natural repugnancies of mens minds does not entirely favour this prejudication It is then a thousand times more rational than the other Mr. ARNAVD grounds his pretension on an advantage which we are in possession of as well as he For he says he understands the expressions of the Fathers which are alledged in a literal sense we say the same in respect of those which we alledg but I ground mine on particular advantages to which he cannot pretend Now 't is far more reasonable to establish a particular right on particular advantages than to establish it on a common thing For from that which is common to both parties there can arise no particular privilege The third Reflection ALTHO we have this right to suppose without any other proof that the expressions of the Fathers which the Roman Church alledges in her own favour must be taken in a Sacramental sense and not in a sense of Transubstantiation or Real Presence yet in the answers we make we do not absolutely make use of this right For before we return our answers we establish the real sentiment of the Fathers by authentick passages taken out of their Books so that our Answers be only an application of that which the Fathers themselves have taught us Thus has Mr. Aubertin used them and thus have I used them against the Author of the Perpetuity There is then a great deal of injustice in Mr. Arnaud's proceeding when he produces some of my Answers and offers 'em to be considered dislocated from my proofs whereas they ought only be considered in their reference to these proofs from which they draw their light and strength FOR example when I answered the passage of S. Ignatius taken from Theodoret's Collections which bears That Hereticks receive not the Eucharist Answer to the Perpetuity part 2. ch 2. and the Oblations because they do not acknowledg the Eucharist to be the Flesh of our Lord that suffered for our sins I said that Ignatius's sense was That our Saviour did not adopt the Bread to be his Body as if he had no real Body which was the foolish imagination of those Hereticks as appears by Tertullian ' s Disputes against Marcion but that the Bread is the Sacrament of this true Body which died and rose again This Answer is grounded on the express Declarations of the Fathers which I had already produced and which shew they meant by the term of Flesh or Body of Jesus Christ applied to the Eucharist not the substance of this Flesh but the Sacrament or Symbol of it which is in it self Bread To take this Answer alone separate from the proof which authorises it to declaim afterwards that I return Answers without grounding them on proofs is a thing that is neither honest nor ingenuous Moreover what I said touching these Hereticks believing our Saviour Christ adopted the Bread for to be his Body as having no true Body of his own is grounded on Tertullian's attributing this opinion to Marcion who as every one knows follow'd in this the ancient Hereticks and 't is to no purpose to say That those that taught this ridiculous adoption of the Bread received the Eucharist and that S. Ignatius speaks on the contrary of Hereticks that did not receive it For 't is certain that these ancient Hereticks still retained some use of the Eucharist celebrating it in their manner but did not receive it according to the just and true design of its institution which is to represent and communicate to us the true Flesh of Jesus Christ who suffered death and is risen again because they denied our Saviour assumed real Flesh affirming he appeared in the world only in a phantasm If Mr. Arnaud will contest hereupon besides that I can
and by those they every day gave to the people concerning this mystery 'T is true they might be freed from it by a thousand expressions of the Fathers which denoted the Bread and Wine are called the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ by an exchange of names which is made between the signs and the things signifi'd But we are not wont to do every thing immediately which we can do and 't is not to be deny'd but several were freed from it by this means but this does not hinder but that we may reasonably conceive a rank of persons who had not of ' emselves sufficient knowledg to clear this difficulty Mr. ARNAVD earnestly demands of us Why these people did not Page 577 578. understand the Bread to be the Body of Jesus Christ in a sense of Transubstantiation or in a sense of Consubstantiation rather than to take them in this sense that the Bread remaining Bread was the Body of Jesus Christ seeing the sense of Transubstantiation has been follow'd by all Christians since six hundred years and that of Consubstantiation has been embraced by the Lutherans whereas the last sense has been follow'd by no body and as yet never entred into any mans thoughts I answer in two words 't was because neither Transubstantiation nor Consubstantiation were then found out and that these persons we speak of had not Philosophy enough to invent 'em themselves They follow'd nature which will not suffer us to take otherwise this proposition if we understand it literally than by conceiving the ordinary idea of real Bread and the common notion of a real Body that is to say two inconsistent ideas Moreover not to insist upon what Mr. Arnaud says that the sense of Transubstantiation has been follow'd by all Christians for this six hundred years after what has been seen hitherto we may judg what truth there is in this proposition Neither do I at present mind what he says that the last sense has been follow'd by no body this is as little ture as the rest Rupert held the assumption of the Bread John of Paris has openly asserted it not to mention here that the true opinion of the Greek Church since Damascen is that the Bread remaining Bread is the Body of Jesus Christ by the union of the Divinity and by way of augmentation of the Body of Jesus Christ But when there 's occasion to deny or affirm things Mr. Arnaud is always at his liberty I SAID that these persons of the second rank of whom we now speak finding great inconsistency in these terms Bread and Body of Jesus Christ found no sense in this proposition The Bread is the Body of Jesus Christ and that it appear'd to them unintelligible Mr. Arnaud says hereupon That when two inconsistent notions are affirmed one of another we learn three things 1 These two notions affirm'd that is to say the notion of each one of the terms 2. The affirmation which is made of ' em 3. The falsity and impossibility of this affirmation and that if this proposition is of a person to whom we cannot attribute a falsity we have a fourth knowledg which is that this impossible affirmation is not the sense which the Author of the proposition had in his mind I grant this But I grant not the consequence he would draw hence that one knows an inconsistent sense for that which he calls an inconsistent sense is not a sense We know an inconsistency a mutual repugnancy of terms which cannot be reconcil'd but we do not conceive a sense Mr. Arnaud says That this Philosophy surpasses his understanding and seems to him to contain a manifest falsity We must then endeavour to explain it to him and make him acknowledg the truth of it And for this effect it must be supposed that we speak here of an affirmative proposition The Bread is the Body of Jesus Christ that we speak of persons who respected the three terms of which this proposition consists according to their literal signification conceiving the common idea of Bread the common idea of a human Body and taking the term est in a sense of being real This being supposed I say that in respect of an affirmative proposition a sense is a notion which unites two ideas and in which a mans mind may acquiesce either in deceiving or not deceiving it self if it be not deceiv'd 't is a real sense if it be 't is a false sense The knowledg of an inconsistency is on the contrary a notion that so separates two ideas that it makes them oppose and overthrow one another and declares them irreconcilable Now 't is not to be imagin'd that a man can reconcile in his mind two ideas which his understanding judges to be absolutely repugnant To conceive a sense is to conceive a thing possible to conceive an inconsistency is to conceive that there is therein an impossibility to conceive a sense is to conceive a state wherein the mind or understanding may subsist whereas to conceive an inconsistency is to conceive that there is not there a state wherein the mind can subsist It is then certain as I said that an inconsistency is not a sense and that 't is to speak abusively to say an inconsistent sense for this is as much as to say a sense which is not a sense a sense is a notion which unites two ideas and an inconsistency disunites them All Mr. Claudes subtilty Page 580. or rather deceit says Mr. Arnaud lies in that he does not distinguish between a conceiv'd and an expressed sense and a sense believ'd and approv'd of 'T is certain that those who find a proposition includes an inconsistency according to the letter and see no other sense therein do approve no other but 't is not true that they conceive no other sense therein for they conceive an inconsistent sense which is to say that they conceive only inconsistent terms are therein affirmed and therefore disapprove of 'em and conclude from the inconsistency of this sense that this is not the sense of the proposition of the Scripture and the Church BUT Mr. Arnaud's Philosophy has given here a false stroke for fot to say that a man conceives an inconsistent sense is to speak absurdly We must distinguish between those that offer an inconsistent proposition and these that judg it inconsistent Those that offer it do not always see the inconsistency of the terms either because they conceive them under respects wherein th' inconsistency does not discover it self or because they conceive them confusedly and in such a manner wherein they hide from themselves the contradiction and then those that judg of their proposition enter into their thoughts and conceive the sense which the others have imagin'd to be possible altho in effect it be not They suspend a while their own judgments to put themselves in the place of others and by this means conceive this apparent possibility which has deceiv'd them But this is not to conceive
between Mr. Arnaud and us Paschasus Ratbert a Religious of Corbie that lived in the 9th Century was according to us the first who taught the conversion of the substances of the Bread and Wine and the Real Presence of the Body of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist He treats of these Points in three different places of his works in his Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord in his Commentaries on the 26th Chapter of S. Matthew and in his Letter to Frudegard Book 8. ch 8. page 36. Mr. Arnaud calls our pretension on this subject a new Hypothesis and a pure work of fancy But adds he as mens fancies are very different that of other Ministers who wrote besore Aubertin turn'd not on this hinge as not thinking 't were their interest to set ' emselves more against Paschasus than other Authors of that Century So that this same Paschasus against whom they pronounce such woes was at first in another course of fancy one of their best friends Henry Boxornius a fnrious and passionate Calvinist asserts that he perfectly well explain'd the Doctrin of the Eucharist and makes him a Calvinist by the common privilege of all the Ministers to make Calvinists of whom they please Hospinien likewise treats him very kindly and takes him for one of the witnesses of the true Doctrin of the Church during the 9th Century Blondel seems not to have any particular quarrel against him but only charges him for following the innovations which he attributes to Anastasius Sinait and the Greeks which he pretends were embraced by Charlemain and the Council of Francfort but does not think of making him an Author of any considerable change in the world IT must be acknowledg'd there is a great deal of rancor and injustice in this discourse First seeing Mr. Arnaud himself affirms that Paschasus taught the Real Presence and Transubstantiation why does he make it criminal in Mr. Aubertin and me to do the same Does the aversion which he has to our persons transport him so far that he cannot endure we should be agreed with him no not in one point I acknowledg that as oft as Mr. Aubertin and I affirm Paschasus taught the Real Presence and Transubstantiation we do at the same time add that he was an Innovator wherein we are at odds with Mr. Arnaud But why may we not at least agree with him in one Point if we cannot in more Let him oppose us as oft as he will touching th' innovation of Paschasus we shall not dislike it for he maintains his own sentiment but let him give us leave to tell him that Paschasus also taught the Real Presence and Transubstantiation seeing that herein we say nothing but what he himself asserts and all Roman Catholicks with him SECONDLY 't is not generally true that those who wrote before Mr. Aubertin did not acknowledg that the Doctrin of Paschasus was the Real Presence and Transubstantiation The Author of the Orthodox Treatise Page 479. touching the Eucharist Printed at Lyons in the year 1595. expresly mentions that Paschasus laid the foundations of Transubstantiation and Consubstantiation Mr. Le Faucheur says he taught that the Eucharist Lib. 9. Ch. 6. was the proper Body and the proper Blood of Jesus Christ residing substantially in the Bread and Wine Du Plessis ranks him amongst those that Book 4. of the Sacrament pretended in the Mass ch 8 have proposed a contrary Doctrin to that of the Fathers and the Church And long before them Berenger himself attributed to Paschasus the Doctrin of the conversion of the substances as well as we Sententia said he according Lanfranc de Corp. Sang. Dom. to Lanfranc imo vecordia vulgi Paschasi atque Lanfranci minime superesse in altari post consecrationem substantiam panis vini BUT 't is needless to cite Authorities when the point concerns a matter which may be clear'd by reading Paschasus himself He that takes pains to read exactly his Book De Corpore sanguine Domini his Commentaries on the 26. of S. Matthew and his Letter to Frudegard will find First That he held and taught the substance of the Bread and Wine was changed absolutely into the same Flesh which is born of the Virgin which died and rose again altho the colour and savor of Bread and Wine still remains Secondly That he held and taught that the Flesh of Jesus Christ enters into our flesh and that as he has joyn'd our substance to his Divinity so he will have his substance to be in our flesh Thirdly That he held and taught that the words of Jesus Christ This is my Body must be understood neither of the figure of his Body nor his Body in the Sacrament nor of his Body in virtue but of his Body born of the Virgin Crucified and Risen in propriety of nature Fourthly That he disputed as strongly as he could against those that held the contrary Fifthly That there were made against his Doctrin such objections as naturally arise from the Real Presence such as the Roman Church does at this day believe it to be Sixthly That he endeavoured to answer these objections on the Hypothesis of the Roman Church IT hence methinks very clearly results that Paschasus held and taught the same Real Presence and the same substantial conversion as Gregory VII and Innocent III. establish'd since in the Latin Church and that this truth cannot be call'd in question Yet must what I observed in my answer to the Perpetuity be remembred that the Book De Corpore Sanguine Domini does not every where contain the Doctrin of the conversion of substances in a manner so express or uniform but that there are here and there several passages which seem at first to favour the subsistence of the Bread and several others that are capable of a Sacramental sence or may be turn'd to the union of the Bread with the Divinity acording to Damascen's Doctrin Mr. Arnaud must grant me this seeing he sometimes alledges Paschasus his expressions t'elude such kind of ones which are to be met with in the Fathers Now hence it has hapned that several Protestants having been deceiv'd by these passages have reckon'd this Author amongst the number of those that held not Transubstantiation But their error having sprang from the want of attentive examining the depths of his Doctrin Mr. Arnaud does not do right in drawing hence advantage against those that have entred into a more exact scrutiny of him especially considering that this opinion justifies it self by the bare reading of Paschasus his Writings and that this is moreover Mr. Arnaud's own sentiment and that also of his whole Church WE need only now see whether Paschasus in teaching the Real Presence and Transubstantiation has been an Innovator that is to say whether he first taught a Doctrin which no body ever before him did teach Mr. Arnaud affirms that according to my proper Principles this would be impossibly human His reason is
that I said in some places of my answer That the expressions of the Fathers were not of themselves capable to give rise to this opinion and therefore the idea of it must come from elsewhere That supposing these expressions and a thousand such like were every day uttered by the Fathers they could never form in the peoples minds the idea of a Transubstantiation or a Real Presence such as the Roman Church teaches unless they were propossessed with it by some other means That there 's no likelihood that before Paschasus made this first explication men abandoned their senses and reason to conceive the Real Presence and that certainly no place but the solitary and idle Convent of Corbie could bring forth such an extravagant fancy Let a man upon this judg says Mr. Arnaud what kind of blade this Book 8. ch 8. p. 839. Paschasus must be according to Mr. Claude seeing that on one hand he was able to invent an opinion which could never come into any bodies head but his own and further had the power and good luck to persuade the whole world into the belief of it with circumstances which are yet more admirable Certainly this is beyond the reach of man I ANSWER that Mr. Arnaud draws his consequences always ill We said that the people who usually follow the lights of nature and common sense and whose meditations are not strong enough of ' emselves to invent this pretended manner of making the Body of Jesus Christ to exist in Heaven and on Earth both at a time could not raise the idea of this from the expressions of the Fathers and Mr. Arnaud hence concludes 't is impossible that Paschasus has invented this opinion or been able to persuade others to embrace it This consequence is absurd for we have examples of such kind of persons as Paschasus who have wandred from the true lights of nature and faln into remote imaginations which no body ever had before 'em and which the people were certainly never capable of I confess that in some respect one may marvel at these figuaries of human invention because they are irregularities it being likewise astonishing to see men capable of so many disorders but it must not be hence concluded that these disorders are more than human or that 't is impossible for a people who did did not invent an opinion themselves to follow it when 't is well contrived and coloured We see this happens every day and Mr. Arnaud should propose something more solid THE true way to know whether Paschasus was an Innovator or not is to enquire whether those that went before him taught the same Doctrin for if they did we are to blame in charging him with an innovation but if on the contrary we find their Doctrin different from his we cannot doubt but he innovated And this is the course Mr. Aubertin has taken for he offers not the history of the change of which he makes Paschasus the first Author till he shew'd by an exact discussion of each particular Century that till Paschasus his time no body ever spake like him whence it follows of necessity that he was an Innovator It belong'd therefore to Mr. Arnaud and the Author of the Perpetuity had they design'd to deal sincerely to take this course and shew that Paschasus said nothing but what others said before him This would have been an easie and direct method supposing Paschasus had not been an Innovator but Mr. Arnaud does not like the engaging in these kind of discussions HE thought it more for his purpose to fall upon a fruitless criticism by which he pretends to conclude That no body publickly declared himself Book 8. ch 8. p. 841. against Paschasus his Book all the time he lived That no body wrote against him That no Bishop no Abbot of his Order reproached him with it That there were only some persons who shew'd in secret they were frighted at these truths and said not in writing but in particular discourses that he had gone too far and yet this was not till three years after he had publish'd his Book SUPPOSING this remark to be as certain as Mr. Arnaud has made it what advantage will he pretend hence Will Paschasus be ever the less an Innovator for his not finding any thing publish'd against him during his life All that can be concluded hence is that his Book was but little known at first and afterwards but of small esteem with great men and that if they believed themselves oblig'd at length to write against his Doctrin 't was only because they saw several follow'd it whom 't was necessary to undeceive For to imagin that John Scot Bertram and Raban shunn'd the opposing him during his life that they might not bring upon 'em so terrible an Adversary must proceed from th' ignorance of what these three great men were who had another kind of esteem amongst the learned than Paschasus 'T is also a ridiculous conjecture to imagin they lay quiet during his life because his Doctrin was then the common Doctrin of the Church which they dared not oppose For if this reason hindred 'em from writing against Paschasus during his life why did it not do the same after his death seeing the common Doctrin of the Church was still the same and Paschasus carried it not away with him into his Grave BUT at bottom there 's nothing more uncertain than this remark of Mr. Arnaud For as to John Scot there 's not the least reason to guess he wrote since Paschasus his death We know he wrote of the Eucharist by the command of Charles the Bald and consequently whilst he was in France whether this was before or after the year 852 't will be in my opinion hard to determin As to Raban we cannot be certain whether this Egilon to whom he wrote his Letter against Paschasus was either Egilon Abbot of Fuldad who died in the year 822 or another Egilon Abbot of Prom who succeeded Marquard in the year 853. For as to what is said by the anonimous Treatise which Father Celot publish'd which is that Raban was Archbishop of Mayence when he wrote this Letter is very weak It 's true it terms him Raban of Mayence but upon another occasion to wit when the Author accuses him to have taught that the mystery of the Body and Blood of our Lord is exposed to the common condition of aliments whereas when he mentions the Letter which he wrote against Paschasus he calls him only Raban and hence can be nothing certain gather'd As to Bertram Mr. Arnaud alledges no other reason but this That there 's little Book 8. ch 8. p. 842. likelihood he would write against his Abbot whilst he was under his Jurisdictiction and that Paschasus who believed his Doctrin could not be attack'd without a crime must have complain'd of this attempt But is Mr. Arnaud ignorant of what the President Maugin has written touching Bertram that he was not only a very
to his great common place of moral impossibilities and supposing that according to us none of the Clergy or Laity imagin'd that Jesus Christ was really present in the Eucharist that they all took the Eucharist for Bread and Wine in substance that they knew the Bread and Wine were signs and Sacraments of the Body of Jesus Christ by which we obtain his Graces and that we must meditate on the Passion of Jesus Christ in receiving them that Paschasus very well knew that his opinion was opposite to that of the Church and that he remain'd in her external Communion only out of a carnal motive lest he should find himself too weak if he departed out of it supposing I say this he thus reasons Let us imagin a Religious under a Regular Discipline and him so young that he calls himself a Child and who thinks he has discovered this marvellous secret that Jesus Christ is really present on Earth in infinite places that all Christians receive him really every time they partake of the Eucharist but that by a deplorable blindness they are ignorant of this happiness do not know the Saviour whom they have often in their hands and which they receive into their mouths and take his real Body for an image and simple figure that he is the only man that knows the truth of this Mystery and is destin'd to declare it to the world This conceit is already very strange and contrary to the idea which a man necessarily forms on Paschasus from his Writings there being nothing more remote from the humility and simplicity appearing in 'em than this prodigious insolency with which Mr. Claude charges him so that we may truly say he could not worse represent the character of his mind He afterwards says that this enterprise of Paschasus of instructing all people in this new opinion was the greatest enterprize that ever any man undertook far greater than that of the Apostles when they determin'd to Preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ throughout all the world For in fine they were twelve they wrought Miracles had other proofs than words they made Disciples and establish'd them Doctors of the truth which they preach'd Paschasus had nothing of all this He triumphantly fills five great pages with this discourse TO answer this with somewhat less heat we 'l reply that these arguings would have been perhaps of some use had Mr. Arnaud liv'd in Paschasus his time and was oblig'd to make an Oration before him in genere deliberativo to dissuade him from making his Book publick But who told him at present that Paschasus must necessarily have all these things in his mind and studied 'em neither more nor less than Mr. Arnaud has done in his Closet Who told him that all those who teach novelties think throly on what they do When Arius a simple Priest of Alexandria troubled the Church by teaching this dreadful novelty that the Son of God was but a Creature there 's no great likelihood he proposed to himself at first the changing of the Faith of the whole world for instructing the people and every where overthrowing what the Apostles had establish'd or compared his design with that of the Apostles and examin'd what there was more or less in it 'T is the same in reference to Eutychius and other teachers of new Doctrins their first thoughts were presently to set forth what they imagin'd most consonant to truth leaving the success to time and mannaging themselves afterwards as occasion required The greatest affairs do usually begin after this manner men enter upon 'em without much reflection and afterwards drive 'em on thro all that happens unforeseen 2. TO discover the vanity of Mr. Arnaud's arguings we need only apply them to John Scot or Bertram Suppose we then as he would have us that in their time the whole world believed firmly and universally the Real Presence and Transubstantiation and all the Faithful had a distinct knowledg of it knew all of 'em that the substance of Bread and Wine no longer subsists after their Consecration that what we receive in the Communion is the proper substance of the Body of Jesus Christ the same numerical substance which was born of the Virgin dead and risen and is now sate at the right hand of God that the same Body is in Heaven and on Earth at the same time John Scot a simple Religious undertakes to disabuse all the people to persuade them that what they had hitherto taken for the proper substance of the Son of God was a substance of Bread that thro a deplorable error they had hitherto worship'd an object which deserv'd not this adoration and that henceforth by his Ministry and at his word all the Earth should change its Faith and Worship Does this design appear less strange to Mr. Arnaud than that he imputes to Paschasus upon our supposition All the difference I find is that Scot's enterprize would be greater and harder than that of Paschasus for 't is difficulter to root ancient and perpetual Opinions out of mens minds than to inspire them with new ones to make 'em lay aside their Rites Altars th' object of their supreme Adoration and Piety than to make 'em receive new Services in reference to a subject for which they have already a great respect Howsoever 't is certain that John Scot wrote a Book against the Real Presence and according to Mr Arnaud's Hypothesis this Book was an innovation contrary to the common Faith of his Age. A thousand Arguments will never hinder but that according to him this is true Why then will he have it to be impossible for Paschasus who wrote a Book touching the Real Presence to advance any novelty with which the Church before that time was unacquainted Why must there be in Hypothesis's which are alike facilities on the one side and impossibilities on the other Paschasus and John Scot wrote one for the Real Presence and the other against it This is a fact which is uncontroulable One of 'em must necessarily have offered a new Doctrine contrary to the general belief and consequently one of 'em must be an Innovator If it be possible that 't was John Scot it is yet more probable 't was Paschasus if it be impossible that 't was Paschasus it is yet more impossible to be John Scot. Mr. Arnaud then need not so warm himself in his consequences seeing 't is his interest as well as ours to acknowledg the nullity of 'em and we may truly affirm without doing him wrong that never man spent his pains to less purpose than he has done in this occasion 3. ALL that can be reasonably said of Paschasus is that being yet young and imagining the substances of Bread and Wine did not subsist in the Eucharist but were chang'd into the substance of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ he thought this marvail was not enough known and that 't was necessary to explain it And therefore he undertakes to instruct his
is one it be also joyn'd to the Body of Christ and that it be but one only Body in truth WE find this same opinion in another Book of Divine Offices which Rupert lib. 2. de Divin Off. cap. 2. some attribute to Rupert and others to Walramus This Body which is taken from the Altar and that which is taken from the Virgin are not said to be nor indeed are two Bodies because one and the same Word is on high in the Flesh and here below in the Bread IT is likewise very likely that in the 11th Century during the greatest heats of the Dispute of Lanfranc against Berenger there were several adversaries of Berenger who followed this Opinion Which may be manifestly collected from an argument which Lanfranc attributes to the Berengarians in these terms If the Bread be changed into the true Flesh of Jesus Christ Lanfran de Corp. Sang. Dom. either the Bread must be carried to Heaven to be changed there into the Flesh of Christ or the Flesh of Jesus Christ must descend on the Earth to the end that the Bread may be changed into it Now neither of these is done This Argument necessarily supposes that the Berengarians did set themselves against persons who thought the Bread was changed into the Body of Jesus Christ by way of union and conjunction or as speaks Damascen by way of addition as the food is changed into our body On this Hypothesis they had some reason to say that either the Body which is above must come down here below or that the Bread which is here below must be carried above for it does not seem immediately that the conjunction can be well made otherwise But they could not have the least reason or likelihood of reason to form this objection against the Doctrin of Transubstantiation in the manner wherein the Church of Rome understands it For if the substance of Bread be converted into the same numerical substance of the Body of Jesus Christ which is in Heaven the distance or proximity of this Bread and of this Body make not this conversion either more easie or more difficult Tho the Bread here below be carried up into Heaven tho the Body of Jesus Christ which is above in Heaven descends here below on Earth this contributes nothing to the making of the one to be converted into the other For the conversion of one substance into another speaks quite another thing than a kind of local motion as is that of ascending or descending It is then evident that the opinion which the Berengarians opposed was that the Bread is made the Body of Jesus Christ by way of union WE may moreover justifie the same thing by a passage of Ascelinus one of Berenger's adversaries for observe here in what manner he explains his sentiment in his Letter to Berenger himself Neque vero mirari vel diffidere In notis d' Acheri in vitam Lanfr debemus Deum facere posse ut hoc quod in Altari consecratur virtute Spiritus Sancti ministerio Sacerdotis uniatur corpori illi quod ex Maria Virgine redemptor noster assumpsit quippe utrumque substantia corporea utrumque visibile si reminiscimur nos ipsos ex corporea incorporea ex mortali immortali substantia esse compactos si denique firmiter credimus divinam humanamque naturam convenisse personam 'T is neither a matter of admiration nor of doubt for God to make that which is consecrated on the Altar by virtue of the Holy Spirit and ministry of the Priest to be VNITED TO THIS BODY which our Redeemer took of the Virgin Both one and the other being a corporeal substance both one and the other visible if we consider that we our selves are composed of a corporeal substance and of another that is incorporeal of a mortal substance and of another that is incorporeal of a mortal substance and of another that is incorporeal and if in fine we firmly believe that the two natures the Divine and Humane are joyn'd together in unity of person IT is necessary to relate these passages to shew the Readers how greatly Mr. Arnaud deceives them when he would persuade 'em that this opinion of the conjunction of the Bread with the Body of Jesus Christ by means of the same Divinity which fills them is a chimera of the Ministers invention It appears on the contrary that 't is a sentiment which has been in effect held by divers Authors in the Latin Church not to mention here that 't is the Doctrin of Damascen and the Greeks which have followed him And this is the first conclusion which can be drawn hence but from hence also follow several other most important matters For first by this we see that the sentiment of Paschasus was not that of the Church of his time as some would persuade us seeing those very Authors which Mr. Arnaud alledges in his favour and who seem to come the nearest to Paschasus his expressions are at bottom and in effect infinitely distant from his Doctrin Secondly Hence it appears there was nothing regular in the Latin Church touching Transubstantiation neither in the 11th nor 12th Century seeing considerable Authors then publickly explain'd their belief concerning the Eucharist in a manner which suffers the Bread and Wine to subsist in their first substance In the third place from hence is apparent how little certainty and confidence a rational man can put in the principle of the Author of the Perpetuity and Mr. Arnaud who suppose it as a thing certain that in the time when Berenger was first condemned that is to say in the year 1053. the whole Latin Church was united in the Faith of the Real Presence and Transubstantiation seeing the contrary may be justifi'd as well by the argument which Lanfranc relates of the Berengarians as by the passage of Ascelinus In fine it may be seen here how frivolous and vain Mr. Arnaud's negative arguments be who would prove that the Greeks believ'd in the 11th Century Transubstantiation because they did not take Berengarius his part nor disputed on this Article against the Latins For if Transubstantiation was not then determin'd in the Latin Church if one might therein make a free profession to believe the union of the Bread with the Body of Jesus Christ by means of the Divinity as appears from the example of Ascelinus Berenger's great Adversary what reason could the Greeks have to dispute and make oppositions IT signifies nothing for Mr. Arnaud to raise objections against the sentiments of these Authors whom I last mention'd and to say that if the habitation Book 8. ch 7. p. 828. of the Divinity in the Body of Jesus Christ remaining in Heaven and in the Bread remaining on Earth and conserving its nature and the application of this Bread to serve for an instrument to communicate the graces merited by the Body of Jesus Christ rendred the Bread the Body of Jesus Christ the
advantage But moreover says Mr. Arnaud how many errors are there in Authors which have been never taken notice of by any person nor reproached to those that taught ' em There are strange instances of this and here is one from amongst the rest which is singular in its kind Photius testifies that Theodorus Mospueste wrote a Book against the Doctrin of Original Sin Both East and West have been as greatly animated against this Author as can be imagin'd He was condemned even after his Death in the fifth Council There was never then any person to be less favoured than he Yet we do not find that this Capital Error observed by Photius has been Animadverted by any Author of the 6th Century in the very time when Theodorus was used with most severity We must acknowledg with Mr. Arnaud that these kind of arguments by which we conclude that if a Doctrin has not been condemn'd by a Church it follows that this Church has held it and approved it are not convincing and what he relates of Theodorus of Mospueste is a considerable argument of it But it must also be granted that never man was more at variance with himself than Mr. Arnaud for what he now said overthrows the better part of his Book Those that have read it may remember that the greatest part of his dispute touching the Greeks is reduced to negative arguments perfectly like unto those which he now condemns The Greeks says he without ceasing have not condemned then Transubstantiation of the Latins Therefore they believed it with ' em Cerularius did not concern himself at Berenger's condemnation he believed the Transubstantiation Humbert did not reproach the Greeks with their not believing the Real Presence and Nicetas did not reproach the Latins with their believing it therefore they were agreed in this Article We can scarcely meet with any thing else but these kind of conclusions in every page He does the same on the subject of the other Schismatical Churches he argues from the silence of the Emissaries the silence of the Popes the silence of the Armenians and that of the Nestorians and others When the question concern'd the 12th Century how many times has he remembred thâ necessity of the Disputes of the Paschasists and Bertramists how many prodigious exclamations has he made at their not being condemned at their not baiting one another And when the discourse was about Paschasus and the Innovation which we charge him with with what exaggerations has he not urged this argument That Paschasus was not publickly reprehended by any person for thirty years was never punish'd nor admonish'd that he offered a Doctrin contrary to the Church Apply I pray you to this Rhetorick what he says now of this great number of errors in Ecclesiastical Authors which have been never animadverted by any body nor reproach'd to those who have taught ' em Add hereunto his example of Theodorus of Mospueste and that of John Scot of whom he says likewise afterwards that it does not appear that these errors have been condemned by any Ecclesiastical Censure of that Age and that of Raban for he supposes he might have erred on the Eucharist by a capital Error in denying the Real Presence and he affirms that in this case 't will not be strange that never any body reproach'd him with this Error lay I say all this together and make a reform on this ground of Mr. Arnaud's Book retrench whatsoever agrees not with this rule which he here gives us and I am sure you 'l reduce his Volume into a less compass by half AFTER these first Answers with which Mr. Arnaud was not perhaps Page 876. well satisfi'd he hazards another which is that this proposition That the Sacrament of the Eucharist is not the Real Body born of the Virgin may have two senses the one that the external part of the Sacrament which is to say the visible vail is not really the Body of Jesus Christ that the Body of Jesus Christ is not really white round and has not in it self all these sensible accidents which appear to us the other that the Body of Jesus Christ is not really contain'd in the Sacrament He pretends that Raban denied this proposition only in the first sense and not in the second But this answer has neither sincerity nor truth in it First it confounds what ought necessarily to be distinguish'd For 't is not the same thing to believe that the visible Vail which is to say the accidents of Bread are really the Body of Jesus Christ and to believe that the Body of Jesus Christ is white and round and has in it self all the sensible accidents which appear to us There is a great deal of difference between these two as any man may see Supposing a man believed that the Body of Jesus Christ is white and round 't will not hence follow he must say that this whiteness and this roundness which are the Vail which Mr. Arnaud speaks of were really the Body of Jesus Christ In the second place I do not think that ever any body imagin'd that these sensible accidents of whiteness and roundness in abstracto as they term it are really the Body of Jesus Christ and whosoever imputes to Raban the combating of this fancy charges him with opposing such an imagination as never yet entred into any bodies mind AS to the other proposition That the Body of Jesus Christ is really white and round as 't is not customary to express it in these terms That the Eucharist is the same Body which was born of the Virgin so 't is not usual to refute it in these That the Eucharist is not the same Body which was born of the Virgin and this explication of Mr. Arnaud is so forced and remote from the natural sense of Raban his words that there are few reasonable persons to whom 't will not appear a pitiful evasion YET does Mr. Arnaud earnestly urge not only that 't was the sense of Raban to attack this Proposition but likewise that of Bertram in his Book De Corpore Sanguine Domini And altho the anonymous Author who according to all probability lived about the 9th Century expresly says that Raban and Bertram refuted Paschasus Yet does Mr. Arnaud affirm the contrary and says that he demonstratively proves it He says for this effect That there were people in that time who grosly said that the Body of Jesus Christ was such as the Sacrament appeared to be which is to say that the Body of Jesus Christ has really the form of Bread That this opinion was a necessary consequence of that of Amalarius that 't is from thence he concluded that the Body of Jesus Christ issued thro the pores and applied unto it these words Omne quod in os intrat in ventrem vadit in secessum emittitur That it is apparent from the accusation which Florus forms against him of having corrupted France by these fantastical opinions that Amalarius had
