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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 spâ—ritual 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 Râ—futatio 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
of nature Then answering this objection Totum says he quod est Christus proedicatur non in figura sed in re in proprietate atque in natura 'T is then plain that Paschasus and Bertram are directly opposite not only as to sence but terms So that when Paschasus acknowledges there is a figure in the Eucharist meaning by this figure either the accidents of Bread and Wine which cover the substance of the Body of Jesus Christ or the representation of the Passion of Jesus Christ this expression in this sense does not hinder but Bertram formally contradicted it and that the testimony of the anonymous is true For Paschasus expresly denies the Eucharist to be the Body of Jesus Christ in figure and Bertram expresly affirms it AS to wherein both of 'em seem to agree in saying that our senses shew it to be Bread but that inwardly our Faith discovers therein the Body of Jesus Christ this is but an equivocation Paschasus means we must not refer our selves to the testimony of our senses in respect of the substance hidden under the accidents and by the term of inwardly he means this substance covered with accidents which he would have us believe to be the substance of the Body of Jesus Christ Bertram on the contrary argues from the testimony of our senses and concludes that 't is real Bread and real Wine in substance For he maintains from the evidence of sense that there happens no real change According to the species of the creature says he and the form of visible things the Bread and Wine do not suffer any change And if they do not suffer any change they are not any thing else but what they were before And in another place We see not any thing that is changed in these things corporally We must then confess either that they be changed in another respect than that of the Body and consequently that they are not what appears in truth which is to say they are not the substance of the Body of Jesus Christ in truth because 't would be then invisible were it there but that they are another thing which yet we plainly see they are not by their proper existence Or if this will not be acknowledg'd it must of necesssity be denied that they are the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ which will be impious to say or think And immediately after he concludes that the change which happens to the Bread and Wine is a change of figure Vt jam says he commutatio figurate facta esse dicatur He also proves there that the change which happens to the Eucharist does not make the Bread and Wine cease to be in truth what they were before We do not find says he that such a change happens here but we find on the contrary that the same species of the creature which was before remains still And a little lower in respect of the substance of creatures they are after the Consecration what they were before they were before Bread and Wine and we see they remain in the same kind altho they be consecrated And again he concludes that 't is not the Body of Jesus Christ in specie but in virtute because our eyes do not see it 'T is Faith says he that sees whatsoever this is the eye of the flesh discovers nothing therein these visible things then are not the Body of Jesus Christ in specie but in virtue He understands then that the testimony of our senses which shew us that they are still Bread and Wine in substance are true and that were the substance of the Body therein our senses would discover it Now this wholly contradicts the sense of Paschasus I will not examin says Mr. Arnaud whether Bertram understands these Page 881. words in another sense than Paschasus But why will not Mr. Arnaud do this seeing on it depends the real opposition which is between these two Authors They that will contradict an Author says Mr. Arnaud directly do oppose not only his sense but his words and they never borrow the words of those whom they combat to express their own opinion Whosoever designs to contradict an author solidly minds particularly his sense without troubling himself about his expressions 'T was enough for Bertram to refute the new Doctrin of Paschasus and this very thing that he uses his expressions only more shews their opposition for Bertram does not speak of the testimony of our senses on the subject of the Eucharist in the same terms of Paschasus but to draw thence arguments to overthrow the pretended change of substance and the Real Presence which Paschasus had advanced so that this apparent conformity is no less in effect than a real contradiction THIS contrariety of sentiment appears still more in the second question which Bertram discusses which is Whether what the Faithful receive with the mouths of their bodies in the Communion is this same Body which was born of the Virgin that has suffered for us died and rose again and is now at the right hand of the Father Paschasus affirms it and endeavours to establish it by his Book Bertram denies it and proves most strongly his negative The one says that these things nourish in us that which is born of God and not that which is born of Flesh and Blood The other answers us that in respect of what we see and receive corporally which is bit with the teeth swallowed and received into the stomach they do not communicate eternal life for in this respect they nourish our mortal flesh and do not communicate any corruption The one says That we must not stop at the savour nor colour of Bread for were it changed into flesh to wit visibly and sensibly as he explains himself in the same place 't would be no longer the Flesh of Jesus Christ The other teaches That seeing 't is Faith and not the eye of the Body which discovers the Bread to be the Body of Jesus Christ we must hence conclude that 't is not so in specie but in virtute The one ever says that what we receive from the Altar is this same Flesh which is born of the Virgin The other says that this Flesh which was Crucified and born of the Virgin consists of bones and sinews distinguish'd into several members and enliven'd by the spirit of a reasonable soul having his proper life and motions Whereas this spiritual Flesh which nourishes spiritually the Faithful in respect of its outward species consists of grains of Wheat and is made by the hands of man that it has neither nerves nor sinews nor bones nor different members that 't is animated with no rational soul nor can exercise any vital functions Whence he concludes that 't is not then this Flesh of Jesus Christ which was born of the Virgin In a word the opposition therein is so formal and so evident that it cannot be more plain WHAT we have hitherto seen touching Authors Contemporary with Paschasus
Dispute and consider things without passion I am perswaded he would soon acknowledge that the sence he imputes to the Greeks has no resemblance with the Terms of their Liturgies nor other usual expressions As for example we would know how we must understand this Clause of their Liturgies Make this Bread the precious Body of thy Christ and that which is in this Cup the precious Blood of thy Christ changing them by the virtue of thy Holy Spirit Mr. Arnaud understands them as mentioning a change of Substance I say on the contrary these are general Terms to which we cannot give at farthest any more than a general sence and that if they must have a particular and determinate one we must understand them in the sence of a Mystical change and a change of Sanctification which consists in that the Bread is to us in the stead of the Natural Body of Jesus Christ that it makes deep impressions of him in our Souls that it spiritually communicates him to us and that 't is accompani'd with a quickning grace which sanctifies it and makes it to be in some sence one and the same thing with the Body of Jesus Christ and yet does not this hinder but that the Natural Substance of Bread remains Let us examine the Liturgies themselves to see which of these two sences are most agreeable thereunto WE shall find in that which goes under the name of St. Chrysostom and which is the most in use amongst the Greeks that immediately after the Priest has said Make this Bread to become the precious Body of thy Christ and that Euchar. Graecorum Jacobi Goar Bibl. patr Graecor Lat. Tom. 2. which is in the Chalice the precious Blood of thy Christ changing them by thy Holy Spirit he adds to the end they may purifie the Souls of those that receive them that is to say be made a proper means to purifie the Soul by the remission of its sins and communication of the Holy Spirit c. These words do sufficiently explain what kind of change we must understand by them namely a change of Sanctification and virtue for did they mean a change of Substance it should have been said changing them by thy Holy Spirit to the end they may be made the proper Substance of this Body and Blood or some such like expressions In the Liturgy which goes under the name of St. James we find almost the same thing Send say's it thy Holy Spirit upon us and these Holy Gifts lying Bibliot Patr. Graeco Lat. Tom. 2. here before thee to the end that he coming may sanctifie them by his holy good and glorious presence and make this Bread to become the Holy Body of thy Christ and this Chalice the precious Blood of thy Christ to the end it may have this effect to all them which shall receive it namely purifie their Souls from all manner of sin and make them abound in good works and obtain everlasting life And this methinks does sufficiently determine how the Bread is made the Body of Jesus Christ to wit in being sanctifi'd by the presence of his Spirit and procuring the remission of our sins and our Sanctification The Liturgy which bears the name of St. Marc has almost the same expressions Send on us and on these Loaves and Chalices thy Holy Spirit that he Ibid. may sanctifie and consecrate them even as God Almighty and make the Bread the Body and the Cup the Blood of the New Testament of our Lord God and Saviour Jesus Christ our Sovereign King to the end they may become to all those who shall participate of them a means of obtaining Faith Sobriety Health Temperance a regeneration of Soul and Body the participation of Felicity Eternal Life to the glory of thy great name A Person whose mind is not wholly prepossessed with prejudice cannot but perceive that this Clause to the end they may become c. is the explication of the foregoing words change them into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ and that it determines them to a change not of Substance but of Sanctification and Virtue This Truth is so evident that Arcudius has not scrupled to acknowledge that if this Clause be taken make this Bread the Body of thy Christ in an absolute sence Arcud lib. 3. cap. 33. that is to say that it be made the Body of Christ not in respect of us but simply in it self it will have no agreement nor coherence with these other words that follow to the end they may be made c. And he makes of this a Principle for the concluding that the Consecration is not performed by this Prayer but that 't is already perfected by the words this is my Body directly contrary to the Sentiment of the Greeks who affirm 't is made by the Prayer So that if we apply Arcudius's Observation to the true Opinion of the Greek Church to wit that the Consecration is performed by this Prayer we shall plainly perceive that their sence is That the Bread is made the Body of Jesus Christ in respect of us inasmuch as it sanctifies us and effects the remission of our sins AND with this agrees the Term of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to Sanctifie which the Greeks commonly make use of to express the Act of Consecration and that of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Sanctifications by which they express their Mysteries as appears by the Liturgies and those of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the holy Gifts the sanctified Gifts the holy Mysteries the quickning Mysteries the holy Bread which are common expressions amongst them All which favours the change of Sanctification ON the other hand we shall find in the Liturgy of St. Chrysostom that the name of Bread is given three times to the Sacrament after Consecration in the Pontificia four times and in the declaration of the presanctifi'd Bread it is so called seven times In the Liturgy of St. Basil the Priest makes this Prayer immediately after the Consecration Lord remember me Archi. Habert Apud Goar in Euchol a sinner and as to us who participate all of us of the same Bread and Cup grant we may live in Union and in the Communion of the same Holy Spirit Likewise what the Latins call Ciborium the Greeks call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is as much as to say a Bread Saver and 't is in it wherein they put that which they call the presanctifi'd Bread being the Communion for the sick I know what is wont to be said in reference to this namely that the Eucharist is called Bread upon the account of its Species that is to say of its Accidents which remain sustain'd by the Almighty Power of God without a Subject but the Greeks themselves should give us this explication for till then we may presume upon the favour of the natural signification of the Term which we not finding attended with the Gloss of the Latins it must therefore be granted not
Servitude by which the Sacrament links us to God The Body has nothing but what it derives from the Soul and as its pollutions proceed from the evil thoughts of the heart from the heart likewise comes its Sanctification as well that of the Virtues as that of the Mysteries If then the Soul has no need of the Body to receive Sanctification but the Body on the contrary of the Soul why then must the Souls which are yet cloathed with their Bodies be greater partakers of the Mystery than those stript of them We must be strangely prepossessed with prejudice if we do not acknowledge that this Author only establishes the sanctifying and spiritual Communion and not that of the proper Substance of the Body and Blood of our Saviour for if we suppose the Bread to be the Body of Jesus Christ in Sanctification and Virtue it is easie to comprehend what he means but if we suppose Transubstantiation how shall we then understand what he say's viz. that the Gift is indeed received by the Body but it immediately passes to the Soul and afterwards communicates it self from the Soul to the Body Does not the Substance of the Body of Jesus Christ descend immediately from the Mouth into the Stomack and does it not remain there till the change of the Species How then shall we understand him when he say's that our Communion with Jesus Christ is first established in the Soul For 't is certain that to judge of it in the sence of Transubstantiation it would be established on the contrary first of all in the Body which would be the first Subject that would receive the Substance of the Flesh and Blood of our Lord. How shall we understand the Conclusion he draws from all this Discourse to wit that the Souls of the dead are no less partakers of this Mystery than those of the living for the living do communicate after two manners Spiritually and Substantially whereas the dead only in one How in fine shall we understand what he means in saying that the Body has no other Sanctification by means of the Mystery than that which comes to it from the Soul Is it no wise sanctifi'd by touching the proper Substance of the Son of God CABASILAS stay 's not here for concluding by way of Interrogation that the Souls cloathed with their Bodies do not more partake of the Mystery than those which are stript of them he continues to demand what they have more Is it say's he that they see the Priest and receive from him Cap. 43. the Gifts But they that are out of the Body have the great Eternal High Priest who is to them all these things It being he indeed that administers to them that truly receive Was there ever any man that betrayed such a want of memory as this man does should it be supposed he believed Transubstantiation Could he not remember that the living have not only this advantage above the dead to behold the Priest and receive from him the Gifts but likewise to receive the proper Substance of their Saviour Could not he call to mind that the Spiritual Communion remaining common both to the one and the others the Substantial was particularly to the living Moreover what does he mean in saying that as 't is Jesus Christ that administers it to the dead so it is he likewise that gives it to the living that effectually receive it Is it that the Priest who gives the proper Substance of Jesus Christ does not truly and effectually administer it Is it that this Substance which is called with so great an Emphasis the Truth and Reality and which Mr. Arnaud always understands when he finds these kind of expressions the real Body and Blood of Jesus Christ Is it I say that this is not a Truth MR. Arnaud can without doubt remove all these difficulties when he pleases and 't is likely he will find a way to reconcile them with the belief of Transubstantiation seeing he himself has heretofore written that God admits Of frequent Com. part 3. P. 725. us to the participation of the same Food which the Elect feed on to all Eternity there being no other difference betwixt them and us but only that here he takes from us the sensible taste and sight of it reserving both one and the other of these for us when we come to Heaven He will tell us there 's no body doubts but that he is of the number of Transubstantiators seeing he has with so much honour vanquished the Minister Claude and yet that what he has maintain'd is not contradictory to the discourse of Cabasilas I do verily believe his single Proposition has almost as much force as whatsoever I have mention'd from Cabasilas for if there be no other difference between the participation of the Faithful on Earth and that of the Elect in Heaven than that of the sight and sensible taste which we have not here nor shall have but in Heaven I do not see any reason wherefore Mr. Arnaud should so bestir himself to shew us that what we take by the Mouths of our Bodies and which enters into our Stomacks is the proper Substance of the Body and Blood of Christ seeing 't is certain the Elect in Heaven do not receive Jesus Christ in such a manner But it being no ways reasonable that what Mr Arnaud has said at one time contradictorily to what he has said at another should serve me as a Rule for the understanding of Authors all that I can do in his favour is this freely to offer him to lay aside the Proof taken from Cabasilas when he shall have made his Proposition to be approved of in the Court of Rome CHAP. VII That the Greeks adore not the Sacrament with an Adoration of Latria as the Latins do and consequently believe not Transubstantiation The Thirteenth Proof Mr. Arnaud's Eleventh Illusion VVE may I think already begin to doubt whether the Greeks have in effect the same Sentiments with the Latins touching Transubstantiation and whether the assurances Mr. Arnaud has given us thereof be well grounded He appears very brisk and confident in asserting this Point and behaves himself as a Person that has already conquered but 't is more than probable that these flourishes are the effects of that kind of Rhetorick which teaches men to put forth their voices in the weakest part of their cause to the end they may obtain that by noise which they could not by reason But howsoever it may now be demanded what will become of all those Historical Collections Arguments Attestations Consequences Keys Systems those confident Defies and Challenges to produce any thing which had the least appearance of Truth or Reason against his Proofs and in a word of all this great torrent of Eloquence and mundane Philosophy Aurae Omnia discerpunt nubibus irrita donant THE Proofs I have already produced do sufficiently confirm this but that which I shall farther offer will yet more evidence it
preserve the Substance of the Sacrament The Sixteenth from a Passage of Oecumenius WE know very well that the Greeks consecrate the Eucharist with leaven'd Bread and that there is touching this Point between them and the Latins so stiff a Controversie that the Greeks believe their Altars are polluted when the Latins have perform'd their Service thereon and therefore when ever this happens they wash them with exceeding great care before they use them I shall not trouble my self or Reader with mentioning here any thing touching the beginning or progress of this Dispute all that I aim at here being only to give farther light to the question I handle It seems to me then no hard matter in reading their Books concerning this Point to know what their real belief is touching Transubstantiation for we find them continually arguing from this Principle that the Eucharist is still Bread after Consecration AND this appears by the Letters of Michael Cerularius and Leo Bishop of Acrida to John Bishop of Tranis in the Kingdom of Naples for giving an account of the Institution of the Holy Sacrament they add observe how our Saviour has called under the New Testament the Bread his Body This expression Bibliot Paâ—â— Tom. 4. â—dâ—t 4. let Mr. Arnaud say what he will does not well agree with the belief of Transubstantiation for according to this Doctrine it may be affirm'd that our Saviour has made Bread his Body and changed it into his Body but it cannot be said with good sence that he calls the Bread his Body seeing this latter expression signifies he attributes to the Bread the name of his Body which supposes the Bread remains and receives the name of the Body of Jesus Christ Yet do we meet with these kind of expressions not only in Michael Cerularius but in the Triode of the Greeks which is one of their Ecclesiastical Books 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 say they having likewise related the words of the Institution 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Allat de lib. Eccles Graec. diss 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Observe that he calls the Bread his Body and not an Azyme let them then be ashamed that offer in the Sacrifice unleaven'd Bread It appears by the Dispute which bears the name of Gennadius that this Passage Gennad pâ—o Concil Flor. cap. 2 sect 7. Book 10. is frequently used by the Greeks And Mr Arnaud has observ'd that Jeremias and Photius Patriarchs of Constantinople express themselves in this same manner Jesus Christ called the Bread his Body the Wine his Blood He assures us that Jeremias believed Transubstantiation but whether he did or not we shall see hereafter He likewise tell us that Photius joyns this expression with that which naturally denotes Transubstantiation to wit that the common Bread is changed into the Body of Jesus Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but this is meer mockery to desire us to believe that a Term so general as is that of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 does naturally signifie a Conversion of Substance IN the second place the Greeks are wont in this Controversie to reproach Bibl. Patr. Tom. 4. Edit 4. the Latins with their eating the Jewish Azyme and that they eat it as a Figure of the Flesh of Christ You offer to God in Sacrifice say's Nicetas Pectoratus the Azyme and dead Bread of the Jews and eat it as a Figure of the true and living Flesh of Jesus Christ and a little further he that makes the Azyme and eats it altho he has not taken this Custom from the Jews yet does he in this imitate them and his Knowledge is no greater than that of a Jew They apply to this occasion the Eleventh Canon of the Sixth Council in Trullo which forbids the eating of the Azyme of the Jews and this is near upon the same Language of all the rest of the Greeks But these expressions would be extravagant did they not suppose that which we eat in the Eucharist to be real Bread for to eat the Body of Jesus Christ under the Accidents of an Azyme is not to eat the Azyme of the Jews and in effect those amongst the Latins that have refuted them touching this Article have not fail'd to tell them that after the Conversion 't is no longer Bread neither leaven'd nor unleaven'd but the Body of Jesus Christ and that in supposing this Conversion the Question concerning the Azyme's is superfluous as appears in an Anonymous Treatise in the Bibliotheca Patrum and in a Letter of Pope Gregory the 9th which Mr. Arnaud mentions in the Tenth Chapter of his Third Book IT appears likewise by a Treatise attributed to Gennadius the Patriarch of Constantinople that at the Council of Florence wherein 't was ordain'd the Priests shall consecrate the Body of Jesus Christ with leavened Bread and with the Azyme every one according to the Custom of his own Church the Greeks that rejected the Union thus loudly expressed themselves saying Gennad pro Concil Flor. cap. 2 sect 1. That the Council had divided the Mystery of the New Testament into two Parts and made two Bodies of Jesus Christ the one of unleavened and th' other of leavened Bread Which Language would be very improper in the mouths of Persons who believe Transubstantiation for besides that this would not be two Bodies but one alone under the different Species it should at least have been said they had set up two Bodies one made of leaven'd th' other of unleaven'd Bread WE find that the Greeks in this same Controversie to shew unleavened Bread ought not to be used in this Mystery affirm that Leaven is the same thing to Bread as the Soul is to the Body because Bread receives elevation by means of the Leaven so that they call leavened Bread living Bread as being that which has Spirits and on the contrary the Azyme dead Bread a dead Lump unfit to represent the living Body of Jesus Christ and thereupon they ground this Accusation that the Latins eat a dead Lump inanimate Bread and not the Body of Jesus Christ which is of the same Substance as ours and is not void of Soul as taught the Heretick Apollinarius We may find this kind of arguing in Cerularius his Letter in that of Nicetas Pectoratus and in the Answers of Cardinal Humbert and likewise describ'd at large in the Anonymous Author I mention'd The Christians Easter say's he Bibl Patr. Tom 4 Edit 4. was celebrated not with unleaven'd Bread but on the contrary with that which is leaven'd to set forth the Perfection of Jesus Christ For our Lord has united to himself two Natures in one Person and as the Divine Nature is most simple so the humane Nature is composed of Soul and Body or Flesh There being then in Jesus Christ the Divinity the Soul and the Body so likewise in the Mystery of the Sacrament which we celebrate with compleat Bread that is to say with leavened Bread there are three things namely Flower