Ligaridius what kind of man 1. 266 Patriarch Greek of Jerusalem Excommunicates every year the Latin Church 1. 206 Poor are Jesus Christ himself 2. 74. seq Point fixt of the Author of the Perpetuity impossible c. 1. 45 Policy hindered the Greeks and the Latins in the Council of Florence to treat of Transubstantiation and the Real Presence and the Substantial Presence 1. 197 Paschasius proposes his Doctrin as the Doctrin of the Church which was not well understood 2. 172 Paschasius acts by way of opposition and contradiction in respect of his Adversaries 2. 172 Paschasius taught the substantial Conversion and Real Presence 2. 198 Paschasius never vaunted that his Doctrin was that of the Church of his time 2. 225 Paschasius endeavours to justifie himself from the charge of Enthusiasm and rashness 2. 210 Paschasius was an Innovator 2. 214 Paschasius acknowledges that before him men were ignorant of his Doctrin 2. 214 Paschasius accused of being a Visionary Enthusiast c. 2. 219 Paschasius his Adversaries affirm that the Bread is the Body of Jesus Christ in virtue 1. 314 Paschasius offers his Opinion as a Paradox 2. 224 Paschasius and Bertram contrary 2. 255 Paschasius submits his Doctrin to the judgment of Frudegard 2. 225 Paschasius Author of the Doctrin of the Real Presence according to Bellarmin and Sirmond 2. 226 Paschasius defamed by his Adversaries by reason of his Doctrin 2. 228 Preface to the Answer of Father Nouet justifi'd 2. 269 Proofs negative opposed against those of Mr. Arnaud 1. 272 Proofs of fact cannot be overthrown c. 1. 17 Proofs immediate stronger than mediate ones 1. 17 Proofs which consider a thing in all respects stronger than those which consider it only in one 1. 18 Proofs of ones eyes and senses more certain than those of ratiocination 1. 18 Proofs of fact stronger than those of argumentation applied on the same fact 1. 22 Prayers of good people according to the Greeks help the damned 1. 279 Proper Body the meaning of it apply'd to the Sacrament 2. 73 Proper and Properly are apply'd to Subjects wherein there is no propriety of substance 2. 75 Proper has several significations 2. 75 Q. QUestion 's of right how they ought to be decided 1. 9 Questions of fact how they ought to be decided 1. ibid. Questions of Faith ought to be decided by the Scripture 1. ibid. Questions on the Eucharist two the first touching what we ought to believe of it and the other touching what has been anciently held about it 1. 36 Question touching the Greeks is not whether they believe what we believe but whether they believe what the Roman Church believes 1. 110 Question of the possibility or impossibility of the change frivolous 2. 163 R. RAban and Bertram have not opposed the Stercoranists 2. 253 Reasonings of the Author of the Perpetuity are at most but probabilities 1. 20 Recapitulation at the end of the Greek Liturgy wherein there is nothing said of Transubstantiation and the Real Presence 1. 142 Receive Jesus Christ and to be sanctifi'd according to the Greeks is one and the same thing 1. 149 Receiving Jesus Christ is caused say the Greeks only by the good dispositions of the Soul 1. 15 Revelation of Jesus Christ to S. Bridget 1. 79 Rupert's opinion in the 12th Century 1. 288 Russians ignorant 1. 70 Roman Church condemns not several Opinions which yet she does not approve 1. 278 S. SAcraments ought to be establish'd immediately on the Word of God Pref. Sacraments their number not regulated by the Greeks 1. 208 Sacrament and Mystery what those terms signifie in the Writings of the Fathers 2. 72 Sacrament may be considered either in opposition to the thing whereof it is a Sacrament or conjoyntly with it 2. 96 Sacrament in how many senses it may be said to be truly the Body of Jesus Christ 2. 79 Samonas a suspëcted and doubtful Author 1. 264 Scaliger's Colloquies 1. 38 Sanctification of the Bread compared to the Dye which Wool takes 1. 194 Seminaries for the Eastern People at Rome and elsewhere 1. 103 Seminaries the advantages which the Roman Church receive thence 1. 104 Sense its language not contrary to that of Faith on the subject of the Eucharist 2. 67 Sense its language literal and without a figure 2. 67 Sentiment real of the Greeks touching the change which happens in the Eucharist 1. 218 Sense metaphorical of a proposition to be oft received 2. 111 Sense first and natural of these propositions The Bread is the Body of Jesus Christ c. is the Sacramental one 2. 157 Sense natural of Propositions is determined by the matter in question 2. 158 Sense of our Saviours words perplexed by the Schoolmen and Casuists of the Roman Church 2. 101 Sense of our Saviour's words cannot be found out by the common people in the consent of all Churches 2. 99 Sense particular cannot be attributed to persons who explain themselves only in geoeral terms 2. 123 Signs take their names from the things which they signifie 2. 73 Synods of Cyril de Beroa and Parthenius against Cyril supposed pieces c. 1. 210 Silence of the Greeks from whence Mr. Arnaud takes his argument has neither evidence certainty nor necessity 1. 277 Silence of the Greeks concludes nothing 1. 278 Sociniens interessed against the Fathers 1. 39 Stercoranists who they were 2. 246 Stercoranists could not believe the Substantial Presence 2. 248 Supplement which Mr. Arnaud pretends one should make to the expressions of the Fathers is absurd 2. 68 Suppositions of what use in a dispute 1. 4 Supposition which Mr. Arnaud makes that the Real Presence was believ'd in the 7th 8th and 9th Centuries is unreasonable and captious 2. 63 Suppose we ought that in the 7th 8th and 9th Centuries neither Transubstantiation nor the Real Presence was held 2. 64 T. TErms metaphorical which use has made proper 2. 11 Terms true and Truly are apply'd to several things 2. 76 Theophylact's passages explain'd 1. 309 Translator and a Paraphrasist their difference 1. 359 Treatise of the Perpetuity is a real mass of difficulties 1. 36 Transubstantiation and the Real Presence considered in a Church wherein they are held 1. 41 Transubstantiation is the precise determination of the manner of the change of the Bread 1. 120 Transubstantiation is not a speculative Doctrin 1. ibid. Transmutatur and Transubstantiatur are not synonimous terms 1. 124 Transubstantiation nor the Real Presence were the points which first separated the Greeks 1. 245 Transubstantiation was not believ'd by several before the Council of Constance 1. 288 Treatise of the Perpetuity very proper for persons that are curious and lazy 1. 45 Treatise of the Perpetuity illusory in what it promises 1. ibid. Turks favour those who gave them most Money 1. 105 V. VIrtue Bread chang'd into the virtue of the Body of Jesus Christ according to the Greeks 1. 233 Version of the New Testament of Mons c 1. 145 Vicq Fort Translator of Herbert's Voyages 2 41 Voyagers do not say that the Moscovites believe Transubstantiation W. WIttembogard one of the chief of the Arminian party 1. 39 Wicked in the sense of the Greeks receive not the Body of Jesus Christ 1. 146 Word of the Gospel is truly the Body of Jesus Christ 2. 78 Word of the Gospel more truly the Body of Jesus Christ than the Eucharist 2 78. Words of Jesus Christ carry not our minds to the Real Presence by a primary idea 2. 113 FINIS ERRATA PART I. PAge 7. read as already mention'd for as I already mention'd p. 9 l. 4. r. the for that p. 12. l. ult r. their for these p. 34. l. 1. r. of for which p. 38. l. 1. r person for persons p. 38. l. 45. r manners for manner p. 39. l. 13. r. Critick for a Critic p. 46. l. 23. r. an for any p. 57. l. 1. r. self for selfs p. 90. l. 5. r. than for but p. 95. l. 4. r. are no for yet no p. 97. l. 1. r. altho schismatical for altho the Schismatical p. 11â l. 25. r. we shall see by for we shall by l. 30. r. and which for and that which p. 124. l. 40. r. Latins say for Latins says p. 158. l. ult r. his not inserting the Greek for forasmuch as he has not p. 165. l. 1. r. which is for which most 181. l. 26. r. rational for national p. 203. l. r. wood for word p. 210 l. 1. r. signs for sign p. 223. l. 29. r. pursue for puruse p. 225. l. 24. r. expression for expressions p. 243. l. 1. dele Preface p. 153 l. 10. r. those that held p. 365. l. 7. r. was not printed p. 274. l. 14. r. and yet taste p. 279. l. 17. r. silence on the rest for silence the rest p. 291. l. 23. r. became not angry for became angry p. 336. l. 35. r. only the Divinity p. 330. l. 22. r. colours really for colours are really PART II. Page 6. at bottom of the page r. and for where p. 27. l. 11. r. Romanists persecuted for that persecuted p. 47. l 31. r. the union for of the union The Printer to the Reader THE absence of the Translator and his inconvenient distance from London hath occasioned some lesser Escapes in the Impression of this Book The Printer thinks it the best instance of Pardon if his Escapes be not laid on the Translator and he hopes they are no greater than an ordinary Understanding may amend and a little Charity may forgive R. Royston ADVERTISEMENT RItes of Funeral Ancient and Modern in use thro the known World Written Originally in French by the Ingenious Monsieur Muret. To which is added A Vindication of Christianity against Paganism All Translated into English by P. Lorrain London Printed for R. Royston Bookseller to his Sacred Majesty at the Angel in Amen-Corner 1683. The Contents of the said Book THE Funeral Rites of the Egyptians Grecians Romans Persians Turks Chineses Americans Of some Islanders Of the Tartars Living Sepulchres Fiery Sepulchres Water-Burials Airy Obsequies Burials above Ground The Funeral Rites of the Ancient Jews Modern Jews Schismaticks Christians A Discourse concerning the Right of Burial and Laws on that behalf THE END
or at least doubtful and suspected ones The five and twentieth is his producing the testimony of several false Greeks link'd to the interest of the Latin Church 258 CHAP. IV. The testimony of some Protestants alledged by Mr. Arnaud touching the Belief of the Greeks answered 269 CHAP. V. Mr. Arnaud's negative Arguments drawn from the silence of the Greeks and Latins on the Article of Transubstantiation examin'd 272 CHAP. VI. A farther examination of Mr. Arnaud's negative Arguments A particular reflection on what past in the Treaties of Râunion and especially in the Council of Florence and afterwards 293 CHAP. VII Several passages of Greek Authors cited by Mr. Arnaud examin'd 306 CHAP. VIII The Profession of Faith which the Saracens were caused to make in the 12th Century considered Several passages out of Cabasilas Simeon Archbishop of Thessalonica Jeremias the Patriarch of Constantinople and several others collected by Mr. Arnaud out of Greek Authors examin'd 319 CHAP. IX Several passages of Anastasius Sinaite Germane the Patriarch of Constantinople and Damascen examin'd 429 CHAP. X. An examination of the advantages which Mr. Arnaud draws from the two Councils held in Greece in the 8th Century upon the subject of Images the one at Constantinople the other at Nice 339 CHAP. XI Several circumstances relating to the second Council of Nice examin'd 355 The Second Part. BOOK V. Wherein is treated of the Belief of the Moscovites Armenians Nestorians Jacobites and other Churches called Schismatics of the Belief of the Latins in the 7th and 8th Centuries and of the Consequences which Mr. Arnaud draws from the pretended consent of these Churches on the Doctrins of the Real Presence and Transubstantiation CHAP. I. Of the MOSCOVITES THat the Moscovites do not believe Transubstantiation Page 1 CHAP. II. Of the ARMENIANS That the Armenians do not believe Transubstantiation First proof taken from that the Armenians believe the Human Nature of our Saviour Christ was swallow'd up by the Divinity 14 CHAP. III. The testimony of some Authors who expresly say or suppose that the Armenians hold not Transubstantiation 26 CHAP. IV. Testimonies of several other Authors that affirm the Armenians deny Transubstantiation and the Real Presence 38 CHAP. V. Mr. Arnaud's proofs touching the Armenians examin'd 44 CHAP. VI. Of the Nestorians Maronites Jacobites Coptics and Ethiopians that they hold not Transubstantiation 50 CHAP. VII Mr. Arnaud's eighth Book touching the sentiment of the Latins on the mystery of the Eucharist since the year 700 till Paschasius his time examin'd 61 CHAP. VIII An examination of these expressions of the Fathers That the Eucharist is the Body of Jesus Christ the proper Body of Jesus Christ properly the Body of Jesus Christ the very Body of Jesus Christ the true Body or truly the Body of Jesus Christ 71 CHAP. IX That the Fathers of the 7th and 8th Centuries held not Transubstantiation nor the Substantial Presence 89 CHAP. X. An Examination of the Consequences which Mr. Arnaud draws from the pretended consent of all the Christian Churches in the Doctrin of Transubstantiation and the Real Presence 98 CHAP. XI Other Reflections on Mr. Arnaud's consequences 106 BOOK VI. Concerning the Change which has hapned in the Doctrin of the Latin Church touching the Eucharist That this Change was not impossible and that it has effectually hapned CHAP. I. THE state of the question touching the distinct knowledg of the Presence or Real Absence 119 CHAP. II. Mr. Arnaud's proceedings considered His unjust reproaches also examin'd 131 CHAP. III. A Defence of the second third and fourth rank of persons against the Objections of Mr. Arnaud 143 CHAP. IV. A Defence of the fifth rank against Mr. Arnaud's Objections 154 CHAP. V. General Considerations on Mr. Arnaud's ninth Book An examination of the Objections which he proposes against what he calls Machins of Abridgment and Machins of Preparation 163 CHAP. VI. Mr Arnaud's Objections against what he calls the Machins of Mollification and the Machins of Execution examin'd The state of the 12th Century 172 CHAP. VII Mr. Arnaud's Objections against what he terms Machins of forgetfulness examin'd The examples of the insensible changes alledged in answer to the Perpetuity defended 188 CHAP. VIII That Paschasius Ratbert was the first that taught the Real Presence and conversion of Substances Mr. Arnaud's Objections answer'd 198 CHAP. IX Proofs that Paschasius was an Innovator 214 CHAP. X. Of Authors in the 9th Century Walafridus Strabo Florus Remy of Auxerre Christian Drutmar 229 CHAP. XI Of other Authors in the 9th Century Amalarius Heribald Raban Bertram and John Scot 242 CHAP. XII Of Personal Differences which Mr. Arnaud has treated of in his 11th Book 259 An Answer to the Dissertation which is at the end of Mr. Arnaud ' s Book touching the Treatise of our Lords Body and Blood publish'd under the name of Bertram and touching the Authority of John Scot or Erigenus The first Part. Wherein is shew'd that the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord Publish'd under the name of Bertram is a work of Ratram a Monk of Corby and not of John Scot. CHAP. I. AN Account of the several Opinions which the Doctors of the Roman Church have offered touching this Book to hinder the advantage which we draw from it 277 CHAP. II. That what the Author of the Dissertation would reform in the Opinion of Mr. De Marca does not at all make it the more probable 282 CHAP. III. That Ratram is the Author of the Book of our Lords Body and Blood publish'd under the name of Bertram 284 CHAP. IV. A Refutation of what the Author of the Dissertation offers to persuade that the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord publish'd under the name of Bertram is of John Scot 292 CHAP. V. Other Difficulties which the Author of the Dissertation forms on the name of Bertram examin'd 299 The Second Part. That the Authority of the Book of our Lords Body and Blood Publish'd under the name of Bertram will be still of great weight if we suppose John Scot to be the Author of it CHAP. VI. That John Scot was greatly esteemed both in his own age and in the following ones 303 CHAP. VII An Examination of what the Author of the Dissertation alledges against the employs of John Scot 306 CHAP. VIII That John Scot was esteemed a Martyr 311 The end of the Table 1683 Coenantibus ejs accepit Iesus panem et benedixit at fregit deditque discipulis fuis et ait accipite et comedite hoc est And as they did eat Iesus took the bread and when he had blessed he broke it and gave it to the Disciples and said take eat this my body Mat. 26. AN ANSWER TO Mr. Arnaud's Book INTIT'LED The Perpetuity of the Faith of the Catholick Church touching the Eucharist defended BOOK I. Wherein is treated of the Method which the Author of the Perpetuity hath followed CHAP. I. That I have reason to take for granted as I have
make this Rhapsody turned Roman Catholick which might well transport him by a Zeal common to young Converts to make his Master speak a word or two in favour of Transubstantiation Mr. Arnaud seems moreover to speak of Ministers but it is known by every one that Scaliger was none WITEMBOGARD was one of the chief of the Arminian Party interessed against the French Ministers neither is he a Witness to be fully believed in what he tells us concerning Casaubon yet if what Spondanus has written of Casaubon be true we must acknowledge that this Person who altho otherwise was extraordinarily learned did not excel in Judgment He was a man saith he of a fickle Mind and ever wavering in maters of Religion Annals Eccl. ad An. 1600 art 12. he was willing to please both Parties and by that means pleased neither It is very likely that near Familiarity he had with Cardinal Perron drew him into this ambiguos Humour which ought not to be made use of against us much less to be proposed as an Example for the regulating of our Conduct And besides he may more justly be said to be Critick than a Minister I shall not here trouble my self with what is alleaged concerning Socinus and his Followers for there is a great deal of Passion and Injustice shewed in Confronting them with us seeing the Point here in Question is what our most knowing Ministers hold about this matter I confess the Socinians reject Transubstantiation and the Real Presence but it is moreover so much their interest to decry the Doctrine of the Fathers that 't is no marvel if they speak so unjustly of them They have built on the antient Heresies of Photinus Macedonius and Pelagius and seeing themselves opposed by Councils and by the writings of the Fathers this hath moved them not only to have no respect for them but likewise to lay to their charge things which they never believed to the end they might render them odious and marr their Credit So that Mr. Arnaud imposes on us when he tells us that the Socinians have no interest in acknowledging that the Writings of the Lib. 1. C. 5. Pag. 41. Fathers favour the Catholicks and that it would have bin more to their Advantage to deny this The contrary of which is apparent WHEN he should produce some of our Ministers who doubted whether the Writings of the Fathers favour us in the point of the Eucharist or who even believed they were against us should this appear so strange to us It is not an easy matter for a man to disentangle himself out of all the corrupt passages which are fasly attributed to the Fathers and set forth under their Names and from all the Artifices made use of to disguise their Doctrines I have written a Chapter on purpose in my Answer to Father Noiiet wherein I produce several Examples of this which the Readers may peruse at their Leasure Even Casaubon himself whom I now mentioned is one of them who hath fallen into this Snare for he hath taken two preparatory Prayers for the Mass to be the true and undoubted Works of St. Ambrose altho that in effect they are composed by Anselme Bishop of Canterbury Now if any Person has bin deceived like Casaubon and doubted whither the Fathers were for us must this be used as a Proof against us ought such a ones Mistakes to be the Rule of our Thoghts this certainly is contrary to reason BUT for one Minister or two whom Mr. Arnaud can bring against us we can produce a great number who have not hesitated in this matter Calvin himself who lived in a time when these Fopperies were scarely discovered yet asserts that the Fathers have retained the pious and orthodox Sence of this Mystery and affirms that not having found them at all to derogate Inst Lib. 4. C. 18. from the only Sacrifice of Jesus Christ he could not therefore consent to the charging of them with Impiety altho he doth not think them wholly excusable in the form of the Action To Calvin we may add Cook who was Tutour to King Edward of England and supposed to be Author of a Book intit'led Diallacticon Thomas Crammer Arch-Bishop of Canterbury Bp. Jewel Peter Martyr the Author of the Orthodox Treatise Andrew Volan the Divines of the University of Heydelberg Du Moulin Chamier Rivet Faucheur Mestresat and Blondel not to mention Du Plessis and Mr. De Saumaise nor several others who have written on this Subject by the Testimony of the Fathers which sheweth with how great precipitation Mr. Arnaud hath asserted that it is most false the most knowing Ministers are perswaded the Fathers are manifestly for them and the Solutions they give their Passages are good and Solid WHAT he mentions concerning Mr. Daillé is taken in a contrary Sence for he never designed to deny the Advantage we have in the Fathers touching the Eucharist nor leave it to be questioned His Book against Mr. Adam and Cottiby is an authentick Proof of this and being as yet thro Gods Grace in a Capacity to declare his own Thoughts there needs no more but to ask his opinion touching this Point and see what Answer he will make There will appear no Difference betwixt his Opinion and mine provided his Words are understood as he meant them Mr. Daillé sais 't is a hard matter to gather from the Writings of the Fathers De usu Pat. C. 2 their Opinions touching those Articles in Religion about which we differ because the matters they treat of are for the most part very remote His meaning is that it is a hard matter to find a formal and express Declaration of their Sence in these matters which should be declared in such Terms as these I deny or affirm I approve or condemn I reject or receive and the Reason he alleages do's sufficiently confirm this for he saies That the Matters they treat of are remote from our Controversies and that they thought not of us when they wrote MY Sence differs not from his and therefore I shall not fear to say with Ibid. him that they that expect to find the Belief of the Fathers clearly set down in their Writings are generally mistaken even as he who thinks to meet with the Affections and Desires of his Mind amongst the sound of Bells And indeed if we expect to find a positive and precise Rejection of the Romish Doctrine in the Writings of the Fathers like unto that which is at this day amongst us we shall be much mistaken and the Reason is apparent in as much as the Doctrine of the Church of Rome being not extant in the time of the Fathers they have not expresly condemned it for men are not wont to condemn Opinions before they appear Yet do's not this hinder but that the Fathers are against Transubstantiation by way of Negation that is to say by their Silence because they never inserted it amongst the Articles of their Faith they never
propounded it to their Hearers nor unfolded the Mysteries of it nor defended its Consequences as doth the Church of Rome as they had without question done had they believed it And this is what I say and Mr. Daillé dos not gainsay it but on the contrary a few lines after what Mr. Arnaud has recited he lays down this general Proposition That the silence of the Fathers on the controverted Points which they so much value is of some weight and amounts perhaps to a clear Proof but surely not in favour of them Ibid. who hold the Affirmative So far Mr. Daillé and I speak precisely the same language But I affirm likewise that besides the silence of the Fathers there is to be found several things in their Writings inconsistent with the Belief of Transubstantiation and the Real Presence and I hold this Proof doth evidently conclude they did not believe these Doctrines Mr. Daillé speaking in general of this Order of Proofs saith he freely confesseth that every wise mans Faith is as a Body whose parts have a dependance on each other So that we Ibid. may know by the things he expresseth what he thinks of those which he expresseth not whether he doth believe them or not it being unlikely he would admit what doth evidently oppose his Opinions or reject their necessary Consequences to which he addeth that he does acknowledg that this way of handling the Writings of the Fathers would be most profitable and more proper to dive into their bottom than any other provided we suppose two things the one that the Belief of the antient Doctors is all of a Piece and does no way contradict it self and the other that he who would judge after this manner must have a piercing Wit a good Memory and a Judgment free from Prejudice AS to the first of these Suppositions he saith that it is not absolutely out of doubt and as to the other that all these Qualities do seldom meet in one man What he saies is true in this general Consideration But this does not hinder me from adding that in the particular case of Transubstantiation and the Real Presence the first supposition is out of doubt and the second is not absolutely necessary To make this apparent we need but consider on one hand the rank these Doctrines hold in a Church which believes them and on the other the number and nature of those things which oppose them in the Writings of the antient Fathers The Example of the Church of Rome shews us that they that believe them respect them as inviolable Mysteries which must not be called in question and such as are of greatest Importance in Religion and which must be defended against the Contradiction of Sense and Reason and for which we ought to be armed with the greatest Caution as being in short Mysteries which are daily represented us in their Celebration and Participation of them which should be distinctly known by all the Faithful and cleerly and plainly taught the People to the end every one may know that what he receiveth is the proper Substance of his Saviour and give him the Worship due to a Creator Whence it follows that if the antient Church believed these things it has believed them in this Degree and that 't is not possible but the Fathers in general would take such care as not to maintain things which overthrow them or reject others which are the necessary Consequences of them It is not possible I say that they should all of 'em be thus inconsiderate as to assert several things which may justly scandalize their Followers and that in so ticklish and well known a Point as is that of the Substance of Jesus Christ which they every day received On the other hand if we consider the Nature and Number of things to be met with in the Writings of the Fathers contrary to Transubstantiation and the Real Presence we shall observe they are contrary to them by a primary immediate and evident contrariety for which there is no need of a sharp Wit nor great Memory but a sound understanding and disinteressed Judgment we shall find that these things are in great Number and as well prevail over a mans Mind by their Multitude as their Quality And this Mr. Daillé has not denyed so that as I do not thwart his Rule so he does not oppose my Exception therefore there is no Contradiction betwixt us BUT Mr. Arnaud will reply Mr. Daillé do's oppose our Exception for he applies his Rule to the Subject of the Eucharist acknowledging that as there are Passages in the Fathers Writings which seem to be inexplicable in C. 1. the Church of Romes Sence so there are likewise some which can in no wise admit the Sence of the Protestants as them which expresly import that the Bread changes its Nature that by the Almighty Power of God it becometh the Flesh of the Word and such like If Cardinal Perron saith he and other sublime Wits on both sides protest they find no Difficulty we must acknowledg they said it only out of a Bravadoe turning the best side outwards or else that the rest of the World are very dim sighted to perceive nothing but Darkness where these People behold nothing but Light And elsewhere taking notice of some Passages which seem to deny the Consubstantiality of the Son determined in the Council of Nice which are to be met with in the Writings of the Fathers who preceded that Council Let the Fathers addeth he affirm or deny that the Eucharist is really the Body of Christ they will not for all this contradict thy Opinion whosoever thou art whether Romanist or Protestant more strongly than the Fathers of Antioch did in appearance contradict them of Nice To which we may now add that as the Arians had no reason to draw to their Opinion and alleage as decisive parts of their Question such transient Discourses as were innocently meant by the antient Fathers without any Design of treating on this so likewise we have no cause neither thou I say nor I to alleage as Sentences pronounced in our case which has bin stated but of late the sayings of the Fathers which were written by them on other matters several Ages before our Controversies began concerning which they have expressed themselves very differently and obscurely and even sometimes in appearance contradictorily Having shewn afterwards that the Fathers designed to be obscure in their Discourses concerning the Eucharist to hide this Mystery from the Catecumenists SEEING then saith he that in this and other Matters they designed to conceal their Thoughts we must not therefore wonder if their Expressions have bin oftentimes obscure and that which commonly is an effect of Obscurity if they seem sometime to differ and contradict one another I answer that this being well understood doth not at all obstruct my Exception nor what I said in my Answer to the Perpetuity Mr. Daillé speaks of the particular Judgment which we
of Rome and in fine may be refuted by Mr. Arnaud's own Example Which is the Summary of the first Chapter II. That the Author of the Perpetuity's Method is Indirect and contrary to Nature seeing he would decide Questions of Right by Matters of Fact and Questions of Fact by Proofs drawn from Arguments which is such a disorderly way of Proceeding as makes his Method justly suspected to be artificial and deceitful III. That the Author of the Perpetuity has openly assaulted Mr. Aubertin's Book and that after an indirect and artificial Manner which lies as a Prejudication against him Which is the Summary of the second Chapter IV. That the Design of the Author of the Perpetuity being to destroy the Impression which the Proofs of Fact or the Passages out of the Fathers have made on our Minds does nothing less than this whence it follows that his Treatise is wholly Useless Which are the Contents of the third Chapter V. That Mr. Arnaud contradicts the Author of the Perpetuity in pretending to defend him and ruins the whole Design of his Treatise VI. That these Methods of Prescription which Mr. Arnaud so much glories in are vain and ineffectual and that the Course we take to confirm People in the Doctrines of our Church is short certain and easy to the meanest Capacities whereas those Mr. Arnaud offers are tedious difficult uncertain and unintelligible to ordinary Apprehensions Whence it follows they cannot with a safe Conscience remain in the Communion of the Church of Rome VII That the Abridgment of our Proofs of Fact which I offer'd in my first Answer has bin regular and that the Treatise of the Perpetuity is but a mear Chaos of Confusion These three last Particulars are contained in the fourth Chapter VIII That all those pretended Advantages Mr. Arnaud hopes to obtain by means of the Perpetuity in relation to the Learned and Unlearned and to those he terms the Obstinate are groundless Imaginations which in fine do only manifest the Unprofitableness of that Treatise Which is the Subject of the fifth and sixth Chapters IX And lastly that he cannot excuse the Author of the Perpetuity nor himself from the Charge of Contradicting and Opposing the Infallibility of Popes and Councils it being an avowed Doctrine of the Church of Rome Which is the Contents of this seventh Chapter BOOK II. Wherein is shown that when it should be true that those which are called the Schismatical Churches believed Transubstantiation yet would it not thence follow that this Doctrine was always held by these Christians CHAP. I. Containing the chief Heads of this whole Controversy touching the Eastern Churches and their Opinion from the eleventh Century to this Present Mr. Arnaud's Artifice laid open WE are now come to treat of the Belief of the Greek and other Eastern Churches touching Transubstantiation and the adoration of the Eucharist and must endeavour to shelter our selves from the violent Insultings of Mr. Arnaud and his Friends We need not mention how this has bin the Subject of their Triumph seeing all the World knows it For the Author of the Perpetuity has 2d Part of the Perpetuity C. 5. P. 256. already thereatned us with producing of twenty Millions of Witnesses on his side and Mr. Arnaud who is not a Person of that Humour as to abate any thing is continually charging us with Absurdities Rashness Confidence Convictions Demonstrations and telling us of Ministers confounded by the number of his Proofs He tells the World in his Preface that he hath left us no reason P. 11. to doubt in a matter so apparent as is that of the Consent of all these Christian Churches in the Doctrine of Transubstantiation He tells us moreover in L. 2. C. 2. P. 113. another place that this is a Point most clear and evident and that were we not withheld by Obstinacy we should confess as much our selves and not let our Tongues thus bely our Consciences Nay even before Mr. Arnaud's Book appeared abroad in the World it had already gotten the Name of Invincible like to that Legion of old under the Emperour Marcus Aurelius which caused Fire from Heaven to fall down on the Heads of its Enemies And we may truly affirm the World hath not bin wanting to usher in this his pretended Victory with their Shouts and Acclamations Now if it be enquired of Mr. Arnaud what Advantage he can expect from this whole Controversy He will tell us it is the Interest of the Catholick Church and that be L. 2. C. 2. P. 115. will never be perswaded to suffer one of its clearest Proofs to be snatcht out of his Hand seeing it establisheth the Faith of a Mystery wherein consisteth the Object of its Devotion thro the whole World That God preserves all these Christian Societies altho divided from his Church and suffers not the Tyranny of Infidels wholly to swallow them up nor the knowledg of principal Mysteries to be quite extinguisht amongst them to the end they may remain as Witnesses for the Catholick Cause in testifying the Antiquity of those Doctrines which the new Hereticks deny If he be demanded whether none of the Doctors of the Church of Rome have hitherto made use of this Argument he will tell you that no In his Prefa P. 10. one yet hath exactly handled this matter Which is to say that this great Interest of the Catholick Church and this Proof which is one of the most famous she hath whereby to establish her Faith and Devotion in respect of this Mystery was reserved for Mr. Arnaud and that the Divine Providence has not withheld for so many Ages the Violence of the Infidels nor put a stop to the Progress of the Mahometans nor preserved these Reliques of Christianity in the East but only for the sake of Mr. Arnaud's excellent Treatise which was to be the Admiration of the Universe You must not then think it strange if he himself after this hath judged it worthy to be Presented to Kings and Princes and Dedicated even to the Head of the Romish Church and suffer'd so many Doctors to make Panegyricks in its Praise What farther remains but that it should be compared to the Saviour of the World And this Honour has not bin wanting to it THE Author of the Enthusiasms says that as the Son of God before his Birth purifyed John the Baptist his Fore-runner and having wrought this Miracle left the Virgins Bosom to publish to Men the glad Tidings of Peace So likewise Mr. Arnaud's Book when as yet in the Bosom of its Author has replenished a great Man with its Divinity and having begun its Miracles by this Conversion was published in the time of this late Peace made in the Roman Church So far have they carried it on beyond Reason and Christian Modesty NAMQUE si liceat pusilla magnis plenum numine numini libellum aequare ut gravibus licet Poetis Iis omnibus diem subibis O quantum omnibus
confidently undertakes to convince us of the Antiquity of the Roman Creed touching the Eucharist upon this Principle that this same Doctrine is held by other Christian Churches as if all the passages from Rome to Greece were so blocked up that these Doctrines could never be transported thither or as if the Latins had never attempted this Had these People received these Doctrines elsewhere or invented them themselves Mr. Arnaud would have some pretence for his Argument neither could we then charge him with asserting things as we do now against the light of his own Conscience But seeing he knew well enough the Latins have been perpetually endeavouring to introduce their Doctrines in these Countrys and constantly laboured at this since I know not how many Ages he therefore upon supposal they have effected this comes and offers us the belief of these People as an undoubted Proof of the Perpetuity of this Doctrine this is to speak modestly such a way of proceeding as will never be approved by just and reasonable men IT will perhaps be objected that I do indeed here shew That the Latins endeavour'd to insinuate their Religion in the East but that I do not make it particularly appear they at any time endeavoured to introduce their Doctrine of Transubstantiation To which I answer first this is not necessary for proposing only to my self at present to shew the Nullity of the Consequence Mr. Arnaud pretends to draw in order to the proving of the Perpetuity of the Roman Creed touching Transubstantiation in that he imagines the Eastern Churches hold the same it suffices me to shew thereupon That this Opinion might be communicated to them by the Latins themselves in their several attempts to introduce their Religion into the East especially considering that Transubstantiation is one of the most important Doctrines of it And if Mr. Arnaud would have his Proof subsist he must set aside all the time of these efforts we now mentioned and betake himself only to those Ages which preceded them For unless he proves that Transubstantiation has been believed in these Churches before all these endeavours to bring them over to the Roman Faith there is no Person endued with sence but will perceive how little strength his Argument carries along with it seeing he is ever lyable to be told they have received it from the Latins it not appearing amongst them before BUT in the second place I will not have it stick here to the end Mr. Arnaud may receive full satisfaction touching this point I say then that in the Year 1627. Clement the Fourth intending to make his Advantage of that Raynald ad ann 1267. num 75. great Earnestness Michael Paleologus shewed for the Reunion of his Church with the Roman as it has been observed in the third Chap. of this Book he thereupon sent him a Confession of Faith which he would have received by the Greeks because he found that which the Greeks sent him not only deficient in several things but full of Errors altho the Fryar Minorites then at Constantinople had accepted it Now Amongst other Articles in this Confession there is one which relates to the Eucharist and which runs thus in Latin Sacramentum Eucharistae ex azymo conficit eadem Romana Ecclesia tenens docens quod in ipso Sacramento panis verè transubstantiatur in Corpus Vinum in Sanguinem Domini nostri Jesu Christi which is to say the Church of Rome Celebrates the Sacrament of the Eucharist with unleavened Bread Believing and Teaching that in this Sacrament the Bread is really transubstantiated into the Body and the Wine into the Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ He sent afterwards Dominicains to Confirm this Confession and procure its acceptance with the Greeks IN the Year 1272 Gregory the Tenth sent Fryar Minorites into Greece Raynald ad ann 1272. num 27. to endeavour afresh the Reduction of the Greeks under the Authority of the same Michael Paleologus who resolved to finish this Affair at any rate and to whom he likewise recommended the same Confession of Faith IN the Year 1288. Pope Nicholas the Fourth sent Fryar Minorites into Idem ad ann 1288. num 30. Esclavonia to bring off these People from the Greek Religion to that of the Church of Rome he gave them Letters to King Urosius and Helena the Queen Mother and recommended to 'em the same Form of Doctrine containing the Article of Transubstantiation to the end this might be the Rule of their instructions to the People THE same Pope sent it likewise to three Bishops in the East who embraced his Communion exhorting them to instruct the People according Ibid. num 33. to the Doctrine contained therein and at the same time he recommended to them the Emissaries sent into those Countries for the Conversion of the Greeks Bulgarians Valaquians Syrians Iberians Alains Russians Jacobites Nestorians Georgians Armenians Indians whence it is easie to conjecture that the Emissaries were likewise enjoyned to use this Formulary IN the Year 1318. Pope Innocent the twenty Second sent this Confession Raynald ad ann 1318. num 13. to the King of Armenia And not only say's Rynaldus The Armenians which inhabited Cilicia and Armenia embraced the Doctrine of the Roman Church but others also who being driven out of their Country by the Sarracens had retired into Chersonesus Taurique They submitted themselves to the Roman Church in the presence of the Bishop of Capha who was a Latin The Pope adds he congratulated them and shewed 'em that in the Divine Mysteries the Substance of Bread is changed into the Body and Blood of Christ the Species remaining entire IN the Year 1338. Bennet the Twelfth received Letters from the Alains Idem ad ann 1338. num 77. who were a sort of Christians that professed the Greek Religion and lived under the Government of the Tartars He return'd them an answer and sent the Confession of Faith I already mention'd for their Instruction Raynaldus referrs this Letter to the Year 1338. But there is an old Book I lately cited intitled The marvelous History of the great Cham of Tartaria which referrs this to the Year 1328. The Article of Transubstantiation is expresly mentioned in it IN the Year 1366. John Paleologus the Grecian Emperor designing to Idem ad ann 1366. num 6. reunite himself to the Church of Rome that he might be assisted against the Turks Pope Urbain the Fifth sent him as his Predecessors had done to Michael this same Confession of Faith SO that here then the Latins are not only enjoyned to propagate their Religion in general amongst the Eastern Christians but particularly the Doctrine of Transubstantiation and to the end it may not be said this Confession contains the other Points of the Christian Faith as well as that of the Substantial Conversion it is to be observed that it has two distinct parts in the first of which the Articles of the Apostles Creed are explained and
man that writes things on such slight grounds as he does nor so easily exposes his Reputation in asserting matters of Fact of whose untruth he is lyable to be convinced by every one that can read For not to go farther we need but read to find in the fourteenth Page of the first Treatise that the Author proposes to himself to make any man confess who is not extreamly obstinate by the evidence of truth it self that the belief of the Church of Rome touching this Mystery is the same with that of all Antiquity Now every body knows that the belief of the Church of Rome reaches as far as Transubstantiation We need but read moreover for this purpose the eighteenth and nineteenth Pages of the first Treatise wherein the Author of the Perpetuity being desirous to shew us the universality of the Doctrine of the Church of Rome tells us that Lanfranc having explained the Catholick Doctrine in these terms We believe the Terrestial Substances of Bread and Wine being divinely Sanctified on our Lord's Table by the Ministry of the Priests are CHANGED by the ineffable Operation wonderful and incomprehensible Power of God into the Essence of the Body of our Lord adds farther Behold here the Faith which the Church dispersed throughout the whole World which is called Catholick has held in all Ages and does at this time hold and that he confidently repeats this in the twenty second Chapter and presses Berengarius to inform himself of the Sentiments of all the Christians in the World in the East and West Ask the Greeks Armenians and generally all Christians of what Nation soever and they will all of them tell you they hold the same Faith which we profess We need but only read to be satisfied that the Author of the Perpetuity produces afterwards the Testimony of Guitmond in the same Sence and for the same end he cited that of Lanfranc to wit to prove that the Greeks and other Schismaticks do believe Transubstantiation and that in the twenty second Page he makes this remark That Guitmond does not only apply what he say's to the Opinion which is contrary to the Real Presence but likewise to the Doctrine of the impanation which is that of the Lutherans which clearly shews us that this Testimony of Guitmond respects not only the Real Presence but likewise Transubstantiation In fine to be ascertained in this matter we need but read what the Author of the Perpetuity immediately adds in his twenty third Page after he had alledged that passage of Guitmond All the Books of the Schismatical Greeks say's he which have come to our hands since that time do clearly testifie they held the same Opinions as the Church of Rome touching the Eucharist After this Mr. Arnaud comes and tells us that although the Author of the Perpetuity speaks only in his first Treatise of the Real Presence and contents himself with asserting that this Doctrine was held by all these Schismatical Churches Yet Mr. Claude turns aside the Question upon Transubstantion which Point this Author does not precisely Treat of What means then I pray these Quotations out of Lanfranc and Guitmond which he has expresly produc'd to shew that Transubstantiation was believed by the whole World both by the Greeks and Armenians and generally by all Christians Certainly Mr. Arnaud does himself an irreparable Injury thus to maintain things without consulting and examining them flattering himself with the hopes of being believed upon his own bare word That which has deceiv'd him without doubt has been this That he has observed in the Treatise of the Perpetuity that the Author having produced his Argument touching the Schismatical Churches in the manner already mention'd that is to say positively in reference to Transubstantiation passing afterwards to the proposing of some Arguments by which he pretends to shew that the Mystery of the Eucharist is distinctly known by all the Faithful and that an insensible change is a thing impossible he restrains himself to the Real Presence but there is a difference betwixt these two points and Mr. Arnaud ought to have considered this a little better I say then that in this Dispute of the Greeks and other Christians separated from the Roman Church the question concerns Transubstantiation and not the Real Presence as well for that the Author of the Perpetuity has expresly mentioned Transubstantiation in his first Treatise as I come now from observing and for as much as I plainly kept my self in my first Answer to this Doctrine alone and that of the Adoration whereupon it follows that the Debate has been precisely continued on these two Articles Yet do I here declare to avoid all Mistakes that altho our debate at present is not concerning the Real Presence yet do I not yield to the drawing of this consequence from hence that I acknowledge this Doctrine is believed in the Greek Church in the same Sence as the Latins understand it This is not my Opinion and I shall say no more of it but that this point is not the Subject of our present debate It will appear perhaps in the following parts of this Discourse what ought to be believed touching this matter it not being needful for this to alter the State of our question BUT besides the Observations I now made we must likewise observe that it does not concern us to know whether the Greeks do expresly reject Transubstantiation or whether they have made it a point of Controversie betwixt them and the Latins but the question here is whether they do positively believe it or no. For there is a great deal of difference between Peoples absolute rejecting of a Doctrine that is to say the making thereof a point of debate and the not receiving and reckoning it amongst the Articles of their Faith Our debate concerns only this last I mean whether the Greek Church as it stands separate from the Latin professes the Doctrine of the Substantial Conversion or not This is the true state of the question Mr. Arnaud maintains the affirmative and I the negative so that we must see now who has the reason and truth on his side Yet let me tell him that designing throly to handle this Subject he ought to have laid down all these distinctions and leave the Reader at his own liberty to judge of them But instead of this there is never a one of these Articles which I now mention'd that he has not manifestly perverted 1. He makes advantage of all those Parties which have been made from time to time either by the Violence and Authority of the Greek Emperors or by the Intrigues of the Latins for the Re-union of the two Churches 2. He makes use of the Testimony of Persons won to the Roman Interest such as Emanuel Calecas Bessarion John Plusiadenus Gennudius Scholarius Baronius Spatarius Paysius Ligardius all of 'em Persons manifestly engaged in the Opinions of the Church of Rome as shall be shewed him in the Sequel of this debate 3.