Leaven and Water But yours far from being a true Sacrament is no Sacrament at all being so different from the Truth But we find this arguing more clearly expressed in a Letter of the Patriarch of Antioch to the Bishop of Aquila Those say's he that Auctar Combesis Tom 2. in not ad Isaaci arm Cath. ambas inv partake of the Azyme are in danger of falling into the Heresie of Apollinarius who did not stick to affirm that the Son of God took of the Virgin Mary a Body destitute of Soul and Reason affirming the Divinity was to him in stead of the rational Soul The Azyme then which has neither Salt nor Leaven is it not dead and inanimate and worthy in effect of Death Our Lord Jesus Christ who is perfect God and Man has two Natures and one only Hypostasis having taken of the Holy Virgin a living Body indued with Understanding and given us the Mystery of the New Testament by means of perfect Bread Supposing the Bread of the Eucharist to be a Mystery that represents Jesus Christ its Substance still existing it will then be no hard matter to comprehend this reasoning of the Greeks for they mean that the lump of Bread represents the Body of Christ the Leaven his Soul or Life and the Salt his Understanding or Reason wherefore they say that the Leaven stands for the Soul and the Salt for the Understanding So that partaking of this Bread we mystically eat the animate and living Body of Jesus Christ such as it is in effect and not such a one as Apollinarius dreamt of Whereas those that partake of an Azyme do only mystically eat inanimate Flesh But suppose these People be lieved Transubstantiation and judge then of their meaning They that celebrate the Eucharist say they with unleavened Bread eat a dead Lump how so They eat not the Substance of the Azyme but that of the living Flesh of Jesus Christ They offer say they Flesh that is dead How so again if they offer'd it in its proper Substance such as it now is that is to say living They eat not the Body of Jesus Christ which is consubstantial with us because they eat an inanimate Azyme But it is false that they eat the Azyme they receive only the colours and appearances of it in the same manner as others take the colours and appearances of leaven'd Bread Their Sacrament is not indeed a Sacrament differing so greatly from the Truth Their Sacrament being the Truth it self it can admit of neither difference nor resemblance Who sees not these People are unintelligible if we imagine they argue from the Principle of Transubstantiation For if they only mean that the matter of the Sacrament must be leaven'd Bread to become proper to be changed into the real Body of Jesus Christ they must consider it in the time preceding the Consecration as for instance were I to shew that these Stones are not proper to build a Pallace I must consider them in the time preceding the Building Common sence leads us to this But these People on the contrary are wont almost always to consider it in the time which follows the Consecration You partake say's Nicetas of an inanimate Azyme you offer to God an Azyme being the dead Bread of the Jews You are fed from the Hebrews Table and not from the living and rational Table of the Lord. You communicate with the Jews say's Cerularius you eat a dead Lump say's the Author of the Treatise of the Auctar. Com. bef Tom. 2 in not ad Is Armen in Azymes against the Armenians you receive an Azyme you offer an Azyme being dead Flesh whereas Jesus Christ has given his Mystery 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with perfect Bread All this does very ill accord with the Belief of Transubstantiation NEITHER will it be less difficult to reconcile it with some other expressions used by the Greeks in this same Controversie as with that of Nicetas which I already mention'd You offer in Sacrifice to God the Azyme the Nicet pect in Lat. Bib. Patr. â—4 dead or unleavened Bread of the Jews which you eat as a Figure of the true and living Flesh of our Lord and that which he adds soon after You say that the Apostles receiv'd the Azymes of Jesus Christ and that they left 'em to you for the celebrating of the Mystery as a representation of the Body of Jesus Christ And that of John Citrius which I already likewise mention'd We offer in Sacrifice leavened Bread for the Body of our Lord 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And that of the Patriarch of Antioch the Leaven stands for the Soul and the Apud Allat Perpet Cons lib. 3. cap. 12. Sigism Reg. Mosc Com. Salt for the Understanding And that of John the Metropolitan of Russia in his Letter to the Pope or rather to the Archbishop of Rome as he calls him Jesus Christ gave not to his Disciples an Azyme but Bread when he said Behold the Bread which I give you Let Mr. Arnaud pretend what he will yet I really believe these expressions do not well please him He may tell us the Eucharist may be consider'd in two different respects and that when 't is looked upon in reference to its external Vail 't is called a Figure and Bread and yet the Doctrine of Transubstantiation receive no prejudice thereby But this will not satisfie the World for 't is plainly apparent the sence of Nicetas and other Authors reaches farther than this for to say we offer dead Bread unleavened Bread and figuratively eat it as the Flesh of Jesus Christ that our Saviour gave Bread to his Disciples that he told them 't was Bread he gave them that this Bread should signifie his Body the Leaven his Soul and the Salt his Understanding this is not a bare consideration of simple Accidents But 't is on the contrary to suppose that the Bread remains for we can neither offer nor eat dead Bread a dead Lump unleavened Bread the figurative Bread of the Flesh of Jesus Christ if it does not remain Bread in its real Substance The Bread can neither stand for the Body nor the Leaven for the Soul nor the Salt for the Understanding if in effect this Bread this Leaven and Salt do not any longer subsist but give place to the Body Soul and Understanding of Jesus Christ Mr. Arnaud may tell us if he pleases that Agapius his Monk of Mount Athos who taught Transubstantiation makes use of this way of speaking that the Eucharist is to us in the stead of Jesus Christ wee shall find he is a Person that would not wholly estrange himself from the expressions of the Greeks if it be true that he received the Doctrine of the Latins But we must go on with our proofs OUR Fifteenth Proof shall be drawn from the little care the Greeks take to preserve the Substance of the Sacrament after its Consecration For it is not to be imagin'd supposing their Belief to
Church do teach that this Proposition the Bread is the Body of Jesus Christ cannot be admitted but in a Figurative Sence Every Proposition say's Occam in which the Body of Jesus Occham quod 4. quaest 35. Bell. lib. 1. d. Euchu cap 1. Christ is said to be Bread is impossible This Proposition say's Bellarmin that the Bread is the Body of Jesus Christ if it be not taken Figuratively and in this sence that the Bread signifies the Body of Jesus Christ is wholly absurd and impossible for the Bread cannot be the Body of Jesus Christ SUAREZ and Vasquez affirm the same thing and were not these three last Jesuits I might likewise say in my turn that here the Disciple is at variance with his Masters In the third place I affirm that in the Discourse of Zonarus the Term of the same relates not so much to that of Flesh as that of sacrific'd as Mr. Arnaud renders it and of buried to signifie not the Bread is this Flesh in propriety of Substance but that it is this dead and buried Flesh which shews how frivolous Mr. Arnaud's Proof is for this can neither be the same death nor burial it must then of necessity be another In fine 't is but observing never so little Zonarus Discourse and we shall find he distinguishes the Bread from the Body of Jesus Christ for he compares the one with the other saying that as the Flesh of Jesus Christ suffered death and was buried so the Bread is subject to corruption being chewed with the teeth eaten and sent down into the Stomach as in a Sepulchre and that as the Flesh of Christ overcame corruption so in like manner the Bread becomes incorruptible and passes into the Substance of the Soul which shews that his sence is that the Bread is the Flesh it self of Jesus Christ not Substantially but Mystically and consequently this pretended Evidence of Mr. Arnaud is no more than one of his Whimsies IN effect suppose that Zonarus believed Transubstantiation and that what he calls Bread is the proper Substance of Jesus Christ is it possible his extravagancy has lead him so far as to believe that this Flesh is at first corruptible and afterwards becomes incorruptible that it is cut and chewed with the Teeth and in fine reduced into the Substance of the Soul Mr. Arnaud say's 't is probable that Zonarus abuses the word corruption and extends this Ibid. pag â—44 Term to all the changes that happen to the Body of Jesus Christ not in it self but in respect of the Vayl which covers it But this evasion will not serve his turn for Zonarus say's that the Bread is subject to corruption as being the true Flesh of Jesus Christ Now 't is not in respect of its Accidents or Vayl that 't is the true Flesh of Jesus Christ according to the Hypothesis of Transubstantiation It is so by the change of Substance Not to take notice that to eat and chew Accidents with the teeth that is to say Figures and Colours stript from their Substance is a singular Fancy THIS Passage of Zonarus which I now examin'd puts me in mind of another of the same Authors who was a Grecian and famous amongst his own People and lived about the Twelfth Century which shall be my Eighteenth Proof The Passage is taken out of his Commentaries on the Cannons of the Apostles and Councils See here what he writes on the 32. Canon of the Sixth Council in Trullo The Divine Mysteries I mean the Bread and Wine do represent to us the Body and Blood of our Lord for in giving the Bread to his Disciples he said to them take eat this is my Body and in delivering the Cup he said drink ye all of it this is my Blood Seeing then the Lord in his Divine Passion after he had poured out his Blood caused to flow from his Side pierced with a Spear not only Blood but likewise Water the Church has therefore thought it necessary to mingle Water with the Wine in the Holy Mysteries THERE may be made two important Reflections on this Passage First he say's the Bread and Wine do represent to us the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ which cannot agree with the Doctrine of the Church of Rome unless forced by several Interpretations unknown to the Greeks as that by the Bread we must understand the Accidents or Appearances of Bread and by the word represent an inclusive Representation of the thing it self Secondly that grounding as he does this Representation of the words of Christ This is my Body this is my Blood it is clear that he has taken them himself in a sence of Representation and believed that 't was as much as if our Saviour had said This Bread represents my Body this Cup my Blood for otherwise he could not ground as he has done his Proposition that the Bread and Cup represent the Body and Blood of our Lord on this reason that our Saviour said This is my Body this is my Blood THIS Passage seeming to determine the Question in our favour it will not be amiss therefore to consider what may be opposed against it to avoid its force Zonarus makes use of the Term of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which may be sayd to be better rend'red not represent but present give communicate and that the sence of this Author is not that the Bread and Wine do represent to us the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ as Signs and Pictures represent their Original but that they present and communicate them to us in effect inasmuch as they contain the Substance of them and that 't is to confirm this Proposition he alledges the words of our Saviour This is my Body this is my Blood But this evasion will not serve turn if the sence and sequel of Zonarus his Discourse be never so little consider'd His Design was to confute the Armenians in shewing that there ought to be Water mingled with the Wine in the Chalice To prove this he asserts we must represent in the Mystery the Water and Blood which ran down the pierced Side of our Saviour when on the Cross and to confirm this Proposition he has recourse to this general Maxim that the Mysteries which is to say the Bread and Wine do represent the Body and Blood of our Lord. Which plainly shews then we must not translate the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 present or give for why say's he the Bread and Chalice give us the Body and Blood of Christ but because Jesus Christ has said This is my Body this is my Blood We must then put Water into the Cup because Blood and Water issued out from our Saviour's Side The Armenians have said on the contrary there must be none put in because the Lord only made mention of his Blood that 't is very uncertain whether the Mysteries give us this Water which ran down from our Lord's Side and that supposing they do give it us yet does it not hence
〈◊〉 Now who knows not that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is of the Neuter Gender which by consequence can neither agree with Jesus Christ nor his Flesh but with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Body which the Vide Damascen de Orthodoxa Fide of Veronnes Impression 1531. and that of Basil Bread is and which we receive in the Communion of which he spake in the beginning of his Discourse He might have found also that these words Honour we him are in the Greek in the Neuter Gender 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which can only refer to the Body and not to Jesus Christ nor his Flesh MR. Arnaud methinks should take more care another time of what he writes and not give us so many of his It is clear it manifestly appears for there is nothing so clear as the contrary of what he say's Damascen speaking of the Bread of the Communion say's that 't is not a Figure but the deified Body of Jesus Christ he would have us honour this Body that is to say that Body which we receive in the Communion with a double purity of Body and Soul externally and internally because 't is double He shews what ought to be our inward disposition to wit a fervent desire he passes to our external Actions which are to hold our arms cross-wise and to hold the Communion we receive on our Eyes Lips and Forehead Afterwards to explain how this Body is double he compares it to the Coal Esaias saw which was not bare wood but wood and fire together Then applying immediately his comparison he adds Thus 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 of the Body and th' other of the Divinity which is joyned thereunto Who sees not then that this double Body of which he speaks and which he compared to Esaias Coal is the Bread of the Communion that it is double being Bread united to the Divinity and that the effect of this Union is not to change the nature of the Bread but to make a composition of two Natures Whence it manifestly follows that one of these Natures being the Divinity th' other is the nature of Bread It is then true as Mr. Arnaud has observed that these last words Sit panis communionis non est panis simplex sed unitus divinitati are the exposition of what he said before Duplex est enim for it is double But because duplex refers not to Jesus Christ but to the Body we receive in the Communion it is therefore likewise true that they expound what we must understand by this Body to wit the Bread united to the Divinity BUT I must puruse the other parts of my Proposition The Greeks believe That by the impression which the Bread and Wine receive from the Holy Spirit they are changed into the virtue of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ and made by this means this Body and Blood Which is apparent first from all those Passages of the Liturgies I mentioned in the Fifth Chapter of this Book the result whereof is that the Bread becomes the Body of Jesus Christ in asmuch as 't is made capable of sanctifying us and that this is exactly what the Priest prayes for in the words of Consecration Now what is this but the Bread's being made the Body of Jesus Christ in virtue SECONDLY This appears likewise by what we have seen from Simeon Thessaloniensis who tells us that the unconsecrated Particles being mixed with those that are consecrated and partaking of their Sanctification become in some sort the Body of Christ and are proper for the Communion of the Faithful For this necessarily supposes as I shewed in the Fifth Chapter of this Third Book that the consecrated Particle it self is the Body of Jesus Christ in asmuch as it receives this Sanctification THIRDLY This moreover appears by the Passages of Cabasilas which I alledged in the Sixth Chapter by which we see that he takes for the same thing to receive Sanctification and to receive the Body of Jesus Christ Which likewise necessarily supposes that the Bread becomes the Body of Christ only in Sanctification and virtue FOURTHLY Euthymius Zigabenius a Greek Monk that lived in the Euthym. Comment in Matthe cap. 64. Twelfth Century confirms the same thing We must not say's he consider the nature of things which are offered but their virtue For as the word deifies if it be lawful to use such an expression the Flesh to which it is united after a supernatural manner so it changes by an ineffable operation the Bread and Wine into his Body which is a Spiring of Life and into his precious Blood and into the virtue of both one and the other MR. Arnaud nibbles at this Passage Euthymius say's he say's that Jesus Lib. 24. cap. 12. pag. 216. Christ changes after an ineffable manner the Bread into his own Body This signifies say's Mr. Claude that he changes it not into his Body but into the virtue of his Body Euthymius say's that he changes the Wine into his Blood This signifies say's Mr Claude that he changes it not into his Blood but into the virtue of his Blood Euthymius adds that he changes them into the virtue of both one and the other in gratiam ipsorum This Addition has perplexed Mr. Claude and therefore he has thought good not to mention it But in adding it because 't is there in effect the whole expression of Euthymius expounded in the Calvinists sence will be that Jesus Christ changes the Bread into the virtue of his Body and the Wine into the virtue of his Blood and into the virtue of both one and the other Who ever heard of such a folly to joyn together the Metaphorical Term and the exposition of the Metaphorical Term as two distinct and separate things Do we say for example that the Stone is Jesus Christ and the Sign of Jesus Christ that the Ark was the Church and the Figure of the Church that the Paschal Lamb was Christ and the representation of Christ that Anger changes men into Beasts and into the fury of Beasts ALL this is but vain Rhetorick Euthymius say's We must not consider the nature of the things offered us but their virtue This is not the Language of a man that would say that the nature of Bread and Wine ceases to be and that we must consider the proper Substance of Jesus Christ under the Vail of Accidents This Expression on the contrary supposes that the nature of these things subsists altho we must not consider it but raise up our minds to the Consideration of the supernatural virtue they receive When then he adds that Jesus Christ changes the Bread and Wine into his own Body and Blood it is true that this signifies according to my Interpretation that he changes them into the virtue of his Body and Blood and not into their
sufficiently enough declare the Doctrine of the Greek Church to wit that the Substance of Bread conserving its proper being is joyned to the natural Body of Jesus Christ that it is made like unto it that it augments it and becomes by this means one and the same Body with him For 't is thus the Aliment we take altho it conserves its own Substance and proper being becomes one with our Body by way of Addition or Augmentation DURANDUS a Bishop and Famous Divine amongst the Latins who Durand in 4. sent dist 11. quaest 3. lived in the beginning of the Fourteenth Century acknowledged the force of this Comparison and made it be observed by those in his time and also used it himself to strengthen his Opinion which was that the Substance of Bread remains and losing its first form of Bread receives the natural form of the Body of Christ Bellarmin answers that these Comparisons must not be Bell. de Sacr. Euch. lib. 3. cap. 13. strained too far that they are not in all things alike and that the Greeks only use that of Food to shew the reality and truth of the change which happens in the Bread and Wine in the Sacrament and not to signifie that this change is made in the same manner And this is in my mind as much as can be said with any shew of reason We must then see here whether in the sence of the Greeks we may extend the Comparison of the Food so as to understand thereby that the Bread and Wine are made the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ by way of Augmentation of this Body for if it appears they take it in this manner Bellarmin's Answer signifies nothing and our Proof will be compleat and undeniable DAMASCEN decides the Question himself in his Letter to Zacharias Damascen E. pist ad Zachar. Doar in Hum. de Corp. Sanct Dom. in Edit Biblii Bishop of Doare and in the short Homily which follows it Observe here what he say's in his Letter Touching the Body of our Lord of which we partake I declare to you it cannot be said there are two Bodies of Jesus Christ there being but one alone For as the Child assoon as he is born is compleat but receives his growth from eating and drinking and altho he grows thereby yet cannot be said to have two bodies but only one so by greater reason the Bread and Wine by Descent of the Holy Spirit are made one only Body and not two by the AUGMENTATION OF THE BODY OF CHRIST BUT to the end it may not be thought this Discourse slipt from him unawares observe here how he explains his mind in the following Homily This Body and Blood of our God of which we partake is subject to Corruption being broken spilt eaten and drunk and passes thro all the natural Oeconomy of the Incarnation of the Word which comes to pass in the same manner as the GROWTH of our Bodies For as to our Bodies the first thing supposed is the matter of which the Embryo consists afterwards the Mother furnishing it with the Aliment of her Blood this matter is changed by little and little and becomes an organised Body by means of the virtue which our Creature has given to nature In the same manner is formed the Flesh Bones and rest of the Parts by the assistance of the Faculties destini'd for Attraction Retention Nourishment and Growth So likewise the Food we take increases and augments the mass of our Body by the ministry of these same Faculties designed for nourishment which attract retain and change the Food And therefore our Lord shews us the whole divine Oeconomy of his Incarnation Crucifixion Burial Resurrection and State of Corruption in this GROWTH of his Body For the Body of our Lord became not immediately incorruptible but corruptible and passible till his Resurrection and after his Burial became incorruptible by this same Divine Power by which he raised himself and makes us also incorruptible But how comes this to pass The Holy Virgin has been as it were the Table whereon was the Substance of Bread when according to the saying of the Angel the Holy Spirit came upon her and the virtue of the most High overshadowed her that is to say the Divine Word the Divine Person who took Flesh of her So likewise here the Substance which is Bread and Wine mingled with Water is placed on the Mystical Table as it were in the Womb of the Virgin for even the Virgin was nourished with these things and distributed the Substance of them to the Body of the Child In fine the Priest he say's in imitation of the Angel let the Holy Spirit come upon and sanctifie these things and make the Bread the Sacred Body of Jesus Christ and the Chalice his precious Blood Then there is made not by the virtue of nature but supernaturally and by the AUGMENTATION of the Body and Blood of Christ there is made I say one only Body and not two After this it is lifted up by the hand of the Priest as he was lifted up on the Cross it is distributed broken and buried in us to make us thereby incorruptible And thus the Oeconomy is finished AND this is the Doctrine of the Greeks the Bread and Wine are made the Body and Blood of Christ in the same manner the Food we receive becomes our Body and this Example or Comparison exactly comprehends three things The first that as Nature observes the same course and performs the same Operations in the Food we receive as it does in the first matter of which our Bodies are composed so Divine Grace keeps the same measures and does the same things in the Bread and Wine as in the Body our Lord took of the Virgin This is in all respects the same Oeconomy They receive the same Holy Spirit are corruptible raised up as it were on a Cross buried in us and in fine become incorruptible The second that as the Food increases and gives growth to our Bodies so the Bread and mystical Wine are a Growth or Augmentation which the Body of Jesus Christ recieves The third that as the Food makes not another Body but becomes one and the same Body with that which it augments so the Mystery is not a new Body of Jesus Christ but the same which was born of the Virgin MOREOVER altho the Greeks use the Simile of Food whereby to explain the manner after which the Bread in the Eucharist becomes the Body of Christ yet we must not imagine they believe the Bread receives the physical or natural form of our Lord's Flesh in the same manner the Food receives that of ours whether we understand by this physical Form the Soul of Jesus Christ or some other substantial Form subordinate to the Soul This is not at all their Belief for they only mean that as the Food we eat receives the physical or natural Form of our Body so the Bread in the Eucharist