the great Particle in the Cup and mix them therein together it is no more then but one and the same thing For if we suppose that as well the great one as the lesser are the Body of Jesus Christ and mystical Saints I find no difficulty therein for he means that all these Particles put together make no more than one Mystery which expresses that perfect Unity which is between Christ and his Saints which together with him make but one Body But if on the contrary we suppose that the first Particle is Jesus Christ in Substance there will be found nothing more absurd than the expression of this Person when he tells us that little Saints made of Bread are converted into the very Substance of Jesus Christ He is one and the same with his true Saints whether they are in Heaven or on Earth but to say he becomes one and the same with their Figures and Representations or with Crums of Bread which represent them on an Altar is in my opinion such an extravagant fancy that we ought not to charge the Greeks with it IN fine Arcudius assures us that 't is customary to administer these Particles to the People after the same manner as we do the Sacrament He say's indeed that Simeon and Gabriel warned the Curats not to distribute them in this manner to the People but to administer them with the great Particle mixt and pressed together in the Cup. Yet adds he Simeon ambiguously Arcud lib. 3. cap. 10. expresses himself for he say's that the Particles are the Body of our Lord when they are mixt with the Body and Blood and are not so being separate and therefore the Faithful may partake of them in the Sacrament which is to say they may receive them as the real Sacrament Now tell me I beseech you whether 't is likely a man that believes the Eucharist to be the Body of Jesus Christ in its proper Substance would speak after this manner These Particles say's he become the Body of our Lord when mixt but separate they are not so Is it that the conjunction and mixture transubstantiates them and the separation untransubstantiates them If this be his meaning why does he so earnestly assert that they are not consecrated Why does Gabriel his Disciple say that they are not changed altho united He must certainly mean Ibid. they are the Body of Christ otherwise than in propriety of Substance and he sufficiently explains himself when he says in the second passage which Mr. Arnaud has alleged ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã they participate Apud Arc. lib. 3. cap. 11. pag 331. of the Body and Blood of our Lord which Mr. Arnaud understood not amiss when he translated it they receive holiness by the participation of the Body and Blood Which is to say they are made the Body and Blood by a Communication of Sanctity which comes to them from the great Particle by means of the mixture even to the making them capable of being given in the Communion to the Faithful Now there are several things which do hence necessarily follow For first it follows that the Bread which is the Body of Jesus Christ not in Substance but in Sanctification is sufficient for the Communion of the Faithful Secondly that the great Particle is the Body of Jesus Christ in such a manner that it may be communicated to another piece of Bread without the change of its Substance and by consequence that it is not it self this Body substantially for besides that this manner of being the Body of Jesus Christ is incommunicable it is evident that if it could be communicated to another Subject even to the making of it the Body of Jesus Christ it then follows that this other Subject must be transubstantiated In a word Simeon's meaning is that the great Particle is in such a manner the Body of Jesus Christ that it may communicate this honour to the rest and make them become the Body of Jesus Christ in such a sort as renders them proper for the Communion And to the same effect are these words of Arcudius He saith say's he that the Particles are the Body of our Lord when mixt with the Body and Blood and therefore the Faithful may receive them in the Sacrament and these other words ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã they communicate or participate of the Body and Blood of our Lord. It is then evident he means not that the great Particle is the Body of Christ in propriety of Substance for this propriety cannot be communicated to another Subject if we suppose at the same time as Simeon does that this other Subject remains really Bread AND this is my Argument Mr. Arnaud who saw the force of it has endeavour'd to escape it by his usual Artifices for on one hand he has concealed from us what Arcudius has expressly declared to wit that these Particles are the Body of Christ being mixt and that the faithful may partake of them as of the Sacrament and on the other he has mis-represented Simeon's sence and pretended it to be to his advantage But all his Artifices cannot hinder us from perceiving that the real Sentiment of the Greek Church is 1. That the Substance of Bread remains in all the Particles that is to say as well in that which is consecrated as in all the rest 2. That the consecrated Particle becomes the Body of Jesus Christ in full virtue of Sanctification and is as it were a Fountain of Grace and Divine Efficacy 3. That the other Particles by mixture and union with the great Particle do partake of this Sanctification and become by this means the Body and Blood of our Lord not after a complete and perfect manner like unto the great Particle but in a far lower degree which is yet sufficient to make them proper to be distributed to the People in the Communion as being the Body and Blood of our Lord. WE shall be confirm'd in this opinion if we consider the eighth Proof which I shall here offer It consists in that the Greeks believe the Eucharist consecrated on Holy Thursday to have a greater efficacy than that which is consecrated at other times which may be verifi'd if 't were needful by the testimony of several Authors See here what Prareolus say's They assure us say's he that this excellent mystery consecrated on the day in which our Saviour celebrated his Supper that is to say on Thursday in the Holy Week hath a more excellent virtue and is more efficatious than when 't is consecrated on other days Prercol Elem. Heres lib. 7. pag. 201. and 't is for this reason according to Guy Le Carmes Relation that they consecrate the Eucharist for the sick on no other day of the year than in that wherein our Saviour made his last Supper which they keep all the year only for this purpose John de Lasko Archbishop of Gnesne and Ambassadour from the King of Poland to Leo X. in
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 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã to Sanctifie which the Greeks commonly make use of to express the Act of Consecration and that of ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã the Sanctifications by which they express their Mysteries as appears by the Liturgies and those of ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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
hearers receiving more or less but it remains indivisible and wholly intire in all when they should be several thousands in number altho it be but one Body for a voice is nothing else but verberated Air. Let no one then doubt but that after the Holy Sacrifice and Resurrection of the incorruptible and immortal Body of our Lord and his holy and living Blood are applied to the Anti-Types by their Consecration but that they do I say as much imprint his proper virtue as the things I offered by way of example do and that he fully and intirely exists in them I know not what Mr. Arnaud thinks of these words but certainly he ought not to suppress them as he has done He mentions what precedes and follows them but leaves out those that are in the middle 'T is probable he could not well brook this comparison of the Seal that imprints its Image on several things nor that of the voice which multiplies it self in the Air without losing its Unity for in effect there happens no change of Substance neither in the Matter that receives impression nor in the Air which receives the voice and these several Matters to which the Seal communicates its Image or those several parts of the Air into which the voice is carried are one and the same thing amongst themselves and with the Seal or the first Air in respect of the Characters or Articulation but not at all in respect of the Substance whence we may conclude the same thing concerning the parts of the Sacrament which is to say that the Bread altho it receives the impression of the virtue of Christ's Body yet does it keep its Substance after the same manner as the Body of Jesus Christ retains his the virtue remaining the same in all the parts of the Bread 'T is probable he did not like that in proposing the comparison of the Seal Eutychius has observ'd that 't is not changed into the things to which it communicates its Characters whence it follows that they are not likewise changed substantially into him 'T is likely he could not well rellish this expression that the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ are applied to the Anti-Types and that they imprint no less in them their proper virtues ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã than the Seal does in things and the voice which a man utters in the Air. In effect I am much mistaken if this does not represent the Idea of a Body of Jesus Christ in virtue and efficacy against which Mr. Arnaud has so great an aversion I am greatly deceived if these expressions be not inconsistent with the Doctrine of Transubstantiation or the real Presence For what mean this Body and Blood applied to the Anti-Types by Consecration and which as a Seal imprint on them their proper virtues if we suppose these Anti-Types to be really changed into this Body and Blood and become the same numerical Substance But be it as it will Mr. Arnaud ought not to retrench all this Discourse from the midst of the rest or if he design'd to do it not to reproach me for that in my Answer to the Perpetuity I did not mention at large the Passages of Nicetas and Zonarus I can easilier justifie my self concerning this particular than he can himself for it will appear at the end of this Chapter that 't would have been very advantagious to me to represent them at their full length and the reason why I did it not was because I was unwilling to tire the Reader with Passages which are very long and the sum of which may be represented in few words besides I have caused them to be printed at large in the Margent of the last Edition of my Book We must then attribute this reproach Mr. Arnaud makes me to his humour and not to his Judgment for had he taken time to consider he would have spared us the reading of so frivolous a matter But when we call to mind that he himself has suppressed one part of Eutychus his Discourse this must be said to be an effect of his Judgment and not of his humour for he seems to be naturally an Enemy to Com pe diums IN fine Nicetas having made the Greeks of the first party speak their sence he introduces the other and adds these following words Which things being alledged by these and they producing several other Testimonies of the Church the others replied on the contrary That the Mystery is not an acknowledgment of the Resurrection but only a Sacrifice and consequently is corruptible being without Soul or Understanding and that the Communicant does not receive Jesus Christ intire but in part For were it say they incorruptible it would be indued with Spirit it would be alive it could neither be touched seen nor chewed with the Teeth and in its cutting it would be insensible of pain TO know whether these People believed Transubstantiation or the real Presence we need only inquire whether they had common sence for unless they were deprived of it they could never believe that the Substance of the Bread is changed into the dead and inanimate Body of our Lord which is seen handled cut and chewed with the teeth and which altho inanimate yet is grieved and pain'd to see it self thus used If Mr. Arnaud can make us believe this he may make us believe any thing How apparently impious and contradictory would this their Opinion be to expose our Saviour again to grief and pain to imagine they see him and chew him with their teeth and cut his flesh in pieces that every one may partake thereof to believe he is without Life and Soul ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã and yet that he is pained and grieved ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã BUT It will be perhaps then demanded what is their sence seeing Mr. Arnaud assures us That all this would be ridiculous if we understand it as meant of Bread which is only the Figure of our Saviour and which contains only his virtue I answer 't is no hard matter to give their words a national sence in supposing they only believe a change of Mystery and Virtue for they mean that we receive Jesus Christ in the Eucharist as dead and sacrific'd for us and that for to thus represent him the Symbols are taken from the number of those things which have neither Life nor Understanding from amongst those things I say which we see handle and chew with our teeth and which relate to the first visible State of Jesus Christ when he lived on Earth and was subject to pain and misery whereas were he represented in it in his incorruptible State wherein he is no more visible to our eyes nor liable to the ill usages of his Enemies our Lord would without doubt employed other Symbols wherein these dolours are not so lively represented And as to what they say concerning our not receiving Jesus Christ wholly entire but in part this supposes nothing else but that they believe the whole Body
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 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã
and speaks not of the Troubles raised by Berengarius his Heresie but only as hapning in the Year 1051. Secondly because Durand Abbot of Trorand in Normandy who lived about that time refers the Council of Verseil to the Year 1053. only And there is no reason to pretend as a Learned Lawyer of Anger 's does that there is a mistake in this Passage of Durand and that we must read 1050. seeing that according to the judicious Observation of Mr. de St. Beuve the King's Professor at Sorbornne in a Manuscript on this Matter the same Durand testifies that in the Year he speaks of Alfred was Abbot of the Abby of Preaux in Normandy which was not founded till the Year 1053. according to Du Bec ' s Chronicle HERE then we have upon good Grounds and undeniable Authority the two Condemnations of Berengarius referred to the same Year in which Cerularius and Leo of Acrida wrote their Letter It remains only to know whether Mr. Arnaud may suppose without Proof that the Letter was written after Berengarius his Condemnation and whether 't is not a plain Delusion thus slightly to pass over a Point of this importance on which depends the greatest part of his reasoning For if this Letter was written before the time wherein Berenger was first condemned what can be then concluded from Cerularius and Leo de Acrida's Silence Wherefore must they ground an Accusation against the Church of Rome on a Condemnation which was not then in being Now this is a matter of Fact which I affirm to be very uncertain and which Mr. Arnaud must demonstrate and not suppose without Proof They wrote say's he against the Latins at the same time and a little after Pope Leo had condemned Berengarius in two Councils of Italy the one held at Rome th' other at Verseil There being but one Letter from both Cerularius and Leo d' Acrida we must conceive 't was written to the Council at Rome after Berengarius his first Condemnation and near the time they were about calling th' other Council at Verseil Now this has no likelihood for as Baronius has well Baron ann Eccles ad ann 1053. observed Leo answered this Letter in the same Year namely 1053. whence it follows if we reckon right we shall find that Cerularius and Leo d' Acrida could not have written their Letter but in the beginning of the Year at farthest and consequently before there was any mention at Rome of Berengarius his Condemnation and especially before the news thereof came to Constantinople In effect it must not be imagined that this Patriarch and Archbishop indited their Letter without mature and deliberate advice and consideration nor that they sent it without communicating the Contents of it to some of their Clergy to bring them to take part with them and engage 'em in their Interests seeing the matter concerned the censuring of a Church such as that of the Latins and which they were sure would highly resent it Affairs of this importance are not wont to be precipitated It required also some time before this Letter could come from Constantinople to Tranys in the Kingdom of Naples John Bishop of Tranys to whom 't was directed must likewise have some time to send it to Cardinal Humbert and he must get it translated out of Greek into Latin Humbert must go to Rome for he carried it himself to Pope Leo after he received it from the Bishop of Tranys In fine Leo must examine it and answer it For all which Mr. Arnaud allows but three Months Cerularius say's he and Leo of Acrida wrote against the Latins Baron ad ann 1053. and at the same time and not long after again Pope Leo condemned Berengarius in two Councils of Italy the one held at Rome th' other at Verseil This not long after can only relate to the Council at Rome which was the first and consequently this at the same time must relate to the Council of Verseil which being not called till September as appears by Lanfranc who positively affirmeth it and the Pope having wrote his Answer at farthest in December infr de corp sang Dom. it must needs be if we believe what Mr. Arnaud supposes that is to say if the Letter was written in the Month of September that all that which I come now from observing was transacted in three Months time And thus does Mr. Arnaud hasten the time that it may answer his necessities TO this Delusion we may add another which will be the Thirteenth It consists in supposing without Proof that Leo the Ninth in condemning Berengarius precisely established Transubstantiation and the real Presence For if we take not this Fact for a certain Principle there can be no Pretence for demanding wherefore Cerularius reproached not the Church of Rome about her erring in the Doctrine of the Eucharist YET is there nothing more uncertain for there are none of the Decrees of this Council extant and I think not one Author that relates the proper Terms of these Condemnations They tell us that Berengarius was condemned that John Scot's Book was burnt but this is not sufficient to conclude that Transubstantiation and the real Presence were established in Terms which might offend Cerularius and the Greeks and give them occasion to form an Accusation against the Roman Church Sober men are not wont to accuse People upon confused Reports and equivocal Terms And it will be to no purpose to say we must not doubt but that Leo's intention was to assert the substantial Conversion against Berengarius seeing Lanfranc assures us that he himself having declared in full Council his Belief touching the Eucharist in opposition to that of Berengarius it was approved and the other rejected as erroneous For he that states an Opinion contradictory to that of Berengarius does not necessarily assert Transubstantiation there being several other ways and means of opposition It concerns us not here to inform our selves from Lanfranc what was the sence of the Synod but whether what came to Cerularius his knowledge concerning that matter was sufficient to make him say those People established a real Conversion of Substances Now to imagine as Mr. Arnaud does that a Patriarch which is at Constantinople can make such a Judgment with Discretion it will not be sufficient to inform him of the intention and secret design of the Latins altho even this is not to be supposed without Proof but he must have before him the distinct and express Terms relating to this Affair and this Mr. Arnaud cannot prove seeing there is no such matter extant HE will say without doubt that this is a very strange thing for whatsoever falls not under his sence is strange to affirm that a Pope and Council that intended to establish Transubstantiation in condemning Berengarius yet have not done it in intelligible Terms Neither will he forget to censure me here a little as he is wont at every pinch saying I consider the matters I
as I relate it as plainly appears to him that reads his Writings his drift being only to shew that the Azyme having nothing in it representing the Life which is in Jesus Christ it cannot therefore be used for the Mystery of his Body He himself explains his own meaning in these Terms Saint Peter say's he tells us that we are Partakers of a Divine Nature and not of the Azyme of the Murtherers of God Now what man indued with Reason will call the dead Azyme or the unleavened Bread of the Jews a Divine Nature and yet you offer it to God in Sacrifice and eat it as a Figure of the living Flesh of Jesus Christ How have you Communion with Jesus Christ who is the living God eating dead and unleavened Bread which appertains to the shadow of the Law and not the New Testament If we compare what he say's touching the Azyme to what he say's afterwards concerning the Leavened Bread we shall find his aim is only to shew that one is not proper to represent the living Body of Jesus Christ and to become the Figure and Representation of it th' other on the contrary to be most proper 1. Because 't is Bread which th' other is not 2. Because 't is in some sort living whereas th' other is dead 3. Because it respects Grace and the New Testament whereas the other respects the Jews and Shadow of the Law there is not one word in all this that savours Transubstantiation It appears on the contrary that he takes for one and the same thing to be a Partaker of the Divine Nature have Communion with Christ in the Eucharist and to eat the Bread as a Figure of the living Flesh of Jesus Christ BUT we have had enough of this Illusion let us then pass on to the nineteenth which consists in alledging the Testimony of Lanfranc whereby to prove to us the Greeks believe Transubstantiation What can say's he Mr. Lib. 2. cap. 7. pag. 162. 163. Claude say to this Witness who so clearly affirms the Greeks were of the same Belief as the Church of Rome in the Mystery of the Eucharist I may truly say that Lanfranc looking upon Berengarius his Affair as a cause wherein his own credit was concerned and resolving therefore to vanquish at any rate he was interressed to suppose that all the World was on his side and that therefore his prejudice invalidates his Testimony I may also affirm Mr. Arnaud's word signifies nothing without Proof altho it may be as well taken as Lanfranc's I can shew that Lanfranc does not scruple to offer us a Fabulous History touching what passed in Cyrillus of Alexandria's time and Pope Celestin's and to make thereof a good Proof Whether through Ignorance or want of Sincerity I know not but sure I am we have little reason to trust that man's Testimony who has so grossly deceived us He was say's Mr. Ibid. pag. 162. Arnaud an Italian by Nation where there was a great many Greeks Italy certainly would be a very happy Country if it produced none but faithful Witnesses Had Lanfranc in effect taken care to inform himself by the Greeks which were there what was their Belief touching the Substantial Conversion he would have told us so himself and not left it to Mr. Arnaud's guesses It appears adds he by his way of writing that he was a Person worthy of Credit It appears by his Writings that he was a passionate man and extreamly carried away with vain glory which are not the best marks of Sincerity But after all this I can tell Mr. Arnaud he is deceived in Lanfranc's own Testimony For Lanfranc only say's that all Christians do glory in receiving in the Sacrament the true Flesh and Blood of Christ which he took of the Virgin That this is the Faith of the Greeks Armenians and all the rest of the Christian World Which is grounded only on this expression of the Greeks which bears that the Bread is our Saviour's real Body and that it must not be said he has two Bodies but one alone Now we have already shewed what they mean by this expression namely that the Bread becomes our Saviour's Body by way of Addition as the Food we eat becomes our Body which is very different from Transubstantiation BUT say's Mr. Arnaud the Silence of Berengarius and his Followers seems to me also very considerable I answer this is another of his wilful mistakes For first how can he assure us that Berengarius and those of his Opinion never asserted the Greeks did not believe the Conversion of Substances We have scarcely any of their Writings we have no more of their Arguments and Answers than what their Adversaries have been pleased to give us It is true that Lanfranc say's when they were offered several Passages out of the Holy Scriptures and Saint Austin's Works touching the State of the Church they answered the Church had erred and all its Members perished except themselves But it does not hence follow that they acknowledged the Greeks believed Transubstantiation They might say the Church had erred and was perished from the Face of the Earth meaning the Western Church They might say the same of the Eastern Church upon the account of other Errours besides Transubstantiation And then again who can assure us that Lanfranc gives a faithful account of what they said touching this Subject IN the second place I will grant that Berengarius and his Followers never mentioned the Greeks in their Disputes Can Mr. Arnaud find it strange that People who were every where persecuted and afflicted and had enough to do to preserve themselves should be ignorant of the Doctrine of the Greeks Berengarius say's he was thrice at Rome and had opportunity to Ibid. pag. 164. inform himself and we need not doubt but 't was one of his principal cares Why not doubt of it Because Mr Arnaud say's so Those that are not bound to believe him on his own bare word will still doubt of it For he is not infallible and I my self am one of those that doubt of it till he proves it The Interest Ibid. of his Cause adds he speaking of me is so prevalent in him that he may learn from the Experience of his own Sentiments what were those of his followers I confess the Interest of my Cause is a thousand times more dear to me than my life and Mr. Arnaud does me right here But yet 't is certain that had I not the Book of the Perpetuity to answer I should not much trouble my self about the Opinion of the Greeks for the discovery of Truth which ought to be the aim of us all does not depend on what the Greeks do or do not believe and I should esteem my self in a very miserable condition had my Faith and Conscience no better Grounds than such a pitiful Principle BERENGARIUS had the Word of God which was enough they need no other Weapons to defend themselves that have
this But supposing his curiosity had moved him to inquire after the Sentiments of the Greeks I know not whether he was in a capacity to satisfie himself For as far as I understand he was a Person that gave all he had to the Poor I no where find he was one of those that had great mens purses at command And living as he did in the Eleventh Century wherein there were no other Books than what were Manuscripts the Art of Printing not being then found out neither I suppose so free a Commerce betwixt Constantinople and Anger 's as at present and having moreover neither Consuls nor Emissaries his Friends to help him in that Country he may be well excused if he did not exactly know their Doctrine BUT in fine supposing Berengarius and his Followers were not ignorant of the true Opinion of the Greek Church where lies the necessity that they ought to make this an Argument whereby to defend themselves seeing 't was never yet pretended that the Opinion of the Greeks was the same with that of Berengarius CHAP. III. Mr. Arnaud's Twenty first Illusion is his charging me with maintaining the Greeks never knew the Latins believed Transubstantiation His Twenty second consists in offering the Formulary of the Re-union proposed to the Greeks by the Latins Twenty third in that he produces the Passages of Latiniz'd Greeks Twenty fourth in alledging supposed Authors or at least doubtful and justly suspected ones The Twenty fifth is his producing the Testimonies of several false Greeks link't to the Interests of the Latine Church HAD Mr. Arnaud left out of his Dispute touching the Greeks the Illusions I already observed as it was very reasonable he should he would have suppressed several whole Chapters and abridged others and by this means we should not have had such just cause to complain of his prolixity And we should have had yet less had he been pleased to retrench all that he has written to prove the Greeks could not be ignorant of the Doctrine of the Latins in reference to Transubstantiation This is the most reasonable thing in the World for his charging me with attributing to them this ignorance and the whole Sequel of his Histories Arguments and Reflections whereby to shew the absurdity of this Supposition all this I say is but a meer Illusion I never pretended the Greeks knew not what the Latins held on this Article and he that shall read with a little more Equity than Mr. Arnaud has done what I wrote in my Answer to the Perpetuity will find that I have been so far from asserting this Proposition that I have on the contrary in several places supposed they knew it The Author of the Perpetuity having told me the Greeks and Latins lived together in several places and yet 't was never known there was any Dispute raised amongst them on this Point I answered that the Greeks content themselves with their own Belief without making it a matter of contest with Strangers Now this Answer supposes that they are not ignorant of what the Latins hold I likewise mentioned upon this account a Passage of Phaebadius who tells us that an humble Conscience contents it self with keeping its own Opinion and supposes 't is better to preserve its own Faith than to trouble it self with examining the Belief of Strangers which also supposes they knew the Opinion of the Roman Church but did not trouble themselves about it This Author alledging afterwards the Re-union of the two Churches made in the Council of Florence I expressly acknowledged that the Greeks seem to have tacitly suffered the Transubstantiation of the Latins which does still moreover suppose they were not ignorant of it for men are not ignorant of what they tolerate The same Author producing the Answer of the Greeks of Venice to the Cardinal de Guise's Questions I said that 't was an Answer contrived on purpose not to provoke Strangers ever supposing as 't is evident that they well knew the Doctrine of the Latins WHAT could then induce Mr. Arnaud to charge me with a thing I never so much as imagined and the contrary of which appears throughout all the Sequel of my Discourse The Author of the Perpetuity told us that Perpetuity of the Faith 3. part cap. 8. Breerwood who wrote a Book touching the diversity of Religions and exactly denotes all things in which he pretends they differ from the Church of Rome yet dared not affirm the Greek Church differed from the Latine in the Point of Transubstantiation That he neither does pretend it of the Assyrians or Melchites Nestorians Jacobites Eutychites Copticks Egyptians nor Abyssins but only Answer to 2. Treat 3. part cap. 8. Armenians These are his Words and this my Answer As to other Churches the Author of the Perpetuity alledges only the Silence of Breerwood in a Treatise he wrote of Religions wherein he does not observe that either the Greeks Assyrians Melchites Nestorians Jacobites Eutychites Copticks Egyptians nor Abyssins do differ from the Doctrine of the Church of Rome in the Point of Transubstantiation But certainly our Author is very bare of Proofs that he must have recourse to the Silence of a man that transiently observes the most noted Differences of Religions contenting himself with saying what Points such a People hold or positively reject without proceeding to things which they do not believe by way of Negation as not having heard of them THESE last Words as not having heard of them have it seems given occasion to all this coyl But first Mr. Arnaud may consider if he pleases that my Answer refers to other Communions which are called Schismaticks and that the Greeks are mentioned only accidentally and occasionally Which appears from my own Expressions for having seperately handled what concerns the Greeks passing to another Subject I immediately add As to what concerns People of other Communions the Author alledges to us only c. Whence it is evident that my intention respects only those other Communions that I name the Greeks only because they are comprehended amongst the rest in the Author of the Perpetuitie's Objection but yet my Answer primarily respects only the other People If it be said that the Objection including the Greeks amongst the rest my Answer must include them also that in effect it is general and that otherwise I should have left the Objection relating to the Greeks without an Answer I reply to this that my Answer cannot be extended beyond the other Schismatical Communions to the prejudice of my own expressions which restrain and determinate it A man would think People might be so just as not to charge Persons with those things which are contrary to their express Declarations Mr. Arnaud might accuse me for leaving the Objection drawn from the Silence of Breerwood in relation to the Greeks without an Answer He might have brought it again into the Dispute if he would but he could not apply my Words to the Greeks seeing I mentioned them
do not differ from the Latins in the Subject of Transubstantiation I confess he has not made a Proof thereof as knowing the Matter would not bear it yet has wrote an express Chapter about it and produces them with a great deal of Art and Pomp hoping by this means to make some Impression on the Mind of his Readers and prepossess them with this Imagination that I alone amongst all the Protestants deny the Greeks believe Transubstantiation THE first he produces is Crusius Professor in the University of Tubinga who says that the Greeks believe the Bread is changed into the Body of Jesus Christ and the Wine into his Blood but this is not Transubstantiation there being a vast Difference betwixt this and that Crusius relates the Terms which they use and this is not Contested the Question is whether by these Terms they mean a real Conversion of Substances Which is what we deny HE offers us likewise something out of Grotius against Rivet and sets again before us the Testimony of Forbesius Bishop of Edinburg But we all know these two Persons altho otherwise learned enough especially Grotius suffered themselves to be carryed away by Prejudices and whimsical Projects in relation to the Differences between the two Churches which they pretended to Reconcile and Accomodate and thereupon wrote several things which they did not throughly Examine Moreover Grotius in those Passages alledged by Mr. Arnaud speaks not of Transubstantiation in particular and Forbesius only says that 't was received by most of the Greeks by most Here 's a Restriction Mr. Arnaud says that Forbesius does not prove it But whether he proves it or not we do not much matter for 't is not by such a man and his Writings that we are willing to regulate our Sentiments It lyes upon Mr. Arnaud who cites him to see whether the Testimony of such a man be sufficient He adds he alledges him neither as a Catholick nor Protestant but as a learned Man well skilled in all the Religions of Europe and as a great Traveller that he quotes him as St. Augustin quoted Tichonius to confirm an important Matter of Fact acknowledged by this Donatist who was more sincere than his Fellows BUT how comes he to forget so soon the Qualification which the Author of the Perpetuity gave him in citing him Forbesius says he one of the most learned amongst the English Protestants What account does he think we will make of a Person whom he can neither alledg as a Protestant nor Catholick and yet lived in the midst of the Protestants he alledges him says he as a learned Man I grant he may be so But was this learned Man a Jew Turk or Moor whilst Bishop of Edinburg St. Augustin never alledged Tichonius as a Person of this kind that was neither Catholick nor Donatist but as a real Donatist altho Tichonius sincerely acknowledged a Truth which the rest denyed accordingly as we alledg often the Doctors of the Roman Church which acknowledg those things others deny altho we do not thence infer they are not of that Religion they Profess FELAVIUS adds Mr. Arnaud derides the Insolence of Hottinger who Pag. 131. pretends to make advantage of Cyrillus his Confession and shews it does in no wise contain the Faith of the Eastern Churches Felavius does not speak of Hottinger's Infolence but on the contrary calls him Virum doctissimum Clarissimum Hottingerum He grants not indeed with Hottinger that Cyrillus his Confession Praefat. ad Christoph Angel contains the Doctrine of the Greek Church and shews his Reasons but inveighs not against Hottinger thereupon nor particularly mentions Transubstantiation OF all those that Mr. Arnaud alledges there are only Sands and Dannhaverus Professor of Strasbourg who attribute this Doctrine to the Greeks and Sands adds a term of Restriction saying that in the main they do in a manner agree with the Church of Rome in the Doctrine of Transubstantiation c. But for two Authors who perhaps wrote this without much Reflection how many others can we produce who stick not to deny there 's any Conformity in this Article between the Greeks and Latins For not to mention here Kemnitius Boxornius Hospinian and Episcopius whom Mr. Arnaud grants to be of this number we may here name the famous Bishop Morton the Author of a Book intituled Catholick Tradition or a Treatise touching the Belief of the Christians of Asia Europe and Affrica The Learned Saddeel for whom Henry the IV. had such great Esteem and Kindness Mr. Mestrezat Monsieur Ulric Minister of Zurich Mr. Hottinger Professor in the same City Mr. Robert Chreygton an English Doctor who published the History of Syropulus and several others which I mention not because 't is not necessary to make an exact enumeration of them It is sufficient that Mr. Arnaud knows I mean the general Opinion of the most Learned Protestants in this particular IF some amongst them as Chytreus Breerwood and Hornbeck for Instance who discourse of the Religion of the Greeks say nothing concerning the Article of Transubstantiation Mr. Arnaud must not think to draw Advantage from their Silence The reason of their Silence is that they set not themselves to the describing any other Points but those that have bin expresly Controverted between the Greek and Latin Church that is to say such Points as have bin openly and solemnly Debated on both sides such as the Article of the Procession of the Holy Ghost that of the Azymes that of Purgatory and some others All that then can be gathered from this Silence is that the Greeks never openly quarrelled with the Latins about Transubstantiation nor the Latins with the Greeks and that both one and the other contented themselves in keeping their own Sentiments and particular manner of Expressions without condemning one another But as it does not hence follow that the Greeks received the Doctrine of the Latins so we must not take the Silence of Chytreus Breerwood nor Hornbeck for an Acknowledgment or tacit Confession that there is no difference in this Point between the two Churches Which is what I already answered to the Author of the Perpetuity who would have prevail'd by the Silence of Breerwood in relation to the other Schismatical Communions For I told him that this Author does only transiently observe Answer to the Perp P 3 C. 8. the most common different Religions contenting himself to say what People Imbrace or what they positively and expresly Reject without proceeding to mention things which they believe not by way of Negation as not having heard of them That is to say as neither finding them in the Articles proposed to 'em to Believe nor in those which they were made expresly to Renounce as I have already explain'd Mr. Arnaud sets himself against this Answer and say's I Lib. 2. C. 4. p. 133. shew by this that provided I say any thing 't is enough for I trouble not my self whether it be Rational or not
Rome Now I maintain this is not only possible but most probable whence it follows that Mr. Arnaud's Argument is neither Conclusive in genere necessario nor probabili as the Schools speak when we nearly examine it I. To shew this I first of all produce the Example of the Church of Rome it self which condemns not several Opinions which she knows are held by particular Persons and even by whole Societies too under her Jurisdiction and yet does not receive them nor approve of them She keeps Silence in their respect for Reasons best known to her self yet would not have it argued from her Silence so resolutely as Mr. Arnaud does from that of the Greeks The Question whether the Infallibility resides in the Pope or Council has remain'd hitherto undetermined several Persons still debate it and we know which side the Court of Rome favours yet we cannot positively say that they have condemned or opposed as an Error the Opinion of those who prefer the Council above the Pope and yet they will be loath men should argue from their Silence How long has the Church of Rome suffered the Sentiment of the Dominicans touching the Conception of the Virgin without opposing or condemning it altho she does not approve of it This Consequence drawn by Mr. Arnaud is so little solid and if I may say the Truth so captious that Innocent the X. advised us not to abuse thus the Silence of Persons for in his Constitutions wherein he condemns the five Propositions supposed to be taken out of Jansenius his Writings he expresly declares that altho he has only condemned these five Propositions yet he would not have any Man think he approves by his Silence the rest of that Book If I say then that the Greeks in disputing only on some Articles never pretended to approve by their Silence on the rest of the Religion of the Latins much less in particular of the Doctrine of the substantial Conversion I assert nothing but what may be judged Reasonable from the Church of Rome's own Example and Maxim of Pope Innocent himself IT will not be amiss to observe two things in these Examples I now instanced the one that the Point before us is concerning what passed in the very Bosom of the Roman Church between Persons that belonged to it and whom she is obliged to instruct and reduce into the right way and ' thother that she had just cause to fear lest under the Favour of this Toleration the Error would communicate it self to several Persons and in fine the whole Body of the People be infected with it Now the first of these things has no place in reference to the Greeks for the Point before us does not concern an Opinion sprung up in their Church but in a forrain and separate one and over which they pretend no Jurisdiction As to the second thing I confess had the Greeks reflected as they ought on this their Silence they could not but perceive that the Latins who make advantage of every thing would not fail to indeavour the bringing in of Transubstantiation into Greece under the benefit of this Silence and take from thence occasion to perswade simple People that the two Churches are agreed in this particular But how manifest soever this Danger was it is clear that that wherein the Church of Rome ventures her self in suffering those Opinions to take root which she tolerates in her own Bosom is yet more evident and yet notwithstanding she remains Silent Which shews the Vanity of Mr. Arnaud's Consequence For if the Roman Church can suffer Opinions in the very midst of her which she does not approve why cannot the Greeks use the same Forbearance towards an Opinion of the Latins and if we may not conclude from the Church of Rome's not opposing a Doctrine that she holds it or teaches it why may we not make the same Conclusion in respect of the Greeks II. IN the second place I instance in several other important Articles wherein the Greeks do not agree with the Latins and yet we do not find they made them a matter of Dispute any more than Transubstantiation For Example the Greeks believe the Pains of the Damned are eased by the Prayers of the living They farther believe that so great is the efficacy of their Prayers that they sometimes deliver these Wretches absolutely from their Torments and rescue them from Damnation They are say's Allatius extreamly found of this Opinion that the Prayers of good People profit the Infidels Allat Diss 2. de lib. Eccl. Grec and those condemned to eternal Misery and that they are eased and sometimes wholy delivered by them Which he proves by several Passages in their Triode which is one of their ecclesiastical Books and other their most famous Authors The Latins are of a contrary Opinion It is certain say's Bellarmin that the Prayers of the Church are beneficial neither to the Blessed Bellarm de purg lib. 2. C. 18. in Heaven nor Damned in Hell but only to the Souls in Purgatory Which Doctrine is held by all the Schoolmen that follow St. Austin ' s Opinion Yet do we not find the two Churches ever made a Point of Controversy thereof or charged one another with Errour about it We do not find this Question was agitated when the Unions were in hand whether in the Council of Florence or elsewhere nor mention made of it in the Confession of Faith which the Popes so often sent them in order to an agreement THE aforesaid Allatius observes another Opinion of the Greeks which has some Relation with that I now mention'd For they believe that when Allat Diss 2. de Pentecost our Saviour descended into Hell he preached his Gospel to all the Dead as well to the Damned as Saints and saved from amongst them all those that believed in his Word and raised them up It appears from the Passages produced by Allatius as well out of their Pentecostare which is one of their Church Books as other Writings that this is their Opinion Whereas on the contrary 't is evident this is not the Opinion of the Latins for they look upon it as Erroneous and Heretical None of the damned Souls say's Bellarmin were delivered For Philastrius and St. Augustin say 't is Heretical to assert Bellarm. de Christi anim lib. 4. Cap. 16. that any of the Wicked were converted and saved by Christ's preaching in Hell Allatius adds that St. Ireneas and Epiphanius condemned this Errour in Marcion and that Gregory the I. who lived towards the end of the sixth Century censured it likewise as an Heresy in the Persons of George and Theodorus Allat Diss 2. the one a Priest and th' other a Deacon of the Church of Constantinople Now altho the Difference which is between the two Churches on this Article is manifest yet we do not find they made thereof a Controversy or that the Authors on either side wrote one against another on this Subject nor
him but John dying before his Affair was ended the Court of Rome proceeded no farther in it Mr. Arnaud who will needs have the Greeks not to be ignorant of what passed amongst the Latins and supposes all Greece to resound with Berengarius's Condemnation and Peoples Italy with Greeks and Greece with Latins with order to give one another account of whatsoever concerned the Doctrine of Transubstantiation who will have the very Soldiers entertain themselves with it in the Army as well as the Pilgrims in their Voyages can he I say find in his Heart to tell us that the Greeks knew not what such famous Authors as Rupert Durand John of Paris and Cardinal Dailly publickly maintained in the twelvth thirteenth fourteenth and fifteenth Century that they knew not what passed in one of the chief Cities in the West and in a Faculty so illustrious as that of Paris that they knew not an Affair that was carried to Rome and touching which that Court made no Decission In truth if they knew nothing of this and that neither the Pilgrims nor Ambassadors nor Soldiers nor Inquisitors nor the Greeks in Italy nor the Latins in Constantinople gave them no Notice thereof they may have been ignorant as well of other things and Mr. Arnaud's Assurance signifies nothing that their Curiosity made them search into all things For altho that in some of these Centuries there were no more Croisado's into the Holy Land nor Latins that held the Greek Empire yet the Commerce between the Greeks and Latins was frequent and both one and thother were often together in Italy and several other places and it was a very easy matter to send Notice to the Greeks of what passed in the West concerning these Doctors Should Mr. Arnaud say they knew this he must not take it ill if they made this a Reason for their Silence and Reservedness For why should they accuse a Church wherein it is permitted to affirm that the Substance of Bread remains wherein it is affirmed that there is nothing to be positively asserted concerning the Subject of Transubstantiation and Appeals made to Rome it self thereupon and yet this Court does not so much as declare the contrary VIII SUPPOSING the Greeks believed Transubstantiation how came it to pass they were not scandaliz'd at the boldness of all these Authors Why would they not satisfy themselves in so considerable a Point as that which these Authors handled namely that the Church had not yet determined any thing touching the Conversion of the Substance of Bread Why did they not reprove the Latins for this and especially the Roman Church for being silent in a Particular wherein her Belief and Practice were concern'd Let Mr. Arnaud give us a Reason for this Reservedness of the Greeks who makes them such great Disputers And let him also shew us a Reason for the Church of Rome's Silence That the Doctrine of Transubstantiation is not an Article of Faith and that the Church has not yet determin'd it so to be we find John of Paris ready to justify within the Walls of Rome it self and yet she takes no notice of it She suffers a Person to dye in this Error neither Condemns his Opinion nor Memory and that which is moreover worse is that she leaves the whole World in suspence about a Point wherein the Faith of all her Children are concern'd For if a man doubts whether the Conversion of Substances be a Point of Faith he cannot believe it as a Point of Faith And if a man cannot believe it as a Point of Faith how will he be perswaded of the Truth of it And if it must be held only as a probable Opinion of Learned men what will become of it when we shall find it so improbable and so little agreeable to right Reason Yet does not the Church of Rome mention a Word of this but lets the Question ly Dormant so that should we argue from her Silence as Mr. Arnaud does from that of the Greeks we might conclude she approves John of Paris his Opinion seeing she does not condemn it Yet will I not go so far It suffices me that the Church of Rome has not condemned the Proposition in Question This is enough to hinder the Greeks from Reproaching the Latin Church with Transubstantiation THIS Affair of John of Paris together with the Judgment of the Faculty in Theology and Silence of the Roman Church is of such Importance that this alone is sufficient to decide the Question and manifest to Mr. Arnaud that the Doctrine of Transubstantiation has not been perpetual in the Church For that a Faculty so considerable as is that of Paris should assure us this manner of the Existence of Christ's Body in the Eucharist is not determined by the Church nor is an Article of Faith and whosoever shall assert that it is so ought to be Anathematiz'd That the Affair having been carried to Rome and that Court be silent therein and determine nothing about it I say this is enough to refute this pretended Perpetuity which Mr. Arnaud has taken upon him to defend BUT return we to the Greeks We may add to what I already mentioned this considerable Remark which is that the Latins never raised a Dispute with the Greeks about the general Expressions which these last make use of touching the Eucharist BUT before we carry on this Consideration any farther it is necessary that I put the Reader again in mind that the Question is not to know whether the Greeks have the same Opinion with us touching the Eucharist much less whether they explain themselves after the same manner This is Mr. Arnaud's perpetual Illusion to suppose we make them Berengarians and 't is on this wrong Ground whereon he builds his whole Discourse We scarcely meet with any other but these kind of Arguings in his Dispute viz. Whether the Greeks were Berengariens Whether they Believed the Bread in the Sacrament to be only a Figure Whether they understood our Saviour's Words in the Sence of Significat c. To the end then the Reader may not be deceived I do here again acknowledg that the Greeks believe a great deal more touching the Eucharist than we do that they express themselves otherwise about it and follow neither the Sentiments nor Expressions of Berengarius Neither have we given Mr. Arnaud any Occasion to assert what he does We only affirm'd they do not believe the Transubstantiation of the Roman Church nor worshipped the Sacrament with a sovereign Adoration and 't is upon this Mr. Arnaud ought to argue to deal sincerely AND therefore I say the Latins never disputed with the Greeks touching their Expressions how general soever they have been They have indeed done what they could whereby to introduce insensibly amongst them the Terms of ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã and of ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Transubstantiation change of Substance They have for this purpose made use of their Proselytes and Scholars of the Seminaries to whom they
touching the Conversion but only in token of their Union each Church keeping its own particular Belief Who will wonder if People who could against their Consciences sign a Decree wherein they expresly abjured five of the Articles of their Faith whereby to reconcile themselves with the Church of Rome should yield to be once present at its Service Yet this was not without offering Violence to themselves for Syropulus observes that the Pope having sent them word that on the morrow they must celebrate Mass and consummate the Union and that if there were any amongst them would partake of the Mysteries of the Latins they should prepare themselves at these Words the Greeks were seized with Horror ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Hist Conc. Flor. Sect. 10. cap. 9. Moreover I know not whether what Andrew de St. Cruce says be true that they adored the Mass in the same manner as the Latins for the same Syropulus relates that they stood all the time of the Office We stood say's he in our Sect. 10. c. 10. Vestments during the Liturgy But supposing it were true they used the same external Ceremonies as the Latins it would not hence follow they believed the Doctrine of Transubstantiation nor gave the Eucharist a sovereign Adoration For to kneel before an Object is not in the Sence of either Greeks or Latins a token that a Man adores it neither with an absolute Adoration nor that of Latria I am so far from excusing this Action that I believe it is on the contrary inexcusable both before God and Men But how great soever their Fault was in assisting at the Service of the Latins which they so greatly abhorred it appears that what they did was not to testify they believed the same things as they but that the Union after a sort was accomplished For they were present at their Service only in hope the Latins would likewise assist at theirs and in effect the Emperor was very urgent with the Pope for this To which the Pope replied he would first examine their Liturgy and particularly consider in what manner they celebrated it and see whether he could satisfy their Demands Whereupon the Emperor finding himself abused thus expressed Sect. 10. c. 11. himself We hoped the Latins would have amended several Errors but I find them not only Innovators and Blame worthy in several things but that which is worse they take upon them to reform us It is worth while to observe what kind of Union this was which being perfected the Pope declares on his side that neither he nor his Latins had considered the Liturgy of the Greeks and the Emperor on the other hand protests the Latins are Innovators and guilty of several Errors BUT say's Mr. Arnaud supposing Policy hindred the Greeks from opposing the Doctrine of Transubstantiation what end could Syropulus have in concealing from us this Mystery Why discovering to us as he does his Countrymens weakness he mentions not one word concerning that which ought to be the chief Subject of his History Why does he not blame the Ceremonies of the Latins Whâ has he not detested in his History the Adoration of the Host and Feast of the Holy Sacrament of which he was a Witness Why did he not deplore the Abominations of those of his Nation that were present at the Popish Mass who shewed it the same Respect as the Latins which is to say adored the Eucharist To all these Wherefores I shall oppose others Why didnot Syropulus take notice of the Silence of the Greeks and Latins on the Article touching the Salvation of the Damned and Christ's descent into Hell and offering them his Gospel Why did he not censure the Neglect of both one and th' other in that they mentioned not a word concerning the Marriage of Priests nor communion under both kinds nor of all those other Articles I denoted in this Chapter These kind of Questions which Mr. Arnaud makes are good for nothing but to impose on inconsiderate Persons Syropulus is an Historian that contents himself with relating what passed of moment in this Affair and sometimes to give his Opinion in general thereupon but it plainly appears he never intended to reflect on every Particular wherein his Nation was concern'd A History is not a Dispute Wherefore then should he Discourse of Transubstantiation in it Why blame the Ceremonies of the Latins or detest the Adoration of the Sacrament and its Feast Why tell us of the Adoration which the Greeks rendered to the Host of the Latins seeing he assures us on the contrary that they stood bolt upright during the Liturgy Mr. Arnaud who calls upon others so much to think upon what they write has he I say considered what he saies concerning the Feast of the Holy Sacrament Wherefore say's he has not Syropulus detested the Feast of the Holy Sacrament of which he was a Witness For I shall only tell him He has not mentioned a word of it and yet 't is certain the Greeks do not approve it but on the contrary condemn it as I already show'd in the foregoing Book It does not then follow the Greeks hold Transubstantiation altho Syropulus speaks not of it AND thus much concerning the Council of Florence Mr. Arnaud likewise draws some Arguments from what passed after the Greeks had renounced this Union And first he takes for granted that Transubstantiation was established in this Council and that the Greeks solemnly approved of it On this Principle he runs on arguing beyond all bounds that those that violated the Union should inveigh against this Doctrine of the Latins and those that approved it He introduces again Syropulus and alledges Marc of Ephesus and describes his Hatred against the Latins He tells us of a Synod held at Jerusalem against the Patriarch Metrophanus and those of his Party This was the time say's he if ever to reproach those with Transubstantiation that had consented to the Union and approved this Doctrine in it He takes Occasion Lib. 4. c. 3. p. 355. hence to bless God the Greeks had renounced this Union acknowledging the Divine Providence therein which permitted it thus to come to pass to the end he might not want matter for his Book Whatsoever we related say's he touching the Greeks approbation of Transubstantiation would have less force had Pag. 347. this Agreement subsisted It would have been alledged that politick Interest having made the Greeks consent to the receiving of this Doctrine they were afterwards withheld by Fear from condemning it and being insensibly accustomed to it dared not immediately reject it by reason of the bad estate of their Affairs But to the end their real Belief might appear in this Subject it was necessary this Agreement should be disturbed and their Passion at liberty to break out that they should indeavour to make void whatsoever they had confirmed at Florence That they should attack the Union in all possible manners and denote whatsoever they could gainsay reproachfully
Election for 't is clear their Elections are invalid being as they are Schismaticks and consequently have have no Jurisdiction Moreover it seems to be rather the Turk that makes the Election than they for they Consecrate him whom he Presents So that here will this Advantage redound from this aforementioned Election 1st That as fast as the Schismatical Bishops dye the Scholars of the Seminary or others of whose Judgment there is no cause to doubt will take their places 2d The Reformation of the Schismaticks may be happily undertaken and effected in particular Synods But his Holyness must never despair nor be weary or think it sufficient that he has elected one Patriarch He must on the contrary substitute another again and again ever putting Scholars of the Seminary into the places of the Deceased until all the old Schismatical Prelates be dead and their places filled with Catholicks And seeing that the Election of Patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch depend likewise on the Turk because they are Greeks and that the Government of these Churches is in the Hands of Greeks the same Measures must be taken in respect of them by means of Ambassadors It is certain that this Affair will be successful for Money does all things in this Country So that all the Patriarchs being Roman Catholick and their Duty obliging them to establish Catholick Bishops and Curats according as their Wisdom shall direct them nothing will hinder us from saying in a short time behold one Flock and one only Shepherd The Schismatical Prelates will be rooted out and those who from their Infancy have been piously brought up in the Bosom of the Catholick Church will take their places These new Prelates by the uprightness of their Lives and soundness of their Doctrine may govern a People who are only Erroneous upon the account of their natural Facility and Proneness to believe what their Bishops tell them And this is the Course Thomas a Jesu would have taken and not that of Disputes and Controversies CHAP. VII Several Passages of Greek Authors Cited by Mr. Arnaud Examined THAT which remains to be examined of Mr. Arnaud's Dispute touching this matter of the Greeks since the eleventh Century will not long detain us He produces some Passages out of Theophylact Euthymius Nicholas Methoniensis Cabasilas Simeon de Thessalonica Jeremias the Patriarch of Constantinople and several of the Greek Books of Divinity They are the same we find in all the Controvertists in Bellarmin Cardinal Perron Coccius Father Noüet and especially Allatius from whom it seems Mr. Arnaud has taken them rather than from their Originals It will be a needless Labour to relate them at length one after another together with Mr. Arnaud's Commentaries on them It will be sufficient I examine as much as is necessary to give the true Sence of them and to discover Mr. Arnaud's Errors which I hope to do so clearly that the Readers will remain satisfied FIRST Theophylact Euthymius Cabasilus and Jeremias assure us that the Bread of the Eucharist is not an Antitype that is to say a Figure or Representation but the very Body it self of Jesus Christ because he did not say this is the Antitype but this is my Body I grant all this and I joyn all these four Authors together on this Head that I may thereby avoid Mr. Arnaud's Prolixity who having proposed them one after another could not avoid the oft repeating of the same Inductions and Arguments One Answer shall serve for all Theophylact say's he keeps to the propriety of Words he excludes Lib. 2. c. 9. p. 180. whatsoever varies from 'em He overthrows and absolutely rejects all metaphorical Significations and keeps close to the literal Signification of the Word EST. C. 12. p. 215. Euthymius say's he excludes the Key of Figure and plainly shows he has not taken the Word EST in the Sence of SIGNIFICAT He has then taken it in a Sence of Reality From whence he concludes that these Authors could not mean that the Bread is the Body of Christ in Virtue seeing they would argue contrary to their Intention For as our Saviour said not This is the Figure nor that the Bread he would give should be the Figure so neither has he said that he would give the Virtue of his Flesh or that the Bread he would give should contain the Virtue of his Flesh I answer Mr. Arnaud need not trouble himself with shewing us that the Greeks admit not the figurative Sence in our Saviour's Words neither take the Term EST in the Sence of SIGNIFICAT We grant it him And we grant likewise that we agree not with them in this But the Question here is to know whether it thence follows they believe Transubstantiation Now I maintain that not only this does not follow but that the contrary does for they hold a kind of middle way between the Sence of Figure and that of Transubstantiation In a word they believe that the Bread remaining Bread as to its Substance is yet the proper Body of Christ by Augmentation of the natural Body as we already shewed in the last Chapter of the foregoing Book What does Mr. Arnaud desire more Would he have us shew that the Greeks believe the Bread is made the Body of Christ by this means in the same manner the Food we eat becomes our Body They say so in express terms Would he have us shew him that by this means the Substance of Bread loses not its Existence nor is changed into the proper Substance of the Body that 't was before The thing it self speaks as much and we have shewed it in its place as clearly as a thing of this Nature can be shew'd Does he doubt that the Greeks believe by this means to keep the precise and literal Sence of our Saviour's Words They do themselves declare that they understand them no otherwise Would he have this in fine to be but a bad way of keeping the literal Sence The Greeks maintain the contrary and alledg for this Effect the Instance of Food which is made one with our Body by this same way of Assimulation and Augmentation and that it cannot be said these are two Bodies but one and the same Body BUT as say's he our Saviour said not this is the Figure so neither did he say this is the Virtue of my Body but this is my Body 1st This is to dispute against the Greeks and not against us who never undertook to warrant the Truth of their Opinions 2d They will answer him this Impression of Virtue is sufficient to make the Bread our Lord's Body without a Figure and there is no need of a change of Substance because the Substance of Food is not precisely changed into that which we have already but only added to it to make a Growth or Augmentation yet becomes our Body in a proper and literal Sence not a Figure but our Body it self not another Body but the same we had before Besides they
incorruptible as the Body of Christ was after his Resurrection which they establish by this Reason that the Bread is an augmentation of the Body of Jesus Christ and that as Nature observes on the Food which nourishes us and augments our Body the same order she kept in the first matter from which we were formed So Grace observes in the Eucharistical Bread the same order she observes in the Natural Body By this means they will have the Bread become first the Body of Christ in asmuch as 't is Mortal and Corruptible that it be afterwards this dead Body and in fine this Incorruptible and Raised Body Cabasilas his Sence then is that when the Bread is mystically sacrificed it is made the dead Body of Jesus Christ as he speaks himself the Lamb slain not that the Body suffers Death in this Moment but because in this Moment the Bread passes thro the Oeconomy of Death And thus the Bread is changed into the dead Body of our Lord not that our Saviour dyes in effect but because the Bread which is the Growth of his Body is then changed into this Body in as much as it suffered Death heretofore And this is Cabasilas his real Sence which is conformable to the Hypothesis of the Greeks and not that which Mr. Arnaud attributes to him HE likewise uses to no purpose several Passages out of Simeon of Thessalonica They say nothing but what I already often answered to wit That the Bread is the real Body of Jesus Christ that it is the very Body of Christ and I shewed in what Sence the Greeks use these Expressions and therefore will not any more repeat it I likewise answered what he alledged touching the Adoration and the unconsecrated Particles AS to Jeremias the Patriarch of Constantinople we may well wonder that he should so confidently offer him us as a Person that teaches Transubstantiation seeing that not only Jeremias holds the same Language as the others but asserts several things which opposes the Roman Doctrine Mr. Arnaud having according to his Custom impertinently related several historical Passages Lib. 4. c. 4. tells us That the Article of the Ausbourg Confession which respects the Sacrament expresly asserting the real Presence but not mentioning Transubstantiation Jeremias answers that Point is handled in it very briefly and obscurely and adds that the Catholick Church holds the Bread is changed into the very Body and Blood of our Lord thro the Holy Spirit So that then Jeremias held Transubstantiation And thus does Mr. Arnaud draw his Consequences But he is too quick Some Protestants in Germany sent the Ausbourg Confession to the Patriarch of Constantinople without any Commentary or Exposition on it The Patriarch examining its tenth Article which runs thus Touching the Lord's Supper they hold the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ are really present in it and are distributed to those that participate thereof and condemn the Opinion of those that hold the contrary He say's This Article treats of the Lord's Supper very briefly and to say the Truth somewhat obscurely For adds he we are told several things of you which we do not approve To say hereupon that the Lutherans understood this Article in the Sence of the real Presence and that the Greeks could not be ignorant of it signifies nothing For it appears that the Patriarch only considered the Expressions of the Article barely as they are laid down and found them obscure And as to those things which were told him of them on this Subject and which he disapproved he does not specify them When then he adds That the Catholick Church holds the Bread is changed into the Body and Blood of our Lord thro the Spirit It is clear his Design is without proceeding any farther into the Examination of their Belief to tell them that of his Church and oppose it against their Article so that we must always return to the Inquiry whether by these Expressions The Bread is changed into the real Body he means Transubstantiation or the other Change by way of Augmentation and Impression of Virtue for 't is certain the Article of the Ausbourg Confession respects neither of these Changes MR. Arnaud tells us This was a proper place wherein to assert the Body and Ibid. p. 361. Blood of Christ are not really present in the Sacrament seeing only their Virtue is in it I answer a presence of Virtue is a real Presence of the Body and Blood of Christ even as the Sun is really present with us by the Efficacy of its Beams so that Jeremias had no reason to oppose the reality of the Presence but 't was better said by him that the Terms of the Confession were Ambiguous and that they ought to acknowledg clearly the Body and Blood are substantially present in it supposing he believed this substantial Presence MR. Arnaud adds That the Patriarch does not say the Bread is changed in p. 362. Virtue Power and Efficacy I answer neither does he say 't is changed in Substance and there is this Difference betwixt Mr. Arnaud and I that I add it was not necessary that Jeremias should explain himself touching this change of Virtue because the Greeks who preceded him had already plainly done it but the same cannot be said touching the change of Substance for not one of the Greeks ever mentioned it any more than he so that he was necessarily obliged clearly to express it if he intended it should be understood BUT Mr. Arnaud further say's The Divines of Wittemberg and Tubinga believed upon the Answer of the Patriarch that he taught the real Presence and p. 370. Transubstantiation When this were true we need not be astonished thereat For it might well be that Divines who held the Consubstantiation should take the Words of Jeremias in a Sence which opposed only one part of their Opinion rather than in another which would wholly overthrow it Their Prejudication signifies nothing to the Exposition which the Greeks make themselves of their own Opinion BUT Mr. Arnaud say's moreover If the Divines of Wittemberg Misunderstood the Patriarchs Sence it lay upon him to rectify their Mistakes I answer there cannot be any Advantage made of Jeremias's Silence in this Respect For it is certain that in these Divines first answer they reckon amongst the Points in which they agreed with the Patriarch this That the Communion or Supper of our Lord unites us to him in as much as we truly partake therein of his Flesh and Blood But these were the proper Expressions which this Patriarch used and so far there was no reason to say they charged him with believing what he did not seeing they only repeated what he said It is likewise true they denyed the Bread was changed therein which they grounded on the Testimony of St. Paul who calls it Bread yet did they make use of the same Term Jeremias did which is that of ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã without the least mention of a
than Adventures are dealt out in Romances that builds Castles in the Ayr and makes all Men in the World Senceless provided they speak and think according to my Desires and Pretensions that prefers the smallest Reasons before the strongest and clearest Proofs and proposes all this in a confident insulting manner giving myself those Applauses which I would willingly receive from others and treating my Adversaries with Contempt and Disdain And here is the Tempest which has followed my Sun-shine my happy Days But I am sorry Mr. Arnaud should be thus angry upon no occasion Howsoever we will Examine the Passages he has offered THE first is a Passage taken out of Anastatius Sinaite wherein a Monk argues against Hereticks who asserted Christ's Body was incorruptible before his Resurrection To prove that it was Corruptible he takes it for granted by his Adversaries That the Eucharist is really the true Body and Blood of Christ Anast Sin ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã not mere Bread such as is sold in the Market nor a Figure such as was the Sacrifice of the paschal Lamb amongst the Jews To this Principle he adds another which is That the Eucharist is corruptible as Experience shews us and from these two Propositions he concludes That the Body of Christ was Corruptible before his Resurrection Every Man sees this Reasoning is grounded on this Supposition That the Eucharist is the Body of Christ such as it was before his Resurrection that is to say in the same State Now it is likewise manifest that this Supposition is wholy inconsistent with the Doctrine of Transubstantiation and that of the substantial Presence For besides that 't is both foolish and impious to imagine that our Lord's Body which is risen out of its State of Humiliation descends into it again and exists still Mortal Corruptible and Passible as it was heretofore This is moreover directly contrary to his Sacramental State wherein we must necessarily suppose it if we would have it to be in the Eucharist in proper Substance For it is not to be imagined that a Body which exists after the manner of a Spirit impalpable and indivisible which can be neither seen nor touched should be at the same time Mortal Corruptible and Passible as our Saviour's Body was before his Resurrection These two States are inconsistent with each other whence it follows that whatsoever otherwise the Sence of this Author might be he held neither Transubstantiation nor the Reality which the Church of Rome holds YET if we believe Mr. Arnaud he is a Witness for him For as soon as ever he finds in any Passage that the Eucharist is not a Figure but the true Body of Christ he requires no more for the making of a Proof altho he sees otherwise several things absolutely contrary to him One of the usual Artifices with which he imposes on his Readers is that when he offers any Passage importing what I now mentioned or something like it he sets himself to shew not that 't is the Romane Transubstantiation therein contained but that 't is not our Doctrine And thus has he done in that Passage of Anastasius's Can any Man say's he that has but the least spark of Sence and believes the Ibid. p. 625. Eucharist to be only a Figure of Christ's Body and not the real Body of Christ Express this his Opinion by these Terms The Eucharist is not the Figure but really the true Body of Christ Can any Calvinist in the World refuse to acknowledg this Discourse overthrows his Doctrine And I say can there be any Man that has but the least dram of Sence that believes the Body of Christ exists in the Eucharist after the manner of a Spirit and is therein in a Sacramental State and yet expresses this his Belief in saying the Eucharist is subject to Corruption and concluding from thence that the Body of Christ was then Corruptible before his Resurrection Is there ever a one of Mr. Arnaud's Friends that can contain himself from believing this Discourse overthrows his Doctrine When I speak in this manner I keep to the State of our Question and deceive no body But when Mr. Arnaud speaks as he does he wanders from the Point in hand and deludes his Readers WHATSOEVER Anastasius his Doctrine may be 't is certain 't is not that of the Church of Rome which cannot consist with the Principle on which Anastasius argues He expresses himself say's Mr. Arnaud a little crabbedly towards the end of his Discourse in making use of weak Arguments not only here but in almost all parts of his whole Discourse But if Mr. Arnaud be forced to confess that this man's Expressions are of hard digestion when applyed to the Hypothesis of Rome Why may not I as well say they are so being applyed to our Hypothesis and consequently they must not be urged against us If Anastasius could not carefully consider the Consequence he drew himself how could he foresee that which Mr. Arnaud would one Day draw from his Discourse If it be usual with Anastasius to argue weakly why may it not also be usual with him to Discourse with little foresight Why must Advantage be taken from some of his Expressions against us and we withheld from taking any against Mr. Arnaud from the whole Sequel of his Discourse and Coherence of his Thoughts which a Man more minds than his Terms or manner of expressing himself MR. Arnaud endeavours but all in vain to molify Anastasius's Sence in saying That he concludes the Body of Christ was corruptible before his Passion Ibid. p. â3â seeing he suffers still in the Eucharist an apparent Corruption by the sensible Corruption of the Species which are the Symbol of the State wherein he was before his Death This Arguing adds he is very weak and roughly Expressed but 't is no unusual thing for this Author to Reason weakly and it would be but a bad Consequence to conclude that an Argument is not his because 't is weak It is sufficient that it be not extravagant in the highest Degree as is that which Aubertin attributes to him ANASTASIUS his Argument according to Mr. Arnaud must be put in this Form The Body of Christ before his Resurrection was such as is in the Eucharist the Symbol of the State wherein he was before his Death But this Symbol is corruptible Therefore the Body of Christ was then Corruptible This Argument is like that which Mr. Aubertin imputes to him according to Mr. Arnaud That which happens to the Figure of Christ's Body P. 629. happened to his Body before his Passion Now it happens to the Bread which is the Figure of it to be subject to Corruption The Body then of Jesus Christ was Corruptible before his Passion Take the Word Figure from this Argument insert that of Symbol which Mr. Arnaud has used in his and the two Arguments are the same Yet he will have his to be good and Mr. Aubertin's ridiculously Extravagant BUT it
Chapter which Mr. Arnaud has written touching the Equivocal Expressions of this Author In effect let him say as long as he pleases That the Point here concerns neither Figure nor Virtue that this effect Lib. 7. c. 3. p. 650. 651. which surpasses humane Conception is in Damascen ' s Sence this to wit That the Bread is made the Body of Jesus Christ that it is the Body really united to the Divinity the Body taken from the Virgin because the Bread and Wine are changed into the Body and Blood of God That Damascen speaks of it as if he designed to refute expresly all the Attempts and Shifts of the Ministers some of whom turn his Words into a change of Virtue and others to an Imaginary Union of the Holy Siprit with the Bread remaining Bread That the Fathers have expressed themselves after two different manners that is to say sometimes as Philosophers and otherwhiles as Divines All this signifies nothing considering the Explication which Damascen himself hath given us of his own Sence in his Letter to Zacharias Bishop of Doarus and Homily at the end of it These two Pieces published by the Abbot Billius and which were acknowledged for Authentick by Labbus the Jesuit the learned M. de Marca Arch-Bishop of Paris and Leo Allatius himself Mr. Arnaud's great Author These two Pieces I say end the Difference and suffer us not any longer to dispute about Damascene I shall only say that Mr. Arnaud has not done fairly in relating the Passages of the fourth Book of the Orthodox Faith to leave out this Homily and Letter as he has done CHAP. X. An Examination of the Advantages which Mr. Arnaud draws from the two Councils held in Greece in the eighth Century upon the Subject of Images the one at Constantinople and th' other at Nice IT cannot without doubt but trouble good People to see how Mr. Arnaud suffers his Pen to be guided by his Passion and fills up his Book with Injuries so ill becoming a Man of his Age and Profession making them continually the Subject of his Eloquence Yet in truth are we obliged to him for this way of proceeding not only for that thereby he gives us Occasion to exercise our Christian Patience but does also himself furnish us with an assured means of bringing his Chapters into a lesser Compass And to this end we shall pass by all his personal Reflections as Matters which concern not our Dispute Let us then consider those four terrible Chapters wherein he Treats of the two Councils which were held in the eighth Century the one at Constantinople against Images and the other at Nice for them MR. Arnaud begins with the Council of Nice that is to say with a Writing Lib. 7. c. 5. p. 661. which the Fathers of this Council caused to be read in the sixth Session from whence he forms these five Propositions 1st That the Eucharist was not called by the Name of Image or Figure by the Apostles and Fathers after Consecration 2dly That they have called it the Body it self and the Blood it self 3dly That the Gifts are properly Body and Blood 4ly That they are not Images but Body and Blood 5ly That it is impossible they should be both the Image and Body of Christ so that being the Body they are not the Image He moreover tells us that Anastasius made use of the same Reasoning to shew the Eucharist is not an Image That John Damascen likewise used it and Nicephorus the Patriarch of Constantinople concludes after the same manner that the Eucharist is not the Image of Christ because it is his Body Whereupon Mr. Arnaud cries out These are the very things wherein Arguments are useless and wherein the Impression of Truth appears so plainly that those that deny it are P. 663. to be regarded as Persons no longer to be reasoned with But how clear soever his Motives may be we can assure him this comes from his Prejudice and not from the Truth The Understanding of all these Discourses of the Adversaries of the Iconoclastes depends only on the knowing in what Sence they meant the Eucharist is properly the Body and Blood of Christ For this Point being once dispatched we shall soon perceive why they denyed it was an Image and wherefore they thus reasoned that being an Image it could not be the Body We must observe all these Greeks have followed the Opinion of Damascen and speak as he does that they borrow all his Conceptions and Expressions as appears by the Writing which was read in the second Council of Nice by the Fragment of Theodorus Graptus and Mr. Arnaud's own Author Nicephorus NOW after the Notices Damascen has given us we can no longer doubt but their Sence is that the Bread and Wine are made the Body and Blood of Christ inasmuch as that receiving the Supernatural Virtue of this Body and Blood they are a Growth and Augmentation thereof and therefore are not two Bodies but one and the same Body the proper Body of Christ as the Food becomes our proper Body AND this will appear from the bare reading of a Passage in Nicephorus Allat de Eccles Occid Orient Perp. Consens Lib. 3. cap. 15. which Mr. Arnaud himself has related and taken from Allatius And if it be needful say's he to explain these things by what passes in our selves 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 Christ For this is the Contents of the Priest's Prayer and we do not understand they are two Bodies but we believe it be but one and the same Body And this is the Greeks Hypothesis the Bread is made the proper Body of Christ as the Meat we eat becomes our Body to wit inasmuch as it is united to it and receives its Form increases and augments it THE same will appear if we compare the Discourses of the Fathers of Constantinople with the Censure past on them in the Council of Nice The Fathers of Constantinople called the Eucharist a chosen Matter a Substance of Bread Those of Nice were not offended thereat Neither at the others calling the Eucharist Bread filled with the Holy Spirit an Oblation translated from a common State to a State of Holyness a Body made Divine by a Sanctification of Grace So far they agree But when the Fathers of Constantinople call the Bread an Image those of Nice could not suffer it neither could they bear with them in saying it is the Body by Institution Why do they make this Difference but because these first Expressions which are contrary to Transubstantiation and the substantial Presence yet do not contradict their Hypothefis of Augmentation by an Impression of Virtue whereas the others oppose it For they do not say the Food
should see that the Sence I attributed to the Fathers of Constantinople and which he is pleased to call a metaphysical Speculation of Mr. Claude is in effect a Doctrine commonly received in the Greek Church I drew Advantage from the Council's saying that our Saviour chose a Matter which does not represent any humane Shape lest Idolatry should be thereby Introduced And pretended that in whatsoever sort these Words were Understood they were Inconsistent with the Belief of the real Presence Mr. Arnaud Answers that this Passage is capable of three Sences The First That Lib. 7. c. 7. p. 700. 701. God would not let the Eucharist have a humane Shape lest it should be adored The 2d That he would not suffer the Eucharist to have a humane Form lest Men should commit Idolatry in Adoring it under this humane Figure altho it be no Idolatry to Worship it under the Figure of Bread The 3d. That he would not let the Eucharist have a humane Form lest the due Worship which would be given it under this humane Figure should carry Men forth to Adore Images of Wood and Stone which being not our Saviour as the Eucharist is could not be Worshiped without Idolatry The first adds he of these Sences is that which the Calvinists give to the Words of the Iconoclastes The 2. Is a ridiculous Sence and that which never any Person yet Imagined The 3d. Is the Sence which the Catholicks give them Hereupon Mr. Claude to establish his first Sence Declames at large against the 2d which is not a Sence but an absurd Imagination which he has form'd HAD Mr. Arnaud sincerely related all that I said on this Subject and not maim'd my Discourse and produced but some part thereof disjoynted from the rest that he might turn it into a wrong Sence It would have been easily perceived that I offered these two last Sences and shewed that both of 'em were Inconsistent with the Supposition of the substantial Presence That I afterwards established the true Sence of these Words in supposing the Eucharist to be an Image really distinct from our Lord's Body I neither attributed to the Author of the Perpetuity nor to any body else any Sence I only proposed the two which might be given to these Words upon supposal of the real Presence and shewed that neither of them were justifiable I am not at all troubled at Mr. Arnaud's calling the Second an absurd Imagination I hold it to be so as well as he and as such I have refuted it But the Last is no less absurd than the Second For the due Worship which would be given to the Eucharist if it had a humane Shape would not induce Men to the Worshipping of Images of Wood and Stone The Difference would be apparent for the Eucharist would be the Body of Christ the Image of Wood not so The Adoration of the Eucharist would not be then grounded on the humane Shape or Figure but on the substantial Presence of Christ's Body Moreover what can be more Ridiculous than the Opinion which Mr. Arnaud Imputes to these People which is that our Saviour would have proposed his Body really in the Eucharist clothed with another humane Figure than his own natural Form Otherwise say's he it would not be an Image but our Saviour himself without any Vail It is true but this should make him comprehend that they understood the Eucharist was not the proper Substance of this Body but an Image which is of another Substance than its Original For a Man cannot be guilty of a greater Absurdity than to imagine our Saviour's Body is really in the Eucharist in a humane Shape not his own but a borrowed one These kind of Imaginations reside not in the Minds of reasonable People But supposing this was their Sence how could they say that our Saviour would not take upon him any other humane Shape than his own to prevent Idolatry Might not their Adversaries tell them on the contrary that this very Consideration ought to prevail on us the more to make Images For the Original of our Saviour's Body in whatsoever State it is takes Men off from Images but it would carry them further off from them if it had a humane Figure whatsoever it were for this is what our Eyes seek in Images and if they found this Figure joyned with the Original they need not search it elsewhere I confess that the Original Speaking Moving it self and Acting under its own proper Figure would better produce this Effect but this does not hinder but that it may produce it likewise having a simple borrowed Figure without Speech and Action seeing that also Images have neither Speech nor Action and that the Figure they have is no less a borrowed Figure than that which the Eucharist would have It is certain that this sensual Devotion which seeks after Representations and visible Lineaments would be more satisfied in beholding a humane Shape whatsoever it were applyed on the Original it self than to behold one represented on Cloth or the Walls of a House It must then be acknowledged that the true Sence of this Council supposes the Eucharist to be an Image really distinct from the Body of Christ and that our Saviour has chosen for this a Matter or a Substance which has not a humane Figure lest this Resemblance should carry Men forth to render to the Image that which is only due to the Original and to make others like it of other matters to Adore them Whosoever shall compare my Exposition with that of Mr. Arnaud will soon acknowledg that mine is Natural Free and according to good Sence whereas his is Forced and Violent and imputes to Persons such a kind of Arguing as is absurd and groundless BUT say's Mr. Arnaud the Iconoclastes Adored the Eucharist with a sovereign C. 7. p. 702. Adoration For Stephen the Younger said to Constantin Copronymus Do not you design likewise to cast out of the Church the Antitypes of the Body and Blood of Christ seeing they contain the true Image of them and we Adore and Kiss them and are Sanctified by receiving them Stephen proves the Worship of Images by a Principle common to the Iconoclastes Now according to them all Worship rendred to Images is a real Adoration and is due to God only and consequently they gave to the Eucharist a Worship which they supposed due only to God BUT could not Mr. Arnaud foresee that we may argue exactly contrary and say Stephen proves the relative Adoration of Images by that of the Eucharist Neither of them then gave the Eucharist any other than a relative Adoration and consequently they neither of them believed that it was the Body of Christ in proper Substance But say's he the Iconoclastes acknowledged but one only Adoration which is that which is due to God alone and consequently Ibid. they gave the Eucharist a Worship which they supposed due only to God There cannot be a weaker Argument Stephen does not