Sanctification It is certain the Latin Interpreter could not better Translate than he has done 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 his Image is Holy why is it Holy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as being made Divine by a certain Sanctification by Grace It is Grace which Sanctifies it in making it Divine which cannot be better Expressed in Latin than by these Words Utpote per quandam sanctificationem gratiae deificata And in English As being made Divine by a Sanctification of Grace It appears that this is the Sence of this Council by the Words which immediately follow after For this is what our Lord design'd to do that as by Virtue of the Union he has made Divine the Flesh he took by a Sanctification which is naturally proper to him so he would have the Eucharistical Bread as being the true Image of his Flesh be made a Divine Body by the coming of the Holy Spirit the Oblation being by means of the Priest Transferred from a common Estate to a State of Holyness And therefore as the natural Flesh of Christ indued with a rational Soul was anointed by the Holy Spirit being united to the Divinity so his Image to wit the Divine Bread is replenished with the Holy Spirit It is clear that they oppose the Sanctification which the natural Flesh of Christ has received by Virtue of the Hypostatical Union to the Sanctification which his Image receives by the coming of the Holy Spirit There say they the natural Flesh was Anointed with the Holy Spirit Here his Image to wit the Bread is filled with the Holy Spirit The Question then is concerning a Sanctification which the Bread receives in quality of the Image of our Lord 's natural Flesh and this Sanctification is the Grace of the Holy Spirit wherewith the Bread is filled The Sanctification which the natural Flesh has received is not a Consecration which has changed the Substance of it into another but an inherent Sanctification which letting the Humane Nature subsist has made it become a Source of Grace the Sanctification likewise which the Bread receives is not a Consecration which changes its Substance into that of another but an inherent Sanctification in the Bread which letting the Bread subsist makes it full of the Holy Spirit We could not then better Translate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 than by these Words being made Divine by a certain Sanctification of Grace It will be to no purpose for Mr. Arnaud to wrangle about these Words The Oblation being Transferred from a common State to a State of Holyness 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as if they were to be Rendred from a common State to a State of Consecration for here the Matter is touching a Sanctification which is the Image of that which the natural Flesh has received We must then Translate to a Holy State or to a State of Holiness And the Latin Interpreter of the Council who had not those particular Interests to maintain as Mr. Arnaud has has faithfully turn'd it Oblationem de communi separans ad Sanctificationem pertingere facit I am sorry I have been forced to entertain the Reader with these grammatical Niceties which I suppose cannot be very pleasing but besides that Mr. Arnaud having charged me with a Falsification I was obliged to justify myself There will redound hence this Advantage to wit that the Sence of this Council will more plainly appear and the solid Advantages we draw thence They make two Bodies of Christ the one his natural Body th' other his Body by Institution the one is his natural Flesh th' other is the Image of his natural Flesh the one a humane Substance th' other a chosen Matter namely the Substance of Bread the one is Holy by a Sanctification which is naturally peculiar unto it the other is raised from a common State to a State of Holyness the one is the natural Flesh of Christ anointed by the Holy Spirit the other is Bread indued with the Holy Spirit There is not any thing in all this that can agree with Mr. Arnaud's Conceptions NO more then is there in the Fathers calling the Eucharist not a deceitful Image of Christ's Flesh in opposition to the Images which they called Deceitful C. 7. p. 698. To understand rightly their Sence we must suppose with Mr. Arnaud that they said the Images of their Adversaries were deceitful either because they represented the Humanity separated from the Divinity and subsisting by it self if it were said they were only Images of the Humanity they leaned to the Error of the Nestorians or because they represented the Divinity Confused and indistinct from the Humanity if it were said they expressed our Saviour intire thus they led to the Error of the Eutychiens who confounded the two Natures So far Mr. Arnaud is not mistaken but he has not been so happy in Discovering how they understood the Eucharist was not a deceitful Image For it is certain that in respect of the Error of Nestorius their Sence is that as the humane Substance in our Saviour had no personal Subsistance so likewise his Image to wit the Substance of Bread has not the Form and humane Figure of it altho it seems that an Image should have them So that by this it represented the humane Nature not as a Person but as a Nature bereav'd of its Personality and thus it differed from the Error of the Nestorians Which is what they Express in these Terms As our Lord took on him the Matter only or humane Substance without the personal Subsistance so he has commanded us to offer an Image a chosen Matter that is to say the Substance of Bread not having the Form or humane Figure And in respect of the Error of the Eutychiens they would have that as the Body of Christ was not Abolished nor Confounded with the Divinity but Sanctified and made Divine by means of the hypostatical Union so the Bread is Sanctified and Deified by the Holy Spirit Which is what they expressed by these Terms As by Virtue of the Union our Saviour deified the Flesh he took by a Sanctification which is naturally proper to him so likewise he would have the Bread in the Eucharist as being not the deceitful Image of his natural Flesh to be made a Divine Body by the coming of the Holy Spirit the Oblation being by means of the Priest transferred from a common State to a State of Holyness Now this does necessarily suppose that the Substance of Bread Subsists to represent against Eutychus the Substance of the humane Nature in the hypostatical Union Moreover this is not one of my metaphysical Speculations as Mr. Arnaud P. 669. is pleased to express himself it is the Doctrine of the Fathers and especially of those who disputed against Eutychus and I expresly observed it having for this effect cited Justin Martyr Theodoret Gelasius and Ephraim of Antioch But Mr. Arnaud has thought good in relating my Words to cut off this Clause for fear the Readers
Souls and Bodys that 't is neither Consumed or Corrupted nor passes into excrements but into our Substance and for our Conservation We made use of this Passage of Damascene to shew he believed the Eucharist to be a real Substance of Bread seeing it passes into that of our Bodies Mr. Arnaud derides this Consequence Do's Mr. Claude say's he pretend that Damascene believed the Eucharistical Lib. 7. C. 4 Bread passed into our Souls to become a part of them Surely he will not proceed so far How then will he conclude it enters into our Bodies to become a part of their Substance And why do's he not conclude on the contrary that as these words in Consistentiam animae vadit do signify nothing else in respect of the Soul but that the Body of Jesus Christ unites its self to the Soul to conserve fortify and operate in it his Graces so this expression in Consistentiam Corporis vadit do's signify nothing else but that the Body of Jesus Christ unites it self to our Bodys to preserve and sow on them according to the Fathers the seeds of a Glorious immortality BUT Mr. Arnaud deceives himself not comprehending that according to Damascene and the Greeks there are two things in the Eucharist the Substance and the Spiritual and divine vertue which is imparted to it by means of the Consecration so that Damascene making a distribution of these two things attributes one of 'um to the Soul to wit the Divine Vertue and th' other to the Body to wit the Substance and 't is in respect of this latter that he say's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Not consuming nor Corrupting it self nor passing into Excrements God forbid but passing into our Substance and preservation He say's expresly it passes into our Substance Why will not Mr. Arnaud suffer me to say it after Damascene himself Had he well examined the Doctrine of the Fathers he would have found in 'um this distinction of two things whereof the Sacrament consists one of which respects immediately the Body and th' other immediately the Soul Under the new Law say's Cyrill of Jerusalem the Heavenly Bread and Cup of Salvation Sanctify the Soul and Body for as the Bread respects the Body so the word that Cyril Hie Cal. myst 4. Epiphan in Anapcâ—hal is to say the Consecration performed by the word relates to the Soul The Bread say's Epiphanius is an aliment but there is in it a quickning Vertue And Origen before 'um distinguished the Bread from the Eucharist in respect of what it has material and in reference of the Prayer say'd over Origen Comm. in Matt. 1â— it THE III. Proposition censured in the Books of the Maronites is contained in an Article of the extract which has for its title Nonnulla loca sacrae Scripturae pravè intellecta some places of Scripture misunderstood and is thus described Asserunt Legendum esse hoc est Sacramentum Corporis c. They affirm we must read this is the Sacrament of my Body c. Would Mr. Arnaud without Prejudice or Passion but consider a while the importance of this Proposition For whether these People pretended we must read the Text not this is my Body but this is the Sacrament of my Body or meant only that this was the sence we must give to the words of Christ as the title of the Article insinuates Is it possible that Persons who believed the substantial Presence and Transubstantiation of the Roman Church should either make this correction or seek this explication Was there ever a one of the Latins that ever had such a thought in his mind that we must not read this is my Body but this is the Sacrament of my Body Do they not all on the contrary affirm that we must keep strictly to the literal sence Let Mr. Arnaud consult himself hereupon and tell us whether he could offer such a Proposition and whether he would not esteem it Scandalous and Heretical should any other propose it YET must we observe that Thomas a Jesu who recites the Extract which the Popes Legats made say's expresly that these Propositions which they found in proper terms in the Books of the Maronites or received by the Publick Consent and by Tradition and which they condemned as manifestly Heretical or Erroneous or Superstitious were Errors common to the other Eastern Nations so that what we now Rehearsed concerning the Maronites must be extended in general to all the Schismatical Churches AS to the passages related by Abraham Echellensis a Maronite who was of the Seminary at Rome Mr. Arnaud must bear with me if I tell him that considering the Character which Gabriel Sionita gives us of this Person whom he perfectly knew being both of the same Country and having passed over a great part of their Life 's together he ought to be ashamed to offer any thing grounded on these kind of Testimonies and to suppose us such Fools to give credit to the Relation of a Man so cryed down COME we now to the Jacobites Copticks and Ethiopians Mr. Arnaud brings again upon the Subject of these three Churches the same Negative Arguments drawn from the silence of Authors and Emissaries which he used in reference to the Moscovites and Nestorians so that we need do no more than to return the same answers already made and tell him that if these People had the same belief as the Roman Church touching the Substance of the Sacrament several Authors and Emissaries would without doubt have informed the World thereof and make advantage of this conformity which they discovered between the Latins and them I shall tell him here again what he has bin told elsewhere that when the Emissaries were sent to these People to instruct them they ever carried along with them the profession of faith of Clement VI. which contained expressly the Article of Transubstantiation that the Popes have sent it to their Patriarchs and Proselyte Bishops and that when Eugenius IV. Raynald ad ann 1442. reunited to the Latin Church John the Patriarch of the Jacobites he made him accept the decreee of the Reunion of the Armenians which contains in proper Terms the Doctrine of Transubstantiation BUT after all we may tell him it cannot be supposed the Jacobites Copticks or Ethiopians were conformable to the Roman Church in the Doctrine of the Eucharist holding as they do that there is but one Nature in our Saviour Christ which is the Divine according to the Opinions of Eutiches and Dioscorus We cannot without charging them with the greatest Absurdity suppose they believe the Substance of Bread is really converted into the Substance of the Body of Jesus Christ seeing they hold that Jesus Christ has not a Body there being only the Divine Nature in him Now that they hold this last Error may be proved by infinite Testimonies NICEPHORUS a Greek Historian affirms the Jacobites assert Nicephor Cali. Eccles Hist Lib. 18. Cap. 52. The wonderfull Hâ—â—t of the
when he says he that eateth not my Flesh nor driuketh my Blood altho this may be understood of the mystery yet the Scriptures the Divine Doctrine is MORE TRULY the Body of Jesus Christ THIS term of truly applies it self not only to a thing which hath the virtue of another and which communicates it to us spiritually such as is the word of the Gospel in respect of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ it applies it self likewise to a thing which is not another but only by imputation Chrysostom speaking of a poor body and calling him a man corrects Chrysost hom 11. in Rom. immediately his expression as if it were not just A man says he or to speak better Jesus Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which his interpreter Brixius has thus rendred Hominem autem seu verius dicam Christum ipsum In effect this correction 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 denotes the sence of Chrysostom is that a poor body is more truly Jesus Christ than a man and yet it cannot be said he is truly Jesus Christ in verity of substance He is only so by imputation inasmuch as Christ our Saviour accepts whatsoever is done to the poor as done to himself S. Hierom in his Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians uses the same term of truly on the subject of the Church altho it be not the Body of Jesus Christ but mystically and morally The Church says he is taken in two respects either for that which has neither spot nor wrinkle and which is TRVLY the Body of Jesus Christ or that which is assembled in the name of Christ without the fulness or perfection of vertues which Claud Bishop of Auxerrus or rather of Turin who was an Author of the 8th Century has inserted word for word in his exposition of the same Epistle The Church says he which has neither spot nor Com. in Gal. c. 1. Beda expl allâ—gor in Tobiam wrinkle and which is TRVLY the Body of Jesus Christ The same expression may be met with in Bede As our Lord says he is the Head of his Church and the Church is TRVLY his Body so the Devil is the head of all the wicked and the wicked are his body and members IN all these examples I now alledged concerning the Gospel the Poor and the Church Mr. Arnaud cannot say that Jesus Christ or his Body stand for a figure nor that these things stand for figured truths For the Body of Jesus Christ is not the figure of the Gospel nor our Saviour the figure of a poor man and the Church to speak properly is not the truth figured by the Body of our Lord. Yet do the Fathers assure us that this Gospel and this Church are truly the Body of Jesus Christ and the Poor are truly Jesus Christ Whence it follows there 's nothing more vain than Mr. Arnauds remark That we cannot say the Bread and Wine of the Eucharist are truly the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ because the Bread and Wine stand not for a thing figured nor the Body of Jesus Christ for a figure On this Maxim the Fathers could not say the Church is truly the Body of Jesus Christ and the Gospel truly this Body nor that the Poor are truly the Lord himself and yet they have said it as well as that the Eucharist is truly the Body Granting Mr. Arnaud one cannot say a figure as a figure is really the thing it self which it represents he can hence conclude no more but this that what the Fathers have said of the Bread of the Eucharist viz. that it is truly the Body of Jesus Christ they did not say this in respect of the Bread being a figure but this does not hinder 'um from saying it on other accounts either inasmuch as that the Bread is accompanied with the whole virtue of the Body or inasmuch as it communicates this virtue spiritually to our souls THERE are so many several respects wherein we may say the Sacrament is the true Body or truly the Body of Jesus Christ without any regard to its substance that 't is matter of real wonder to me Mr. Arnaud should so vehemently urge those terms and pretend 'um to be such a great argument For example those that consider the Heresie of the Marcionites and Manichees who denied our Saviour Christ assumed a true Body and allowed only a phantasm might not they say of the Eucharist that 't is our Lords true Body to signifie it to be the mystery of a true Body and not the mystery of a false and imaginary one such as these Hereticks attributed to him in the same sense as a Roman Catholick who has regard to the false Idea which the Jews form to themselves of a temporal Messias may well say of a Crucifix or another image of our Saviour that this is the true Messias who was to come into the world in opposition to the fantastical Messias of the Unbelievers THOSE that respect the truth of the words of our Saviour who called the Bread his Body might not they likewise say 't is truly his Body not to determine the sense of these words but to establish only the certainty of them and represent 'um true beyond all question in the same sense in reference to prophane persons who scoff at the words of S. Paul who tells us that we are buried with Christ in Baptism and made one and the same plant with him through the conformity of his Death and Resurrection I would not scruple to say that Baptism is truby our death our Burial and Resurrection with Jesus Christ to signifie only that the words of the Apostle are very true being rightly understood SUCH as consider the figures and legal shadows which represented the Body of Christ very imperfectly which gave only a confused and obscure Idea of it and communicated only faintly the virtue of it might not they say in comparing them with our Eucharist that this here is the true Body of Jesus Christ to signifie that it gives us a true lively distinct and perfect Idea of it that it fully communicates it to the hearts of the faithful and makes it fell all the virtues of it in the same sense as Cyril of Jerusalem comparing the ancient figures with our Baptism did not stick to call this here the truth in opposition to the figure Pass we says he from Cyril Hieros Catech. myst 1. old things to new and from the figure to the TRVTH There Moses was sent from God into Egypt here Jesus Christ who was sent from the Father is come into the world There Moses was sent to deliver the people from the oppression of Egypt here Jesus Christ was sent to deliver us from the bondage of sin There the Blood of a Lamb stopt the destroying Angel here the Blood of Jesus Christ the Lamb without spot or wrinkle protects us against the Devils There the tyrant pursued the people to the Red Sea here the Devil pursues us as
the virtue of the Divine Word it is truly the Body and Blood of Christ yet not corporeally but spiritually That there is a great deal of difference between this Body in which Jesus Christ has suffered and that Body which is Consecrated in the Eucharist For the Body with which our Saviour has suffered was born of the Virgin has Blood Bones Skin Sinews and is indued with a reasonable Soul But his spiritual Body which we call the Eucharist is composed of several grains without Blood Bones Members and Soul and therefore we must not understand any thing of it corporeally but spiritually II. Mr. ARNAVD cannot hinder it from being true that the Ibidem people were instructed in this manner The heavenly food with which the Jews were nourished by the space of forty years and the Water which ran from the Rock represented the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ which we now every day offer in the Church They were the same things which we offer at this day not corporeally but spiritually We have already told you that our Saviour Christ before his Passion Consecrated Bread and Wine to be his Eucharist and said This is my Body and Blood He had not yet suffered and yet he changed by his invisible virtue this Bread into his own Body and this Wine into his own Blood in the same manner as he had already done in the Wilderness before he was incarnate when he changed the heavenly Manna into his Flesh and the Water which ran from the Rock into his own Blood He that eats my Flesh and drinks my Blood has Eternal Life He does not command us to eat that Body which he assum'd nor drink that Blood which he spilt for us but by this he means the holy Eucharist which is spiritually his Body and Blood which whosoever shall taste with a pure heart shall live eternally Vnder the ancient Law the Faithful offered to God several Sacrifices which signified the Body of Jesus Christ to come this Body I say which he offered to God his Father as a Sacrifice for our Sins But this Eucharist which we now Consecrate on Gods Altar is the Commemoration of the Body of Jesus Christ offered for us and Blood shed for us according as he himself has commanded saying Do this in remembrance of me III. Mr. ARNAVD must be remembred that Elfric Abbat of Serm. Elfrici apud Eund Voloc Malmâ—sbury and who was afterwards as 't is thought Arch-bishop of Canterbury and lived in the same time wrote That the Eucharist is not the Body of Jesus Christ corporally but spiritually not the Body in which Jesus Christ has suffered but the Body in which he spake the night before his Passion when he Consecrated the Bread and Wine and said of the Consecrated Bread This is my Body and of the Consecrated Wine This is my Blood which is shed for many for the remission of sins The Lord who before his Passion Consecrated the Eucharist and said the Bread was his Body and the Wine truly his Blood does himself every day Consecrate by the hands of the Priest the Bread into his Body and the Wine into his Blood by a spiritual mystery as we find it written This enlivening Bread is not in any sort the same Body in which our Lord suffered and the Consecrated Wine is not the Blood of our Lord which was shed as to the corporeal matter but it is as to the spiritual The Bread was his Body and the Wine his Blood as the Bread of Heaven which we call the Manna with which the people of God were nourished during forty years and the water which ran from the Rock in the Desart was his Blood as says the Apostle in one of his Epistles they ate of the same spiritual food and drank of the same spiritual drink The Apostle does not say corporally but spiritually For Jesus Christ was not then born nor his Blood spilt when the people ate of this food and drank of this Rock IV. Mr. ARNAVD cannot hinder Wulstin Bishop of Salisbury in Mss. in Colleg. S. Bened. Cant. his Sermon which he made to his Clergy from speaking in this manner This Sacrifice is not the Body of Jesus Christ wherein he suffered nor his Blood which was shed for us but it is made spiritually his Body and Blood as the Manna which fell from Heaven and the water which gushed out of the Rock according to the saying of S. Paul I will not have you Brethren to be ignorant that our Fathers have been all under a Cloud and pass'd the Sea and all of 'em baptiz'd by Moses in the Cloud and in the Sea and that they have all eaten the same spiritual food and drank the same spiritual drink for they drank out of the spiritual Rock which followed them Now this Rock was Christ and therefore the Psalmist says he gave them the Bread of Heaven Man has eaten the Angels food We likewise without doubt eat the Bread of Angels and drink of this Rock which signifies Christ every time we approach with Faith to the Sacrifice of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ V. Mr. ARNAVD must know that the people were publickly In eod Mss. Eccl. Vigorn taught That Jesus Christ brake the Bread to represent the fraction of his Body that he bless'd the Bread and brake it because it pleased him so to submit the human nature which he had taken to death that he has also added that he had in it a treasure of Divine immortality And because Bread strengthens the body and the Wine begets blood in the flesh therefore the Bread relates mystically to the Body and the Wine to the Blood VI. He must know that Heriger Abbot of Lobbs in the County of Sig de Script Eccles cap. 137. de Cest Abb. Lob. tom 6. Spicil p. 591. Liege publickly condemned Paschasus his Doctrin as new and contrary to the Faith of the Church Which we learn by Sigibert and the continuer of the Acts of the Abbots of Lobbs for both of 'em say That he produc'd against Rabbert a great many passages of the Fathers Writings touching the Body and Blood of our Lord. VIII Mr. ARNAVD himself confesses that John Scot who withdrew Book 9. ch 6. p. 909. into England about the end of the preceding Century made perhaps some Disciples of his Doctrin 'T is true he would have these Disciples to be secret But why secret John Scot kept not himself private Bertran and Raban were neither of 'em in private Those that disliked Paschasus his Novelties hid not themselves in the 9th Century Why then must the Disciples of John Scot lie secret in the 10th wherein were Homilies that were filled with Doctrins contrary to that of Paschasus publickly read Besides as I have already said there 's no likelihood that Odon Arch-bishop of Canterbury should think himself oblig'd to have recourse to such a famous miracle as is that related by William of Malmsbury to
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
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
inconsistent with Transubstantiation 1. 40 Fathers in what manner they explain themselves when they design the nature of the Sacrament 2. 92 Feast of God rejected by the Greeks 1. 165 Formulary of the re-union between the Latins and the Greeks different in Greek from the Latin 1. 249 G. GEorgiens very ignorant 1. 68 Greeks very ignorant 1. 64 Greeks Bishops leave their Flocks to the Emissaries for Money 1. 98 Greeks superstitious 1. 72 Greeks much degenerated in their manners 1. 63 Greeks entreat the assistance of the Latins 1. 74. seq Greeks have always flattered the Popes with the hope of their re-union 1. 81 Greeks of two sorts the one united to the Roman Church the others not united 1. 109. seq Greeks re-united out of this Dispute 1. 110 Greeks Schismaticks of two sorts the one more rigid the others less 1. 87 Greeks do not believe the Real Presence of the Latins 1. 112. 234 Greeks reject the term of Transubstantiation 1. 114 Greek Apostat cenjured for putting into his Catechism the word Transubstantiation 1. 115 Greeks must use the term of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if they believe the substantial conversion 1. 115. seq Greeks in their re-union have changed the terms of the Latins 1. 224 seq Greeks of the Council of Florence held not Transubstantiation 1. 127 Greeks Proselytes of the Latins express themselves differently when converted 1. 128 Greeks only receive the seven first Councils 1. 122 Greeks say our Saviour is present in the Book of the Gospel 1. 131 Greeks speak of the Bread and Wine before the Consecration in the same manner as aster 1. 131 Greeks prostrate themselves to the Bread and Wine before they be consecrated 1. 132 Greeks make several Particles 132 Greeks call the Particles of the Body of the Virgin the Body of S. Nicolas c. 1. 131 Greeks joyn the small particles with the great ones 1. 131 Greeks say that these Particles participate of our Lord's Body and Blood 1 136 Greeks only establish a spiritual Communion with Jesus Christ 1. 148 Greeks disputing on the Azyms suppose the Eucharist to be real Bread 1. 169 Greeks neglect the substance of the Sacrament 1. 172 Greeks teach not the necessary consequences of Transubstantiation nor the Real Presence 1. 185 Greeks do not believe there 's made any impression of the physical form of the Body of Jesus Christ on the Bread 1. 231 Greeks prostrate themselves before the Book of the Gospel 1. 158 Greeks explain these words This is my Body in a sense of virtue 1. 307 Greeks reject the Apochrypha 1. 280 Greeks have nothing determinate amongst 'em touching the state of Souls after death 1. 209 Greeks in their re-union at Florence and elsewhere with the Latins never pretended to receive their Doctrin 1. 287 Greeks little solicitous about affairs of Religion 1. 287 Greek Bishops love not disputes 1. 287 Greeks contented with maintaining their Doctrins without condemning those of the Latins 1. 287 I. JAcobits believe that Jesus Christ was man only in appearance 2. 17 Jacobits believe not Transubstantiation nor the Real Presence 2. 54 Jacobits reject Auricular Confession 1. 282 John le Fevre a fabulous Author 2. 9 John the Parisian maintain'd in the 14th Century that Transubstantiation was not an Article of Faith 1. 288 Jesus Christ alone not the Priest gives in the Communion his Body and his Blood 1. 148 Jesus Christ preached his Gospel to the damned according to the Greeks 1. 280 Infallibility of the Roman Church is a thing of which the ordinary sort of people cannot assure themselves 1. 29 Infallibility of the Roman Church overthrown by the Author of the Perpetuity 1. 53 Infallibility popular is a Principle to be proved 1. 54 Infallibility double 1. 55 Invocation of Saints rejected by the Greeks in one sense 1. 203 Judgment of the Faculty of Paris on the affair of John the Parisian 1. 289 K. KNowledg distinct is taken in two senses 2. 168 Knowledg distinct and popular knowledg are not the same 2. 170 Knowledg distinct and knowledg popular are not the same 2. ibid. L. LAnguage double of Mr. Arnaud on the subject of the Eucharist refuted 1. 347. seq Latins establish Latin Bishops in Palestin and drive out the Greek ones 1. 75 Latins constrain the Greeks to embrace their Religion 1. 77 Latins fill Greece with Inquisitors 1. 78 Latins have done all they could to introduce Transubstantiation amongst the Eastern people 1. 106 Latins in the re-union at the Florentin Council leave their usual expressions 127 Latins greatly perplexed touching the nourishment which our bodies receive in the Eucharist 1. 187 Latins cause their Greek Proselytes to profess the Doctrin of Transubstantiation 1. ibid. Latins have never disputed with the Greeks about their general expressions 1. 290 Latins dreaded by the Greeks 1. 285 Legats Excommunicate the Patriarch of Constantinople 1. 82 Liturgies Greek denote the Bread to be made the Body of Jesus Christ in sanctification 1. 140 Liturgies Greek commonly term the Eucharist Bread 1. 141 Liturgies Greek direct Prayers to our Saviour in Heaven after the Consecration of the Bread 1. 142 Liturgies contain not one clause which denotes the substantial Presence 1. 142 M. MAronits believe neither Transubstantiation nor the Real Presence before their union to the Church of Rome 2. 52 Maronits very ignorant 1. 69 Manuel Comnenus Greek Emperor favours the Latins 1. 83 Matter subsists in the Eucharist after Consecration 2. 90 Method lawful whereby to examin the Controversie of the Eucharist Pref. Methods of Father Maimbourg and Nouet compared ibid. Method of Mr. Arnaud yields new advantages ibid. Method of the Perpetuity four considerations thereon 1. 5 Method of Controversie ought to be grounded on Principles either granted by both sides or well proved ones 1. 9 Method of prescription of the Author of the Perpetuity fruitless 1. 26 Method of the Perpetuity reduces us after many disputes to begin again 1. 52 Michael Paripanacius Greek Emperor favours the Roman Church 1. 82 Paleologus earnestly labours for a re-union 1. 84 Moscovits very ignorant 1. 69 Moscovits have no Preachers 2. 2 Moscovits very superstitious 2. ibid. Moscovits differ in many things from the Greeks 2. 3 N. NEstorians very ignorant 1 69 Nestorians believe not Transubstantiation c. 2. 50 Nestorians use not Auricular Confession nor confirmation 1. 282 Nisetas Pectoratus forced to burn his Book which he wrote against the Latins 1. 82 O. ORiental parts o'respread with Monks and Emissaries since the 11th Century 1. 90 Odeâ—born a Lutheran was deceived touching the Adoration which the Greeks give the Sacrament 1. 163 Oriental people say that our Saviour dipt the Bread which he gave to Judas to take off its Consecration 2. 52 Oriental people hold that the substance of the Eucharist disperses it self immediately over all the parts of our body 2. 52 Oriental people say we must read This is the Sacrament of my Body 2. 53 P. PAisius
but supposes on the contrary they are not consecrated for if the Greeks believed they were consecrated it would be in vain for the Latins to demand wherefore they joyn them with that which is consecrated It appears likewise by Arcudius that Gabriel of Philadelphia maintains this Opinion of the non-Consecration of these Particles not only as the bare Opinion of Simeon of Thessalonica but as that of the whole Greek Church for he recites these words of Gabriel What is it which perswades me Arcud lib. 5. cap. 11. of this 'T is first the Faith and in the next place the Authority of the Holy Fathers but in fine I am perswaded of this because 't is the Doctrine which the Catholick Church dispersed over the Face of the whole Earth teacheth and confirmeth By this Catholick Church he means that of the Greeks In like manner the Jesuit Francis Richard an Emissary speaking of this Belief touching the non-consecration of the Particles tells us that he has had several Relation of the Isle of St. Erini Disputes with the Papa's that embraced this False Opinion and that the People for want of Instruction know not what to believe Had Mr. Arnaud carefully perused Leo Allatius his chief Author who has furnished him with the greatest part of his Materials touching this Dispute about the Greeks he might have found this Sentiment to be the same with that of the Monks of Mount Athos All the Monks say's he that inhabit Mount Athos are of this Epist 2. ad Nihus Opinion as testifies Athanasius Venoire the Archbishop of Imbre who dwelt a long time with them and I my self have seen several who were Priests that zealously maintain'd the same thing BUT be it as it will Mr. Arnaud and I would draw from one and the same Principle very different Conclusions the Principle is that the Greeks do not believe that the Particles are consecrated his Conclusion is that they then hold Transubstantiation and mine on the contrary that they then do not believe it Let us now see which of these Conclusions is the truest HE tells us that when any Object against the Greeks that if their Opinion be true it would follow that they which communicated of these Partcles Lib. 4. cap. 1. pag. 330. would not receive the Body of Jesus Christ they answer there is put into the cup part of the Host truly consecrated which is mixt with its Particles not consecrated out of which afterwards they distribute in a spoon the Communion to the Laity so that it commonly happens that all in general receive some part of the Body of Jesus Christ and when it should fall out otherwise it would only follow they communicated but of one kind BUT this pretended Answer of the Greeks hath no other Foundation than Mr. Arnaud's Authority who alleges no Author to confirm it and Arcudius who manages this Dispute against Simeon and Gabriel and whence Mr. Arnaud has taken all he knows makes no mention of it HE adds That this Errour invincibly proves the Greeks hold Transubstantiation and that we need but consider after what manner they express it And he afterwards produces the Passages of Simeon and Gabriel The Church upon just Grounds say's Simeon offers these Particles to shew that this lively Sacrifice sanctifies both the quick and dead but she makes them not Gods by nature He means that as the Saints are united to God by Grace but become not Gods in their nature so these Particles are united to the Body of Jesus Christ altho they do not therefore become his Body And this he clearly expresses in these words The Saints being united to Jesus Christ are deifi'd by Grace but become not Gods by nature so likewise the Particles which are offered upon their account obtain holiness by the participation of the Body and Blood and become one with this Body and Blood by this mixture but if you consider them separately they are not the very Body and Blood of Christ but are only joyned to them The Archbishop of Philadelphia say's the same thing in using the same comparison as the Souls of the Saints say's he being brought to the light of the Divinity which enlightens them become Gods only by participation and not by nature so these Particles altho united to the Flesh and Blood of Jesus Christ are not changed but receive holiness by participation After this Mr. Arnaud concludes in these words it is as clear as the day that all this has no sence but only as it relates to the Doctrine of Transubstantiation and that as these Authors suppose these Particles are not transubstantiated so they suppose the greatest portion which is offered in the name of Jesus Christ and from which alone is taken what is reserved for the sick is effectually transubstantiated and becomes the very Body of Jesus Christ BUT I shall not stick to tell him his Philosophy deceives him for these Authors do not dispute on this Point that is to say whether these Particles are transubstantiated or not But whether they are made the Body of Jesus Christ in the same manner as the great Portion And this does in truth suppose that the great Portion becomes this Body but not that it is transubstantiated The comparison they use does not favour this pretended supposition for they mean no more by it than this that as the Saints are indeed united unto God and partake of his holiness but become not Gods by nature so the Particles which represent the Saints are really united with the great one which represents our Saviour Christ and partake of its Sanctification but they become not effectually what the great one is made to wit the Body of Jesus Christ And this is their reasoning which does not satisfie us how the great Particle is made this Body whether by a Substantial Conversion or otherwise And thus does Mr. Arnaud's Logick conclude nothing LET us see now the Conclusion I pretend to draw hence First we are agreed that in Simeon's sence these little Particles are bread in Substance and represent the Saints Now if we suppose the biggest ceases to be Bread and is made the proper Substance of Jesus Christ there can be nothing more impertinent than the Ceremony of the Greeks to place in the same Mystery round about our Saviour who is in his own proper Substance not real Saints but little morsels of Bread which represent them Now methinks there is a great deal more reason in saying that the great Particle is the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ and the small ones according to their way mystical Saints than to say that the great one is substantially Jesus Christ and the small ones are only Bread in Substance and Saints in the Mystery MOREOVER what means Simeon when he tells us that the small Apud Arcud lib. 3. cap. 11. Particles become one with the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ by mixture which is to say that when they joyn them with
reads 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 thâ—se 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
Sun of our Souls which at this time appeareth and communicates himself to all them that are in the Bands of the Flesh in the manner he himself pleases but he shall then visibly manifest himself without a Vail when we shall see him as he is and shall gather together the Eagles about the dead Body He afterwards proves that the Souls seperate from the Bodies are far more fit to partake of the Mysteries than when cloathed with their Flesh that whatsoever rest or recompence they enjoy is nothing else but this Bread and this Cup of which the dead have as much right to participate as the living and for this reason our Saviour calls the Saints felicity a Supper to shew us thereby that 't is nothing else but this Table And this already gives us great cause to suspect that Cabasilas did not believe that which we eat in the Sacrament to be the proper Substance of the Body and Bloud of Christ for we must not imagine he thought the Souls of the dead did really partake thereof They do indeed participate of the Body and Blood of Christ but after a spiritual manner which is accomplished without our Saviour's Substance entring into them Yet Cabasilas say's the dead receive the Holy Gifts that they receive the Mystery and that which makes up their felicity is this Bread and Cup that they partake of it and that whatsoever appertains to this Mystery is common to them with the Living All which is well enough understood provided it be supposed we have no other Communion with our Saviour Christ in the Eucharist than what is Spiritual for the Souls seperate from the Body have this as well as we and partake of our Bread and Cup not in respect of their Substance and Matter but in respect of the Mystery they contain and Grace they communicate and thus it is certain that whatsoever belongs to this Mystery is common to them with the living But if we supposed the Substantial Conversion how could it be said They partake of the Holy Gifts that they receive what we receive that we have nothing more in the Mystery than they and that whatsoever appertains to the Mystery is common to them with us For in fine we should really receive the proper Substance of the Body and Blood of Christ which they do not BUT to manifest more clearly this Doctrine of Cabasilas and put it out of doubt we should consider the course he takes for the strengthening of his Proposition For it will appear that this participation of the Body and Blood of Christ which he makes common both to the dead and living respects not only the thing of which we partake but likewise the manner of partaking of it and in a word he means we communicate thereof no otherwise than Spiritually First then he always speaks of the Sanctification which is made by way of participation and reception of the Body of Jesus Christ as of one and the same thing without the least difference which is justifi'd by the bare reading of his whole Discourse Now this shews us he means not that we receive in the Sacrament the proper Substance of the Body of our Lord for if it were so the wicked would receive it without receiving Sanctification as the Church of Rome it self does acknowledge and the reception of this Substance and the Sanctification could not be considered but as two distinct things Yet Cabasilas confounds them and thereupon immediately considers this difficulty how the dead which neither eat nor drink can be sanctifi'd by this participation Are they say's he in a worse condition in this respect than the living No sure say's he for our Saviour communicates himself to them in Cap. 42. such a manner as is best known to himself He afterwards inquires into the causes of the sanctification of the living and their participation of Jesus Christ and say's 't is not to have a Body nor to come with feet to the Holy Table nor to receive the Communion with our hand and mouth nor to eat or drink but that 't is the purity of the Soul Faith Love of God and other motives of Piety these are the things say's he which make us necessarily partakers of Jesus Christ and without which it is not possible to be so Whence he concludes that the Souls seperate from the Body are capable of this participation and that in effect they have it seeing they have all these good affections Now it hence plainly appears that he grants the living but one kind of participation of Jesus Christ which is Spiritual and which they have in common with the dead and which immediately respects the Soul For if they be only the good dispositions of the Soul which make us partakers of Jesus Christ and that without them it is not possible for us to be so and that the dead have the same advantage we have it cannot then be said we receive the proper Substance of the Body seeing on one hand according to the Hypothesis of the Church of Rome the want of these dispositions hinders not men from receiving it and on the other that the dead with all these their qualifications cannot receive it THIS appears by the Sequel of his reasoning for what he say's concerning the dead the same he say's concerning the living which dwell in Deserts and that cannot personally come to the Lord's Table Jesus Christ Ibid. say's he sanctifies them invisibly with this Sanctification How can we know this I answer because they have the life in themselves and they would not have it were they not partakers of this Mystery For our Saviour himself has said unless you eat the Flesh of the Son of man and drink his Blood you have no life in you And for a further confirmation of this he has caused to be brought to several of these Saints the Gifts by the Ministry of Angels It is evident he attributes to these Inhabitants of Deserts the same participation of Jesus Christ the same manducation of his Flesh and Blood which we receive in the Sacrament without the least difference whence it follows that our Communion with Jesus Christ by means of the Sacrament is purely Spiritual and that our eating of his Flesh is Spiritual likewise there being no need of adding the reception of his Substance into our Stomacks BUT yet this does more plainly appear by what follows The Gift say's he is indeed communicated to the living by means of the Body but it first passes to the Substance of the Soul and afterwards communicates it self to the Body by the Ministry of the Soul Which St. Paul meant when he said that he that is joyned to the Lord is one and the same Spirit with him because this Union and Conjunction is made first of all in the Soul This being the Seat of this Sanctification which we obtain by the exercise of our virtues This is likewise the Seat of Sin 'T is here wherein is the Band of