for a Proof The Moscovites Consecrate the Bread in Corpus Christi into the Body of Jesus Christ or to be the Body of Jesus Christ They believe then Transubstantiation 'T is evident for the Establishing of this Conclusion there is need of Ibid. something more precise than this But say's he this is a Catholick that speaks thus and who would be understood to speak of the real Body of Jesus Christ that attributes this same Belief to the Moscovites When Sacranus or any other that professes the Roman Religion speaks as from himself and the question concerns his own Faith we can easily believe that in a Discourse of the Eucharist by the Body of Christ he means the proper substance of this Body for we know that this is the Sence and Style of the Roman Church But when he Discourses of the Moscovites and the question concerns their Faith we believe that in saying they Consecrate the Bread in Corpus Christi he pretends no more than to use the same Terms which the Moscovites use without concerning himself with the Sense in which they take these words They must be taken in the Sense the Moscovites give ' em What Sense is that This Sacranus does not determine and to go about to decide it by what Sacranus himself believed concerning the Sacrament is a meer Illusion AS to what John le Ferre Confessor to the Arch-Duke Ferdinand relates Moscovit Religion that the Consecration is performed amongst them by pronouncing our Saviour's words and that they attribute to them so great Vertue that assoon as ever they are uttered by the Priest they believe the Creature gives place to the Creator we must tell Mr. Arnaud that he does not do fairly in offering us a Fabulous relation such as is this le Ferre's This Author assures us that only the Bishops amongst the Moscovites Administer Confirmation that they do it by the laying on of Hands in making the sign of the Cross and anointing the Party Confirmed on the Forehead That one of the chief Offices of the Priest is to Preach the Gospel of Christ to the People which they do not only every Sunday but also on the Festivals of the Blessed Virgin and Apostles That God's Word is Preached and heard with great Devotion That they certainly hold the Doctrine of Purgatory Acknowledge the Supremacy of the Roman Prelate as being Christ's Vicar and St. Peters Successor That they freely assist at Mass with the Latins This is all false as appears by other Relations of these People Possevin Com. 2. de reb Mosc And therefore Possevin has not scrupled to reckon this John le Ferre amongst those Authors which are counted fabulous because say's he they have been mis-informed or did not write with a Design to discover the Venom to apply thereunto a Remedy What signifies then such peoples Testimony NOT to take notice that these Terms The Creature gives place to the Creator are not sufficient to make us conclude from hence Transubstantiation It being a general Expression capable of divers Senses For when we should say with Theodoret that the Divine Grace accompanies Nature or with St. Austin that the Bread becomes of an Aliment a Sacrament or with the Greeks that it is changed into the Vertue of Christ's body the Creature will still give place to the Creator without any Conversion of substance So that howsoever we take John le Ferre's Testimony 't is invalid and does not at all help Mr. Arnaud's Cause But he having made a general Collection of good and bad Authors John le Ferre must have his place amongst the rest I Confess that Lasicius the Polander that relates this Testimony has taken it in the Sence of Transubstantiation and as we need not doubt but that the Design of John le Ferre was to make the World believe that the Moscovites hold this Doctrine so likewise we must not find it strange if those that refer themselves to his Authority as Lasicius has done do take it no otherwise Had Lasicius well examined this Relation of John le Ferre's he would have found it full of false Reports and easily find his Authors main Design was to render the Moscovite Religion as Conformable as he could to the Roman and by this means to deceive his Readers and especially the Protestants whom he had at that time in his Eye He would then have absolutely rejected the Authority of such a Man who has palpably disguised the Truth He might at least distinguish in respect of the Words in question Ferre's Sence from the Sence of the Moscovites themselves supposing they were their own Words But this he has not done altho he ought to have done it and thence it is that on this bare Testimony without any other Proof Lasicius has believed that the Opinion of the Moscovites leaned towards Transubstantiation Whence it follows we ought not lightly to Credit whatsoever a suspected Author shall tell us concerning the Religion of Strangers but it does not follow 't is true in the main that the Moscovites believe the Conversion of Substances WE must then come to the Testimonies of Dannaverus professor of Strasburg and Mr. Olearius the Duke of Holstein's Library-Keeper Persons of greater Reputation Both say the Moscovites hold Transubstantiation They put say's Dannaverus into the Wine contained in the Chalice the Bread broken into pieces they Bless it and believe 't is Transubstantiated They hold Transubstantiation say's Mr. Olearius So that here we have two express Testimonies and against which it seems there can be nothing alledged As to Dannaverus he has only followed Olearius's Authority knowing no more of the Religion of the Moscovites than what he has receiv'd from the reading of Authors as appears by his Treatise But as to Mr. Olearius he is a Person of great Learning and has lived in those Countries and made it his Business to be informed of this Point and who not only gives us this Account in his Book but has likewise Confirm'd it in a Letter written to one of Mr. Arnaud's Friends upon occasion of this present Dispute and Mr. Arnaud has not failed to make thereof a matter of Triumph IT will be no hard matter to reply to Mr. Olearius's Testimony and clear it from all Perplexity And this will be done by considering his own Perpe of the Faith Part 3. C. 8. Words as well in his Book as Letter Those in his Book as the Author of the Perpetuity relates them from the Original High-Dutch are They believe Transubstantiation that is to say that the Bread and Wine are really changed into the Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ Those of his Letter Lib. 5. C. 3. P. 438. related by Mr. Arnaud I wrote expresly in the Relation of my Voyage that the Moscovites hold Transubstantiation that is to say they believe the Bread is changed into the Body of Christ and the Wine into his Blood Distinguish then Mr. Olearius's Testimony from his private
Judgment and you 'l clear the Difficulty His Testimony is that the Moscovites believe the Bread and Wine are changed into the Body and Blood of Christ which he has denoted by these Terms which is to say that they believe the bread to be changed into the Body of Jesus Christ and the Wine into his Blood His private Judgment is that this may be termed the belief of Transubstantiation which he signifies by these following words They hold Transubstantiation SO that the whole of this Testimony amounts to no more than the change of the Bread into the Body and the Wine into the Blood and his saying that they believe Transubstantiation has no other grounds than his own persawsion that this is in effect a conversion of Substance He does not attribute this to them but under the favour of his that is to say They hold Transubstantiation says he that is to say the Bread is changed into the Body of Christ and the Wine into his Blood THIS that is to say explains what he means and punctually determines what the Moscovites hold If to change and transubstantiate are one and the same thing his Proposition must be received in its full extent if they are not the Change belongs to the Moscovites the Transubstantier to the private sence of M. Olearius We then respectfully receive his Testimony without the least question of his sincerity but as to his particular Judgement we hope he will be so equitable as to lay no necessity upon us to receive it For should we judge otherwise then he has done he will have no just cause to be angry Neither had he any reason to be offended Answer to the Perp. Part 3. C. 8. at the Answer I made the Author of the Perpetuity That 't is very likely he was mistaken by false conjectures and that having heard of the change of Bread he imagined this was the change of Substance which is the same thing I say now The distinction which I make between his Testimony and his Judgment is grounded on his own proper Terms and the liberty which I pretend to have of rejecting the one and receiving the other is no more than what common Justice will allow me I can therefore see no reason for his stuffing his Letter with rough and passionate expressions which agree not well with the Character he bears and which I suppose he has learned of the barbarous People he has so long conversed with Why would he have us believe the change of Bread into the Body is the Transubstantiation of the Latins seeing we find on the contrary that this is the ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã of the Greeks of which expression we have so often already manifested the sence The Moscovites follow the Greek Religion we grant the Greeks say the Bread is changed the Moscovites affirm the same the Question is only whether to change is the same as to transubstantiate Now I have plainly displayed the difference betwixt these two Terms in reference to the Greeks we must then conclude the same in respect of the Moscovites It appears from M. Olearius his own Relation what we are to conclude touching his exactness For in the same place where he tells us the Moscovites believe Transubstantiation he adds that the rest of the consecrated Bread serves for Panis Benedictus Now this would be a great impiety to make this the proper Substance of the body of Christ but even in this he is mistaken for what serves amongst these People for Panis Benedictus is only the Remains of the Bread from whence is taken the great Particle which is afterwards consecrated and called the Body of Jesus Christ and not the Remains of the consecrated Bread BUT to oppose against the private Judgment of M. Olearius something yet more precise I need only here relate what the Author of the Relation of the three Ambassages of M. Carlile wrote on this Subject 'T is the Testimony of an Honorable Person who lived a considerable time in those parts and since M. Olearius who wanted neither Judgment Sincerity nor Curiosity to inform himself and us touching the belief of these people in reference to Transubstantiation without the least regard to the Dispute between Mr. Arnaud and my self as having no other design then that of Relat. of the Ambas of M. Carlile discovering the Truth Moreover says he I could not find by 'em what Olearius mentions namely that they hold Transubstantiation and there are three Reasons inducing me to believe thty are not of this Opinion For first when we discourse with them touching the Consequences of this Doctrine they testifie their dislike of it and to maintain it fly not to the Almighty power of God as the Roman Catholicks do 2. 'T is more then probable that if they believed Transubstantiation they would respect this Mystery more than they do and it would be very strange that in so superstitious a Religion as theirs is they should be behind hand in Zeal and Devotion especially in a particular wherein it ought chiefly to appear as we see it does amongst those of the Church of Rome In fine had they that Opinion which Olearius attributes to them they must have it from the Greeks from whom they have received their Doctrines But we do not find the Greeks were of this Opiwion Let Mr. Arnaud then himself judge whether he may reasonably expect to prevail by means of Mr. Olearius his Explication WE come now to the Testimony of Paysius Ligaridius but having already considered it in the foregoing Book we shall trouble our selves no farther with him 'T is not to be doubted but the same thing may be done in Muscovia as in Greece that is to say there may be persons brought in and settl'd there who finish'd their Studies in some of the Seminaries erected for this purpose 'T is certain whosoever shall address himself to these Persons who are not only bred up in the Church of Rome and sworn to observe it's Confession of Faith but sent on purpose to communicate it to others prevailing by means of their Ignorance whether soever they be whether in Muscovia or Greece their Testimony shall not be wanting But every body knows the Value of them Let us pass on then to the Moscovite Priest that accompanied not long since the great Dukes Ambassador to his Majesty of France who after Dinner as 't is say'd at the Arch-Bishop of Sens was desired to declare what the Moscovites held concerning the Eucharist There may be several considerable Reflexions made on this Relation but not to enter into particulars I say the Testimony of this Person is not sufficiently Authentick to decide our Question We have already seen by Mr. Olearius his Relation that the Moscovit Priests are so ignorant in general that there is scarcely any amongst them can give an account of their faith or knows the Religion professed in other Countries These are two Characters that do not well agree with the use
the Russians Sacramentum religiosius Russis venerantur these are also his words Whence I conclude 't is not likely the Russians or Moscovites believe Transubstantiation the reason is sufficiently evident to wit that those that believe the Sacrament to be the proper Substance of the Son of God cannot but shew it more Respect than those that believe it to be a Substanee of Bread IT is to no purpose for Mr. Arnaud to say that my Argument supposes Lib. 5. C. 4. P. 448. according to this Author the Armenians do neither hold the real Presence nor Transubstantiation and that if I do not suppose this nothing can be less reasonable than my Discourse For if the Armenians adds he together with the Substance of Bread do moreover admit the real presence of Christ it is no wise improbable but that they have a greater respect for the Eucharist than those that do not admit this Substance of Bread The respect of the Eucharist comes only from the Presence of Christ and the presence or absence of the Bread contributes not any thing thereunto I hope Mr. Arnaud will not be offended if I tell him that his Authority is not yet great enough in the Church of Rome to counter-ballance that of Thomas Aquinas Now Thomas his Doctrine is directly opposite to his Contrariatur say's this Author venerationi hujus Sacramenti si aliqua Substantia creata esset ibi quae non posset Adoratione latriae adorari 'T would be Thom. Sum. 3. Part. Quaest 75. Art 2. contrary to the Veneration due to this Sacrament were there any created Substance in it to which may not be given the adoration of Latria Now let any man if he can make this agree with what Mr. Arnaud says Mr. Arnaud's Proposition say's that the respect due to the Eucharist proceeds only from the presence of Christ and that the presence or absence of the Bread does not at all contribute thereunto and Thomas assures us on the contrary that if the Substance of bread were present it would hinder the Adoration of this Sacrament whence it follows according to him that those that hold the Substance of Bread ceases to be ought more to reverence the Sacrament than those that believe it remains So that whether the Armenians do or do not believe the real presence this signifies nothing to my Argument 'T is clear according to Lasicius that they do not believe Transubstantiation and consequently 't is clear according to Thomas Aquinas that they hold an opinion which is contrary to the veneration of the Sacrament yet do they adore the Sacrament more religiously than the Moscovites How then can the belief of Transubstantiation be attributed to the Moscovites for if they held this Doctrine they must have a greater veneration for the Sacrament than the others This Argument cannot be otherwise denyed than by opposing the Doctrine of Thomas Aquinas So that with drawing my self out of the Lists I shall offer in my stead either Saint Thomas to be handled by Mr. Arnaud or Mr. Arnaud by Saint Thomas that is to say the Master by the Disciple or the Disciple by the Master MOREOVER our Question touching the Moscovites relating only to Transubstantiation 't is evident it would be a Digression from the Point in hand to discuss the intire passage of Lasicius to know whether he imputes to the Armenians the belief of the real Presence It will appear by what we shall say in the following Chapters what we may judge of them touching this particular The Question now concerns only the Moscovites and what Lasicius says concerning their worshipping less religiously the Sacrament than the Armenians is uncontroulable considering the testimonies we have produced in the second Book of Sacranus a Chanon of Cracovia John de Lasco Arch Bishop of Gnesne and Scarga the Jesuite who expressly depose that the Russians of whom the Moscovites are a part do indeed adore the Bread before its consecration but afterwards shew it no respect nor veneration scattering the Crums thereof on the ground It is to no purpose for Mr. Arnaud to say that that which hinders them from giving the Eucharist after consecration an external honour is that the Consecration is performed in a place separate from the people and that 't is out of respect to the Sacrament that the People are deprived for some time of the sight of this Mystery 'T is evident these are mere Subter fuges Did they worship the Sacrament with an internal adoration they would declare as much themselves and ease Mr. Arnaud of the trouble of searching their Secret thoughts They would shew it by some expression of external Reverence and for this effect expose the Sacrament to the Eyes of the People the People would at least make profession of adoring it before they received it and the Priests would adore it in the Sanctuary when they had consecrated it Yet do these Authors absolutely say that they give it no adoration This says Mr. Arnaud Lib. 5. C. 1. Pag. 432. is not so for Oderbornus tells us that the Priest comes from the Sanctuary and walking leasurely shows the People that which he has consecrated in secret that then the People fall down on their Knees the Priest saying to 'em in the Moscovit Language Behold the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ whom the Jews unjustly put to death But we have shewed in the third Book when we treated of the Adoration of the Sacrament that Oderborn is apparently mistaken having taken a Ceremony which is used before the consecration of the Bread as if it were used after this Consecration The Moscovites even as the Greeks do but once shew the People the Bread and Wine taking one turn round the Church before the Consecration which they call the great Entrance If Mr. Arnaud knows not this he is ignorant of a Matter well known by others and if he does know it he shews little sincerity in designing to prevail over us by means of Oderborn's mistake CHAP. II. Of the ARMENIANS That the Armenians do not believe Transubstantiation First Proof taken from that the Armenians believe the Humane Nature of our Saviour Christ was swallowed up by the Divinity WEE shall not here particularly treat of the Melchites or Syrians Lib. 5. C. 5. as well for that Mr. Arnaud acknowledges they differ not at all from the Greeks in their Religion as that likewise what he alledges concerning them out of the Notes of Abraham Echellensis Maronite on the Catalogue of Caldean Books made by Abed-Jesu a Nestorian Bishop deserves not our consideration The Testimony of Abraham Echellensis is of no credit and I refer my self thereupon to Gahriel Sionita his Country man who has set him forth as an ignorant and impertinent Fellow a Lyer and Impostor These two persons had both of them their Education at Rome in the Seminary of the Maronites both endeavouring to advance the Roman Interest but falling out about the Edition
of the Bible in Syriack Gabriel thought himself obliged to tell Abraham his own and publish his defects he therefore puts forth a small Book which he calls Commonitorium Apologeticum wherein he represents him in the aforementioned manner He reproaches him with his dividing the whole Seminary at Rome for his treachery to the Patriarch of the Maronites imposing on Prince Fachraddin for cheating the Duke of Florence and with his being banished his own Country his Imprisonment at Florence for his Crimes and in fine threatens him for the compleating of his shame to Print those Letters he received from Mount Liban Rome and Florence which give an Account of his Life But besides there is not any thing in these passages but may well agree with the Hypothesis of the Greeks such as we have shewed it to be in the two foregoing Books as will appear to him that shall take the pains to read them in Mr. Arnaud's Book and apply to them the Answers I made to several other such like passages which are needless here to be repeated WEE must come then to the Armenians I shall insist the longer upon them as well for that Mr. Arnaud has discoursed much about them as for that they are a great people and an entire Church by themselves They are long since separated from the Greek Church and there is a deadly fewd betwixt them in reference to Religion Yet are they both extream ignorant of the design of Christianity and the ignorance of the Armenians surpasses that of the Greeks as appears from the Testimony cited in my second Book I will add that of the Bishop of Heliopolis in his relation printed at Paris 1668. I gave say's he a Visit to the Patriarch of the Relat. of Missionarys and Voyage of French Bishops by M. Francis Pallu Bish of Heliopolis Armenians near the City of Hervian in a famous Monastery of Eutychian Hereticks who are no less obstinate than ignorant I found there amongst others a certain Person who having been in Poland had some smatterings of Latine I would have discoursed with him touching the Principal Heresie of Eutichus but he cunningly avoided it I left this Monastery little satisfied with these Religious who show little Piety although they profess much and live austerely So Cyrillus Patriarch of Constantinople describing in one of his Letters to Wytenbogard the four Sects of Eastern Christians with which Epist Viror Eruditor Epist 2. Cyrill ad Wytenbog the Greeks held no communion to wit the Armenians Coptics Maronites and Jacobites say's amongst other things that they live like Beasts and are so prodigiously Ignorant that they scarce know what they believe themselves THE Latins have long since used their utmost power to bring over these Armenians to 'um and submit them to the See of Rome They have for this purpose sent Missions which they have renewed or augmented as Occasion required They have taken the course of Seminaries and from time to time accordingly managed the Interests of Princes and Kings of Armenia and that not seldom with Success So that as there are at present two sorts of Greeks the one called the reunited ones and the other Schismaticks so there are likewise two sorts of Armenians the one that acknowledges the Authority of the Pope called Frank-Armenians for in the East they call all the Latins of whatsoever Nation they be Franks the others those that acknowledge only their own Patriarchs or Catholicks as they term them and are called only Armenians OUR Question only then concerns these last and to know whether they do or do not believe Transubstantiation The first Argument I offer for the maintaining the Negative which I affirm is that Transubstantiation is inconsistent with the Heresie of Euthyches of which the Armenians make profession They hold there is but one single Nature in Jesus Christ which is the Divine that the humane Nature was mixt or confused in the Essence of the Divinity How then is it possible that having this Opinion they can at the same time believe the Substance of Bread to be changed into the Substance of the Body of Jesus Christ For if our Saviour Christ has no longer a Body if the humane Nature do's no longer subsist according to them this would be to charge them with the greatest Absurdity that is to say a manifest contradiction to imagine they believe the change in Question seeing to believe it it must be necessarily supposed not only that our Saviour Christ has a Body but likewise that his Body is distinct from the Divinity MR. Arnaud who saw the Force of this Argument would prevent it Lib. 5. C. 6. P. 454. by two Answers which we must distinctly examine one after another The first amounts to this That supposing the Armenians were real Eutychiens yet do's it not thence follow that their Opinion is inconsistent with Transubstantiation or that they do not admit it after their Fashion For although they say there was but one Nature in our Saviour Christ after the Union and that the Human Nature was swallowed up by the Divine yet do they assert that the Virgin Mary brought forth a Son that appeared to have a Body like other men that the Apostles conversed with our Saviour as a man that the Jews took him for a man that they crucified him as a man Whence he concludes that this swallowing up of the Humane Nature consisted rather according to the Eutychiens in the change of all the Natural proprieties which they called Nature than in the annihilation of Nature it self taken for the Substance and internal being That this manifestly appears by all their Writings who have undertaken to refute the Eutychiens and by the Eutychiens themselves For the Gajanites who are Eutychiens at farthest distance from the Catholick yet acknowledge they receive in the holy Communion the very Body and Blood of Jesus Christ the Son of God and who was incarnate and born of the Virgin Mary the Mother of God APPLYING this afterwards to the Question of the Eucharist he say's that they believe with all other Christians that this same Jesus Christ born of the Virgin seen in the World crucified and risen is really present in the Eucharist that the Bread is really changed into this Jesus Christ. But denying as they do that the Body of Jesus Christ was a distinct Nature from the Divinity so they will not allow the Bread which is transubstantiated into Jesus Christ to be any other Nature than the Divinity that is to say a deified Body a Body mixt and confused with the Divinity by the loss of it's natural Proprieties rather than of its Substance Mr. Arnaud do's likewise promise us that in the Examination of what Theodoret has written he will more distinctly explain wherein consists this swallowing up of the Humane Nature according to the Eutychiens I know not what elucidations he may one day give us but if they be no better then what he now tells us they will
suppose without proof It appears on the contrary that they have taken it for the Substance it self with it's Proprieties Gelas Episc Rom. advers Eutych Nest ibid. If the humane Substance say's Gelasius has ceased to be the Humanity having been transfused or intirely changed into the Divinity as they imagine it follows that the humane form having no longer it 's proper Subject has ceased to be likewise And in another place of the same Treatise If they do not deny say's he that Jesus Christ was real man it follows he remained naturally in the Propriety of his Substance for otherwise he would not be real man Vigil Lib. 5. contra Eutych When you say say's Vigilius that the Word and Flesh are but one only Substance it seems that you insinuate there are two Persons in our Saviour Christ And a little farther If the Word and the Flesh are one and the same Substance according to your Opinion there would be two Persons one of the Word and the other of the Flesh who would have one and the same common Nature Theodoret disputes in the same manner against them by supposing they affirmed that the Humane Substance was swallowed up by the Divinity and he concludes his Argument taken Theodoret Dial. 2. from the Eucharist in these words The Body then of Jesus Christ keeps it's first Form Figure Circumscription and in a word it has the Substance of a Body Euthym. Parop Tit. 20. Euthymius hereupon relates a passage of St. Mâximus which expresly asserts that Eutyches confessed the Unity of the two Natures but denyed they differed Du Perron of the Euch. Lib. 2. C. 12. in Essence introducing a confusion of Natures Even Cardinal Perron himself altho a great Zealot for Transubstantiation acknowledged this truth that the Eutychiens held the humane Substance ceased to be in our Lord Jesus Christ For he say's that the Orthodox Christians maintained against the Hereticks that this Substance remained because the Form Figure and Circumscription of Body which could not be in our Saviour Christ without the natural Substance was to be found in him Whosoever believes Mr. Arnaud must acknowledge the World has been grosly mistaken in imagining that the Eutychiens abolished the Humane Substance in our Saviour Christ when they say'd the created Nature was swallowed up in the Abyss of the Divinity whereas according to him by the term of Nature they meant only the Natural Proprieties And it must be moreover acknowledged that the Eutychiens have been to this day very blind in not discovering this mistake in the Orthodox Christians and very uncharitable in not indeavouring to undeceive them by a means which would cost them so little But to speak better It must be acknowledged that Mr. Arnaud is no such great enemy to Equivocations for when he has need of them he can well dispence with them how terrible and dreadful soever he has made them in other occasions wherein he believed it was his interest to establish there could not be any such between the Latins and Greeks IV. AS to what he tells us concerning the Gayanites from the Relation Lib. 5. C. 6. P. 455. of Anastasius Sinaite that they did howsoever acknowledge we receive in the Communion the very Body and Blood of Jesus Christ the Son of God incarnate and born of the H. Virgin Mary the Mother of God there is far greater reason to say that by this Body they meant a Mystery which represented the Body swallowed up by the Divinity than to say they meant his very Substance For if what Mr. Arnaud say's of them be true that they were Eutychiens farthest off from the Catholicks in their Opinions we now saw that the Eutychiens believed not that this Substance subsisted distinct from the Divinity Why then shall we not expound what Anastasius Sinaite makes the Gayanites say by what good and considerable Authors relate of the Eutychiens rather than to give the lye to these Authors and correct what they say by the Discourse of such an impertinent Person as Anastasius whom Mr. Arnaud himself has been forced to despise in citing him as appears by what we have seen in the preceding Book THUS have I refuted Mr. Arnaud's first Answer Let us see whether there be any more Strength in his second It consists in maintaining Lib. 5. C. 6. P. 456. that the greatest part of the Armenians were but half Eutychiens that is to say they did not in any wise admit the confusion of Natures that they condemned Eutyches and that their Error consisted only in their refusing to use the Expression of the two Natures asserting our Saviour had but one THIS is a Question of fact which must be decided by the Testimony of Authors We shall see hereafter who are those that Mr. Arnaud alledges in his favour We must only here observe that he unjustly exclaims against Euthymius Zigabenius a Greek Monk and one Isaac a Catholick of Armenia who have attributed plainly and harmlesly the Error of Eutyches to the Armenians So that at present we shall lay aside the Authority of these two Persons seeing he is pleased to except against them and betake our selves to other Witnesses for the ending of this difference Here are others then which are not to be contemned whether we regard their number or quality The first is a Greek Author named St. Nicon who lived in the seventh Century There is in the Bibliotheca Patrum a Letter or a St. Nicon Epist ad Euchistium Bibl. Patr. Tom. 3. edit 4. Treatise of his under the Title De pessimorum Armeniorum pessima Religione He exactly enough describes in it the Errors of this Nation and amongst others mentions this that they hold the confusion of the two Natures of Jesus Christ in the Union Itidem say's he in duarum Christi Naturarum Unione confusionem decernunt He say's likewise they hold the Divine Nature is passible that being fallen into the Error of the Aphtartodocites they believe the Trinity has suffered and altho they durst not openly explain themselves yet they do plainly intimate it by the things they do for they take three Crosses and fastning them to a Stake call this the Holy Trinity Now here is according to Mr. Arnaud a third Impostor that falsly accuses the Armenians to believe the confusion of Natures He must be excluded as well as Eutychus and Isaac but if Mr. Arnaud continues in this captious humor he will never want exceptions against Authors TO Nicon we must add Nicephorus Callistus a famous Historian amongst the Greeks who speaking of these same Armenians refers the original of their Heresie to one Jacob the Author of the Sect of the Jacobites and adds sometimes they say the word assumed an incorruptible Body uncreated heavenly impassible subtile which is not of the same Substance with ours yet has all the Accidents of Flesh in appearance and after Nicephor Cal. hist Eccles Lib. 18. C. 53. the manner of
fall who separate from the Raynaldus ibid Numer 18. Church of Rome That innovators howsoever have no reason to glory in the Antiquity of their Heresies nor bragg for the seducing of the weak that the Armenians and other Eastern People have the same sentiments with them For altho they hold some of these Errors yet do they not admit them all but differ from the Armenians in very considerable matters That the Divine justice is rather to be admired which has permitted the Armenians infected with these Errors to fall under the power of the Barbarians This is not a proper place to Answer Raynaldus in 't is sufficient he acknowledges the Armenians did in effect hold all these Doctrines which are attributed to them in the act of Benedict in the instructions of Clement and consequently that they deny'd Transubstantiation and the real Presence WE may then reckon as a IV Proof the testimony of Raynaldus together with that of Pope Clement's and the Catholick of Armenia's The 5th shall be taken from Pope Eugenius IV. who in the instructions he gave to the Armenians in the Council of Florence forgot not the Article of Transubstantiation the form says he of this Sacrament consists in our Saviours words by which he compleated this Sacrament The Priest speaking in the Eugen. ad Calcem Concil Floreâ Person of our Saviour Christ do's the same For by the virtue of these words the substance of Bread is changed into his Body and the substance of Wine into his Blood so that Jesus Christ is intirely contain'd under the species of Bread and Wine and is intire under each part whether of the Consecrated Host or Consecrated Wine even when the species are separate Mr. Arnaud say's 't is not usual to propose Capital Points of Controversie in this manner That they are not tackt to the Tail of other Articles nor are so lightly passed over but considered established and strengthened But Mr. Arnaud forgets how the Pope established and strengthened the addition of the Filioque to the Symbol which he injoyn'd them to receive altho a controverted Point How did he confirm the Article of the two Natures in Jesus Christ but by giving them the definition of the Council of Chalcedon and the Letter of Pope Leo Upon what Reasons did he ground the Article of the Remission of Original sin in Baptism when the Armenians were guilty in this Point of a Capital Error as appears by the information of Benedict XII What Proofs did he bring to shew 'em that the Consecration of the Eucharist is made by the words of our Saviour when the Armenians believ'd the contrary as we may see in the same information These kind of Remarks which are usual with Mr. Arnaud have neither light nor Solidity in them Eugenius is excusable let Mr. Arnaud say what he will he thought it no wise necessary to insert common Places in his Decretal nor to be so scrupulous in observing Heads or Tails like such as view the Dragon in the Firmament He design'd only to give the Armenians the form of Doctrine which they ought henceforward to hold in reference to the Points wherein he believed they erred according to the report of the Bishop of Pamiez in the Passage I have related Now the Article of Transubstantiation being expresly mention'd therein 't is a sign the Armenians did not believe it CHAP. IV. Testimony of several other Authors that affirm the Armenians deny Transubstantiation and the real Presence THE Sixth Proof which I bring to confirm the Truth of the Proposition I defend is taken out of Authors of the Roman Communion who have bin so far from questioning Guy Carmes's Testimony that they have on the contrary followed and confirmed it by their suffrages We may reckon in this number Thomas Waldensis a famous Author of the fifteenth Century and a zealous Defender of Transubstantiation who writing against Wicliff calls the Armenians Nepotes Berengarii Berengarius his Children or Disciples I mention 'em says he to the end we may have a care of ' em And therefore also Guy Carmes speaking of them says that the Twenty Second of their Errors is that after the Consecration Thom. Vald. Tom. 2. Cap 30. the Body of Jesus Christ is not really under the species of Bread and Wine but only in Representation and Figure That Jesus Christ did not really Transubstantiate the Bread and Wine into his Body and Blood but only in Resemblance and Figure PRATEOLUS a Dr. of Divinity that lived about an Hundred Prateolus Elench haeret pag. 63. in Armen art 12. years since testifies the same thing They deny says he speaking of the Armenians the true Body of Jesus Christ to be contain'd really in the Sacrament of the Eucharist under the Species of Bread and Wine BZOVIUS an Historian of our time and a continuer of Baronius has Bzoviusad an 1318. Num 16. not scrupled to follow Prateolus in this Point He observes as well as he for the Twelv'th of their Heresies That the true Body of Jesus Christ is not under the species of Bread and Wine in the Eucharist IODOCUS Coccius a Cannon of Juliers in that confused heap of Coccius Thes Cathol tom 2. pag. 601. Collections he has made of passages out of the Fathers touching controverted Points follows Guy Carmes and relying on his Testimony assures us That the Armenians deny the Eucharist to be the real Body and Blood of Christ affirming it to be only a sign thereof THOMAS à Jesu who has made strict inquiry into the Opinions of the Schismatical Eastern Churches has thought as well as others he Thomas à Jesu Lib. 7. part 1. C. 17. ought not to deviate from the sentiment of Guy Carmes nor that any man has Reason to doubt of the Truth of his Testimony He relates and approves it and says That the Armenians deny the true Body of Jesus Christ to be really contained in the Sacrament of the Eucharist under the species of Bread and Wine Dr. Avily Tom. 1. of Ancient and Modern Heresies p. 349. DR Avily in his computation of Heresies both Modern and Ancient has likewise follow'd Guy Carmes and assured us from his Testimony That the Armenians teach Christ's Body is not really under the Bread nor his Blood under the Wine HOW comes it that these Authors who appear otherwise so zealous for the Interests of the Roman Church have not found out this pretended mistake of Guy Carmes Why should they suffer themselves to be so grosly imposed on or to speak better whence has Mr. Arnaud this extraordinary Revelation how comes he to be better informed than other People WE shall in the following Chapter search into the Grounds of his Opinion and the Proofs he brings only mentioning here several Protestants whose Testimony is the less to be suspected in asmuch as what they wrote was not all design'd for our controversie We have already seen in the Discourse about the Moscovites that
as a Saint altho he was condemned In fine that they added the sign of the Cross to the Triasagios after the manner of Hereticks How many other Doctrines and Customs have the Armeuians besides these four Articles which the Roman Church do's not approve of They hold the Opinions of Eutyches They do not hold the Doctrine of the Propagation of Original sin They deny Purgatory They still offer Sacrifices after the manner of the Jews They condemn third Marriages for as bad as Fornication They deny the Sacrament of Confirmation They do not hold the Consecration of the Bread is made by the only words of Jesus Christ They believe the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone and several other Points which seperate 'um from the Latins and of which neither Gregory VII Eugenius III. nor Othon of Trisinga make any mention Which shews there can be drawn no Conclusion from their silence and that Mr. Arnaud may better employ his time than in collecting these kind of Proofs THE V. is taken from some expressions of a Catholick of Armenia Ibid. p. 460. who say's in the conference of Theorien that the Wine becomes by Consecration the Blood of Jesus Christ and that the Son of God is Sacrificed within the Church for the Salvation of the World But this Proof is too weak to confirm what Mr. Arnaud pretends For first we have already shewed him that this Catholick spake of his own head and not from his Church And moreover what he say's do's neither conclude the real Presence nor Transubstantiation The Wine becomes by its Consecration the Blood of Jesus Christ in representation and mystery according to the exposition which the Armenians themselves give to these ways of speaking as we have seen in the foregoing Chapter and the Son of God is Sacrificed in the Church in Commemortion inasmuch as the action of the Eucharist is a Mystery which represents his death Let Mr. Arnaud consult if he pleases the Marginal Note which is on the side of this last passage and he will find the solution of his Difficulty The Greek Text has ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã the Latin Mactatur intus Theorien Dial. adver Armen Dei filius pro totius mundi salute and the Marginal Note hoc est representatur in sacra caena mactatio Christi THE VI. Proof is taken from that during the Croisado's the Popes Ibid. pag. 462. held a lasting and strict Union with the Church of Armenia That the Catholick of Armenia yielded obedience to Pope Eugenius III. That this Union was confirmed under Innocent III. who sent a Crown to Leo King of Armenia and that as well this King as Gregory the Patriarch of Armenia sent an Ambassador to Innocent to acknowledge the Primacy of the Roman Church That there were Alliances made between the Latin Princes and those of Armenia That Pope Innocent excommunicated the King of Armenia at the request of the Templars and some time after gave him Absolution That this Union lasted during Gregory IX his time and Clement VI. BUT what is this but a telling of Stories and copying out of Raynadus at any rate If the proof which Mr. Arnaud pretends to draw from this Union be sufficient to conclude the Armenians were conformable to the Church of Rome in the Doctrines of the real Presence and Transubstantiation 't will be sufficient to conclude likewise that they were conformable to her in all the other Points concerning which we do not find the Popes ever troubled themselves to correct them or make the least inquiries about them They were satisfyed in the Kings and Patriachs of Armenia's acknowledging their Authority hoping by this means to introduce hereafter quietly amongst them the Religion and Ceremonies of the Latins and in the mean time made use of 'em in other occasions The Kings of Armenia on the other hand were very ready to give the Popes encouragement to believe they would reduce their Kingdoms to the obeysance of the Roman See and in the mean time procured the assistance and protection of the Latins whose power was then Formidable throughout the whole East But this did not hinder the Armenians from keeping still their Doctrines and Customs as appears by what we have seen in the preceeding Chapter of John XXII Benedict XII and Clement VI. The 79 Article of the information of Benedict expresly mentions That the Priests and Bishops of Armenia enjoyned a pennance during some years to those that had bin Baptized by the Latins and condemned them to undergo a 5 years pennance who had received from them the other Sacrament And the 86 Article That the Armenians say and hold that since the Council of Chalcedon the Roman Prelate has no more Authority over them which are under him then the Patriarch of the Nestorians over the Nestorians or the Greek Patriarch over the Greeks that the Pope knows his own power and the Armenians likewise theirs And the 99th Article that the Armenians persecute those amongst them who have been Baptised according to the form of the Latins and hold the Faith of the Roman Church and that they say the Roman Church Errs and that they Armenians keep the true and Catholick Faith And the 117 th Article That the Armenians keep not the true Faith which the Roman Church holds nor its Sacraments and Blasphemes against the Roman Church the Pope and his Cardinals saying they are Hereticks That the Catholick of Armenia minor say'd the Pope and Cardinals destroyed more Men every day than they had Hairs on their heads And altho they preach against Simony yet do they grant no favour without committing it that as to them Armenians they had all of 'um kept themselves undefiled in Armenia minor except the King and some Persons of Quality who held the Roman Faith 'T is then to no purpose for Mr. Arnaud to tell us that Innocent III. and the other Popes would not have held so strict a Union with the Armenian Church had they believed the Armenians were Berengarians seeing they did at the same time stir up all France against the Albingenses and caused 'um to be exterminated with Fire and Sword These excellent Reasons do not hinder but that the Armenians held still all their Opinions contrary to the Doctrines of the Roman Church under the Popedom of Benedict XII And II. that amongst those Opinions that which denys Transubstantiation and the real Presence is plainly remarked III. That altho the Kings and some Persons of Quality embraced the Roman Religion yet the Body of the Armenian Church kept to their Ancient Religion even to the blaspheming the Roman Church the Pope and his Cardinals according to the Terms of the Article which I now mention'd IV. In fine it will not be found that Innocent III. or any other Pope required of the Armenians any particular Renunciation of their Errors be they what they will It seems either these Popes supposed the Armenians had absolutely the same Faith as the Roman
that these People hold so monstrous an Opinion whence comes it that both Ancient and Modern Authors make no mention of it never examined the Consequences of such a Conversion have vehemently argued against the conversion of the Humane Nature into the Divine to shew that 't is impossible and not mentioned a word of this conversion of Bread into the Divinity How happens it the Emissaries never discovered to the World so important a secret never disputed against them on this point nor the Popes ever made them abjure such an absurd Opinion in the reunions made between these People and the Church of Rome Whence comes it the Greeks who have bin mixtwith them since so many ages never reproached 'um with this kind of Transubstantiation about which there may be great Volumes written Mr. Arnaud who is so ready at arguing from the silence of all these People Authors Travellers Emissaries Popes Greeks c. ought to inform us of the reason why not one of 'um has mentioned a word of this pretended change of Bread into the nature of the Divinity ALL this I think should oblige Mr. Arnaud to suspend a while his judgment touching Mr. Picquet's Letter which say's that all the Levantine Christians who are Hereticks and consequently such as have entred into a Confederacy against the Roman Church yet hold as an Article of Faith the real Presence of Jesus Christ and Transubstantiation of the Bread and Wine into the Body and Blood of our Lord. He ought at least to desire him The Contents of this Letter are thus elated by Mr. Arnaud in his 12 Book to consult what they mean in saying there is but one Nature in Jesus Christ and that the Divine one and yet the Substance of Bread to be really changed into the Substance of Christ's Body BUT this ought to oblige him likewise not to draw so lightly his Consequences from several Passages of the Liturgies which are attributed to these People wherein the Eucharist is called the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ and said to be truely this Body and this Blood For besides that these Expressions import not Transubstantiation as I have often proved and shall farther prove in what follows 't is to be considered that we have no certainty that these pieces are real or faithfully Translated seeing that in those few Passages which Mr. Arnaud produces there may be observed a Remarkable difference The Liturgy which is in the Biblictheca Patrum under the Title of Canon generalis Aethiopum mentions that the People say after the Priest has Consecrated Amen Amen Amen credimus confidimus laudamus te Deus noster hoc verè Corpus tuum est We believe it We trust in thee and praise thee O Lord our God this is really thy Body but Athanasius Kircher otherwise relates these words Amen Amen Amen credimus confidimus laudamus te Mr. Arnaud Lib. 5. C. 13. p. 518. O Domine Deus noster hoc est in veritate credimus caro tua We believe thee we trust in thee we praise thee O our God this we believe is thy Flesh in truth In one place the People are made to say they believe that 't is truely the Body of Jesus Christ and here that they believe 't is the Body of Jesus Christ in truth Now there is a difference between these two Propositions for in one the Adverb truely refers to the Body and in th' other to the Faith of the People This alteration is not so inconsiderable but that we may see by this Example that those who have given us this Liturgy which is in the Bibliotheca Patrum have not scrupled to accommodate their Translation as much as in them lay to the sence of the Roman Church and to wrest for this effect the Terms of the Original I never say'd this whole Piece was absolutely fictitious as Mr. Arnaud wou'd make the World believe But only that that passage which speaks of the Elevation of the Host is Answer to the Perp. part 2. C. 8. Lib 5. C. 13. p. 516. a mere Forgery and this we have proved by the Testimony of Alvarez and Zaga Zabo one of which positively denies the Ethiopians elevate the Sacrament and th' other declares they do not expose it 'T is to no purpose for Mr. Arnaud to endeavour to justify this alteration in saying perhaps there be different Ceremonies in Ethiopia that they elevate the Sacrament in some places and not in others that they elevate it in a manner so little Remarkable that it has given Occasion to Alvarez and Zaga Zabo in comparing it with the elevation of the Roman Church to say they elevated it not at all that is they do not elevate it so high as to make it be seen as is usual amongst the Latins 'T is plainly seen these are mere Subterfuges and vain Conjectures Had Alvarez and Zaga thus meant they would have so explain'd themselves and distinguished the Places or the manner of the Elevation whereas they speak absolutely Mr. Arnand do's not know more than these two Authors and were he to correct or expound them he ought at least to offer something that might justify his Correction or Exposition We may confirm the Testimony of Alvarez and Zaga Zabo by that of Montconies a Traveller into those parts who describing the Mass of the Copticks who as every Body knows are of the same Religion and observe the same Ceremonies as the Abyssins say's expresly that they use no Elevation IT is then certain that this Liturgy such as it is in the Bibliotheca Patrum is an altered Piece and therefore 't is inserted in it without any mention whence 't was taken or who Translated it as I already observed in my answer to the Perpetuity Yet forasmuch as the Almighty taketh the crafty in their own Nets there are several things left untouch'd which do not well agree with the Doctrine of Transubstantiation such as for Instance is this Prayer which the Priest makes after the Consecration commemorating say's he thy Death and Resurrection we offer thee this Bread and Missa sive Canon univers Aethiop Bibl. patr tom 6. Cup and give thee thanks inasmuch as that by this Sacrifice thou hast made us worthy to appear in thy Presence and exercise this office of Priesthood before thee Wee most earnestly beseech thee O Lord to send thy Holy Spirit on this Bread and Cup which are the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour for ever Did they understand the Bread and Wine were the Body and Blood of the Son of God in proper Substance would they say to him himself that they offer to him the Bread and Cup in Commemoration of his Death and Resurrection and would it not likewise be impious to desire him to send on this Bread and Cup his Holy Spirit 'T is not to Jesus Christ himself that the Latins do offer his Body and Blood those that believe the Roman reality do not
the Church of those Ages pretended when she applyed to the Eucharist the term of the Body of Jesus Christ for she designed only to attribute the name of the thing it self to the sacred sign it represents and there 's no likelihood that Authors of those times that made so scrupulous a profession to follow S. Austin even to the copying out his Writings to insert them in their own in proper terms as appears from Isidor's Books Bede's Alcuinus I say there 's no likelihood they would forget what their Master had said touching this Mystery the Lord scrupled not to say This is my Body when he gave the Aug. contr Adimant c. 12. sign of his Body 'T IS to no purpose for Mr. Arnaud to urge the words of the Liturgy of Illyricus Proesta Domine Jesu Christe fili Dei vivi ut qui corpus sanguinem Ch. 3. p. 749 750. proprium pro nobis datum edimus bibimus fiat nobis ad salutem ad redemptionis remedium sempiternum omnium criminum nostrorum Which he thus translates O Lord Jesus Christ grant to us that having eaten thy proper Body and drank thy proper Blood which have been given for us howsoever unworthy that this Communion may be to us a spring of Salvation an eternal remedy for the redemption of us from all our crimes Corpus sanguinem proprium do only signifie Corpus sanguinem tuum thy Body and Blood not the Body and Blood of another as the ancient Priests caused to be caten the Body of a Sacrifice different from their own Body For the Son of God who gave his own Body and Blood for us gives us them to eat and drink in this Sacrament nor that our mouths receive their proper substance the Liturgy does not say so but because they receive the signs and tokens of 'um whilst our souls receive this Body it self and Blood spiritually 'T IS moreover in vain that Mr. Arnaud would persuade us these passages of the Liturgies which term the Eucharist the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ do naturally imprint the Idea of a Real Presence To prevent says he Ch. 3. p. 751 752. the peoples mistakes by all these terms of the Body of Jesus Christ the Priests must have continually warn'd them to take notice that by the words of the Body of Jesus Christ the proper Body of Jesus Christ they meant only its figure This sense must have been expresly explained in all the Liturgies and an Officer appointed to make it thus understood by the people for otherwise 't is impossible but they must fall into the opinion of the Real Presence And this effect being necessary and inevitable it ought to have been the chiefest care and business of the Fathers to hinder it had they not themselves been of this opinion ALL this discourse has nothing in it but what may be easily answered We have already sufficiently replyed to it 'T is true this term of the Body of Jesus Christ taken separately imprints immediately the Idea of the natural Body of Jesus Christ but this same term applyed to the Eucharist which both sense and reason shew us to be Bread which Religion makes us comprehend as a mystery that represents the Incarnation and Passion of our Saviour does not naturally from any other I dea than that of the Sacrament of the Body of Jesus Christ There needs no Officer appointed on purpose to give notice of this to the people nor sound of Trumpet to publish it as Mr. Arnaud speaks in another place Sense Reason and the common notions of Religion were Officers sufficient to give this Idea and publish this to be the sense of this term when applyed to the Eucharist When the Scripture in an hundred places has called our Saviour the Sun the day Star from on High the light of the World the true light that enlightneth every man that cometh into the world I do not find that it setled Officers on purpose to give notice that it meant not a corporal Light or Sun but a Mystical one I do not find the Jews employed an Officer to give notice to the people that that Lamb commonly called the Passover that is to say the passage was not really a passage but only the commemoration of a passage S. Paul did not make use of one when he wrote that we are buried with Christ by Baptism that we are made the same plant with him by the conformity of his Death and Resurrection that we are new Creatures that there is a new man formed in us and I know not how many other expressions which are easily understood by the bare consideration of the matter to which they are applyed The Fathers have not employ'd an Officer when they called the poor Jesus Christ Jesus Christ himself the same Jesus Christ that shed his Blood for us who was delivered and put to death for us not his Prophets but he himself Neither have they employed one when they called the Church the Body of Jesus Christ the very Body of Jesus Christ the real Body of Jesus Christ properly the Body of Jesus Christ the undoubted Body of Jesus Christ the Flesh of Jesus Christ Jesus Christ himself not his Vestment but himself nor when they said that we are one and the same person with him the same Body the same substance by Faith that we are transformed into him changed into his Flesh changed into his Body Should Mr. Arnaud's Principle take place the world must have a great many Officers for there 's nothing more common than not only the metaphorical use of these terms but even the exaggeration of them 'T IS moreover in vain that Mr. Arnaud has painfully collected into a Chapter for that purpose whatsoever passages he could find here and there not only amongst the Latines now in question but likewise from amongst the Greeks Copticks Ethiopians Armenians Nestorians which bear that the Eucharist is the very Body of Jesus Christ his proper Body or properly his Body his real Body his true Body I shall reply to this heap of passages in two manners first in general and secondly in particular IN general I say there is not one of these expressions which is sufficient from whence solidly to conclude that those which have made use of them believed the substantial Presence which the Roman Church teaches either because there is not one of 'um but is used on other subjects wherein evidently there 's neither Transubstantiation nor the Real Presence because they are all capable of another sense and that they may have been employed in other respects than that which Mr. Arnaud attributes to them To begin by that of the Body it self of Jesus Christ we now see the Fathers have used this term on occasion of the poor God says Chrysostom Hom. 15. in Rom. has given his Son and you refuse to give bread to HIM HIMSELF who was given for you who was slain for you the Father has not
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 Catââr 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
Reflection THE Author of the Perpetuity will have the state of the Latin Church in the 11th Century when the contests of Berengarius hapned to determine that of the whole Church since the Apostles time Here Mr. Arnaud pretends that the Churches consent since the 7th Century determines the sense of the Fathers of the six first We have likewise seen in the 7th Chapter of his Book that he asserts that to judg rightly of the expressions of the Fathers of the 7th and 8th Centuries we must suppose they constantly and universally believed Transubstantiation and the Real Presence and that this supposition must determine the sense of their words What can we think of all these circuits but that they are illusions which plainly enough shew that these Gentlemen find but small satisfaction in their inquiries into the first six ages Were Transubstantiation and the Real Presence apparently taught in them what occasion would they have of making them enter by machins and mount up to them from the later Ages It is then certain that these ways of reasoning these suppositions and arguments from the bottom to the top are so far from persuading us what Mr. Arnaud desires that on the contrary they do but more confirm us in our opinion which is that these Doctrines were unknown to the ancient Church The second Reflection 'T IS consonant to reason to imagin that in the last Ages the question whether the Eucharist be the substance it self of our Saviour's Body or not having been agitated with great heat those who held the affirmative have abused the general expressions of the ancient Fathers and endeavoured to turn them to their sense This is a thing that happens every day in the smallest contests in which every one desires to set off his sentiments and confirm them by passages taken out of the Fathers to shelter himself thereby from the reproach of innovation It is likewise easie to imagine that those who but slightly apply themselves to the study of Theological Points are soon cheated by false appearances We see but too many examples of this It is in short easie to conceive that Disciples may deviate from the Doctrine and sense of their Masters under divers pretences The Divisions of Christians in points of Religion have almost all of 'em hapned in this manner the Disciples were not content to keep pace with their Masters but have went beyond 'em and often overrhrown their real sentiments under pretence of explaining and illustrating what they said with less perspicuity When Scholars are become Masters they no longer look upon themselves as Scholars but Doctors and in this quality 't is no hard matter to comprehend they may have new notions which they endeavour to establish on the testimony of those that preeeded them and for this effect take their words in a contrary sense The people easily receive what their Doctors teach 'em and as to the Doctors there needs no great number of them in an ignorant age to introduce a novelty One single person may sometimes impose on a whole assembly and engage them into his opinions which afterwards shall pass for the true Doctrine of the Church The third Consequence Mr. ARNAVD's third proposition is conceived in these terms Lib. 10. cap. 3. That all the several instances of expressions produced by Aubertin to shew that a man may take in a metaphorical sense the passages by which the Catholicks establish the Real Presence and Transubstantiation are in no wise alike To establish this proposition he says there are two ways by which we may know whether the expressions which appear at first alike are in effect different The first is to mark precisely by reasoning the difference of these expressions and to shew they are not alike The second is to discern them by opinion by a simple view of the mind and by an impression which makes it self felt altho it cannot be expressed Applying afterwards this remark to his subject he says that the expressions of the Fathers touching the Eucharist having been taken in the ten last Centuries in a sense of Transubstantiation and reality and the others having never been taken but in a metaphorical sense there must of necessity be a great difference between them seeing they have made such different impressions and that opinion has so well distinguished them This is the summary of his third Chapter The first Reflection WE are agreed concerning this manner of discerning the expressions and the things themselves by opinion as well as by an exact remark of the differences which distinguish them But if Mr. Arnaud will make a maxim of this which may serve as a principle to draw thence certain conclusions he must suppose that this sentiment or opinion can never be corrupted by false prejudices nor ever be deceived by establishing imaginary differences where there are no real ones I grant that in the last Ages the expressions of the Fathers have been taken in a sense of Transubstantiation whereas never any man understood those which we say are alike but in a metaphorical sense this is a sign they were regarded in those Ages as different expressions but it does not follow that they be different in effect unless it be said that the sentiment of those Centuries is infallible It is no hard matter to believe that men may judg rightly in respect of one thing and at the same time fall into error in respect of another whatsoever conformity there may be between them A man may be sometimes mistaken by confounding as if they were alike such expressions as are not so and then again take for different expressions such as be alike As we never pretended that the men of these later ages are mistaken in all things so Mr. Arnaud must not pretend they are right in every thing The second Reflection THE method which Mr. Arnaud proposes for the discerning the different expressions of the Fathers from those which are alike is deceitful For if we must for this end rather follow the way of sentiment than that of reason 't will be then at least just to consult the sentiment of those Ages wherein the Fathers lived and that of persons to whom they spake and not the sentiment of later Ages which might perhaps have been disturb'd by new notions Let Mr. Arnaud then shew us if he pleases that in the first six Ages the expressions of the Fathers touching the Eucharist were taken in a sense of reality and Transubstantiation and the others which we produce as being alike in a metaphorical sense and we will see what use we must make of his Rule But to seek this difference of impression or sentiment in Ages wherein we believe this Doctrine was changed will be an apparent deceiving of our selves seeing 't is not possible but what he calls the sentiment or impression has been altered by the change of Doctrine The fourth Consequence THESE three first consequences are attended by a fourth which is Book 10.
condition he can understand no other than that and 't is it which he rejects because 't is on it whereon falls the first conception of his mind This will yet farther appear if we consider that the eyes of a Communicant will determin his thoughts to the corporeal Presence when of it self it were not therein determined for 't is not possible for a man who never heard of the spiritual and invisible Presence to raise in his mind at the same moment wherein he communicates this question Is the Body of Jesus Christ substantially present in this Eucharist which I receive but that he must at the same time use his eye-sight to inform himself This inclination is so natural that if he does not follow it it must necessarily be said that he has in his mind the idea of an invisible Presence of which his eyes cannot be witnesses and that 't is this idea which diverts him from having recourse to his sight and if he does follow it his eyes which tell him that it is not therein derermin his thoughts to the idea of the corporeal Presence to make him reject it BUT is it impossible that a man in conceiving the idea of the corporeal Presence and in rejecting it should conceive at the same time that there may be invented other manners of a substantial Presence but must reject them all be they what they will without specifying or considering them I answer that in this case he will conceive these other manners of presence in opposition to the corporeal and visible one and consequently will specifie them at least as incorporeals and invisibles and conceive them under this quality In a word when nature offers us but the idea of one single species there arises not up immediately a general consideration in our minds our fancy leads us to that particular species and if afterwards we conceive any other 't is always in opposition to that which nature it self offers to our knowledg Whence it follows that this first manner of believing the Real Absence by a general rejection of every kind of presence yet without specifying so much as any one in particular neither visible nor invisible is a mere chimera which resides only in Mr. Arnaud's brain AS to the third it is moreover invalid and illusory seeing it answers not the design of the Author of the Perpetuity For as we have already said he is obliged to shew that if people had not believed the Real invisible Presence they would have had in their minds dispositions and prejudices which would have made them respect it not barely as a Doctrin that appears contrary to natural reason this is not sufficient to produce actually an entire rejection and opposition when the matter concerns a point of Faith but as an innovation in the Churches Belief Now this third manner of believing the Real Absence without any reflection by a bare view of the nature of things in the same manner as we know Paris is not Rome nor France Holland that the Sun is not the Moon nor an House an Elephant thar the Kings Picture is not the King himself to use Mr. Arnaud's examples without having made this express and formal reflection this manner I say may make men capable of knowing that the Real Presence is contrary to the order of nature that it agrees not with common sense but not make 'em discern whether it be a mystery of the Churches Faith as 't is said to be or whether 't is a new humane invention This simple view of the nature of things which consists in knowing that the Eucharist is Bread that the Eucharist is an image of the Body of Jesus Christ that this Body is a humane Body and that 't is in Heaven does not hinder a man from being surprized with the matter of novelty by being persuaded that 't is the true Doctrin of the Church as 't is assured to be and on this persuasion Reason must yield to Faith 'T is in vain Mr. Arnaud tells us that supposing the Faithful had no other Lib. 6. cap. 2. pag 564 565. than these simple notions that the Sacrament of the Eucharist is Bread and Wine which represent to us the Body of Jesus Christ supposing they conceiv'd the Body of Jesus Christ to be in no wise therein that they imagin'd this Body to be only present in Heaven and that all the usual expressions form'd only in their minds the idea of a figurative Presence they would immediately have judg'd that the belief of the Real Presence was false and impertinent as we would immediately judg that man who would persuade us that Paris is Rome or that the Popes Picture is the Pope himself or that the seven stalks of Corn which Pharaoh dreamed of were really seven years or the Paschal Lamb a real passage and Sacrifices for Sins real Sins to be mad and sensless When a man judges of these things he simply judges of them according to the light of nature and 't is certain the light of nature will render that man impertinent who shall say what Mr. Arnaud makes him say It would be the same concerning the real invisible Presence should a man judg of it on this ground But those that offer it in any age oppose against the light of Nature the splendid name of the Churches Faith They endeavour to insinuate it under the pretence of its being a mystery of the Christian Religion which has been always believed and for this purpose they spare no colours By which means they stop the course of nature and hinder men from judging according to its Principles reducing the question to know whether it be true that this be the Faith and perpetual sense of the Church by which means 't is no hard matter t' impose on the ignorant 'T IS moreover in vain that Mr. Arnaud brings in the Statute of Henry IV. for an instance which all the Parisians know to be only Brass and that his body is only at S. Dennis He says perhaps they never thought of formally rejecting the opinion that this Statue is really the Body of Henry IV. and yet be ready to oppose this opinion should any extravagant person offer to make them believe it But howsoever the Parisians stand affected towards the Statue of Henry IV. there 's a great deal of difference between this example and that of the Eucharist here in question The Statue of Henry IV. is a work of humane institution wherein men suppose there 's nothing supernatural whereas the Eucharist is a Divine mystery in which there has been always believed to be something above nature The Statue of Henry IV. is a thing absolutely popular concerning which every man believes he has liberty of judging according to the principles of Sense and Reason The Eucharist is a mystery which has been endeavour'd to be made long since in some manner inaccessible to mens curiosity by concealing it under a cloud of Ceremonies Henry the Fourth was indeed a
otherwise 't is very possible that people will suffer themselves to be deceived when told the Church has ever believed such a Presence especially when they shall hear several passages out of the Fathers on this subject alledged in a counter sense Moreover if Mr. Arnaud imagins I meant to acknowledg of my own head that one may call the disposition of these persons who believe Jesus Christ corporally present in Heaven without considering what has been said since of his Presence in Heaven and on Earth at the same time there visibly here invisibly believing the Real Absence he is grosly mistaken For what I said was out of condescention and supposition and not absolutely which is to say that in case the Author of the Perpetuity pretended only this I would not dispute with him about an expression In effect if we are agreed touching the thing I 'll never make war with him upon the account of terms Mr. ARNAVD is no less mistaken when he accused me for making an illusory answer to the Author of the Perpetuity The business is that this Author said that if the change which we pretend were true There First Treatise of the Perpetuity page 37. must have been of necessity a time wherein the belief of the Real Presence has been so mixt with that of the Real Absence that there were half of the Bishops Priests and People who held the one and the other half that held the other To this I answer'd That in the times of the greatest ignorance even Answer to the first Treatise page 12. in the 11th Century I doubted not but there were four or five ranks of persons in the Body of the visible Church the one profane and worldly persons who kept themselves at a distance from these Disputes others ignorant ones who contented themselves with knowing in general the Eucharist to be the memorial of Christs Passion and that they receive therein his Body and Blood these holding the true Faith in a degree of confused knowledg The third of those that held the true Faith in a degree of distinct knowledg and rejected the substantial Presence And the fourth of those that had embraced the Opinion of this Presence And this is what Mr. Arnaud calls an illusion Whereas I affirm this answer is pertinent for if there have been four ranks of men in the Church 't is ill done of the Author of the Perpetuity to reduce them to two But says Mr. Arnaud the Author of the Perpetuity speaks of the time before Berenger and you speak of the time that followed him I answer that the Author of the Perpetuity speaks of the time of the chimerical Lib. 6. ch 5. pag. 560. growth through which the belief of the Real Presence hath necessarily passed according to the imagination of the Calvinists And thus doth he formally explain himself And I speak of the time wherein Error made its greatest progress in the greatest progress of error These are my words So far there 's nothing mis-understood we speak both of us concerning the same time But this time according to us is that in which Berenger began to oppose the Real Presence But says moreover Mr. Arnaud the whole Church Page 562. had already passed over into the belief of the Real Presence before Berenger ' s time and Aubertin himself acknowledges as much Which is what I deny and Mr. Arnaud ought not to affirm it without proof The greatest progress of the Real Presence was then when Berenger declaring himself against it Paschasius his Disciples maintain'd it by Disputes so that this is precisely the time about which the Author of the Perpetuity and I debated THESE are the first objections of Mr. Arnaud after which he divides what he calls my System into three parts or times The first says he comprehends Page 563. the first eight Ages and the five ranks whereof it consists The second contains two Centuries and an half which a man cannot better name than the unaccountable time of the Ministers And the third contains the time which follow'd Berenger 'T is certain that of these three times there was only the second as I already said to speak properly necessary to be examin'd touching the question Whether the change which we pretend was possible or impossible For altho I do not grant that all the Faithful of the eight first Centuries have had a distinct knowledg either of the Real Presence or Real Absence in the sense wherein the Church of Rome takes these terms yet did I acknowledg there was then light enough in the Church whereby to reject the Opinion of this sort of Presence had it appear'd so that it does not seem 't was greatly necessary to dispute concerning these Ages wherein we do not say the change was made and which we suppose to have been different from those which followed Yet seeing Mr. Arnaud will needs have 'em brought into the Dispute I am willing to treat of them I THEN reckon'd in the Church five sorts of persons who had no distinct Answer to the second Treatise part 2. chap. 3. knowledg of the Real Presence neither to reject nor admit it without comprehending therein the prophane or worldly minded persons and grounded my division on this reason That 't is not possible in this great diversity of conditions and humors of men to reduce them all either to one and the same measure of knowledg or to the same form of action THE first rank is of those who conceiv'd these two terms the Sacrament and the Body of Jesus Christ the Sacrament under the notion which their senses gave them for whether 't was call'd Bread or by any other name the idea they form'd thereof was such as their eyes represented them with They conceiv'd the Body of Jesus Christ after the manner which the Gospel speaks of it as a body and flesh like unto that which we have born of a Virgin united to the Eternal Word hanging on the Cross risen and taken up into Glory and in a word under the idea which Religion gives us of it The idea of the Sacrament served to make them pass on to that of the Body but they stopt there and made not a particular reflection thereon how the Sacrament was the Body of Jesus Christ Their devotion being content with the use which they made of the Sacrament unto which they were assisted by this formulary of Communion Corpus Christi they proceeded not so far as that question THE second rank is of those who proceeded to the question How this visible Bread this subject call'd Sacrament is the Body of Jesus Christ but finding a great deal of inconsistency in the terms their minds stopt at the single difficulty without undertaking to solve it THE third is of those who going as far as the question proceeded as far as the solution but their minds stopt at general terms as that Jesus Christ is present to us in the Sacrament and that we
to say really which is not true and on the other it hinders us from perceiving that the ignorant taking the naturally of S. Hilary according to the letter would have had the idea of a corporal and natural Presence and not that of a spiritual and invisible Presence These are a kind of faults for which people are not wont to be over-sorry when they happen for they have a desir'd effect for some time and when they chance to be discover'd may be laid on the Printer But howsoever 't is certain that all the impression which this passage of S. Hilary could make on the mind of an ignorant person was only to put him upon conceiving a corporal Presence which he might easily reject by the testimony of his proper senses But to speak the truth there 's little reason to suppose the Books of S. Hilary De Trinitate came to the knowledg of such ignorant and simple people as we speak of THE passage of Gregory of Nysse gives naturally the idea of a change of Bread into the Body of Jesus Christ by the union of the Bread into the Word and by way of augmentation of the natural Body of Jesus Christ as appears from the example which he brings of the Bread which Jesus Christ ate which became the Body of the Word which is far remote from the Transubstantiation of the Church of Rome who will have the substance on the Altar to be the same in number as that which our Saviour Christ assum'd from the Virgin and which is now in Heaven There 's little likelihood that simple and ignorant people understood what Gregory meant even supposing they were acquainted with his Catechism which is not very likely But supposing they knew it all by heart and comprehended the sense of it they could thence only conceive this change by union to the word and augmentation of the Body of Jesus Christ which Damascen has since explained more clearly And this is what Gregory supposes also not as the true Faith of the Church but only as a probable opinion according as he formally explains himself Perhaps says he we are in the right AND this is what we had to say concerning Mr. Arnaud's sixth Book Whatsoever success this Dispute might have had he could not thence promise himself any advantage because as we have already observ'd more than once the eight first Centuries being out of the time wherein we suppose the change was wrought when he shall have proved the Real Presence or Real Absence was distinctly held therein he will be still told the question concerns not those Ages but the following But 't is not the same with me who draw thence several advantages For first neither Mr. Arnaud nor the Author of the Perpetuity can henceforward prevail by the equivocation of the term of Real Absence which may be taken either for the rejection of the visible or corporeal Presence or for the rejection of th' invisible Presence seeing we have shew'd 'em that in this debate the question concerns not the Real Absence in the first sense but the Real Absence in the second Secondly They can no longer confound these two things as if they were but one to wit to be in a condition to acknowledg that the Real Presence does not agree with the lights of nature and to be in a condition to acknowledg 't is a novely which was never held in the Church seeing we have shew'd 'em there 's a great deal of difference between these two dispositions and that it does not follow hence that those who are in the first are also in the second which is precisely that which is here in question Thirdly Neither will they I think any more confound two sorts of very different doubts the one of incredulity which deny the thing it self and the others of simple ignorance which consist only in not knowing the manner yet without denying the thing seeing they have been shew'd clearly enough the difference of 'em and that they ought not to refer to one of these doubts what belongs to the other Fourthly They can no longer blind the world by this vain distinction of three ways of rejecting the Real Presence or by a general rejection without denoting any one kind of 'em or by a formal rejection of all the kinds or by a bare view of the nature of things seeing we have shew'd 'em that the first is impossible that the third brings no advantage to 'em and that there 's only the second which they can reasonably stick to and which yet they renounce because they find it unjustifiable Fifthly 'T is likely they will no longer obstinately maintain that a known inconsistency that is to say a pure impossibility and respected as such is a sense after th' illustrations given on this subject Sixthly They can no longer say that the ancient formulary of the Communion Corpus Christi must necessarily direct the minds of the Faithful to conceive the Body of Jesus Christ present in the Eucharist which they receiv'd seeing it had another use which was to raise 'em up to meditate on the Death and Resurrection of their Saviour this other use being sufficient to employ many of their minds Seventhly They will henceforward in vain pretend that the terms which the Father 's used in their ordinary instructions brought naturally the idea of the Real Presence into their Auditors minds seeing we have shew'd that the natural sense of their Propositions did not depend on the natural signification of each term but on the matter in hand which determin'd them to a figurative sense Eighthly They have had no reason to pretend that all the Faithful have always had a distinct belief either of the Presence or Real Absence in the sense wherein the Roman Church understands these terms seeing we have shew'd them five ranks of persons in the Church of the first eight Centuries who had no formal knowledg of either the one nor th' other Ninthly It being thus in reference to the first eight Centuries it hence follows 't was the same by greater reason in the following which were far darker Tenthly And that which is most important is that one may already know by this that the change which occasions our principal question has been not only possible but easie For there being only two things which can hinder it the one the distinct belief of the Real Absence that is to say the formal and positive belief that the Body is not in the Eucharist by its proper substance neither visible nor invisible and th' other the knowledg diligence and fidelity of the Pastors watching over their Flocks ready to acknowledg and repel the new errors and make them known to their people 'T is already apparent that the first of these things is an unjustifiable supposition and contrary to all probability And as to the other 't is certain it calls in question the credit of all Historians and the judgment of all learned men who agree in this that