substituted some others equivalent to them which were to the Greeks the same as those we speak of are to the Latins But Mr. Arnaud takes no notice of this He thinks it sufficient to tell me I am fal'n into a condition void of reason and common sence that I make extravagant and ridiculous Conclusions and that he is both ashamed and sorry for me that he laughs at my Arguments being such little Sophistries as are not fit to be offered by a judicious Person and that my audaciousness is beyond example in denying the Greeks adore the Eucharist These are his usual Civilities which yet shall not make me change my humour I hope he will be one day of a better mind and to that end I shall deal with him not only in a calm and gentle manner as it becomes a man of my Profession but offer up my Prayers unto Almighty God for him BUT before I finish this Chapter I am obliged to tell him he could not do his Cause a greater Injury than to cite as he has done on this Subject of the Adoration of the Eucharist a passage taken from Stephen Stylite who told the Emperour Copronymus That the Christians adore and kiss the Anti-Types of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ Either he has not examined this Passage or his prejudice has hind'red him from observing what is as clear as the day to wit that Stephen attributes no more to the Eucharist than an inferiour and relative Adoration such as is given to Images the Cross and consecrated Vessels whose matter is not adored And this appears throughout the whole sequel of his Discourse The Emperor accused him for being an Idolater in that he adored Images He answers that his Adoration related not to the matter of the Image but to the Original which the Image represented And to shew that this kind of Adoration is not Idolatry altho addressed to a thing made with hands and senseless he alledges the example of the Cross holy Garments and Vessels which are likewise adored and in fine that of the Eucharist Loe here his words which justifie what I say What crime do we commit when we represent by an Image the humane Vita S Stephani junioris apud Damascen Biblii shape of Jesus Christ who has been seen and whom we worship Is this to adore a Creature or do you think it may be truly said that we adore the Matter when we adore a Cross be it made of what stuff it will We adore the Holy Vestments and Sacred Vessels without incurring any censure for we are perswaded that by Prayer they are changed into Holy Things Will you banish likewise from the Church the Anti-Types of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ because they are the Image and true Figure of this Body and Blood We worship and kiss them and by partaking of them obtain Sanctification Either Mr. Arnaud's Friends have deceived him if he has quoted this Author only from their Relation or he has deceiv'd himself or which is worse he has design'd to deceive others when he produc'd this passage for 't is certain that hence arises a clear Demonstration that the Greeks do not adore the Eucharist with that supreme and absolute Adoration now in question and which terminates it self in that Substance we receive There needs little strength of reasoning to make this Conclusion and as little Meditation to comprehend it We need only observe that this man endeavours to defend from the imputation of Idolatry the Adoration given to Images by the example of the Adoration of the Eucharist and ranks in the same order the Adoration given to the Cross to the sacred Vestments to the Vessels of the Church to Images with that given to the Eucharist We need only take notice that he calls for this effect the Eucharist the Anti-Type Image and true Figure of the Body and Blood of Christ whence it follows he places the Adoration of the Eucharist in the rank of those which terminate not themselves in the Object which we have before us but which refer to the Original they represent wherein the Matter or that which is visible is not adored but where by means of a material Symbol a man raises up his mind to the Object whose Symbol he beholds In fine it needs only be observ'd that if the Greeks adored the Sacrament with an Adoration of Latria terminating it self in the Sacrament never man was more impertinent than he in endeavouring to excuse a relative Adoration by an absolute one never man betrayed more his Cause for besides the Extravagancy of his reasonings for which he may be justly reproach'd he may be likewise told he falls into a new Heresie and horrible Impiety making the Adoration of the Eucharist to be like that of the Cross and consecrated Vessels or that of Images whose visible Subject or Matter men do not adore Neither must Mr. Arnaud tell us he speaks only of the Adoration of the Accidents for Stephen expresly ranks this Adoration in the number of those amongst which the visible Matter is not worshipped and consequently means there is in the Eucharist a Substance which is not adored He say's they worship these Anti-Types and kiss them Now in the intention of the Communicants these acts of Adoration and kissing are not barely directed to the Accidents but to the whole Subject called the Eucharist He say's in short that in partaking of these Anti-Types we obtain Sanctification which appertains to the whole Eucharist and not the bare Accidents DAMASCENE who lived much about the same time as Stephen and stifly maintain'd the same Cause thus argues I worship not say's he the Orat. 1. d. Imag Matter but the Author of the Matter who has himself become Matter for my sake and exists in it to the end he may give me Salvation by it and as to the Matter by which Salvation is procured me I will ever worship it not as the Divinity God forbid for how can that be God which has been taken out of nothing altho it be true that the Body of God is God by means of the Union of the two Natures in Unity of Person for the Body is made without Conversion that which it hath been anointed and remains what it was by Nature to wit Living Flesh indued with a reasonable Soul and Understanding which has had a beginning and bin created AS TO THE OTHER MATTER by which Salvation has been obtain'd for us I honour and worship it as being full of the Divine Grace The blessed wood of the Cross is it not Matter The Holy and Venerable Mount Calvary is it not Matter The Rock of Life wherein was the Sepulcher of Jesus Christ and which was the Spring of our Resurrection was it not Matter Those black letters wherewith the Holy Gospels were written are they not Matter This Holy Table from whence we receive the Bread of Life is it not Matter In fine the Body and Blood of our
are taken off the King's Table are always the remains of the King's Table while they last altho kept several years so it cannot be but that the remains of this Holy Mystery are the remains of the Body and Blood of Christ Let Mr. Arnaud tell us sincerely whether this be the Style of a man that believes Transubstantiation and whether he himself would call that which is reserved of the Sacrament the remains of the Body and Blood of Christ and compare the Sanctification which the Bread receives to the colour wherewith Wool is dyed Whether he would say that this Sanctification remains in the Mysteries and is indelible For 't is certain this gives us the Idea of Bread which so remaining yet receives an Impression of Grace and Holiness which resides in it as in its Subject and makes it to be the Body of Christ but no wise transubstantiated Bread If we were to understand by the vertue not an Impression of the Holy Spirit in the Bread but an Action that changed the Substance of the Bread into the Substance of the Body of Christ it might then be said the effect which is produced by this Action or Conversion remains that is to say that 't is ever the Substance of the Body of Christ But it could not be said as Metrophanus does that the Action it self that is to say the Sanctification always remain'd because it would be conceived in this case as a momentary Action which ceases to be assoon as the Conversion is made Neither could it be moreover compared to the dye which Wool receives seeing Wool remains still Wool in respect of its Substance In fine if Metrophanus means no more but that the Mystery remains still what it has been made to wit the Body of Christ in Substance there can be no reason given why being able without doubt to explain himself easily and clearly he chose rather to use obscure and perplexed Terms which have an Ayr wholly contrary to his Mind and need a Commentary and Distinctions than to use clear and natural expressions for how many Commentaries need we to render intelligible that this indelible Sanctification which the Bread receives and is like to the dye which Wool takes signifies the proper Substance of the Body and Blood of our Saviour I will finish this Chapter with another Proof taken from the Form of Abjuration which the Greeks make when they leave their Religion to embrace the Roman One of the Articles they are made to confess is this That the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ with his Soul and Divinity are really truly Apud Possevin Bibl. select lib. 6. and substantially in the Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist and that there is made a Conversion of the whole Substance of Bread into the Body and of the whole Substance of Wine into the Blood which Conversion the Catholick Church calls Transubstantiation The Greek runs thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 HERE 's clearly expressed the substantial Conversion 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Transubstantiation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for thus do the Greeks speak when they become Latins and 't is thus they ought to speak that believe this Doctrine But why must the Greeks profess this when they change their Religion if they held the same Language before Is it usual when Proselytes are received to make them profess Doctrines common both to the Religion they forsake and that which they embrace Do the Greeks do so by the Latins that pass over to them and is not this a plain sign that their former Belief touching this Point was not that of the Church of Rome For 't is to be observ'd that this Formulary contains first the Symbol with the addition of the filioque which the Greeks do not receive Then it contains the Decrees of the Florentine Council which the Greeks reject and in fine the Articles determin'd in the Council of Trent and in respect of this last part 't is the same profession of Faith which them of our Communion make when they embrace that of Rome IT will be perhaps replied that amongst these Articles there are two to wit that of the Invocation of Saints and worshipping of Images which there is no necessity of making the Greeks confess seeing they practised them already in their Religion whence it does not follow that they believed not Transubstantiation altho found expressed in this Form of Confession for there ought to be the same Judgment made of this as of the other two Articles But if this Answer happens to be approved by Mr. Arnaud I will tell him 't is of no weight For as to the Invocation the Greeks will not practise it to the Saints of the Church of Rome which they do not acknowledge When I enter into a Church of the Latins say's Gregory the Confessor Hist Conc. Flâ—â— sect 4. cap. 31 Relig. Ruthen art 6. in the History of Syropulus I adore not the Image of any Saint because I know not any one of them that I see They blaspheme say's Sacranus speaking of the Russians against the Churches Saints who lived in the Communion and Obedience of the Roman Church In the Invocation of Saints say's the Error Mos ex Scarga art â— Jesuit Scarga they are guilty of several absurdities This Article then was not needless but on the contrary there was some kind of necessity to insert it in the formulary And as to that of Images we all know that the Greeks do abhor the Images of the Latins and therefore call their Worship in this respect Idolatry THE Greeks say's William Postel call the Western People that are subject De Repub. Turcor pag. 46. Voyages of the Sieur Bénard lib. cap. 24. to the Church of Rome grand Idolaters because we have Statues erected They have no other Images in their Churches say's the Sieur Benard than the Crucifix the Virgin Mary Saint John the Evangelist and Saint George which are Painted in Tables They teach say's the Jesuit Richard that carved Images are Idols and that 't is unlawful to worship any others than those which are painted POSSEVIN the Jesuit reckons likewise this amongst the rest of their Errours That they will not suffer a carved Image of our Saviour to be set up in their Churches And the Sieur de la Boulay le Goux asserts the same thing viz. that they suffer no other Images but those that are painted against the Walls their reason being that carved Images are forbid in Moses his Law which Nicholas de Nicolai confirms telling us They suffer no carved Images in their Churches only Table-Pieces IT was then moreover needful to insert in the profession of Faith this Article of Images But there can be nothing alledged like this touching that of Transubstantiation There could be no reason obliging the Popes to require an express Declaration from the Greek Proselytes unless that of this Doctrines being not taught in the Church they left and therefore they must change
St. Andrews where they privately buried it MR. Arnaud will not fail to fay that Hottinger is a Minister and one of the most passionate and least sincere Writers he ever read But why must we rather believe Allatius than Hottinger The former of these has all the marks of a passionate man who is ever upon disguishing things whereas this last on the contrary let Mr. Arnaud say what he pleases has all the Characters of a faithful Writer relating things according to the best of his Knowledge The former of these is I confess more polite but th' other has more simplicity Allatius relates from his own head what he pleases Hottinger alledges his Witnesses and what likelihood is there Mr. Leger and Conopius whose Letter in its Original I have by me invented these Stories thus circumstanced as we find them if it were moreover true that the Greek Church respected Cyrillus as a Heretick and did her utmost endeavours to deliver her self from him It was on the contrary the Latins and their Disciples who so strenuously endeavoured to get rid of a Person whom they could neither gain by Promises nor Threatnings and that hindred them in their great Design of a Re-union It was in reference to them that Cyrillus added at the end of his Confession We plainly foresee this short Confession will be as a mark of contradiction to them who are pleased to calumniate and persecute us His Presentiment was not vain AND thus much touching Mr. Arnaud's first Objection As to the second which asserts the principal Articles of his Confession are contrary to the Sentiment of the Greeks I confess there are some of 'em wherein the Doctrine of the Gospel is more plainly asserted than in other Greek Books as the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Articles for instance which treat of our Justification by Faith in Christ of Free Will and Divine Grace but 't is certain they do not in the main contradict the Doctrine of the Greek Church and may be easily reconciled with the Answers of Jeremias to the Divines of Wittemberg The Fifteenth Article acknowledges but two Sacraments and Jeremias say's Mr. Arnaud openly professes to hold seven But I say the Lib. 4. cap. 5. pag. 387 Confes cap. 9. Greeks have no rule in this matter Metrophanus acknowledges three of Divine Institution to wit Baptism the Eucharist and Penance and as to the other four he affirms They are called Mysteries improperly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Jeremias acknowledges seven 't is true but he reckons properly but two to be of Divine Institution namely Baptism and the Lord's Supper and as to the five others he seems to acknowledge the Church has added them to the number of Sacraments Wherefore will Mr. Arnaud needs have Cyrillus who only speaks of the true Sacraments instituted by our Saviour and not of humane Ceremonies which are improperly called Mysteries because they have something that is mysterious in them as speaks Metrophanus to have contradicted the Doctrine of the Greeks Why seeing he opposes Jeremias to Cyrillus does he not sincerely relate the Sentiment of Jeremias Arcudius has dealt better in this respect than he for he acknowledges That Jeremias does Arcud lib. 2. cap. 2. not only teach that the Cream is a Sacrament of Tradition but that he passes the same Judgment on all the rest Baptism and the Lord's Supper excepted contrary to what he had asserted in the Seventh Chapter of his first Answer AS to the Eighteenth Article in which Cyrillus asserts That the Souls of the deceased are carried immediately into a State of Bliss or Misery Mr. Arnaud Ibid. lib. 3. cap. 6 pag. 388. say's he therein contradicts the general Opinion of the Greeks touching the State of Souls after death Hornbeck and Chytreus say's he And all that ever treated on the Opinions of the Greeks affirm they admit besides Paradise and Hell a certain dark and doleful place in which the Souls are purged after this life I answer the Greeks are not determinately positive touching the State of the Soul after death As to the Souls of the Faithful there are some who hold they will not enjoy the Beatifick Vision till after the last Judgment and in the mean time are in pleasant and delightful places places exempt from all kind of sorrows or else in dark and dismal shades where they continually ruminate on the sins they have committed and these hold there are three different ranks of deceased Persons namely the Unfaithful or Wicked the Faithful that dye in a State of Repentance and perfect Holyness and others who notwithstanding their Faith and true Piety yet have committed several sins for which they have not so truely repented as they ought Hell is designed for the first of these The second say they go into places of rest and refreshment and the last into those doleful places where they feel the want of God's favour and illumination BUT we must not imagine this to be the sense of the whole Greek Church for there are not a few that hold there are only two conditions of men after death namely that of the virtuous and wicked and two places to wit Heaven and Hell Syropulus relates in his History of the Council of Florence that the Greeks being urged by the Latins to express themselves Hist Concil Flor. Sect. 5. cap. 16. plainly touching the State of departed Souls Bessarion declared That the Souls of the Saints receive the Bliss prepared for them and those of sinners their punishments and that it only remains that each of these reassume their Bodies after which the Souls of the Just shall enter into a full enjoyment of Happiness with their Bodies and that sinners likewise with their Bodies c. shall suffer everlasting punishments We see here but two States after death We find in Allatius a passage of the Greeks which likewise asserts but two places We must know say's it that the Souls of the Just remain in certain places and Allat de lib. Eccl. disp 2. those of sinners in like manner separate from them Those rejoyce upon the account of the hope of Bliss These lament in expectation of their torments There is moreover a passage of Joseph Briennius which asserts That there are two Ibid. places designed for the entertainment of deceased Souls Heaven for the Saints and the Center of the Earth or Hell for sinners That the Saints are at liberty that they have all the World and especially the Garden of Eden for their abode That those who are condemned to Hell will not come out from their abode till the day of Judgment and that they cannot receive the least beam of light or relaxation For adds he the Saints will not enjoy eternal happiness nor sinners suffer their everlasting torments before the last Judgement But these last shall be shut up in the mean time in dark Prisons under the custody of cruel Devils Sigismond speaking of the Moscovits say's They believe not there is
the sence of the Catholick Church the Substantial and Eternal Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and the Son which is exactly the expression the Greeks abhor WE may add to this that Mr. Arnaud tells us of a Treatise of Paysius Ligaridius Archbishop of Gaza in which Ligaridius discourses of Cyrillus and his Confession and raises an Objection about it which he himself answers saying That several boubted of the truth of this Piece and that should it be true yet one Swallow does not make a Summer but he makes no mention of these two pretended Censures which without doubt he would never have forgotten being as he is a man full of Zeal for the interests of the Roman Religion were they acknowledged to be good and Authentick Acts in the Greek Church I might say the same thing of the Barons of Spartaris did it not elsewhere appear that he was a Person of small Knowledge in the Affairs of the Greeks HEYDANUS a Dutch Professour of Divinity relates that in the year 1643. The News being come to Constantinople that this pretended Heydanus praefat ad lib cui titulus est causa Dei Council was confidently reported to be true in the West Parthenius himself was so surprised and offended thereat that assembling his Clergy and People in the Patriarchal Church he openly professed 't was false and that he never intended such an injury to the memory of Cyrillus IN fine Mr. Rivet Doctor of Divinity in Holland writing to Mr. Sarrau a Councellour in the Parliament of Paris the 21 of March 1644. tells him touching this Business That he saw at Mr. Hagha ' s a Letter written in Vulgar Greek from Pachomius the Metropolitain of Chalcedon which disowned the pretended Council under the Patriarch Parthenius Farther affirming that the Subscriptions were counterfeit and particularly his That this Piece was contrived by a Rascal c. That the Patriarch was a double minded man yet denied what was printed in Moldavia to be the Act he signed and that the Prince of Moldavia banished the Author of this Impression from his Territories BUT supposing what I now alledged to be wholly untrue and that these two pretended Councils were as really true as I believe 'em to be false yet is it certain they will but confirm the Proof we draw from Cyrillus his Confession against Transubstantiation and change it into Demonstration Which will clearly appear if we consider that whosoever composed them did all they could to turn Cyrillus his words into a sence odious to the Greeks even to the imputing to him several Falsities that Cyrillus of Berrhaea who presided in the first Council was a false Greek and one of the Jesuits Scholars engaged long since in the Party of the Latins and that Parthenius seemed likewise fastned to the Roman Interest if we take that for one of his Letters which one Athanasius a Latinising Greek published in which he makes him thus write to the late King That he heartily desired the Peace of the two Churches Athan. Rhetor Presbyt Bisant anti patellar Paris 1655. as much as any of his Predecessors but if the Turk under whose Empire they lived knew of this Affair he would kill 'em all Yet could the King find out a way whereby to secure them from this danger he solemnly protests that for his part he would not be wanting So that we see here what kind of men the Authors of these two Censures have been supposing 'em true and yet they have not expresly censured what Cyrillus Lucaris asserted touching Transubstantiation the first of these to wit Cyrillus of Berrhaea say's Anathematised be Cyrillus who teaches and believes that neither the Bread of the Altar nor the Wine are changed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the Priests Consecration and coming down of the Holy Spirit into the real Body and Blood of Jesus Christ seeing 't is written in the seventeenth Article of his Heretical Doctrine that what we see and take is not the Body of Jesus Christ The second namely Parthenius say's His Doctrine is so destructive to the Eucharist that he attributes only the bare Figure to it as if we were still under the Old Law of Types and Shadows For he denies the Bread which is seen and eaten becomes after Consecration the real Body of Jesus Christ in any other than a spiritual manner or rather by imagination which is the highest pitch of Impiety For Jesus Christ did not say This is the Figure of my Body but this is my Body this is my Blood this to wit that which was seen received eaten and broken after it was blessed and sanctified Not to take here notice how captiously these People turn the Words of Cyrillus to make them contradictory to the Belief and common Expressions of the Greeks it will be sufficient to observe that howsoever prejudiced these Persons have been they durst not re-establish the Transubstantiation he expresly condemned nor take any notice of that part of the Article which rejects it in express Terms But to the end we may better judge of this it will not be amiss to recite Cyrillus his own Words We believe say's he that the second Sacrament which the Lord has instituted is that which we call the Eucharist for in the Night in which he was betrayed taking Bread and blessing it he said to his Apostles take eat this is my Body and taking the Cup he gave thanks and said drink ye all of this this is my Blood which is shed for you do this in remembrance of me And Saint Paul adds as often as ye shall eat of this Bread and drink of this Cup ye shew the Lord's death This is the plain true and lawful Tradition of this admirable Mystery in the administration and understanding of which we confess and believe a real and certain Presence of our Lord Jesus Christ to wit that which Faith offers and gives us and not that which Transubstantiation has rashly invented and teaches For we believe the faithful eat the Body of Jesus Christ in the Sacrament not in a sensible chewing of him with the teeth in the Communion but in communicating by the sence of the Soul For our Lord's Body is not in the Mystery what our eyes behold and what we take but that which Faith which receives after a spiritual manner presents and gives us Wherefore it is certain if we believe we eat and participate but if we believe not we are deprived of this benefit If you compare this Article with Cyrillus of Berrhaea and Parthenius's Censures you will find they apply themselves to that which is said concerning Our Saviour's Body being not what we see and eat but that which our Faith does spiritually receive and that they endeavour to give these Words a construction abominated by the Greeks and different from their usual expressions But as to what he says touching Transubstantiation which he calls a rash invention 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we see they
this Deduction it will not be amiss to observe that the Bread and wine may be conceived to be changed into the Body and Blood of Christ two ways First by a real conversion of the whole Substance of Bread and Wine into the Substance of the Body and Blood I mean into the same numerical Substance as the Schools speak so that the Substance of Bread subsists no longer after the change which is what is held in the Roman Church Secondly by the addition of a new quality or form in the Bread and Wine so that their first Substance remaining they receive that which they had not before and by this reception become that which they were not In this first manner of conceiving the change the Substance of Bread and that of the Body are considered as two Terms or two different Subjects the first of which does not subsist but passes over into the other In the second the Bread is considered as a Subject that always subsists but which receiving into it that which it had not by this means becomes the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ after the same manner as the paper which receives the Characters and Seal of a Prince becomes the Princes Letter or Wax receiving the Impression of a Seal is made the Seal it self or Wool dyed in Scarlet becomes a scarlet colour or Wood receiving the impression of fire becomes fire it self or in fine as the nourishment we take receiving the form of our Flesh and being joyned thereunto becomes our Body By which it appears that to proceed faithfully and ingenuously in our Inquiries after the real Belief of the Greeks it must first be acknowledged that these expressions The Bread is changed into the Body of Jesus Christ the Bread is made the Body of Christ the Bread is the Body it self or the proper Body of Jesus Christ are in themselves general expressions and that they may be simply taken in this their generality or applied to several particular sences Now if Mr. Arnaud would have us take these expressions in the sence of Transubstantiation he must produce some solid and real passages out of Greek Authors by which it may appear that 't is in this sence they understood them and that they cannot admit of any other Which is no more than what he ought to have done but he has been far from undertaking it knowing it to be a thing absolutely impossible AS to my own part had I only intended to shew the insufficiency of Mr. Arnaud's Proofs I might content my self with alledging this generality for it alone is sufficient to hinder him from drawing any Conclusion But seeing I have taken upon me to shew in this Chapter what the real Sentiment of the Greek Church is I find my self obliged to bring not Arguments or Distinctions from my own Head but good and solid passages of the Greeks themselves which plainly demonstrate what kind of change they mean FOR this effect I shall reduce what they say concerning it to this Proposition They believe that by the Consecration there is made a kind of composition or mixture of Bread and Wine and Holy Spirit that these Symbols keeping their own proper nature are joyned to the Divinity and by the impression they receive from the Holy Ghost are changed for the Faithful only into the virtue of the Body and Blood of Christ being made by this means not a Figure but the proper and real Body of Jesus Christ and this by way of Augmentation of the same natural Body of Jesus Christ To which they apply the Comparisons I already mentioned concerning the nourishment which becomes our proper Body by Assimilation and Augmentation of the Wood which is put to the Fire of the Wool which receives the dye of Paper that is made the Princes Letter and Wax or other Matter which receives the Impression of the Seal This Proposition having several parts and each of them of great importance in this Question it is therefore necessary to establish them one after another distinctly and solidly FIRST They believe there is a composition or mixture made of the Bread with the Holy Spirit Metrophanus the Patriarch of Alexandria shews us that this is their Doctrine For observe here what he say's in his Confession of Faith of the Eastern Church in his Chapter of the Sacraments God say's he has communicated his Grace to the Elect not only after a spiritual manner Confes Eccles Or. cap. 5. but likewise by some sensible signs as most certain pledges of his promise For as we are composed of two parts so likewise the manner of communicating his Grace must be double to wit by a sensible matter and by the Holy Spirit seeing the Persons that receive these things are made up of a sensible Body and intelligent Soul Now these Pledges are that which we call the Mysteries to wit Baptism and the Holy Communion which consist of visible Matter and of the Holy Spirit These Words are so plain that they need no Comment He affirms there are two things in the Sacraments and particularly in the Eucharist to wit the sensible Matter and the Holy Spirit Now the sensible Matter in the Eucharist can be nothing else but the Bread and the Wine METROPHANUS affirms moreover the same thing in his Chapter touching the Lord's Supper wherein he say's that the Mystery never loses Ibid cap. 9. the Sanctification it has once received and that it is indelible It is here where he compares the Sanctification the Bread receives to Wool when 't is dyed in any colour which includes apparently this Idea of the Composition of Bread and the Holy Spirit almost after the same manner as Wool that is dyed is a composition or mixture of Wool and dye THIS Greek Patriarch has only followed in this the Doctrine of Jeremias the Patriarch of Constantinople in his Answer to the Divines of Wittemberg Consisting say's he as we do of two Parts that is to say of a Body and a Jerem. Rep. 1. ad Theologos Wittemb Soul our Saviour Christ has therefore given us these things doubly he means the Sacraments he himself consisting of two Natures being both God and Man He spiritually sanctifies our Souls by the Grace of his Spirit and sanctifies likewise our Bodies by sensible Matters namely with Oyl Water Bread and Wine and other things sanctified by the Holy Spirit and thus gives us a compleat Salvation He not only say's that the Sacraments in general are things that are double as he terms them consisting of things sensible and the Holy Spirit but say's this particularly of the Bread and Wine in the Eucharist WITH this agrees the expressions of the Greek Liturgies and those of the most famous Authors of this Church who call the Sacrament the Holy Bread the Consecrated Bread the Divine Bread the Gifts sanctified by the Holy Spirit for these Expressions do naturally denote that composition or duplicity aforementioned NOW if we would know how it
has come to pass the Greeks of latter Ages have thus expressed themselves in relation to this part of their Belief we need only look back to the foregoing Ages for we shall there find Sentiments and Expressions on the same Subject if not wholly conformable to the Expressions of the Modern Greeks yet which come very near them and which have served for a Foundation to 'em as will appear by the following Passages WE may then here mark what the Fathers of the Council of Constantinople in the Eighth Century asserted As the Body of Jesus Christ is Holy In actis Concil Nic. 2 act 6. because 't is deified so likewise that which is his Body by Institution to wit his Holy Image is made Divine by a Sanctification of Grace For as by virtue of the Hypostatical Union our Saviour deified the Flesh he took on him by a Sanctification naturally proper to him so in like manner he will have the Bread in the Eucharist which is the real Image of his Flesh to become a Divine Body by the Descent of the Holy Spirit into it the Oblation being by means of the Priest transferred from a common State to a State of Holiness And therefore the natural Flesh of Jesus Christ endued with Soul and Understanding has been anointed by the Holy Spirit being united to the Divinity and so likewise his Image to wit the Divine Bread is filled with the Holy Spirit Who sees not in these words the Union and Composition of Bread with the Holy Spirit The Bread say they is made Divine by a Sanctification of Grace it becomes a Divine Body by the Descent of the Holy Spirit into it the Bread is filled with the Holy Spirit in like manner as the natural Flesh of our Lord has been sanctified deified and anointed with the Holy Spirit by virtue of the Hypostatical Union All this plainly favours the Composition of the Modern Greeks Now this Testimony is the more considerable in that the second Nicene Council having been held on purpose to overthrow whatsoever had been determined in that of Constantinople touching the Point of Images they censured the name of Image which their Adversaries had given the Eucharist but left untouched the other Clauses I now mentioned Which shews that these kind of Expressions were received by both Parties and that this was the common Doctrine of the whole Greek Church IN effect if we ascend higher we shall find that Saint Ephraim Bishop Apud Phol Bib. Cod. 229. of Antioch who lived about the Sixth Century thus expressed himself That the Body of Jesus Christ which the faithful receive does not leave its sensible Substance nor is seperated from the spiritual Grace Which does moreover favour the Duplicity or Composition of Bread with the Holy Spirit THEODORET who lived about the Fifth Century expresses himself Diog. al. 1. after the same manner Jesus Christ say's he has honoured the visible Symbols with the name of his Body and Blood not in changing their naturee but in joyning his Grace thereunto Chrysostom said the same thing in the Fourth Chrysost Hom. 44. in Joan. Century That the Bread becomes Heavenly Bread by means of the Holy Spirit 's coming down upon it THEOPHILUS of Alexandria in the same Century wrote That the Theophil Alex Ep. Pasch 1. Bibl. Patr. Tom. 3. Edit 4. Bread and Wine placed on the Lord's Table are inanimate things which are sanctified by Prayer and Descension of the Holy Ghost SAINT Irenaeus who lived in the Second Century spake to the same Irenae advers Hares lib. 4. cap. 34. purpose That the Eucharist consists of two things the one Earthly th' other Heavenly It is plain by the sequel of his Discourse that he means by these two things the Bread and sanctifying Grace of the Holy Spirit But it is also manifest that all these Passages have occasioned the Belief of the Composition THOMAS a Jesu tells us of an Errour wherewith almost all the Eastern Thom. Ã Jesu lib. de procur salute omn. gent. part 2. lib. 7. cap 7. Christians are infected which is That Jesus Christ soaked the Bread he was to give to Judas that he might thereby take away its Consecration I confess 't is a great absurdity to imagine the Consecration can be taken away by this means but 't is easie to perceive these ignorant People have fallen into this Errour by conceiving the Consecration under the Idea of a real impression made on the Substance of Bread for thereupon they have imagined this impression might be effaced in washing the Bread or soaking it AND thus far concerning the first part of my Proposition The second is That they believe the Bread and Wine keeping their proper nature are joyned to the Divinity Which is the same thing as the first only otherwise expressed They will then mutually assist and strengthen each other For this effect I shall produce the Testimony of Nicholas Methoniensis who lived in the Twelfth Century This Author in answering those that doubted whether the Eucharist was the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ because they saw neither Flesh nor Blood but Bread and Wine resolves the difficulty in this manner God say's he who knows all things and is perfectly good has wisely ordered this in respect of our weakness lest we should have in horror the Pledges of Eternal Life being not able to behold Flesh and Blood he has therefore appointed this to be done by things to which our nature is accustomed and has joyned to them his Divinity saying this is my Body this is my Blood MR. Arnaud pretends to make advantage of these Doubts which Nicholas Nicolaus Methon advers dubitantes c. Bibl. Patr. Craeco-Lat Tom. 2. Methoniensis treats of but we shall answer this Point in its due place It suffices at present that we behold this Author laying down on one hand the things to which our natures are accustomed that is to say Bread and Wine and on the other he assures us that the Divinity is joyned to them Which is exactly what I was to prove whence it follows that according to the Greeks the Bread and Wine remain in Union with the Divinity Mr. Arnaud who saw the force of this Passage has endeavoured to avoid it by a frivolous evasion God joyns say's he his Divinity to the Bread and Wine 'T is true but Lib 2 cap. 13. pag. 231. he has joyned it as the efficacious cause of the change of the Bread and Wine into the Body and Blood of Christ so often repeated by Nicholas Methoniensis but not as a means of Union between the Bread and Wine and Body of Jesus Christ He has joyned it to the Bread not to conserve it in the Substance of Bread but to transform it internally into his Body I say this is a frivolous evasion For according to this reckoning we must understand by the things familiar to our natures the Bread and Wine as the matter to
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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
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
of arguing should his Maxim take place the Fathers of the seventh and eigth Centuries have say'd such and such a thing with Reticency Now the People have understood them in such and such a manner by a supplement Therefore they taught and believed the real Presence and Transubstantiation How can a man consider this seriously Mr. Arnaud will tell us there 's nothing more common in Humane Speech than to use half Sentences nor any thing more usual than to supply what is wanting to ' um We are wont to say a Man a House a City the Air the Earth the Sun and not the Substance of a Man the Substance of a House c. But here is a great deal of difference For here we use these Expressions because we suppose those to whom we speak have eyes and the use of their reason and that these easily supply what is wanting in words Nay when we use these terms even in a figurative sense we do not explain them because we know that sense and reason which are common lights to those that speak and hear will sufficiently explain them But 't is not the same in reference to the Eucharist for supposing there 's made in it a real Conversion of the inward Substance of the Bread into the inward Substance of the Body of Jesus Christ Sense and Reason lead us not to understand this Change seeing 't is imperceptible and contrary to the order of Nature and we cannot supply by their means what is imperfect in the Words Neither can this Suppliment come from the Word of God for it is pretended these terms which our Saviour used in the institution of the Sacrament have themselves need of being explained and determined by that which is called the sence of the Church Neither can it come from the Tradition of the preceding Ages for besides that the People have little knowledge of this Tradition we shall not find any thing more precise in the instructions of the first Six Ages than in those of the seventh and eighth Whence then must this Suppliment come Must we here suppose secret and immediate Inspirations or imagine there were certain short forms of speech then in use and which served as a key for the understanding of the Publick teachings Unless 't were so I cannot see how Mr. Arnaud's System can hold For to say that by a Prophetick Spirit they of the seventh and eighth Centuries knew what would be determin'd in the eleventh and supplyed what was wanting by means of this Prescience this is something hard to be believed and I know not whether Mr. Arnaud is willing to go so far 't is then clear that this pretended Suppliment is a mere Whimsy and as ill contrived and maintained as ever any thing was AS to those two parts which compose the Mystery of the Eucharist the one the external Vail which is the Sacrament and th' other the Body of Jesus Christ which is covered with this Vail this is not a place for a thro-examination of this Hypothesis Yet methinks Mr. Arnaud advances something singular enough when he adds that 't is fruitless to enquire into the Chap. 2. pag. 743. Nature of this vail it being sufficient to know that it is Bread and Wine according to Appearance which is to say if I be not mistaken that 't is needless to enquire whether this Appearance of Bread which covers the Body of Jesus Christ is a mere Phantasm a pure Illusion which our Senses suffer or whether they be really the Accidents of Bread which subsist separate from their Substance Let the Gentlemen of the Roman Church determine whether this Doctrine be according to their Councils especially that of Constance As to my part I shall only tell Mr. Arnaud he will not find this Appearance of Bread and Wine in what sort p. 743. soever he Understands it in the Fathers of the seventh and eighth Centuries nor that the Body of Jesus Christ is hid under the Vail of this Appearance The instance he gives us of a Man that is composed of Body and Soul is vastly different the Soul is not an invisible and impalpable Body 't is a real Spirit and the Body is not an appearance of a Body that has nothing of reality in it it is a Body in Propriety of Nature and Substance When then we say of a Man that he is an immortal and spiritual Being in respect of his Soul or that he is a mortal and corporeal Being in respect of his Body or that he is mortal and immortal considering him as a Body and Soul joyned together this Language is Natural and easie to be understood without any Explication because the Principles on which it is established are obvious to Reason and we may well suppose that those to whom we direct our Discourse are not Ignorant of them But if Mr. Arnaud will have the Expressions of the Fathers of the seventh or eighth Centuries to be grounded on these Principles of the Apperance of Bread which in truth is not Bread and the Body of Jesus Christ concealed invisibly under this Vail he must without any more ado shew us that these Principles were known to the People for it cannot be supposed they knew 'um Naturally And thus his Instance is not at all to the purpose 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 IT is now easie to perceive that all these preparations with which Mr. Arnaud would clog his Readers mind is only a handsom excuse for the weakness of his proofs and an authentick declaration that he could not find the Doctrine of Transubstantiation and the Real Presence in Authors of the 7th and 8th Centuries for had he any thing to alledg that was considerable 't is evident he would never have taken so many circuits and this is a certain sign that these Doctrines were neither established nor known in the Church during those ages and this will appear more clearly if we cast our eyes on the passages he has produc'd there being never a one of 'em that precisely contains the Conversion of the substance of Bread or substantial Presence of the Body of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist nor from whence they can be necessarily inferred FIRST They cannot be infer'd from all those clauses of the Liturgies which term the Eucharist the Body of Jesus Christ and Mr. Arnaud could Lib. 8. Ch. 3. not busie himself to less purpose than to collect as he has done all these passages drawn from the Roman Order the Liturgy called The Mass of Illyricus The Book of the Sacraments which Menard a Benedictin Monk published Not to say the Book of the Roman Order as we have it at this day is a Treatise made by an Author of the 11th Century as appears by the
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
the end it may procure them the remission of their sins He says not to the end it may change the substance of it and convert it into that of the Body of Jesus Christ which yet must have been said or something equivalent thereunto were this the formal effect of the Consecration Having recited our Lords words This is my Body this is my Blood he adds This shall be a pledg to us to the end of the world And a little further Esay touched a live coal his lips were not burnt with it but his iniquity pardon'd Mortal men receive a fire IN THE BREAD IT self and this fire preserves their bodies and consumes only their sins 'T is easie to perceive that by this fire which is in the Bread it self he means the Holy Spirit which he had already prayed for to come down and rest on the Oblation Explaining afterwards what this Mystery is Approach we all of us says he with fear and respect to the Mystery of the precious Body and Blood of our Saviour and with a pure heart and a true Faith call we to remembrance his Passion and Resurrection and let us clearly comprehend them For for our sakes the only Son of God has assumed a mortal Body a spiritual reasonable and immortal Soul and by his holy Law has reduced us from error to the knowledg of the truth and at the end of his Oeconomy offered on the Cross the first fruits of our nature he is risen from the Dead ascended up into Heaven and has left us his Holy Sacraments as pledges to put us in mind of all the favours which he has bestowed on us Was not here a fitting place to make some mention of his corporeal Presence in the Eucharist and having said that he is ascended up into Heaven does it not seem that instead of adding he has left us his Holy Sacraments he should have said he yet presents himself on the Altars in the substance of his Body Let Mr. Arnaud himself judg whether this Liturgy favours him AS to the ancient Liturgy of France which bears that Jesus Christ gives us his proper Body I have already answer'd that these terms of proper Body signifie only his Body and I apply the same answer to the passages which Mr. Arnaud alledges of S. Ireneus Juvencus Gaudencius and of S. Chrysostom who likewise use the same term of proper 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 proprium corpus signifies suum corpus his Body not that of another but his own for this is often the sense of this term as we have already shew'd S. Hilary says There 's no reason to doubt of the truth of the Flesh and Blood of our Lord. I acknowledg he speaks of this Flesh inasmuch as 't is communicated to us in the Sacrament but I say also he means the spiritual Communication which Jesus Christ hath given us in the act it self of the Sacramental Communion and that Hilary's sense is we must not doubt but this Flesh is really communicated to us inasmuch as our Souls are made really partakers of it EPHRAM of Edesse speaks likewise of the Spiritual Communion which we have with Jesus Christ God and Man when he says that we eat the Lamb himself entire WE may return the same answer to the passages of Gelazius of Cizique Hesychius and the History of the Martyrdom of S. Andrew GELAZIVS of Cizique says very well That we truly receive the precious Body and the precious Blood of Jesus Christ not only because the Spiritual Communion is a real reception of this Body and Blood but likewise because this Communion consider'd in opposition to the Sacramental Communion is the only true one HESTCHIVS says That the Mysteries are the Body and Blood of Jesus Chhist secundum veritatem according to truth because that in effect the mystical object represented and communicated to our Souls in this holy action is the Body and Blood of our Lord and this is what he understands by the truth or virtue of the Mystery as we have already observed elsewhere The Author of the relation of the Martyrdom of S. Andrew makes this Saint say not what Mr. Arnaud imputes to him That he Sacrific'd every See E the and Beatus who relate this passage Bibl. patr tom 4. day to God the immaculate Lamb but that he Sacrificed every day to God ON THE ALTAR OF THE CROSS the Immaculate Lamb. Where I pray is Mr. Arnaud's fidelity thus to eclipse these words on the Altar of the Cross to make the world believe this Author means the Sacrifice which is offered every day in the Eucharist whereas he means only that every day he Immolates Jesus Christ on the Cross to wit in meditating on this Cross and preaching it to the people He adds That all the people who are Believers eat the Flesh of this Lamb and drink his Blood and yet the Lamb which was sacrific'd remains whole and alive and altho he be truly sacrific'd and his Flesh truly eaten and drank yet he remains whole and alive This is an allusion to the ancient Lamb of the Jews which was first sacrific'd and afterwards eaten by the people which was a figure of our Saviour the true Lamb of God that was sacrific'd on the Cross and whose Flesh was eaten and Blood spiritually drank by those that believe in him by Faith The Lamb being divided and not rising again after he was slain our Saviour Christ has this advantage over him that he is alive after his being sacrific'd and eaten without suffering any division But whether we consider this manducation absolutely in it self or by comparing it to that of the ancient Lamb it is true For on one hand it is neither false nor illusory and on the other it is the truth figured by the manducation of the Lamb of the Jews THE passage of S. Leo which says We must in such a manner draw near to the Divine Table as not to doubt in any wise of the truth of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ is very impertinently alledged Mr. Arnaud is not to learn that Leo discourses against the Eutychiens who denied our Saviour had a real Body and his sense to be that when we partake in the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of our Lord we must not doubt but our Saviour has in himself in his proper person a real Body and Blood and is real man 'T IS now plainly seen that this heap of passages which Mr. Arnaud has pretended to make of the consent of all Nations and Ages is but a meer illusion and that his design in wand'ring thus ftom his subject was only to colour over the weakness of his proofs touching the 7th and 8th Centuries now in debate He had so little to say concerning these Centuries that he thought it necessary to take the field and circuit about to amuse his Readers and fill up his Chapters But his subject matter is so little favourable to him on what side soever he turns