in the 9th 10th and 11th Centuries th' Ecclesiastical order did not abound with famous men and especially the 10th Century CHAP. V. General Considerations on Mr. Arnaud's Ninth Book An Examination of the Objections which he proposes against what he calls Machins of Abridgment and Machins of Preparation HAVING consider'd Mr. Arnaud's 6th Book we must now in order pass on to the 9th whose running Title is The impossibility of the pretended Change of the Churches Belief in the Mystery of the Eucharist 'T is certain the genuine state of the question is only whether this change has really hapned this other whether 't was possible or impossible is a frivolous question tending to fruitless Speculations and tedious Debates which is what I clearly shew'd when I treated of the method of the Perpetuity And which likewise several Roman Catholicks have acknowledg'd who have written on this Subject since the Author of the Perpetuity Father Noüet was of opinion he had better lay aside all this part of the In his Preface Dispute and comprehend it under the Title of Particular Debates wherein the Church of Rome is not concerned nor ought to be mention'd Mr. De Bauné in that elegant Letter which he publish'd under the name of an Ecclesiastick to one of his Friends distinguishes likewise two quarrels wherein he says I have engaged my self the one against the Real Presence in the Eucharist and the other against the Author of the Perpetuity of the Faith and he adds that in this latter I only encounter with a particular person Mr. Pavillon a Priest and Almoner to his Majesty speaks his mind more fully in his triumph touching the Eucharist The question is not t' examine whether Page 197. the Church could change her belief and how this change could happen for this is a going about the bust and running upon whimsies The question is only to enquire whether this pretended change has effectually hapned He calls all these pretensions of impossibility frivolous questions and mere whimsies for these Gentlemen do one another right now and then But howsoever Mr. Arnaud has his maxims apart and he obliges us to distinguish on this subject two questions the one whether the change before us has been possible and the other whether it has really hapned 'T is certain that the first appears already very clear by the refutation of the pretended distinct knowledg of the Presence or Real Absence as we lately observed for altho Mr. Arnaud has treated of it only in reference to the eight first Centuries without troubling himself with the following yet 't is easie to perceive that if it could not have place in those Centuries wherein there was greater light it could not by stronger reason in the others wherein there was a far greater and more general ignorance Yet for better information in this matter we must see what Mr. Arnaud has offer'd touching this pretended impossibility of the change We shall here then discuss again the question whether in supposing that Paschasus an Author of the ninth Century was the first that proposed the Doctrin of the substantial invisible Presence of the Body of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist it might happen that this opinion in succession of time has been receiv'd and establish'd amongst Christians For this is in fine what Mr. Arnaud handles in his 9th Book and which we shall now examine We shall not in truth find he has made use therein of great Arguments to confirm his Opinion for he seldom troubles himself about that nor has he exactly endeavour'd to refute the means of the possibility which I alledged nor defended the Answers of the Author of the Perpetuity Mr. Arnaud does not care to take so much pains But we shall find he has taken care to collect here and there seven or eight passages out of my Book and of them joyn'd together made a body which he calls my Machins and divided them into five orders with titles according to his own fancy He calls the first The Machins of Abridgment the second The Machins of Preparation the third The Machins of Mollifications the fourth The Machins of Execution and the fifth The Machins of Forgetfulness Now altho we may say in general that Mr. Arnaud's mind abounds with pleasant fancies by which he can easily find out odd names to make serious matters look ridiculous yet t' excuse him we may say that in this occasion he has follow'd not his own natural inclination but that of the Cartesian Philosophy with which his mind is said to be extremely taken up for you must know this Philosophy makes Machins of every thing But howsoever let 's see what work Mr. Arnaud makes with mine THE first which he calls the Machin of retrenchment is taken out of two of my passages the first of which bears That the question is not of the Answer to the second Treatise Part 3. ch 6. Book 9. ch 3. p. 886. whole world but of the West on which Mr. Arnaud makes this Commentary in my name That is to say says he I will not have the question concern it I will not take the trouble t' explain how the Doctrin of the Real Presence and Transubstantiation has introduc'd it self into the East into the Patriarchats of Constantinople Alexandria Jerusalem and Antioch into the Churches of the Armenians Nestorians Jacobits I do not care to trouble my self with guessing how it has penetrated into Ethiopia Moscovia Mesopotamia Georgia Mingrelia Moldavia Tartaria and the Indies 'T is better to say 't is not there this is sooner done and by this means I shall free my self out of a great perplexity But says he Mr. Claude will give us I hope leave to tell him that he is a man and not God so that neither his words nor his will are always effectual He would not have the Doctrin of the Real Presence to be in all these great Provinces But it is there and will be maugre him The matter depends not on him and we have demonstrated it by proofs which I hope he will not question He fills five great pages with this kind of discourse saying over and over again the same thing Mr. ARNAVD must pardon me if I tell him he has gotten a little too high Is he so possess'd with the charms of his own Eloquence and force of these illusions touching the Greeks Armenians and other Eastern Christians to imagin a man must be a God to cope with him I think considering what we have observed a man need neither be an Angel nor an extraordinary person to demonstrate again clearly that the question concerns not these Churches because they do not at all believe the Roman Transubstantiation and supposing they did believe it which they do not 't would be no hard matter to find they had received it from the Latins by means of the Croisado's Seminaries and Missions which is sufficient t' exclude them from this Dispute THE second passage from whence Mr. Arnaud
has taken my pretended Machin of Retrenchment is this The question concerns not all those in the Answer to the second Treatise Part. 3. ch 6. West who profess themselves Christians but only one party that have grown prevalent and endeavoured to get the Pulpits to themselves thereby to become Rulers over the whole Church Whereupon he cries out Did ever any Book 9. ch 3. p. 890. body affirm that the common people of the 11th Century held not the Real Presence and had only a confused knowledg of this Mystery But Mr. Arnaud does not mind what he writes We speak of the first fifty years of the 10th Century and he comes and alledges to us the common people of the 11th Century 'T is sufficient we tell him says the Author of the Perpetuity that Refut part 3. ch 6. this change cannot be attributed to the first fifty years of this Century to wit of the 10th seeing 't is incredible that the Faithful of the whole Earth having been instructed in the distinct belief of the Real Absence should have embraced an Opinion quite contrary in condemning their first sentiments and without this change 's having made any noise These are the very words I recited and on which having said that the question concerned not a change begun and finished in the 10th Century but the progress of a change begun eighty two years before the 10th Century and finished by the Popes towards the end of the 11th I added that our Debate was not about all those in the West that professed themselves Christians but only about one party that strengthned themselves and endeavour'd to become masters of the Pulpit that they might afterwards be masters of the whole Church It evidently appears the question was about the first fifty years of the 10th Century And thereupon Mr. Arnaud tells us by way of exclamation Is there any one that affirms the common people of the 11th Century held not the Real Presence and had only a confus'd knowledg of this Mystery No Berenger himself acknowledges the contrary in calling this Doctrin the Opinion of the people sententia vulgi and in maintaining the Church was perished It must be acknowledg'd there 's a strange disorder in this kind of disputing I will grant that the common people of the 11th Century held the opinion of the Real Presence thro the labours of Paschasus his Disciples but it does not follow 't was the same in the first fifty years of the 10th for when a new Doctrin disperses it self in a Church an hundred and fifty years make great alterations in it When we speak of the time in which Paschasus wrote his Book of the Body and Blood of Christ 't is not likely we suppose the people to be in the same state they were in two hundred years after the opinion of the Real Presence had made considerable progresses Neither will we suppose 'em to be in the same state the first fifty years of the 10th Century for when we speak of a change which was made in the space of near three hundred years common sense will shew there was more or less of it according to the diversity of the time It is then reasonable on my hypothesis to consider in the beginning of the 10th Century those that held the Real Presence only as a party that strengthened themselves and endeavour'd to make ' emselves most considerable in the Church but 't is in no sort reasonable t' oppose against this the common people of the 11th Century seeing that in eighty or an hundred years the face of things might be easily changed 'T IS moreover less reasonable to ofter us the discourses of Lanfranc Book 9. ch 3. pag. 890. who bragg'd that in his time all the Christians in the world believed they receiv'd in this Sacrament the true Flesh and Blood of Jesus Christ born of the Virgin For supposing what Lanfranc says were true the sence he gave to these words the true Flesh and the true Blood of Jesus Christ understanding them in a sense of Transubstantiation was false as we have sufficiently shew'd Has any body charged this testimony to be false says Mr. Arnaud No there 's no one but Mr. Claude who does it six hundred years after without any ground But does Mr. Arnaud know all that Berenger answer'd and those that adher'd to him And supposing they were ignorant of the true belief of the other Churches separate from the Latin does it hence follow that in effect they believed Transubstantiation and that the proofs I have given of the contrary be not good DOES Reason adds he shew that in this point the Faith of the Pastors Ibid was not that of the People No it proves the quite contrary it being incredible that Ministers who are persuaded of the truth of the Real Presence should not take care t' instruct them in it whom they exhorted to receive the Communion to whom they ought to judg this belief to be absolutely necessary to make them avoid the unworthy Communions Mr. Arnaud fights with his own shadow We never told him that those who believe the Real Presence did not endeavour t' insinuate it into the peoples minds according as they were more or less prejudiced or zealous in the propagation of this belief and more or less qualifi'd to teach it and more or less again according to the circumstances of times occasions persons But how does this hinder me from saying that during the first fifty years of the 10th Century it was not all them that made profession of Christianity in the West but a party that strengthened themselves and endeavour'd to render themselves the most considerable IS this says Mr. Arnaud again a sufficient reason to shew that the people were not persuaded of the Real Presence because some Historians who tell us that Berenger troubled the Church by a new Heresie do at the same time likewise inform us that he perverted several persons with his novelties But we did not offer this alone as a sufficient reason to persuade him the people did not believe the Real Presence in the beginning of the 10th Century I confess that upon this alone one may justly say either that those who follow'd Berenger follow'd him in leaving their first Belief and embracing a new Opinion or that they follow'd him because he Preach'd only what they believ'd before or that they adher'd to him because they were further instructed in a mystery of which they had but small knowledg or little certainty So far every man is at liberty to take that part which he shall judg the most reasonable but should I say there were several that follow'd him upon the account of their knowing what he taught was the ancient Doctrin I shall say nothing but what 's very probable having shew'd as I have done in my answer to the Perpetuity that Bertran's Doctrin was publickly taught in the 10th Century for it follows hence probably enough that this Doctrin
virtue of it and instruct our Faith under the Discipline of Jesus Christ lest we be esteem'd unworthy if we do not discern it enough not understanding what is the dignity and the virtue of the mystical Body and Blood of our Saviour And lest it should be imagin'd this was only a way of speaking to excite the Faithful to instruct themselves in this Mystery yet without supposing that in effect they were ignorant of the exposition he was going to make of it we need only call to mind what he says in his Letter to Frudegard wherein speaking of the success his Book met with I am informed says he that I have moved several to understand this mystery which shews Epist ad Frud that according to him his Book was a more clear and express exposition of the Churches sentiment and that he had actually brought over several persons from an obscure to a clear knowledg of this Mystery But without going any further we need only read a passage of Odon Abbot of Clugny which Mr. Arnaud himself has produc'd for it expresly justifies what I say Paschasus says he has wrote these things and several others to learn us Book 9. ch 6. page 913. the reverence we owe to this mystery and make us know the majesty of it and if those who pretend to be knowing would take the pains to read his Book they will find such great things in it as will make 'em acknowledg they understood little of this mystery before After this testimony of one of Paschasus his principal Disciples who lived in the 10th Century I think it cannot be deny'd that Paschasus proposed his Doctrin by way of explication He wrote says he to teach us what reverence we owe to this mystery and to make us know the majesty of it He will have also the learned before the reading of this Book to be in a manner ignorant of this mystery and seeing he is pleased the learned should be no better qualified I hope he will pardon the ignorant by a stronger reason AND thus do we see on what design Paschasus and his Disciples taught their Opinion to wit as an illustration of the common Faith an explication of what was known before but obscurely and not as a Doctrin directly opposite to an Error with which men were imbued I acknowledg that this design proved not successful to 'em in respect of all and there being several who regarded this opinion as a novelty which ought to be rejected and as to them I doubt not but Paschasus and his Disciples proceeded with 'em by way of opposition and contradiction as we are wont to do against profest enemies but how does this hinder them from proposing their Doctrin by way of explication and even this to wit whether it was an exposition of the ancient Doctrin or not was in part the subject of the contradiction IT is not possible says Mr. Arnaud that a Doctrin should be approv'd of Book 9. ch 5. page 900. immediately by all those to whom it was proposed There must certainly be some who reject it and warn others against it I grant it but that it hence follows as Mr. Arnaud would have it believed that my pretension is impossible is what I deny and that with reason for a man may well propose a new opinion by way of an explication of the ancient Faith and defend it afterwards by way of contradiction against adversaries who reject it and respect it as a novelty IN fine adds Mr. Arnaud this means will not serve the end for which Ibidem Mr. Claude designs it which is to hinder men from rising up against this Doctrin and make the change insensible to those which suffered it We never told Mr. Arnaud that this means absolutely hindred the insurrection he mentions but in effect the contrary to wit that several did rise up against Paschasus but we pretend likewise 't was easie to cheat several by making 'em receive this novelty under the title of an explication and that in their respect they conceiv'd therein no other change than that which ignorant people do conceive when they imagin a greater illustration of the Faith of the Church and what those learned persons could conceive of it mention'd by Odon who by reading Paschasus his Book acknowledg'd they had hitherto but small knowledg of this mystery All the effect which this could produce was to excite them against their former ignorance and to esteem themselves obliged to Paschasus for his good instructions Now we know that these kind of insurrections make no great noise BUT says moreover Mr. Arnaud others must be surpriz'd in a contrary Page 901. manner they must needs deride the absurdity of this new Doctrin They must be astonish'd at the boldness of Paschasus and his Disciples proposing of it as the Faith of the Church They must be mightily offended at their being accused of ignorance and infidelity for not believing that which no Body ever did believe Who told Mr. Aruaud there were not in effect several in Paschasus his time who had these kind of sentiments touching his Opinion Pascasus himself acknowledges that several called in question his Doctrin he says he was reprehended for taking our Saviour's words in a wrong sense he endeavours to answer some of their objections seems to intimate he was accused for writing his Book by an Enthusiastic rashness and pretended Revelation And in effect John Scot Raban and Bertram wrote against his novelties and opposed them But this does not hinder its being true that he proposed his Doctrin as an explication of the common Faith and that this way might procure him many followers And so far concerning the Machins of Mollification I come now to the pretended Machins of Execution Mr. Arnaud immediately complains that I sometimes make the Real Presence to be established by the noise of Disputes and otherwhiles acknowledg there was no Dispute in the 10th Century wherein I pretend this was effected I think Book 9. ch 6. page 902. says he we had best leave him to his choice and that by choosing one of these chimerical means he may acknowledg he has rashly and falsly offer'd the other Were Mr. Arnaud's request reasonable we would not stick to grant it notwithstanding the sharpness of his expressions But 't is unjust and unwarrantable for 't is certain that the change in question has hapned and that with and without Disputes There was a contest in the 9th Century during the time wherein Paschasus lived as I now said We do not find there was any in the 10th but in the 11th 't was very hot So that any man may see there is no contradiction in what I offered let Mr. Arnaud say what he pleases Which I hope he will grant me when he considers First That what I said concerning the senses that were attackt by the noise of the Dispute and th' Authority of the Court of Rome must be referred to the 11th
which is to say that 't is to us instead of the Body of Jesus Christ and communicates the virtue and efficacy of it 'T is in this sense that the Faithful say in the 84. Psalm That God is to 'em a Sun and a Shield And David in the 119. Psalm That the Statutes of God have been to him as so many musical songs And in the 41. Psalm according to the vulgar Translation Fuerunt mihi lachrymoe panis die ac nocte This way of speaking is very usual amongst the Latins as appears by these examples of Virgil Erit ista mihi genetrix eris mihi magnus Apollo erit ille mihi semper Deus Mens sua cuique Deus Dextra mihi Deus And so far concerning Florus WE must now pass on to Remy of Auxerre to whom as Mr. Arnaud Book 8. ch 7. page 824. says is attributed not only the Exposition of the Mass which goes under his name but also the Commentary of S. Paul which others refer to Haymus Bishop of Alberstat They that will take the pains to examin the Doctrin of this Author not in the declamations of Mr. Arnaud but in the passages themselves wherein 't is found explain'd will soon find that he held the Opinion of Damascen and the Greeks which is the union of the Bread with the Divinity and by the Divinity to the natural Body of Jesus Christ and that by means of this union or conjunction the Bread becomes the Body of Jesus Christ and is made one and the same Body with him Which does manifestly appear by what I have related of it in my Answer to the Perpetuity The Flesh says he which the Word has taken in the Womb of the Virgin Comment in 1 Cor. 10. in unity of person and the Bread which is consecrated in the Church are the same Body of Christ For as this Flesh is the Body of Christ so this Bread passes to the Body of Christ and these are not two Bodies but one Body For the fulness of the Divinity which was in that Body fills likewise this Bread and the same Divinity of the Word which is in them fills the Body of Christ which is consecrated by the Ministry of several Priests throughout the whole world and makes it one only Body of Christ He does not say as Paschasus that 't is entirely the same Flesh born of the Virgin dead and risen nor that 't is the same Flesh because it pullules or multiplies But he makes of this Flesh and Bread the same Body by an unity of union because that the same Divinity which fills the Flesh fills likewise this Bread And elsewhere Altho this Bread be broken in pieces and Consecrated all over the world yet Ibid. in c. 11. the Divinity which fills all things fills it also and makes it become one only Body of Christ It lying upon him to give a reason why several parts of the same Bread and several loaves consecrated in divers places were only one Body of Jesus Christ there was nothing more easie than to say on the hypothesis of Transubstantiation that 't was one and the same numerical substance existing wholly entire under the species in each part and on every Altar where the Consecration is perform'd But instead of this he falls upon enquiries into the reason of this unity in the Divinity which fills both all the Loaves of the Altars and all the parts of a Loaf Again in another place As the Divinity of the Word which fills the whole world is one so altho In Exposit Can. this Body be Consecrated in several places and at infinitely different times yet is not this several Bodies nor several Bloods but one only Body and one only Blood with that which he took from the Virgin and which he gave to the Apostles For the Divinity fills it and JOYNS it to it self AND MAKES THAT AS IT IS ONE SO IT BE JOYN'D TO THE BODY OF CHRIST and is one only Body of Christ in truth To say still after this that the Doctrin of Remy is not that this Bread is one with the natural Body of Jesus Christ because 't is joyn'd with it and that 't is joyn'd with it because one and the same Divinity fills them this is methinks for a man to wilfully blind himself seeing Remus says it in so many words He teaches the same thing a little further in another place As the Flesh of Jesus Christ which he took of the Virgin is his true Body which was put to death for our Salvation so the Bread which Jesus Christ gave to his Disciples and to all the Elect and which the Priests Consecrate every day in the Church with the virtue of the Divinity which fills it is the true Body of Jesus Christ and this Flesh which he has taken and this Bread are not two Bodies but make but one only Body of Christ We may find the same Doctrin in his Commentaries on the 10th Chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews This Host says he speaking of the Eucharist is one and not many as were the ancient ones But how is it one and not many seeing 't is offered both by several persons and in several places and at several times A person that had the hypothesis of Transubstantiation in his mind would not have stuck to say that it is in all places and at all times one and the same numerical substance the same Body which pullutes or multiplies it self as Paschasus speaks Whereas Remy betakes himself to another course without mentioning a word either of this unity of substance or this pullulation We must says he carefully remark that 't is the Divinity of the Word which being one filling all things and being every where causes these to be not several Sacrifices but one altho it be offered by many and is one only Body of Christ with that which he took of the Virgin and not several Bodies IT cannot be denied but this Opinion of the unity of the Bread with the Body of Jesus Christ by way of conjunction and by means of the Divinity which fills the one and the other got some footing in the Latin Church even since Damascen's time We find it in the Book of Divine Offices falsly attributed to Alcuinus almost in the same terms wherein we have seen it in Remus so that it seems that one of these Authors only copied out from the other As the Divinity of the Word says this supposed Alcuinus is one who fills the whole world so altho this Body be Consecrated Cap. 40. in several places and at an infinite number of times yet are not these several Bodies of Christ nor several Cups but one only Body of Christ and one only Blood with that which he took of the Virgin and which he gave to his Apostles For the Divinity of the Word fills him who is every where which is to say that which is Consecrated in several places and makes that as it
Jesus Christ and pass into the Body of Jesus Christ signifies to transubstantiate in all the languages of the world is a matter ill offered and evidently unjustifiable For if the Bread becomes the Body of Jesus Christ formally by reason of the union as the sense of these Authors is in the same manner as the food we receive becomes our body by the union which it has with it it is made the Body of Jesus Christ not by any real conversion into this same substance of the Body of Jesus Christ which was before but it becomes it by way of addition to this substance or according to the precise explication which Damascen gives of it by way of augmentation and growth of the natural Body of Jesus Christ as we have already seen in the third Book when we treated of the opinion of the Greeks THIS being thus clear'd up 't is no hard matter to answer the passages of Remy which Mr. Arnaud alledges with so great confidence Seeing that a Page 832. Book 8. ch 7. mystery says he is that which signifies another thing if it be the Body of Jesus Christ in truth why call we it a mystery 'T is because that after the Consecration it is one thing and it appears another It appears to be Bread and Wine but 't is in truth the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ For God accommodating himself to our weakness seeing we are not used to eat raw Flesh and drink Blood makes these gifts remain in their first form altho they be in truth the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ I answer that Remy means that the gifts appear to be after the Consecration what they were before to wit simple Bread and Wine that the change which they have received being become the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ by their union with the natural Body is an invisible thing and that this union does not change any thing of their first form altho it seems it should do it seeing the Bread which our Saviour aet and which became likewise his Body by union took the form of Flesh That God deals otherwise in the Eucharist by way of condescention to our weakness because we cannot suffer this form of Flesh but yet the union ceases not to be true and consequently the Bread is in truth the Body of Jesus Christ altho it does not appear to be so This is the true sense of Remy grounded on his own Hypothesis and not that which Mr. Arnaud imputes to him THE second passage as Mr. Arnaud alledges it is conceived in these terms As the Divinity of the Word is one which fills all the world so altho the Body be consecrated in several places and at infinitely different times yet this is not several Bodies of Jesus Christ nor several Cups but the same Body and the same Blood with that which he took in the Virgins Womb and which he gave to his Apostles And therefore we must observe that whether we take more or less all do equally receive the Body of Jesus Christ entire But first I demand of Mr. Arnaud who gave him that liberty to retrench from this passage a whole sentence to alledg what goes before and what follows and leave out a whole period in the middle without any other reason than that it solves the difficulty and clearly shews Remy's sense Is it fairly done in these kind of disputes to maim passages of Authors which do not make for us Moreover were it some words either before or after we might perhaps suppose in his favour that 't were only an omission or neglect and that he did not mind that what he left out belonged to the same passage but to retrench a whole sentence from the middle of a discourse is I think a thing without example Here then is what Remy says 'T is one and the same Body and the same Blood with that which he took in the Womb of the Virgin and which he gave to his Apostles FOR THE DIVINITY FILLS IT AND JOINS IT TO IT SELF AND MAKES THAT AS IT IS ONE IT BE LIKEWISE JOIN'D TO THE BODY OF JESVS CHRIST AND THAT IT BE ONE ONLY BODY IN THE TRVTH This period eclips'd leaves all the rest of the passage favourable to Mr. Arnaud and therefore he has thought fitting to lay it aside according to the liberty which he allows himself of removing whatsoever offends him but this same period re-establish'd shews clearly the sense of Remy which is that all the Loaves consecrated in several places are one and the same Body of Jesus Christ with that which he took of the Virgin not because they are transubstantiated into it but because they are joyn'd with it by means of the Divinity which is one in all these Loaves THE third passage has these words That as the Flesh which Jesus Christ has taken in the Womb of the Virgin is his true Body crucified for our salvation so this Bread which Jesus Christ has given to his Disciples and to all those which are predestinated to eternal life and which the Priests consecrate every day in the Church WITH THE VIRTUE OF THE DIVINITY WHICH FILLS THIS BREAD is the true Body of Jesus Christ And this Flesh which he has taken and this Bread are not two Bodies but make one only true Body of Jesus Christ so that when this Bread is broken and eaten Jesus Christ is sacrificed and eaten and yet remains entire and living And as this Body which he deposed on the Cross was offered for our Redemption so this Bread is offered every day to God for our Salvation and Redemption which altho it appears to be Bread is yet the Body of Christ For our Redeemer having regard to our weakness and seeing us subject to sin has given us this Sacrament to the end that being now incapable of dying altho we sin every day we may have a true Sacrifice by which our iniquities may be expiated And because all these Loaves make but one Body of Jesus Christ and are offered for our Redemption he has said This is my Body which shall be given for you and added do this which is to say Consecrate this Body in remembrance of me to wit of my Passion and your Redemption for I have redeemed you by my Blood Our Lord leaving this blessed Sacrament to all his faithful servants to engrave it in their hearts and memories has done like a man who drawing near the time of his death sends to his friends a great present for a remembrance of him saying Receive this gift my dear friend and keep it carefully for my sake to the end that every time you see it you may think on me There is nothing in all this but what may very well agree with the Hypothesis of Remy that the Bread is the Body of Jesus Christ by way of union and conjunction with the natural Body This Bread with the virtue of the Divinity which fills it is the true Body of Jesus Christ
is not the stile of a man that believed the Real Presence BUT before we leave Amalarius we must joyn him to Heribald and Raban for they stand all three accused by several Authors with Stercoranism which is to say they believ'd that what we receive in the Sacrament is digested and subject to the necessity of other food which passes into Excrements William of Malmsbury in his epitomis'd Manuscript as the Author of the Perpetuity acknowledges attributes to all three of 'em this opinion The President Maugin affirms the same thing of Amalarius and Mr. Arnaud says his proofs be good And the anonymous Author publish'd by Cellot the Jesuit attributes the same sentiment to Heribald and Raban without any mention of Amalarius Et his quidem says he qui dixerunt secessui obnoxium quid nunquam antea auditum est id est Heribaldo Antisiodorensi Episcopo qui turpiter proposuit Rabano Moguntino qui turpius assumpsit turpissime vero conclusit suus ad respondendum locus servetur Thomas Tom. 2. cap. 19. Lib. 8. cap. 12. p. 874. Waldensis attributes it in like manner to Heribald and Raban Heribaldus says he Altisiodorensis Episcopus Rabanus Moguntinus posuerunt Euchariristoe Sacramentum obnoxium esse secessui Mr. Arnaud endeavours to substract Raban from this number The single testimony says he of an Author so little judicious as this anonymous is not sufficient to impute this sentiment to Raban there being elsewhere nothing in his works but what may receive a good sense But has he so soon forgotten what he himself wrote eight lines above Raban is accused of the error of the Stercoranists by an anonymous Author and by William of Malmsbury This anonymous is not the only Author that gives this testimony William of Malmsbury asserts the same why then does Mr. Arnaud say eight lines after The single testimony of this anonymous Author is not enough If his single testimony be not sufficient that of William of Malmsbury will confirm it and if these two be not sufficient Thomas Waldensis will give 'em his suffrage as I now mention'd Even Raban himself sufficiently explains his own sentiment without any need of other witnesses for observe here what he writes in his fifth Book De naturis rerum The Lord would have the Sacraments of his Body and Blood to be received by the mouths of the Faithful and serve 'em for food in pastum eorum redigi others read in partem eorum redigi to the end this visible effect should represent the invisible effect For as material food nourishes and strengthens the Body so the Word of God inwardly nourishes our souls And in his Book of the instruction of Ecclesiasticks he formally In instit Cleric c. 31. teaches that the Sacrament is taken with the mouth reduced into nourishment for our Bodies and converted or changed in us when we eat it There is no explication can shift the force and consequence of these terms THE question is now whether the opinion of these persons who have been since odiously called by way of reproach Stercoranists be consistent with the Real Presence or whether it supposes that the substance of Bread remains in the Eucharist If we consult Durand of Troarn to know what these Stercoranists were he will tell us that in his time they were accounted the same persons who maintain'd that the substances of Bread and Wine remain'd after the Consecration They say says he that the gifts of Bread Durand de Corp. Sang. Dom. part 1. and Wine which are laid on the Altar remain after the Consecration what they were before and are yet in some sort the true Body and true Blood of Jesus Christ not naturally but in figure And that the substances of the Divine Oblation are corruptible and digested with other meats He says the same thing afterwards in two or three several places and calls these people Stercoranists without mentioning several kinds of 'em as that some of 'em are for having the substance it self of Christ's Body to be subject to these accidents and others who understood it of the substance of Bread IT also appears from the Dispute of Guitmond that this was the sentiment of Berenger and his followers for he introduces 'em thus arguing 'T is absurd t' expose the Body of Jesus Christ to the necessity of Excrements Guitmund de verb. Euchar. lib. 2. Yet whatsoever enters into the mouth as our Saviour says descends into the stomach and is cast into the draught From this visible and corporeal manducation in the Sacrament says Algerus has sprung the filthy Heresie of the Alger de Sac. lib. 2. cap. 7. Stercoranists For they say that so great a Sacrament being eaten corporally is likewise subject to Excrements Which they endeavour to strengthen by several arguments and especially by the words of Jesus Christ who says in the Gospel Whatsoever enters into the mouth descends into the stomach and is cast forth into the draught 'T WILL be said it hence plainly appears that the Berengarians were Stercoranists seeing they believ'd that the substance of Bread remain'd after the Consecration but that it does not hence follow that all the Stercoranists and especially Heribald and Raban held in like manner the subsistence of the Bread and Wine I answer It belongs to Mr. Arnaud to shew us that there were two sorts of Stercoranists the one who held the Real Presence and others that did not believe it For why must we be led by his authority we show that those who were accused of Stercoranism are the same as were opposed for not believing Transubstantiation If Mr. Arnaud will needs have that there were two sorts 't is his part to prove it for as long as he supposes this without proof we have right to deny it him Yet will it be no hard matter to convince him that this same Stercoranism which Authors attribute to Heribaid and Raban is nothing else than the belief of the subsistence of the Bread and Wine in the Eucharist which is to say in a word that 't is exactly the opinion of Berenger and that 't was only to render it odious that their adversaries exposed it under this idea or representation of Stercoranism Which is what justifies it self from the testimony of Thomas Waldensis who tells us that a subtil Doctor of his time said We should interrogate the Priests whether they did not think that this thing Thom. Valdens tom 2. cap. 52. which they believ'd to be the Flesh of Christ was tasted with ones bodily mouth and whether being received into the stomach it went into the draught according as adds he the vile Sect of the Heribaldiens and Lollards taught for they say ALL that this Bread which they imprudently call THE NATVRAL BREAD is the august Sacrament and consecrated Host Here I think we have the Heribaldiens who formally say that the Sacrament the consecrated Host which according to them passes into Excrements is The natural
Bread The aforesaid Waldensis disputing in the sequel against Wicliff says Ibid. cap. 26. that Wicliff proved that the Eucharist was Bread by the experience of nature because a man may be fed with Hosts Whence adds he I conclude that as he admits the digestion of the Eucharist he must likewise grant that it passes into Excrements And thus is he agreed with Heribald and Raban of Mayence who have taught that the true Sacrament was subject to the casualty of other food 'T is plain he puts no difference between the Stercoranism of these two Bishops and the subsistence of the Bread of Wicliff Elsewhere he also more clearly proves that Honorius of Autun believed that the substance of Bread remained or as he speaks that he was of the Sect of the Panites because he alledges the passage of Raban which bears that the Sacrament passes into our food Et ipse enim says he de secta Panitarum Rabani versum Ibid. cap. 90. ponit infra ubi agit de partibus Missoe Sacramentum inquiens ore percipitur in alimentum corporis redigitur BUT if we will besides the testimonies of these Authors hearken moreover unto reason we shall find that there is nothing more inconsistent with the belief of the Real Presence than this pretended error of the Stercoranists and that those who will have these two opinions agree together have never well considered what they undertook to establish It is not possible to believe the Real Presence of the Body of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist I mean of this same numerical substance which was born of the Virgin and is now in Heaven without believing at the same time that this substance is not sensible in it palpable visible extended capable of being divided in the same manner as 't was when our Lord conversed on Earth 'T will be the greatest folly imaginable to impute to persons that have eyes and see the Eucharist and have some remains of common sense to make therein exist this Body without making it therein exist insensible indivisible impalpable after the manner of spirits as they also do of the Church of Rome Now with what likelihood can one make this opinion agree with that of Stercoranism which asserts that this Body is digested into the stomach after the manner of other meats that one part of it passes into our nourishment and the other is subject to the common necessity of aliments What is digested is touched by the substance of our stomach penetrated by our natural heat divided and separated into several parts reduced into Chyle then into Blood distributed thro all the several parts of our Body and joyn'd immediately to 'em after it has been made like 'em whilst that which is most gross and improper for our nourishment passes into Excrement What likelihood is there that persons who are not bereft of their senses can subject to these accidents an indivisible and inpalpable substance which exists after the manner of Spirits Moreover they were not ignorant that the Body of Jesus Christ is animated with its natural Soul and that what passes into our nourishment is animated by ours what a monstrous opinion then is it to imagin that the same numerical Body can be at the same time animated with two Souls with that of Jesus Christ and ours to be united hypostatically to the Word and hypostatically to us On what hand soever we turn 't is certain that 't is an inexpressible chimera to say that those which were called Stercoranists believ'd the Real Presence in the sense which the Roman Church understands it It must be acknowledged that they were Panites as Thomas Waldensis calls them that is to say they believ'd that the Eucharist was a Real Substance of Bread And seeing we shew'd that Amalarius Heribald and Raban were of the number of these pretended Stercoranists it must be necessarily acknowledged that they were contrary to the Doctrin of Paschasus whence it evidently follows that this Doctrin was not commonly held in the Church then as Mr. Arnaud pretends it was For these three great men held in it too considerable a rank to permit us to believe they were contrary to the publick Belief in a point so considerable and Mr. Arnaud himself will not have us think thus of ' em One of 'em to wit Amalarius was sent to Rome by the Emperor Lewis to seek the Antiphonaries as he himself testifies The other to wit Heribald was Bishop of Auxerre and reputed a Saint after his death as appears from the Inscription of his Sepulchre Here lies the Body of S. Heribald and the last to wit Raban was Abbot of Fulde and afterwards Arch-Bishop of Mayence accounted one of the most learned men of his Age as appears by the testimonies of Baronius and Sixtus of Sienne TO these three we must add Bertram for it cannot be doubted but that he was also one of those who were afterwards called Stercoranists which is to say he believ'd that this substance which we receive in the Sacrament was subject to digestion and passed into our nourishment He clearly shews his sense in several places of his Book For having related these words of Isidor The Bread and Wine are compared to the Body and Blood of Jesus Bertram de Corp. Sang. Dom. Christ because that as the substance of this visible Bread and Wine inebriate the outward man so the Word of God which is the living Bread chears the faithful Soul when she participates of it he makes this remark Saying this he clearly confesses that whatsoever we take outwardly in the Sacrament of our Lords Body and Blood is used for nourishment to our Body And a little further Secundum visibilem creaturam corpus pascunt And speaking afterwards of the Eucharistical Body of Jesus Christ Negari non potest corrumpi quod per partes comminutum disparitur ad sumendum dentibus commolitum in corpus trajicitur And again Non attenditur quod corpus pascit quod dente premitur quod per partes comminuitur sed quod in fide spiritualiter accipitur THESE two last Authors to wit Raban and Bertram besides this Doctrin which is common to 'em with the rest have especially this that they have formally opposed the novelties of Paschasus by publick Writings Which is what appears by the testimony of the anonymous Author whose words we have already related for he says in proper terms that Raban and Ratram wrote against Paschasus to wit Raban a Letter to the Abbot Egilon and Ratram a Book dedicated to King Charles and that they defamed him for offering this proposition that what we receive from the Altar is nothing else but the same Flesh which was born of the Virgin and suffered on the Cross and rose again from the Sepulchre and is at this day offered for the sins of the world WE have no reason says Mr. Arnaud to believe that Raban attack'd Paschasus Book 8. ch 12. p. 874. otherwise than