of Jesus Christ Mr. Arnaud pretends that by this Mystery or Sacrament we must understand the Body it self in substance his reasons are First That 't is the Body of Jesus Christ which is represented by the types in the Old Testament Now this Sacrament is according to the Author of the Book in question that which was represented by these ancient figures Secondly That 't is the Body of Jesus Christ which is the truth opposed to Images Now according to this Author this Sacrament is not the image of it but the truth in opposition to the image Thirdly That the reason why he will not have it to be an image is that our Saviour did not say This is the image of my Body but this is my Body Fourthly That 't is of the Eucharist we must understand what he says That our Saviour did not offer for us an image but himself BUT 't is no hard matter to answer these objections The Sacrament of the Eucharist may be considered in two respects either in opposition to the thing it self of which 't is the Sacrament or in conjunction with this same thing In the first respect 't is a sign or a figure of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ Charlemain himself calls it so in one of his Epistles to Alcuinus as we have already seen and Bede gives it several times this title But in the second respect Charlemain denies we ought to give it the name of image or figure because he would distinguish it from the legal figures which were only bare representations and shadows which did communicate the Body or reality of that which they represented whereas our Eucharist communicates the Body and Blood it self of Jesus Christ sacrificed for us on the Cross and represented by the ancient figures He would have us call it then the Mystery or Sacrament of this Body and the reason which he alledges for it is that 't is not a bare representation of a thing to come as were those of the ancient Law 't is the Mystery of the Death of Jesus Christ of a Death I say that was really consummated and moreover 't is not a bare representation of this Death but a Mystery which communicates it to us This is the sence of the Author of the Book of Images from whence it does not follow that the Eucharist is the Body of Jesus Christ in substance as Mr. Arnaud would hence conclude For for to consider the Sacrament in conjunction with the thing of which it is the Sacrament 't is not necessary that the thing be locally and substantially therein contained It is sufficient that it be really and truly communicated therein to us in a mystical and moral manner Now 't is certain that this communication is made therein to the Faithful and altho the manner of it be spiritual and mystical yet is it real and true This is sufficient for a man to say as the Author of that Book does That the mystery of the Body and Blood of our Lord is called now not an image but the truth not a shadow but a body not a figure of things to come but the thing represented by the figures Because that in effect we receive therein the body and truth of the legal shadows For this reason a man may say that this mystery is the truth in opposition to the images of the ancient Testament because that in effect God gives us actually in it that which the Law contained only in types This is sufficient whereon to ground this remark That our Saviour did not say this is the image of my Body but this is my Body that is given for you Because that in instituting this Sacrament he never design'd to communicate to us only a prefiguration but his Body In fine this is sufficient for a man to say with reason and good sense and with respect too to the Eucharist That our Saviour did not offer for us an image but himself in sacrifice because that which he offer'd once for us to God his Father on the Cross he offers and gives it us in the Eucharist In a word Mr. Arnaud's perpetual error is in imagining that our Saviour Christ and his Body and Blood cannot be communicated to us unless we receive corporeally in our hands and mouths the proper substance of them I say this is a mistake exceedingly distant from the Doctrine of the Fathers who tell us we receive Jesus Christ himself eat his Body and drink his Blood in the word of the Gospel in Baptism as well as in the Eucharist CHAP. X. An Examination of the Consequences which Mr. Arnaud draws from the pretended Consent of all the Christian Churches in the Doctrines of Transubstantiation and the Real Presence Reflections on the 1. 2. 3. and 4. Consequences WE may justly lay aside Mr. Arnaud's tenth Book seeing it consists only of Consequences which he draws from the consent of all Churches in the Doctrines of the Real Presence and Transubstantiation by supposing he has proved this consent since the 7th Century to this present For having overthrown as we have done his Principle we need not much trouble our selves about its consequences Yet that we may not neglect any thing I shall make some Reflections on the principal things contained in this Book and that as briefly as I am able The first Consequence THE first Consequence bears That the consent of all Churches in the Book 10. ch 1. Faith of the Real Presence explains and determines the sense of our Saviours words To establish this Proposition he says that the Ministers endeavour to stretch these words This is my Body to their sense by an infinite number of metaphysical Arguments which have only obscure and abstracted principles That they use long discourses to expound separately each word as the term this the word is and the word Body That by this means that which yields no trouble when a man follows simply the course of nature and common sense becomes obscure and unintelligible That supposing in like manner a man should philosophise on these words Lazarus come forth it 's no hard matter for a man to entangle himself with 'em for this Lazarus will be neither the Soul nor the Body separately nor the Soul and Body together but a mere nothing Now a mere nothing cannot come out of the Grave That our Saviour did not speak to be only understood by Philosophers and Metaphysicians seeing he intended his Religion should be followed by an infinite number of simple people women and children persons ignorant of humane learning That we must then judg of the sense of these words by the general and common impression which all these persons receiv'd without so many reflections That to find this simple and natural impression we must consult the sense wherein they have been effectually taken for the space of a thousand years by all Christians in the world which never had any part in our Disputes That our Saviours intention was rather
was a formulary of Practice I acknowledg 't was a formulary of profession of Faith But that this Faith of which it required the profession was the substantial Presence of Jesus Christ in the Sacrament is what I deny and what Mr. Arnaud ought to prove I prove it says he by the word Amen which the Communicants answered The Amen which the Communicants pronounced signifies nothing less than this Presence of substance The Book of the Initiated attributed to S. Ambrose draws thence only this conclusion vere carnis illius Sacramentum est It is Ambros de iis qui myst init cap. 9. lib. 4. de Sacr. cap. 3. Aug. Serm. ad infr Serm. de quarta feria truly the Sacrament of the Flesh of Jesus Christ The Author of the Book of Sacraments wrongly cited by Mr. Arnaud under the name of S. Ambrose refers it to the Spiritual Communion of Jesus Christ himself which we have in the Sacrament S. Austin refers it to our selves being made the Body of Jesus Christ and his Members The Author of the Treatise of Dressing the Lords Field refers it to the Faith of the Death of Jesus Christ and effusision of his Blood Pope Leo refers it to the reality of the humane Nature of Jesus Christ against the Error of the Eutichiens And it signifies nothing for Mr. Arnaud to offer so earnestly what this Pope says Hoc ore sumitur quod fide creditur frustra ab illis Amen respondetur à quibus contra id quod accipitur disputatur for 't is clear enough that these terms signifie nothing else but that the Sacrament which we receive with our mouths is a declaration and confirmation of what we ought to believe to wit that Jesus Christ has assumed a real humane Nature because 't is the Sacrament of his real Body which we receive and that the Amen which is answered is the Seal of this truth so that when the Hereticks dispute against it they dispute against the very Amen which they pronounce And this is the sense of Leo in all which there 's no substantial Presence AS to what remains Mr. Arnaud takes a strange liberty I told the Author of the Perpetuity that this formulary Corpus Christi was a formulary of use and action designed for the stirring up of the Communicants to meditate on the Death of Jesus Christ and prov'd it very clearly by these words of the Author of the Commentaries attributed to S. Hierom. Our Saviour has given us his Sacramen to the end that by this means we should always remember THAT HE DIED FOR US AND THEREFORE WHEN WE RECEIVE IT FROM THE HAND OF THE PRIEST WE ARE TOLD THAT 'T IS THE BODY AND BLOOD OF JESUS CHRIST and by those of Primasus Every time we do this we ought to remember THAT JESUS CHRIST DIED FOR US AND THEREFORE WE ARE TOLD 'T IS THE BODY OF CHRIST to the end that remembring what he has done for us we may not be ungrateful What does Mr. Arnaud hereupon He conceals these passages and concludes from his own authority That these notions of use and this extasie of the Soul immediately transported by these words Corpus Christi to the meditation of the Body of Jesus Christ in abstracto are Mr. Claudes Dreams exactly opposite to the sentiments of the Fathers and the Churches intention and that there 's small likelihood the faithful would depart from them to dive immediately into these kind of Meditations 'T IS certain Mr. Arnaud can conquer when he pleases he suppresses my Arguments recites my words in a contrary sense turns things into ridicule and flourishes all this over with passionate expressions But proceed we to his third remark IT affirms I conclude nothing tho the false Principle on which I ground Page 573. my Arguments were supposed a true one Altho says he 't were true that these words Corpus Christi were not designed by the Church to instruct the Faithful but only to excite in them certain inward motions and set them on meditating upon the Body of Jesus Christ yet this intention of the Church hindred 'em from understanding the sense of these words and 't would be still ridiculous to suppose that these ignorant persons should so immediately enter upon the practice of these inward motions that they could not understand the terms which the Church made use of to excite them I ANSWER Mr. Arnaud charges me with two things unjustly the first That I affirm this Formulary was not design'd by the Church to instruct the Faithful but only to excite internal motions in them which I never imagin'd I affirm'd expresly rhe contrary as may be seen by whosoever shall consult that part of my answer noted in the Margin There 's Answer to the second Treatise of the Perpetuity part 2. ch 2. page 259. In Quarto Edit little sincerity in this imputation and as little in charging me with a conclusion which I do not draw and in suppressing that which I do I do not conclude the intention of the Church which design'd these terms Corpus Christi to excite inward motions in the Souls of the Communicants should hinder them from understanding the sense of these words I know that as the use which is made of things does not hinder but we may consider the nature of 'em if we will so that which is made of words does not hinder a man from examining their sense But I say there are several persons who stop at the bare notion of use without going farther and thence I concluded it may be well supposed that in the ancient Church there were several persons who hearing the words Corpus Christi when they Communicated applied themselves only to the practice of the inward affections of devotion which these terms excited without going any farther and making reflection on what the terms being applied to the Sacrament signifi'd Let any man now judg whether my supposition be ridiculous extravagant and sensless as Mr. Arnaud would make people believe or whether 't is not rather by a spirit of contradiction that Mr. Arnaud has taken upon him to refute it IT may also be here confider'd by the way whether he has had reason to call absurd the notion I instanc'd touching light when I said our conceptions about it every morning are not under the idea of a body or accident or motion of air but under the idea of a thing which serves us and leads us forth to labour And this I think is the sense of the greatest part of the world and perhaps of Mr. Arnaud too if he would speak his mind there being few persons who think when the day begins to appear or withdraw of conceiving the light under the notions which Philosophy offers be they what they will At least I have the anonimous Author of the Discourse containing several reflections on the modern Philosophy of Mr. Des Cartes on my side for he freely acknowledges That this idea is such in
that time in the Church neither ignorant nor prophane persons much less can it be concluded hence there were then but three sorts of persons the Paschasists the Bertramists and those that pass'd from one opinion to another 'T is sufficient says Mr. Arnaud to tell Page 916. Mr. Claude in a word that to act as he must suppose they have done they must not have been men but some other kind of Animals and such creatures as we never heard of To which I answer that if he will not allow 'em to be Men he shall make Satyrs or Centaurs of 'em if he will for as to my part I must suppose 'em to be what they are If he does not find the Paschasists had zeal enough for the Real Presence he ought to impart more to 'em if he can And if the Bertramists have not well discharged their duty we for our share must deplore their stupidity seeing we cannot help it But howsoever 't is certain there were Paschasists and that there were Bertramists and 't is likewise as certain that the Pastors carelessness and the People ignorance were both very great These are matters of fact against which 't is in vain to dispute All that can be rationally said is that the ignorance of the one and the carelessness of the others made 'em agree in the subject of the Real Presence I mean they disputed not about it because they wanted ability to do it as well as zeal and industry Mr. ARNAVD endeavours in vain to persuade us that the disorders Book 9. ch 9. page 957. of the 10th Century were no greater than those of the others and that the state of the Church in this world is to include in the same external Society both living and dead Members Stubble and Wheat 't is a necessary consesequence of this state that a man may reproach every Age with several disorders and that each time of the Church may be respected as having two different faces according as a man casts his eyes upon the good that credit it or the wicked that dishonour it WHAT he says is but too true and so 't is too true that the 10th Century has improved the former errors for besides that the common disorders have appeared in it in a different degree there were particular ones in it which the preceding Ages were not acquainted with Never was there such an ignorance before which the Council of Trosly then denoted The neglect of the Bishops and Priests was never so great as that Council Elfric Arch-bishop of Canterbury and William of Tyre describe it Covetousness never reigned so much amongst the Monks and Priests as Polydor Virgil testifies it did then Such an universal degeneracy as we find attributed by Authors to those times we never yet heard of There were never seen in the Church of Rome the like disorders as those that were observable throughout this whole Century Such a relaxation of Discipline in the Cathedral Churches the superintendency of which was committed to Children of 5 10 12 and 14 years was never before known Most Writers that have mention'd it are Historians that design'd not to pass censures or aggravate in general the degeneracy of men but to remark the particular characters of this Century which distinguish them from the rest And therefore they call it the unhappy Age an Age of lead the iron Age an obscure and dark Age an Age of darkness and ignorance a most wretched time wherein the just were not to be found and wherein truth had for saken the earth an Age in short wherein hapned a general decay of all virtues 'T IS in vain for Mr. Arnaud to say again 't was an Age of Zeal Fervour Book 9. ch 7. page 947. Conversions Reformations in Princes in Princesses in Bishops in Religious Persons and in the People For first 't is certain that in respect of those which Mr. Arnaud speaks of that their Zeal their Fervour their Conversions their Reformations such as they were had not that prevalency as to make 'em dispute amongst themselves of the Real Presence On one hand was taught as we have already observed That there 's a great difference between this Body in which Jesus Christ suffered and that which is Consecrated in the Eucharist that the one is born of the Virgin has Blood Bones Skin Nerves and is endued with a reasonable Soul but that the other which is his spiritual Body consists of several grains without Blood Bones Members and Soul That as in the Water of Baptism there are two things to be considered one that according to nature 't is corruptible water and the other according to the spiritual mystery this water has a salutary virtue so the Eucharist according to the natural understanding is a corporeal and corruptive creature and according to the spiritual virtue life is in it it gives immortality to the Faithful 'T was taught that the Bread and Wine are spiritually changed into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ as the Manna was changed into his Flesh and the water of the Rock into his Blood That the Bread is not in any wise the same Body in which our Saviour suffered nor the Wine the Blood which he shed for us but his Body and Blood spiritually In this Age were several passages of the Fathers collected and urged against Paschasus touching the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ On the other hand the Pastors were exhorted to come and learn in Paschasus his Book what they were as yet ignorant of Miracles were likewise wrought to confirm those that doubted of the Real Presence but we do not find they disputed about it one against another If the reason which I offer from the ignorance and negligence of the one and the other does not well relish with Mr. Arnaud let him give a better I 'll gladly receive it provided he denies not certain matters of fact against which no arguments must be offered THE Zeal Fervour Conversions and Reformations which he attributes to the 10th Century hinder not the truth of what we observed concerning the Religious living without Rule their Abbots being married and Lay-men the Bishops neglecting to instruct their Flocks and an infinite number of either Sex and all Ages being ignorant of the Creed and Lords Prayer and living and dying in this ignorance This is a matter of fact attested by Witnesses of that very Age. This does not hinder but the Roman Church was for this whole Century in a fearful disorder as speaks the Author of the Perpetuity and Baronius too when he tells us Our Saviour Bayon annal Eccles Tom 10. ad ann 612. Christ slept then in his Ship He slept and made as tho he saw not these things he let them alone he arose not to take vengeance and that which was worse there were no Disciples who by their shrieks should awake the Lord sleeping for they were all asleep themselves What think you were the Cardinals Priests and Deacons that
and Raban who were Paschasus his Adversaries But in short if we will consult Mr. Arnaud he will tell us on the contrary Book 8. ch 11. Page 870. that Amalarius and Heribald were in no wise adversaries to Paschasus That the Author of the Perpetuity granted it because he believed William of Malmsbury said it but that this does not appear to be true That Amalarius indeed was a Sterconarist but yet never any body taught more expresly the Real Presence Thus these Gentlemen who so greatly insult over us when they find any difference amongst us Ministers in the least point of History or conjecture do not always agree among themselves one says Amalarius was the fore-runner of Berenger the other maintains that never any man taught more formally the Real Presence the one makes him together with Heribald and Raban a bitter enemy to Paschasus and th' other protests 't is not likely to be true TO clear up this confusion we must have recourse to the passages of Amalarius and judg of his Doctrin from it self He tells us then first That those things which are done in the celebration of the Mass are transacted Praesat ad lib. de Offic. Eccl. as in a Sacrament of our Lords Passion as he himself commands us saying Every time you do this do it in remembrance of me and therefore the Priest who immolates the Bread and Wine is in Sacrament of Christ the Bread the Wine and Water and Wine are for Sacraments of the Flesh and Blood of Christ The Sacraments must have some resemblance with the things of which they be Sacraments Let the Priest then be like our Saviour Christ as the Bread the Wine and Liquors are like the Body of Jesus Christ It appears from these words that in the stile of Amalarius to be a Sacrament of a thing is to represent it and hold the place of it for this is precisely what these terms signifie The things of the Mass are done IN SACRAMENT of our Lords Passion and these other terms the Priest is in Sacrament of Christ When then he adds that the Bread the Wine and Water are in SACRAMENT of the Flesh and Blood of Jesus Christ it is clear he means they stand in stead of it and represent them and this resemblance which he inserts afterwards between the Bread the Wine and the Water and the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ because they are the Sacraments of 'em confirm the same thing and at the same time formally distinguishes them from the Body and Blood themselves Mr. ARNAVD answers that Amalarius has follow'd the language of Book 8. ch 4. p. 783. sense and that the question here was not to explain the nature of the Eucharist but the mysterious references which God would engrave in the symbols which he has chosen in this mystery But what reason has Mr. Arnaud to make Amalarius to have follow'd the language of sense in opposition to that of Faith seeing Amalarius does not mention any thing that leads to this distinction and that on the contrary it appears by the terms which he makes use of that he honestly meant the Eucharist was real Bread and Wine in substance Who told Mr. Arnaud that Amalarius made not the nature of the Eucharist to consist in the whole action's being a Sacrament of our Lords Passion that the Priest immolates the Bread and Wine that he represents therein our Saviour Christ and that the Bread and Wine stand for his Body and Blood We must judg of Amalarius his Doctrin by his expressions To be in Sacrament according to him is to represent and stand for the Bread and Wine are in Sacrament of the Body and Blood as the Priest is in Sacrament of Jesus Christ they are not then really this Body and Blood AMALARIVS himself does clearly explain his mind in another Lib. 3. de Off. cap. 25. Book â— ch 7. page 834. place saying That the Priest bows himself and recommends to God what is immolated in the stead of Jesus Christ Hoc quod vice Christi immolatum est Deo patri commendat Mr. Arnaud says this is not an expression contrary to the Real Presence because Agapius has made use of it and that in effect this expression is grounded on the different state wherein Jesus Christ is in the Eucharist and that wherein he has been in his Passion and that wherein he now is in Heaven For this diversity distinguishing him to our senses it makes one distinguish him likewise in the expressions But all this is but a mere evasion Amalarius does not say that Jesus Christ in one state holds the place of himself in another state He ingenuously says that which is immolated in the stead of Jesus Christ and if you would know what he means by what is immolated in the place of Jesus Christ he has already told you that 't is Bread and Wine which are immolated and which are in Sacrament of the Flesh and Blood of Christ HE says moreover the same thing elsewhere The Oblation and the Cup Lib. 3. de Off. cap. 26. signifie our Lords Body and when Jesus Christ has said This is the Cup of my Blood he meant his Blood which was in his Body as the Wine was in the Cup. And a little further By this particle of the Oblation which the Priest puts in the Cup he represents the Body of Jesus Christ which is risen from the dead by that which the Priest or the People eat is represented this Body of Jesus Christ which is still on the Earth to wit his Church and by that which remains on the Altar is represented this other Body which is still lying in the Sepulchre to wit the faithful dead IT is in vain that Mr. Arnaud opposes to these passages what the same Amalarius says That the Church believes this Sacrament ought to be eaten by Book 8. ch 4. p. 785. men because she believes 't is our Lords Body and Blood and that in eating it the Souls of the Faithful are fill'd with benediction For 't is true that the reason for which the Church recommends to the Faithful the eating of the Eucharist is because 't is the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ this is not a matter in contest the question is only to know in what manner this is 'T IS moreover in vain that Mr. Arnaud urges these other words Credimus Ibid. naturam simplicem panis vini mixti verti in naturam rationabilem scilicet Corporis Sanguinis Christi We believe that the simple nature of Bread and Wine is changed into a reasonable nature to wit of the Body and Blood of Christ For his sense is not that there 's made a real conversion of one nature into another but that there 's made a mystical conversion by which 't is no longer mere Bread and Wine but the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ or as himself says elsewhere several times the Sacrament of the Body