his Disciples Here then adds he we have people who said in the time of Charles the Bald and who must say according to their Principles That the Body of Jesus Christ has all the external accidents which appear to our senses and that there was no difference between the Body of Jesus Christ born of the Virgin and the Sacrament So that here are persons against whom may be maintain'd in an Orthodox sense that the Sacrament of the Eucharist is not the Body of Jesus Christ born of the Virgin He afterwards endeavours to shew that Bertram's Book directly attacks only these persons TO solve this difficulty it must first be supposed as a thing already proved that those who have been since called by way of reproach Stercoranists cannot be those of whom Mr. Arnaud here speaks who according to him believing the Real Presence yet affirm'd that the Body of Jesus Christ had all the sensible accidents which appear in the Eucharist and that Mr. Arnaud could say nothing less to the purpose than what he has offered That this opinion was a necessary consequence of that of Amalarius that 't is from thence he concluded the Body of Jesus Christ issued out thro the pores applying to it these words Omne quod in os intrat in ventrem vadit insecessum emittitur We have already seen from the testimony of Tho. Waldensis that these Stercoranists were Panites which is to say that they conserved the substance of Bread in the Sacrament and said all of 'em that the Sacrament was natural Bread We have already seen that in effect the belief of the Real Presence is absolutely inconsistent with this opinion that the Sacrament passes into our nourishment that it is digested that one part of it is changed into our flesh and another part into Excrements SECONDLY we must observe that supposing 't were true the Stercoranists believ'd as Mr. Arnaud would have it that the sensible accidents really affect the Body of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist there could be nothing more absurd than to imagin they were those whom Raban and Bertram opposed For as to Raban it appears as well from the testimony of the anonymous Author as by that of Waldensis that he was himself a Stercoranist The same thing appears from the proper passages of Raban which I have already related Whereunto I shall add another taken out of his Penitential Touching what you have demanded of me whether the Eucharist Cap. 33. when it has been consum'd and pass'd into Excrements like other meats returns again to its first nature which it had before 't was Consecrated on the Altar This opinion is contrary to that of Pope Clement This Period which I have included in this Parenthesis has no coherence with the discourse of Raban and my conjecture is that it is a remark which some body put in the Margin and which has been afterwards forced out of the Margin into the Text. and several other Holy Fathers who say that the Body of our Lord does not go into the draught with other meats Such a question is superfluous seeing our Saviour says himself in the Gospel Whatsoever enters into the mouth descends into the stomach and is cast into the draught The Sacrament of the Body and Blood is made of visible and corporeal things but operates invisibly our sanctification and salvation of both Body and Soul What reason is there to say that what is digested in the stomach and passes into Excrements returns again to its first state seeing no body ever maintain'd that this happens I think we have clearly here the opinion of Raban on this subject and that now it cannot be any longer question'd whether he was a Stercoranist As to Bertram the passages which I related out of his Book do clearly shew that he was of the same sentiment What can be more unreasonable and worse contriv'd than this thought of Mr. Arnaud that Raban and Bertram have combated the opinion of the Stercoranists which is to say that they have fought against themselves and wrote Books against persons without knowing they were themselves of their party Mr. Arnaud could not say any thing more unlikely and therefore we see that great Wits who believe ' emselves able to overthrow every thing do oft-times overthrow themselves and fall into labyrinths whence they cannot get out IN the third place how little soever we consider this opinion mention'd by Mr. Arnaud and the manner in which he conceives it we shall find 't is impossible it should ever come into any bodies mind unless he were excessively extravagant Not to mention how difficult it is to state how the natural accidents of Bread do unloose themselves from their proper and natural substance to fasten on that of the Body of Jesus Christ nor how the same numerical substance can be above in Heaven indued with its own proper accidents and here below indued really with the accidents of Bread and Wine I shall only say that unless a man doats extremely he cannot imagin that the same numerical Body which is above exists on Earth in a corporeal and material manner as a subject ought to exist that has accidents really inherent and yet is there in the natural manner of a real substance of Bread For every substance that receives and really sustains the accidents of Bread must receive and sustain them in the manner of a true substance of Bread to accommodate it self to the nature of these accidents A substance which receives really the accidents of Bread must have all its parts in ordine ad se as the Schools speak made as the parts of real Bread to the end there may be some proportion between them and the accidents which it receives And is it not an extravagancy to say that the parts of the human body of Jesus Christ to wit his head his arms and other members do exist inwardly in ordine ad se in the manner of the parts of Bread as little crums Who ever saw any thing more hollow than this Philosophy a human Body really divisible really palpable really sensible of a divisibility a palpability and a sensibility which is proper to it and yet is not natural to it but borrowed of another subject This divisibility and this palpability of the Bread which reside really in the same substance of the Body of Jesus Christ made it capable of all the changes which the Bread suffers it was digested by the natural heat in the stomachs of the Communicants and one part was reduced into their proper substance animated with their soul living with their life and united to them personally What did they then believe did they imagin that this same Body of Jesus Christ was at the same time animated with two souls and living with two lives or to speak better with an hundred thousand souls and an hundred thousand lives to wit that of Jesus Christ and of those of all the Communicants of the world personally
John Scot ' s And in the second place he endeavours to decry John Scot and deprive him of all Esteem and Authority In the other Dissertation Mr. Arnaud pretends that whosoever was the Author of this Book Mr. Claude has not rightly comprehended the sense of it and that this Book does not combat the Doctrin of Paschasus And thus Mr. Arnaud pretends to discharge himself of Mr. Claude ' s proof so that to take away from him this last subterfuge and re-establish this part of Mr. Claude ' s proof it is necessary to shew clearly that the little Book of our Lords Body and Blood is in effect Ratram ' s and that this Book is directly opposite to the Doctrin of Paschasus and that John Scot is an Author whose Testimony is of great weight and authority which is what I have undertaken to do in this Answer And I hope these kind of Elucidations will not be deemed unprofitable or unpleasant Moreover I did not think my self oblig'd to enter into a particular Examination of the second Dissertation touching Bertram ' s Book because the History which I make of this Book the judgment which those of the Church of Rome have made of it at several times with what Mr. Claude alledges concerning it in the 11th Chapter of his sixth Book are sufficient to shew clearly that this Author has directly combated the Doctrin of Paschasus without offering to tire the Readers with troublesom repetitions Moreover we hope to give the Publick in a short time a translation of Bertram ' s Book which being but a small Treatise requires only an hours reading in which every one may see with their own eyes what 's his true sense without a more tedious search after it in Mr. Arnaud ' s Arguments or mine AN ANSWER TO THE DISSERTATION Which is at the end of Mr. Arnaud's Book Touching the Treatise of Our Lords Body and Blood Publish'd under the name of Bertram and touching the Authority of John Scot or Erigenus THE FIRST PART Wherein is shew'd that the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord Publish'd under the name of Bertram is a work of Ratram a Monk of Corbie and not of John Scot. CHAP. I. An Account of the several Opinions which the Doctors of the Roman Church have offered touching this Book to hinder the advantage which we draw from it THE Book of Bertram of the Body and Blood of our Lord having been Printed at Cologn in the year 1532. the Doctors of the Roman Church have judg'd it so little favourable to 'em that they have thought themselves necessitated to deprive it of all its authority and to cry it down either as an Heretical Book or a forged piece or at least as a Book corrupted by the Protestants IN the year 1559. those that were employed by the Council of Trent Book 1. of Euch. c. 1. Indic Quirog Ind. Clem. VIII Indic Sandov An. 1612. Praefat. in Bibl. Sanct. for the examining of Books placed this in the rank of Heretical Authors of the first Classis the reading of which ought to be forbidden Their judgment was publish'd by Pius IV. and follow'd by Cardinal Bellarmin and Quiroga and by Pope Clement VIII and Cardinal Sandoval SIXTVS of Sienne treats this Book no better in 1566. he tells us 't is a pernicious piece wrote by Oecolampadus and publish'd by his Disciples under the name of Bertram an Orthodox Author to make it the better received Possevin the Jesuit and some others followed the opinion of Sixtus and carried on the same accusation against the Authors of Proleg in appar the impression of this Book BUT besides that the Bishop of Rochester cited it against Oecolampadus himself in the year 1526. which is to say six years before 't was Printed the several Manuscripts which have been since found in Libraries have Joan. Rosseus proleg in 4. lib. adv Oecolamp Artic. 2. shewed that this accusation was unjust and rash which has obliged the Author of the Dissertation which I examin to leave it and confess that this Impression was true IT was without doubt from the same reason that in 1571. the Divines of Indic Belgic voce Bertramus Doway took another course than that of the entire proscription of the Book Altho say they we do not much esteem this Book nor would be troubled were it wholly lost but seeing it has been several times Printed and many have read it and its name is become famous by the Prohibition which has been made of it the Hereticks knowing it has been prohibited by several Catalogues that moreover its Author was a Catholick Priest a Religious of the Convent of Corbie beloved and considered not by Charlemain but by Charles the Bald That this Writing serves for an History of all that time and that moreover we suffer in ancient Catholick Authors several Errors extenuating them excusing them yea often denying 'em by some tergiversation invented expresly or giving them a commodious sense when they are urged against us in Disputes which we have with our Adversaries we therefore see no reason why Bertram should not deserve the same kindness from us and why we should not review and correct him cur non eandem recognitionem mereatur Bertramnus lest the Hereticks should scoffingly tell us we smother Antiquity and prohibit enquiries into it when 't is on their side and therefore we ought not to be troubled that there seems to be some small matters which favor them seeing we Catholicks handle Antiquity with so little respect and destroy Books as soon as ever they appear contrary to us We ought likewise to fear lest the Prohibition which has been made of this Book should cause its being read with greater greediness not only by Hereticks but also by disobedient Catholicks that it be not alledged in a more odious fashion and in fine do more hurt by its being prohibited than if 't were permitted THUS do the Divines of Doway ingeniously declare their opinion how Books ought to be dealt with that do not favour their belief They would not have Bertram's Book prohibited but corrected GREGORY of Valence and Nicholas Romoeus follow the sentiment of Lib. 1. de Praes Chr. in Euch. c. 2. p. 10. the Doway Divines but this expedient is become wholly impossible since there have been several Manuscripts found in places unsuspected and that these Manuscripts appear wholly conformable to the Prints as we are inform'd In Calvini effig spect 3. Col. 21. Spect. 8. col 72. Book 2. of Euch. Auth. 39. p. 666. and Usher de success Eccl. c. 2. p. 41. by Cardinal Perron and several others after him Thus the Doctors of the Roman Communion finding ' emselves faln not only from their hopes of making the world believe this was a false piece but also of persuading 'em 't was corrupted have been forced to have recourse to fresh Councils to elude the advantage we make of it THE President Mauguin seeing then on
know but two Editions of Sigebert that of Suffridus Petrus and that of Miroeus which in my opinion has been publish'd from that of Suffridus Now as far as one can judg of 'em the Manuscripts of Gemblou and Vauvert ought to be preferred to these Editions because the Manuscript of Gemblou perhaps is the original of Sigebert's own hand who wrote and died at Gemblou We know very well how great a difference there is between the Edition of the Chronicle of Sigebert by Miroeus from a Manuscript of Gemblou and the other Editions publish'd from Manuscripts See Labb de Script Eccles in Sigiber which have been corrupted But supposing this were not Sigebert's own Hand-writing 't is certain the Monks of an Abby know best the hands of Transcribers who have preceded them in the same place It is likely then that this Manuscript was more correct than those to be met with elsewhere This Manuscript of Gemblou is moreover confirm'd by the Manuscript of the Priory of Vauvert and in fine by the Manuscripts of the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord which bear the name of Ratramnus as I have represented OUR Author acquits himself not much better in another Argument which one may draw from this that in the Book of the Birth of Christ Ratramnus defends the same Doctrin which is taught in the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord. He tells us that Bishop Vsher is he that has made this judgment on the Book of the Birth of Christ but that this Treatise being at present publick this conjecture of Vsher can only serve to discover the insincerity of this Protestant because there 's not to be found one word of the mystery of the Eucharist in the Book of the Birth of Jesus Christ He adds hereunto other things which do not belong to our subject and which I do not refute as I might lest I turn aside the Readers mind from the point in hand BUT he is to blame in accusing Bishop Vsher of deceit For what he says of this Book de Nativitate Christi is comprehended in a Parenthesis and there is neither affectation nor heat in producing it It appears that this is a new discovery which he made since he wrote his Treatise of the Succession and State of the Christian Churches wherein this remark had been proper When he made this observation on the Book of the Birth of Jesus Christ he handled a quite different subject to wit the History of Gotthescalc The Manuscripts which he cites were not in his hands alone neither did he suppress them he carefully denotes the places where they were and they may be easily found out After all says he we are so far from reading the Doctrin of Bertram in the Book of the Birth of Christ that we find not one word of the mystery of the Eucharist therein Supposing this be true must therefore Bishop Vsher be an Impostor unworthy of credit That Prelate only says that the same Doctrin is to be found in the Book of the Birth of Jesus Christ which is in that of the Body and Blood of our Lord. He does not make a particular mention of the Eucharist But if he meant so we need only cast our eyes on some places of this Book of the Birth of Jesus Christ to approve of his judgment We know that the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord combating the substantial Presence of the Body of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist rejects likewise as an absurdity the opinion which asserts that the Body of Jesus Christ may be in several places and the Book of the Birth of Jesus Christ distinctly asserts that the Body of Jesus Christ is so determin'd by its nature to be in one Tom. 1. Spicil p. 323 324. c. 3. place that 't is impossible for it to be in two places at once altho our Lord is every where in respect of his Divinity And thus does it combat the natural consequences of Paschasus his opinion which certainly suffices to justifie Vsher if he respected this matter AS to the reason which we draw from the conformity which there is between the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord and the works of Ratram the Author answers that this conjecture might have some force were the question whether the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord was written by Ratram or Oecolampadius but at present when 't is doubted whether it be the work of Ratram or of some other Author of the same Century it is useless most Authors of the 9th Century finishing or beginning their Books with acknowledgments of their own weakness and inabilities like to those which are to be met with in the undoubted Writings of Ratram and in that of Bertram for which he alledges some examples taken out of two Treatises of John Scot. BUT he pitifully eludes this reason It is taken from the whole style and genius of the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord compared with the style and genius of the works of Ratram and not from some sentences which seem conformable therein Cellot and Mr. Claude were of this opinion And certainly th' Inscriptions of the Books are alike the Book of Predestination is adscribed Domino glorioso proecellentissimo principi Carolo T. 1. Mauguin p. 29. Microp p. 512. T. 1. Maug p. 109. Ratramnus and that of the Body and Blood of our Lord begins Gloriose Princips whereas John Scot calls Charles Seniorem He is treated with the Title of Magnificent in Ratram's Book of Predestination and in that of the Body and Blood of our Lord in like manner Ratram being engag'd by the Kings Command to write of Predestination shews great modesty in obeying which also appears in the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord. Ratram commends the King's Piety for his enquiries into Religion and submits to his Censures All which is seen in the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord. Ratram follows the holy Fathers with such zeal that in the first Book of Predestination he brings into every line almost the sayings of S. Augustin Prosper Salvien Gregory upon which he makes reflections And thus does he likewise in the second wherein he only cites Orthodox Authors and the same method he uses in the second part of the Book of the Body and Blood There can be nothing more regular than the method of T. 1. Maug p. 30. Ratram in his Books of Predestination he descends to the foundation and divides his whole subject into two questions we find the same regularity Microp p. 513 514. T. 1. Maug p 61. T. 1. Maug p. 13. in the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord the recapitulations are in a manner the same We see therein the same modesty in not naming those against whom he wrote in conserving the glorious quality of the Moderator of Charles the Bald we meet with the same thing in the Book of
head seeing that when he will he most clearly explains his notions without contradicting himself but that these are only stratagems of a Philosopher who was more a Pagan than a Christian he affirms the same may be found in Bertram's Book which seems in twenty places to deviate from the Doctrin of the Real Presence and which yet seems in as many places to approve of it so that a man does not know where to have him BUT the two parts of our Authors remark contradict and oppose each other For if John Scot had naturally a confused and perplexed mind how comes it that he clearly explains his thoughts when he will and keeps firm when he pleases without contradicting himself This is not the character of a confused and perplexed head Secondly We ought not to believe that as soon as an Author falls into contradiction which has sometimes hapned to the Fathers themselves as every body knows and especially in matters which have perplexed John Scot and wherein he has contradicted himself he then makes use of the stratagems of a Philosopher that is more a Pagan than a Christian Thirdly Our Author impertinently feigns that Bertram has affected obscurity and ambiguous expressions This Bertram be he who he will was certainly upheld by King Charles the Bald and Heribold the chief person of the Gallican Church was of his sentiment as well as Raban and what is more remarkable it appears that he defended the publick Doctrin of the Church Fourthly Our Author should not alledg the judgment of the Centuriators of Magdebourg to shew this Book to be obscure in the judgments of those of our own party If the Centuriators have suspected some expressions of Bertram's Book we know that from 1537. Bulinger cited it with Elogies Moreover that some of the Doctors of the Roman Communion have mention'd Bertram's Book as if it made Commentar in 1 ad Cor. 10. p. 190. for them This is purely th' effect of this prejudice which has made them produce the writings of Raban as if Raban had been of their opinion altho 't was well known in the 12th Century that Raban wrote against Paschasus The Censurers who condemned Bertram's Book and who are publick persons are sooner to be believed than private men OUR Author remarks again a second character of the genius of John Scot which he believes is in Bertram's Book to wit these arguments put in form this crowd of Syllogisms and Enthymemes heapt up one upon another these Maxims and these Principles drawn from the Philosophy of Aristotle For as he shews by the testimony of S. Prudencius Bishop of Troy and Florus Deacon of the Church of Lyons this is the way of John Scot in Disputes he pretends that all this form of reasoning is to be met with in the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord of which he produces three instances BUT this other conformity is as ill grounded as the preceding ones I confess that the way of John Scot is very argumentative One may observe it in his Books of Predestination as Prudencius and Florus have reproach'd him But I do not see that because there are some Philosophical Arguments in Bertram's Book our Author produces but three and those also contain'd in the same Period he must immediately draw this conclusion therefore the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord is John Scot's Nor yet had Bertram named any where Aristotle which John Scot failed not to do as appears in several places of his Manuscript Treatise of Natures But Bertram has not so much as the name of this Philosopher YET seeing our Author puts us upon considering the genius of these Authors let us shew a little what is the genius of John Scot and that of Bertram's whence it will clearly appear there 's nothing so absurd as to make John Scot Author of the Book of Bertram Here are some of their Characters BERTRAM follows the holy Scriptures and the Fathers as he protests De Nat. l. 1. p. 56. lib. 4. p. 167. in the beginning and John Scot prefers reason before any Authority He makes this a Maxim whence he particularly esteems Philosophy and sends us at every moment to the Writings of Aristotle He does thus in his Treatise of Predestination as Prudencius and Florus justly upbraid him BERTRAM follows closely his subject without letting it go out of sight and John Scot makes frequent Digressions as we see particularly in his Manuscript Treatise of Natures BERTRAM seems to stick to certain Authors as S. Hierom S. Augustin S. Fulgencius Isidor S. Gregory and John Scot affects others as S. Basil S. Gregory Nazianzen whom he confounds with S. Gregory of Nysse S. Ambrose the counterfeit Denis the Areopagite Boetius S. Maximus So that a body may say one of 'em apply'd himself to the Latin Fathers and the other to the Greek ones whom he preferred before the Latin ones as he himself affirms in his Treatise of Natures BERTRAM's Latin style is polite enough for the Age he wrote in and I find but one Greek word in his whole Treatise and which he alledges only because 't is found in a passage of S. Isidor which he cited Whereas Epist ad Card. Calv. in Syll. Epist Hiber De Honest dis l. 24. c. 11. John Scot affects a Greek phrase and manner of speaking and intermixes his Latin with a great many Greek words which render his style very singular and difficult as it has been observed by Anastasius the Library Keeper and Petrus Crinitus BERTRAM has no barbarous words whereas John Scot seems to affect them BERTRAM makes use only of Authors known for Orthodox John T. 1. Maug â 109. 111. Ibid. p. 112 113. Scot declares that he will not scruple to borrow Arms from heretical Books BERTRAM pertinently cites all along the holy Fathers whereas the other quotes them with much less coherence BERTRAM has a particular deference for S. Augustin as may be seen at the end of the Book of our Lords Body and Blood whereas John Scot De Natur. l 5. p. 343. does not so much matter his Authority but that he often prefers the Greek Fathers before him refuting S. Augustin by their Authority BERTRAM might have combated the opinion of Paschasus by an infinite number of Arguments taken from Philosophy which he does not do whereas John Scot makes use every where of Philosophical Arguments even T. 1. Maug p. 111 112. 182. to the mixing of 'em with matters which seem to claim an exemption from ' em THAT which distinguishes 'em yet more is that Bertram delivers himself in a most plain manner on the verity of the human nature of our Saviour since 't was exalted up into glory by the Resurrection He teaches that his Body was visible and palpable whereas John Scot in his Book of Natures defends the impalpability of our Lords Body so that one may say Lib. 2. p. 75 76. 99. he fell into
art 4. 1. 4. 5. Photius de Synod 1. 3. 7. Voyages of Petro della Valle 1. 2. 1. Voyages of John Plan Carpin .1 2. 4. Polidor Virgil Hist Angl. l. 6. 1. 6. 6. Port Royal and Geneve agreed 2. 6. 12. Posserin de reb Moscov 1. 2. 1. seq Postel de Republ. Turks 1. 3. 10. Poulets Relation of the Levant Part 2. chap. 20. 1. 2. 5. ch 28. 1. 2. 1. Bibliot Select l. 5. 1. 3. 10. alias Bibliot Select l. 6. 1. 2. 1. Parateolus Elench hoeret 1. 3. 5. Professio Fid. Ã Groecis faciend apud Posserin 1. 3. 10. Professio Fid. Ã Saracen faciend 1. 3. 13. 1. 4. 8. R. RAban de instit Cler. c. 31. 2. 6. 11. Poenit. cap. 33. 2. 5. 8. alias Raynaldus Annal. Eccles ad ann 1199. 1. 2. 4. ad ann 1233. ibid. 1237. ibid. 1245. 1. 2. 4. 1246. ibid. 1247. 1. 2. 4. 1253. ibid. 1256. 1. 2. 3. 1261. ibid. 1262. 1. 2. 4. 1263. ibid. 1264. ibid. 1267. 1. 2. 4. 1276. ibid. 1277. ibid. 1278. ibid. 1288. ibid. 1289. 2. 5. 6. 1299. 1. 2. 4. 1318. 1. 2. 4 5. 1338. 1. 2. 5. 1341. 2. 5. 2. ibid. cap. 3. 1346. 2. 5. 3. 1350. 2. 5. 3. 1351. ibid. 1366. 1. 2. 5. 1370. 1. 2. 3. ib. 1442. 2. 5. 6. 1445. 1. 2. 4. 2. 5. 6. 1514. 1. 2. 4. 1. 3. 5. 1515. 1. 2. 4. 1519. ibid. Richard's Relation of the Isle of S. Erinis 1. 2. 1. ch 4 5. Book 3. ch 5. 7. 8. 10. Relation of the Voyage of Mr. de Berite 1. 2. 4. Relation of the Embassies of the Earl of Carlile 2. 5. 1. Relation of the Missions and Voyages of French Bishops 2. 5. 2. Remarks on the request of M. the Arch-Bishop of Minbrun 1. 3. 1. Remarks on the 18. Tome of the Annals of Odoricus Raynaldus page 1. Pref. Rivels Letter to M. Sarran 1. 3. 12. Roger of the H. Land 1. 2. 1. ibid. ch 4. Ross his View of Religions 2. 5. 4. Rubruqui's Voyages 1. 2. 4. Responsum ad petitionem allat Regi 2. 6. 12. Remig. Altisiodor Comment in 1 Cor. 10. 2. 6. 10. in cap. 11. ibid. in Exposit Canon ibid. in cap. 10. ad Hebr. ibid. Rupert in Joan. l. 6. 1. 4. 5. in Exod. l. 2. cap. 10. ibid. in Mat. cap. 10. 2. 5. 8. de Divin Offic. l. 2. c. 2. 2. 6. 10. S. SAcranus Relig. Ruthen 1. 3. 3. Book 3. ch 7 8 10. 2. 5. 1. Scarga Errores Moscov 1. 3. 3. ch 7. ch 10. Saligniaco Itiner Ter. Sanc. 2. 5. 2. Sedulius opera Pasch l. 5. c. 13. 2. 5. 8. Seiolach Epist ad Velser 2. 5. 6. Stephani jun. Vita 1. 3. 7. Simeon Thessalon de Templ 1. 3. 4. ch 6. Sigismund Comm. rer Mosc 1. 3. 7. ch 8 9. 2. 5. 1. Spondanus Annal. Eccles ad annum 439. 2. 5. 2. ad ann 1524. 1. 2. 2. 1531. 1. 2. 4. 1561. 1. 2. 1. 1584. 1. 2. 5. 1600. 1. 1. 5. Stochovius Voyages 1. 2. 4 5. Sylv. Cathemer 1. 3. 13. Sigebert de Script Eccl. c. 17. 2. 6. 2. Spiceleg Tom. 6. de gestis Abbat Lobb 2. 6. 2. Syropulus Histor Concil Florent Sect. 2. 1. 2. 3. Sect. 3. 1. 2. 1. 4. 6. Sect. 4. 1. 3. 10. Sect. 5. 1. 3. 12 Sect. 10. 1. 4. 6. T. TErtullian de jejunio c. 1. 1. 1. 7. cap. 2. ibid. De Resurr carn c. 37. 2. 5. 8. De Baptismo ibid. Theodorus Abucara Dial. 22. 1. 3. 13. Theodoret Dial. 1. 1. 3. 13. Dial. 2. 2. 5. 2. Theodor. Epitom 1. 3. 13. Theophil Alix Epist Pasch ibid. Theophilact in Matth. 1. 4. 7. in Marc. 14. 1. 3. 13. in Joan. 6. ibid. Book 4. c. 7. p. 2. ch 3. in Joan. 2. 5. 8. Theodor Graphus 1. 3. 13. Theorianus dial adv Arm. 2. 5. 2. Thevenot's Voyages 1. 2. 1. ch 4. 5. Book 3. ch 7. 2. 5. 6. Thomas Aquinas sum 3. part quoest 75. art 2. 2. 5. 1. Thom. Ã Jesu de procurand salut omnium gent. 1. 3. 7. 12. Book 4. ch 3. ch 5 6. Part 2. Book 5. ch 1 2 4 â Thomas Valdens Tom. 2. c. 19. 2. 6. 11. cap. 30. 2. 5. 4. cap. 52. 2. 6. 11. Tatianus Diatessar 2. 6. 2. Turco Grecia 1. 4. 5. Tractatus contr Groecos 1. 3. 8. V. VIncent le Blanc Voyages 1. 2. 1. Voyages of Villamont 1. 2. 4. Book 4. ch 5. Valafridus Strabo de reb Eccl. 2. 5. 8. Valerianus Hom 7. ibid. Victor Antiochenus Comment in Marc. Mss 1. 3. 13. Vigilius contr Eutychet l. 5. 2. 5. 2. Z. ZOnar in Canon Concil in trullo can 32. 1. 3. 9. Zonar Epist ad calcem tom 6. Cyril Alex. ibid. The end of the Table of Authors A TABLE OF THE Chief Matters contained in this BOOK Note That the Figure immediately after the matter denotes the Part the other at the end of the Line the Page A. ABridgments their right use 1. 31 Abyssins ignorant 1. 70 Abyssins superstitious 1. 71 Adoration according to the Greeks and Latins is either subaltern or sovereign or relative or absolute or inward or outward 1. 153 Adoration of the Eucharist the question of it must be considered as a means to clear up that of Transubstantiation and not as a consequence 1. 156 Adoration of the Eucharist double according to Mr. Arnaud voluntary and ritual 1. 160 The Greeks adore not the Sacrament with a sovereign and absolute Adoration as the Latins do 1. 153. seq The Greeks do not practise any of those things which the Latins do to shew that they Adore the Sacrament with a sovereign adoration 164 The Greeks justifie the relative Adoration of Images by the example of the Adoration of the Eucharist 166 The Greeks place the Adoration of the Eucharist in the same rank with that of the Cross Temples and sacred Vestments 166 Abraham Echellensis a decryed Author unworthy of credit 2. 14 Accidents their existence without a subject not taught by the Greeks 1. 186 Alexis Comenius the Greek Emperor favours the Latin Religion 1. 183 Ambassadors of England and Holland justifi'd in the business of Cyril against the unjust accusations of Mr. Arnaud 1. 205 Armenians believe that Jesus Christ was man only in appearance 2. 17 Armenians are real Eutychians 2. 19 Armenians extreme ignorant 1. 68 Armenians very superstitious 2. 72 Armenians reject expresly Transubstantiation and the Real Presence 2. 26 Armenians believe that the Sacrament is the Body of Jesus Christ in sign or resemblance 2. 26 Armenians pretend to renounce their Opinions to cheat the Latins 2. 34 Armenians an account of their Opinions taken by Pope Benedict XII 2. 29 What signified the Amen which the Communicants answered 2. 141 Mr. Arnaud seems to prefer the reputation of the Treatise of the Perpetuity before the interests of the Roman Church 1. 6 Mr. Arnaud censures what he does himself
Grains so we likewise altho several are made one and the same Body with Jesus Christ I believe there 's few expressions to be found amongst the Greeks in the Subject of the Eucharist which exceed these BUT besides what I now mentioned touching the Church we must likewise consider the manner after which the Greeks do express themselves concerning the Book of the New Testament or Volumn of the Gospels when the Deacon who carries it in his hand lifted up enters into the Church This entrance is called ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã the small entrance designing to represent by this Ceremony the coming of the Son of God into the World They bow before this Book and speak of it as if it were our Saviour himself crying out altogether at the same time ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Come let us worship Christ and fall down before him Save us O Son of God Assoon as they begin to read the Bishop throws off his Mantle and Simon of Thessalonica giving an account of this action tells us 't is to give a publick testimony of his Servitude For say's he when our Lord himself appears speaking in his Gospel and is as it were present the Bishop dares not cover himself with his Mantle Isidorus de Pélusé used almost the same expressions before him when the true Shepherd himself appears say's he in the reading of the Holy Gospel the Bishop throws off his Mantle to signifie that the Lord himself the Prince of Pastors our God and Master is present I do not believe the Book is transubstantiated and yet they speak and behave themselves as if it was our Saviour himself which already shews us that the Stile of the Greeks is always very mysterious and that we have no reason to impute Substantial Conversions to them every time they make use of excessive Terms We may likewise see here another Example of what I say even in the very Bread of the Eucharist before its Consecration The Greeks have two Tables one which they call the Prothesis and th' other the great Altar They place on the former of these the Symbols and express by divers mystical actions part of the Oeconomy of the Son of God that is to say his Birth Life and Sufferings They solemnly carry them afterwards to the great Altar where they consecrate 'em so that before this 't is but simple Bread and Wine yet on which they represent the principal passages of the life of Christ and they say themselves that then the Bread and Wine are but a Type or Figure Yet do they speak concerning them almost after the same Germaâân Theor. manner before they are consecrated as after Germain the Patriarch of Constantinople calls them the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ he say's that the Saints and all the Just enter with him and that the Cherubins Angels and all the Host of immaterial Spirits march before him singing Hymns and accompanying the great King our Saviour Christ who comes to his Mystical Sacrifice and is carried by mortal hands Behold say's he the Angels that come with the Holy Gifts that is to say with the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ from Mount Calvary to the Sepulchre And in another place the Translation of Holy Things to wit of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ which come from the Prothesis and are carry'd to the great Altar with the Cherubick Hymn signifies the entrance of our Saviour Christ from Bethany into Jerusalem He say's moreover that our Saviour is carried in the Dish and shews himself in the Bread ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã And as yet 't is no more than Bread and Wine un-consecrated ARCUDIUS observes some call this Bread the dead Body of Jesus Arcud lib de Euch. c. 20 21. Christ He say's farther that Gabriel de Philadelphia calls it the imperfect Body of Christ and proves the Symbols are called in this respect ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã the holy divine and unutterable Mysteries which are the same names they give them after their Consecration WHEN they carry them from the Prothesis to the great Altar the Quire loudly sing that which they call the Cherubick Hymn in which are these words Let the King of Kings and Lord of Lords Jesus Christ our God draw near to be sacrific'd and given to the Faithful for Food At which time their Devotion is so excessive that Arcudius did not scruple to accuse the Arcud lib. 3. de Euch. Greeks in this respect of Idolatry Goar clears them of this crime yet say's himself that some bow others kneel and cast themselves prostrate on the ground Goar in Euch. notis in Miss Chrys as being to receive the King of the World invisibly accompani'd with his Holy Angels that all of 'em say their Prayers or recommend themselves to the Prayers of the Priests and that they usually speak to our Saviour Christ as if he was personally present praying to him in the words of the good Thief Lord Remember me when thou comest into thy Kingdom The Priests answer the Lord God be mindful of us all now and for ever THEY repeat these words without ceasing till he that carries the Symbols is ent'red the Sanctuary and then they cry out Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord. And yet so far there 's not any Consecration and much less a Conversion of Substance WHILST the Symbols are still on the Table they separate a Particle from the rest of the Bread in remembrance of our Saviour and call the remainder the Body of the Virgin Mary They afterwards lay another small piece on the right side of the first in honour of the Holy Virgin to the end they may say in effect say's Goar ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã The Queen is at thy right hand in a Vestment of Gold wrought with divers colours They set by another small piece in honour of St. John Baptist another in honour of the Apostles and several others for a remembrance of other Saints Goar tells us they separate Goar ibid. nine pieces after this manner besides those of our Saviour and the Blessed Virgin his Mother and that this is done to represent the whole Celestial Court They afterwards carry all these to the great Altar where the Consecration is performed but when they speak of these Particles they call one of 'em the Body of the Virgin Mary th' other the Body of St. John th' other the Body of St. Nicholas and after the same manner all the rest I know Goar denies they are thus called affirming the Greeks say only ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã the Particle of the Virgin and not the Body of the Virgin I know likewise that Arcudius seems not to be agreed in this Point and perhaps the Latins have at length caus'd the Latinis'd Greeks to leave this way of speaking But Goar himself say's that some amongst the Latins have been so simple to imagine that the Greeks believe the real Presence of the Body of
no more mens Thoughts than those which were written concerning the Pagans or those the Fathers wrote on the Subject of Christian Religion IT seems these Gentlemen Consult only their own Interest When any Authors savour them they are worthy of publick Praise and when they do not they deserve to be Contemned and their Arguments become strong or weak good or bad accordingly as they are serviceable or otherwise It is certain if Mr. Arnaud's and my Proof be compared together in respect of Form they are equal for we suppose the same Principles and draw thence the same Consequences but if they be compared in respect of the matter the Advantage is wholly on my side for all the Circumstances strengthen my Argument whereas they weaken his The Pagans were Learned they had the Power in their Hands they needed not dissemble with the Christians They knew very well the Doctrines of Christianity The matter concerned the pulling down of their Altars and they were interessed to conserve their ancient Religion to decry these Novelties which had introduced themselves into the World There can be nothing said like this concerning the Greeks as will appear in the Sequel of this Chapter And yet my Argument is not Conclusive in the Author of the Perpetuity's Judgment and Mr. Arnaud's Argument if we believe himself is undeniably Evident that is to say these Gentlemen bestow on Arguments when they are pleased to make use of them the Title of good ones but when the same Arguments are urged against them then they become bad ones This partiality proceeds only from prejudice BUT in the second place without wandring from the Subject in Hand I can oppose against Mr. Arnaud's negative Proof several other Proofs of the like kind I have already made use of in the preceding Book which conclude with a thousand times more strength than his and consequently deserve to be preferred before them according to the Rules of right Reason The Greeks in explaining the Mystery of the Eucharist do assert neither the Existence of Accidents without a Subject nor the Concomitancy or Existence of the Body of Christ in the Eucharist after the manner of Spirits nor his Existence in several places They trouble not themselves with inquiring how our Bodies are nourished when they receive the Sacrament nor of what matter the Worms are formed which are bred in the Eucharist nor several other Questions In short they mention not a Word touching any of the natural Consequences of Transubstantiation which a man cannot but consider and which common Sence discovers without the help of any Philosophy as I already shewed in the tenth Chapter of the foregoing Book ALL that I now desire is that my negative Proofs be compared with that Proof Mr. Arnaud draws from the Greeks not making Transubstantiation a point of Controversy between them and the Latins The Greeks say's he have bin silent on the Transubstantiation of the Latins they neither opposed nor condemned it therefore they believed it as well as the Latins The Greeks say I have for Example bin silent on the Existence of the Accidents of Bread separated from their proper Substance they neither handled this Point nor so much as made mention of it therefore they do not believe it nor consequently Transubstantiation Mr. Arnaud must acknowledg that my Proof is far more conclusive than his for 't is a thousand times more natural for people that hold the Substance of Bread ceases and yet and tast behold all the Qualities and Properties thereof to consider how these things subsist or at least to speak in some sort of it than 't is natural to those that do not believe Transubstantiation to reproach them with it that do believe it If we weigh all Circumstances we shall find the Commerce the Greek Doctors have had either with their own people or with themselves in reflecting on what fell under their Sence has bin more particular and frequent than that which they have had with the Latins That which they saw and believed has bin more distinctly known to them than what the Latins taught or Gregory the VII or Innocent the III. determin'd in their Councils The Interest of quieting their own Consciences and satisfying their own Minds must needs be more prevalent with them than that of quarrelling with the Latins The occasions of satisfying themselves and instructing their people oftner presented themselves than those of condemning strangers with whom they dealt only by their Ambassadours and Interpreters The reasons of their Silence in respect of the Latins are easilyer found out than those which would oblige them to be silent in respect of themselves For what signifies the telling us the Glory of God and Respect to his Mysteries were the cause of their Silence touching the Existence of the Accidents without a Subject For this same Glory of God and respect to his Mysteries would engage them to declare the reasons of their Silence to the end they may be known to all the Faithful under their Charge and to exhort them to the same Silence Were I willing to enlarge my Book after Mr. Arnaud's Example who has hunted after little Stories whereby to bring over again a hundred times the same Argument I should tire my Readers Patience for I could argue touching all the Occasions the Greeks have had to see and administer the Eucharist to discourse and partake of it the Easters in which time the people do universally Communicate touching the Sick that desire it and received it the Books wherein they explain'd the Mystery of it and in general touching whatsoever may administer them an Occasion of considering the Accidents and I might as often draw this Conclusion that they do not believe Transubstantiation seeing they have said nothing concerning this pretended Miracle of the Existence of Accidents separated from their Subject 'T IS the same with the other Consequences of the substantial Conversion A Man needs only his Eye-sight to assure himself that if what we receive in the Eucharist be really and substantially the natural Body of Christ according to the Sence of the Latins it is not in the usual form of a humane Body whence there immediately arises this Consideration how it can be without this Form How it can be in a place after an unlocal manner neither palbable nor divisible thus more like a Spirit than a Body and yet without Motion Sense or Action and in this more like an inanimate Body than a Spirit A Man needs but little Sense to comprehend that if the Substance of Bread ceases there can be nothing found in the Eucharist to which may be attributed the effect of the Nourishment we receive thence Neither needs there much Study to find out that if the Substance of the natural Body of Christ be present in the Sacrament he is then in several places at the same time to wit in Heaven and on all the Altars whereon are celebrated this divine Mystery Yet do they make no mention of