and Blood of Jesus Christ 'T IS also no less in vain that Mr. Arnaud endeavours to make advantage of some terms of Amalarius his Letter to Guntard which may be seen in Spicilege's seventh Volume Guntard was a young man that was scandaliz'd at his seeing Amalarius spitting without any scruple immediately after his receiving the Communion Amalarius answers him that this was a thing natural and necessary to the preservation of health and that he thought he did nothing herein which cast any dishonor on the Body of Christ that if he imagin'd he cast out in spitting the Body of Christ he was deceived That he would say to him touching the Body of Jesus Christ which we receive what the Emperor Valentinian said to his Army 'T was in your power to choose me Emperor but now 't is in mine to choose whom I please for my Collegue 'T is the same here for 't is your part to have a pure heart and to beseech God to give it you but 't is his to disperse his Body throughout our members and veins for our salvation For 't is he who in giving the Bread to his Apostles has said This is my Body which shall be given for you His Body was on the Earth when he would and it is there when he pleases yea after his Ascension he has not disdain'd to shew himself to S. Paul in the Temple of Jerusalem which was on earth His sense is that we ought not to trouble our selves about what becomes of the mystical Body of Jesus Christ which we receive in the Eucharist that 't is our part to purifie our hearts and his to give us his Body in the manner which he thinks fitting because 't was he that said of the Bread of the Eucharist that 't was his Body What he adds concerning his Body being on the Earth c. he says it not with respect to the Real Presence as Mr. Arnaud imagins but in reference to the right which our Saviour has to make his Eucharistical Body what he pleases For 't is an argument à pari as we call it by which he undertakes to prove that Jesus Christ is the master of his Eucharistical Body as well as the master of his natural Body having left it on Earth as long as he thought fitting and after his Ascension was not so taken up with his abode in Heaven as not to shew himself to his Apostle in the Temple of Jerusalem And this appears from the sequel of his discourse I say this says he to the end that if thro ignorance or without my consent there should proceed out of my mouth any part of the Lords Body you may not believe presently hereupon that I am void of Religion and that I despise my Lords Body or that this Body be carried into any place where he would not have it come Our Soul lives by this Body as the Lord himself says If you eat not the Flesh of the Son of Man nor drink his Blood you have no life in you If then this Body be our life it will not lose being separated from us what it has in it self and what we receive from it My Son desire your Priests to take heed they lose not out of their hearts any of those words which the Lord has spoken in the Gospel for they are likewise our Life as well as the Consecrated Bread He means that altho he casts out of his mouth in spitting some part of the Eucharistical Body yet we must not believe this Body is carried to any place where our Saviour would not have it or this Body being in this place lies stript of the advantage which it has to be the life of our souls no more than the words of the Gospel which altho neglected be yet also our life What signifies this to the Real Presence Will not his discourse be every whit as coherent and as well followed if we suppose that the consecrated Bread is the Body of Jesus Christ in Sacrament as he teaches elsewhere as if we suppose it to be so in propriety of substance which we believe that Amalarius never taught THE conclusion which he draws from all this is yet if you will less favourable to Mr. Arnaud Thus says he having taken with an honest and faithful heart the Lords Body I have nothing to do to dispute whether it be invisibly carried up into Heaven or reserved in our Body till the day of Judgment or whether exhaled up in the Air or whether it flows from our Body with the Blood when our Veins be opened or issues out thro the Pores the Lord saying Whatsoever enters by the mouth into the belly goes into Excrement Which is to say that it belongs not to us to make all these questions about the Sacrament because our Saviour does with it what he pleases As to our parts adds he we ought only to have a care lest we receive it with a Judas ' s heart lest we despise it but on the contrary discern it salutarily from other common aliments I confess Mr. Arnaud has some reason to conjecture hence that Amalarius was of the number of those which they call Stercoranists but on what side soever he turns himself he cannot conclude he held the Real Presence and this very thing that Mr. Arnaud believes Amalarius was a Stercoranist ought to convince him on the contrary that this Author did not believe the change or conversion of the substance in the Eucharist HAD Mr. Arnaud consulted the Letter of the same Amalarius to Rangar which is within two pages of that which he wrote to Gruntard he had seen that Amalarius expounds these words of Jesus Christ This is the Cup of the New Testament in my Blood which is shed for you in this manner This Cup is a figure of my Body in which is the Blood which shall issue from my side to accomplish the ancient Law and when 't is spilt it shall be the New Testament because 't is a new and innocent Blood the Blood of the Man without Sin which shall be spilt for the Redemption of Mankind Explaining aftetwards what is said in the Liturgy Mysterium fidei This Blood says he is called the mystery of Faith because it profits to the Salvation and Eternal Life of him that believes himself Redeemed by this Blood and makes himself an imitator of our Lords Passion And therefore the Lord says If yee eat not the Flesh of the Son of man nor drink his Blood yee will have no life in you Which is to say if ye partake not of my Passion nor believe that I died for your salvation yee will have no life in you The mystery is Faith as S. Augustin teaches in his Epistle to Boniface as in some manner the Sacrament of the Body of Jesus Christ is the Body of Jesus Christ the Sacrament of the Blood of Jesus Christ is the Blood of Jesus Christ so the Sacrament of Faith is Faith 'T is plainly seen this
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
united to the Son of God and personally to an hundred millions of men at a time or do they imagin that the Body of Jesus Christ is loosed from his proper and natural Soul and dis-united hypostatically from the Word Believe me a man must be fallen into a dreadful disorder of mind to be guilty of these kind of fooleries But if these persons of the 9th Century against whom Raban and Bertram wrote believed in effect all these matters how happens it there 's no such thing to be found in Authors of those Ages nor the following ones and that to establish this fact to wit that there were persons who believ'd that the proper Body of Jesus Christ the same numerical substance which is in Heaven is here below really endued with the accidents of Bread Mr. Arnaud could offer nothing but some few conjectures impertinently drawn from a Principle of Amalarius BUT you will say how happens it that the passages which Mr. Arnaud alledges out of Bertram seem not directly to oppose the Doctrin of Paschasus and that sometimes they both meet in their expressions Bertram declares his design was against people who maintain that the mystery of the Body of Jesus Christ which is celebrated in the Church is not made under any figure nor under any vail but that the truth appears therein naked and manifest He makes to himself the questions Whether the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ which is received in the Church by the mouth of the Faithful be made as a mystery or as a truth which is to say Whether it contains any thing conceal'd which is only perceiv'd by the eyes of Faith or whether without the vail of any mystery the sight of the body sees outwardly that which the sight of the mind sees inwardly so that whatsoever is done in this mystery is discovered to the view of sense And in the second place Whether it be the same Body which was born of the Virgin Mary that suffered and died Paschasus on the other hand declares That it ought not to be denied that this Sacrament is a figure He distinguishes that which is felt outwardly from that which is hid inwardly and teaches that one is the figure of the other Est autem figura vel character hoc quod exterius sentitur sed totum veritas nulla adumbratio quod interius percipitur ALL the force of this objection consists in an equivocation Paschasus takes the term of figure in one sense Bertram takes it in another Bertram affirms that the Eucharist is a figure in a sense which Paschasus denies So that their Doctrins in the main cannot be more opposite than they are And of this the readers needed not to have been ignorant had Mr. Arnaud been pleased to relate in what manner Bertram explains himself For having proposed two questions in the terms which we have seen he adds Let us examin the first of these questions and to clear it from all ambiguity define what we mean by a figure and what by truth to the end that having something that is certain before our eyes we may better find the reasonable way which we ought to follow The figure is a kind of shadow which by means of some vails shews us what it proposes to shew us As for example when we would signifie the Word we call it Bread as in the Lords Prayer where we ask our daily bread or as our Saviour says in the Gospel I am the living Bread that came down from Heaven Thus does he call himself a Vine and his Disciples the Branches I am says he the true Vine and you are the Branches In all which there is one thing said and another signified The truth on the contrary is a manifest demonstration of the thing without using either shadow image or vail it being discovered by simple and natural expressions there being nothing to be understood but what is contained in the terms 'T is not the same in these other examples for our Saviour Christ is not substantially either Bread or Vine nor the Apostles Branches Here then we have a figure but in the last examples the truth is uttered in plain and open terms Now to apply this to the things in question to wit the Body and Blood of Christ Were this mystery celebrated without a figure it could not be call'd a mystery for one cannot call that a mystery wherein there is nothing secret nothing remote from the corporal senses nor hid under any vail Yet this Bread which is made the Body of Christ by the ministry of the Priest shews another thing outwardly to the senses and offers another thing to the intelligence of the Faithful Outwardly one discovers the form of Bread its colour and savour such as it was before But there is another thing far more precious and excellent which is taught inwardly a divine and heavenly thing to wit the Body of Jesus Christ which is therein represented and 't is not by the corporal senses but by the spiritual intelligence of the Faithful that this thing is considered taken and eaten He says the same of the Vine and concludes seeing no body can deny but this is so 't is manifest that this Bread and this Wine are the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ figuratively A man must shut his eyes if he cannot see he means that the Bread and Wine of the Eucharist are a mystery which represent to us the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ and that when they be called the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ 't is a figurative locution like in some sort to these others in the Gospel where our Lord is called Bread a Vine and his Apostles Branches Now 't is precisely in this sense that Paschasus denied the Eucharist was a figure When our Saviour says he brake and gave the Bread to his Disciples Câ—mment in Mat. 26. he does not say that this or there is in this mystery a certain virtue or a figure of my Body but he says plainly This is my Body And a little lower I marvail at some peoples saying 't is a figure and not the truth a shadow and not the Body And in his Letter to Frudegard Sacramentum Corporis Christi Sanguinis quamvis Sacramentum dicatur non est aliud quam veritas quod ipsa veritas repromisit which he proves by the same examples which Bertram alledges of simple locutions to wit of the Birth Incarnation and Passion of our Saviour These things says he which our Saviour did as God and Man be Sacraments of his Grace and a mystery of Faith and yet are they nothing but the truth altho they be called Sacraments And he afterstards makes this objection These things being mysteries cannot to wit in this quality be either seen or toucht and consequently this is not a Body and if it be not a Body they are a figure of the Flesh and Blood of Jesus Christ and not this Flesh and this Blood in propriety
and which expresly contains the Article of Transubstantiation in these terms Sacramentum Eucharistiae ex azymo conficit Romana Ecclesia tenens et docens quod in ipso Sacramento Panis verè Transubstantiatur in Corpus Vinum in Sanguinem Domini nostri Jesu Christi The Roman Church Celebrates the Sacrament with Unleavened Bread holding 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 THE Popes have ever earnestly recommended to the Missionaries the instructing of the Nestorians and other Eastern Christians according to this Formulary They have sent it to the Nestorian Proselyte Bishops enjoyning 'um to have it continually in their minds and to teach it their People as we may see in Raynaldus In the profession of Faith which Raynaldus ad ann 1445. Timotheus a Nestorian Arch-Bishop of the Isle of Cyprus made in the year 1445. not long after the Council of Florence he was made to say that he confessed and approved of the Seven Sacraments of the Roman Church and Raynaldus ad ann 1445. of the manner after which she holds teaches and Preaches them And in the Reunion made in the year 1583. of certain Nestorian Christians of St. Thomas whom the Portugaises found in the Kingdoms of Cochin Coulan and Cranganor Du Jarric observes their Arch-Bishop was Du Jarric's History of the East Indias caused to profess what the Council of Florence had decreed touching the Doctrine which must be held concerning the Sacraments He means without doubt that which was set down in the Instruction given to the Armenians in which we see the Article of Transubstantiation All which shews us they well knew the Necessity there was of introducing Transubstantiation into the Nestorian Church to make it conformable to the Roman whence 't is not difficult to conclude that this Doctrine was not establisht in it before IN effect had the Emissaries and other travellers into these Countrys found the belief of the Substantial Conversion established in them 't is not to be doubted but they would have proclaimed it to the World and made this a Proof of the Antiquity of that Article Mr. Arnaud would not have bin reduced to the Necessity of drawing a Proof from their silence seeing they would have positively declared they found these People imbued with this sentiment that the substance of Bread is changed into the proper Substance of the Body of Jesus Christ The Popes would have loudly Gloryed in it and certainly there would have bin some Body or other that would have taken Notice of the contradictions of the Protestants in Europe but instead of this neither the Popes nor Emissaries make mention of this pretended conformity and Mr. Arnaud Philosophises upon their not charging the Nestorians with their being Calvinists and upon some passages of their Liturgies which are very uncertain and which at bottom are of no consideration in respect of our difference LEONTIUS of Byzanejus recites a Discourse concerning these Nestorians from whence we may easily gather their Opinion touching the Bread of the Eucharist They were very earnest according to his Relation Leontius Biz advers Nest Eutych Lib. 3. Bibl. patr tom 4. with an Orthodox Christian to communicate with them and this Person telling them he could not have Communion at the same time with the Catholick Church and theirs they answered him that this need not trouble him because the Bread which is proposed as a Type of the Body of Jesus Christ contains a greater blessing than that sold in the market or the Bread which the Philomarianites offered in the name of Mary 'T is apparently seen these are not the expressions of Persons that believe the real Presence which the Roman Church holds This shews they acknowledged no other effect from the Consecration than that of a Vertue of Benediction or Grace and 't is also very Remarkable that in this Discourse they do not give any other title to the Bread of the Sacrament than that of the Type of the Body of Jesus Christ in which they follow the expression of Apud Cyrill alex. contra Nest Lib. 4. Cap. 6. See the Eight Chapter wherein are several passages of the Liturgy of the Nestorians and Indians Lib. 5. C. 12. p. 508. Nestorius himself the Author of their Sect who speaking of the Bread of the Eucharist say's that the Body of Jesus Christ is the Original of it which is as much as to say that the Bread is a figure which represents this Body And thus far concerning the Nestorians AS to the Maronites their profession of Obedience since so long a time to the See of Rome receiving their Patriarchs from the Pope do's evidently exclude them from this dispute Yet we cannot but observe how little exact Mr. Arnaud is when designing to shew that the Maronites believed Transubstantiation and the real Presence even before their Reunion to the Roman Church say's that Thomas a Jesu mentions an extract made by the Popes Legats of the bad Propositions they found in the Books of the Maronites amongst which they comprehend the different Ceremonys such as Comunicating of both kinds giving the Communion to Children Yet in this Catalogue of suspected Propositions there 's not one relating to the Eucharist 'T is certain Mr. Arnaud is mistaken having perused this extract a little carelesly for otherwise he would have observed three Propositions which evidently shew that these People did not believe Transubstantiation nor yet the Substantial Presence The first is That our Saviour Christ dipt the Bread he gave to Judas to ' the end he might thereby take off the Consecration Christus intinxit Panem quem erat Judae porrecturus ad Consecrationem tollendam We have already observed that this Errour must be grounded on this Principle that the Bread is a Subject that receives Grace as a quality which imprints its self in its Substance and which may be effaced in washing the Bread For what likelyhood is there had they believed that the effect of the Consecration was to change the Substance of Bread into that of the Body of Jesus Christ that in dipping the Bread the Substance of the Body of Jesus Christ would be washed off THE II. Proposition which the Legats expunged out of the Maronites Books was That when we receive the Eucharist it Descends not into the Stomach but immediately disperses it self to every member of our Body This Proposition was deem'd Heretical and in effect we cannot believe that the matter of the Sacrament disperses its self to all the Members of our Body without supposing it to be the Substance of Bread there being too many absurdities to make the proper Substance of Christs Body pass into the Substance of our Flesh Yet this Sentiment is grounded on the Doctrine of Damascene who expresly asserts That the Sacrament passes Damascen Lib. 4. de fide Orthodox C. 14 into the Substance of our
no more any express and determined thought on the Articles of the Christian Faith and that Jesus Christ is God and Man that he was born of a Virgin died for us rose again and ascended up into Heaven and that there is an Eucharist but meaning that they had only a very small knowledg of them such as is common to persons unlearned and who rarely apply themselves to meditate on matters of Religion who go indeed for Christians but trouble themselves with no more knowledg than barely to learn the Creed and receive some other general Instructions 'T is easily perceived that this was my sense and that the ignorance I attribute to these persons of the 10th Century from the concurrent Testimony of all Historians was not so great as to keep 'em absolutely from all knowledg of the principal Points of Christian Religion as if they were become Pagans or Atheists or bruit Beasts but that it hindred them from having that clearness of apprehension and distinct knowledg which comes by study and pains and the hearing of able Preachers Which will evidently appear upon consulting the particular places of my Answer wherein I treat of the 10th Century for I attribute to it a confused knowledg of the Mysteries of Religion Now a confused knowledg is moreover a formal knowledg Elsewhere I compare their knowledg to that of a Child who is wont to see First Answer near the end his Nurse ill drest lean and sick which still supposes he sees her altho he sees her not in her usual condition In another place I say the Pastors grew Answer to the second Treatise Part 2. ch 3. and Part 3. ch 7. careless of instructing the People and the People likewise of informing themselves in matters of Religion that there were few persons that applied themselves to the meditating on the Christian Mysteries that the Pastors extremely neglected th' instructing of the People and that the People grew as careless as they in matters of their salvation Now the meaning of all this is not that they wholly lost all kind of knowledg but that it was very scanty In fine 't will appear this is my sense to him that shall cast his eyes on the use I pretend to make of the obscurity of the 10th Age which was to shew that the people of it had not light enough to discern whether the Doctrin of the Real Presence was an innovation in the Christian Religion or whether 't was a Doctrin of the Fathers Now this does not oblige a man to suppose an absolute ignorance of the Christian Mysteries but that the knowledg of them was very confused Which Mr. Arnaud could have well enough seen if he pleased but he thought 't were better to betake himself to Sophisms imagining they would not be laid open and that he might so disguise the subject that few persons should be able to understand it And 't is on this Principle which is neither true nor sincere that he has grounded this reasoning the common Mysteries held at this day by both Parties and contained in the ancient Symbols were not unknown in the 10th Century therefore they of that Age had a distinct knowledg of the truths of the Christian Doctrin WHATSOEVER follows in his fourth Chapter turns upon the same equivocation Did they leave off says he reading the Holy Scripture Page 892. in the Churches and Cloisters Did they give over explaining of it to the People and teaching it in the Schools Do not the writings of those Authors which we have that lived in that Century such as those of S. Odon and Raterius Bishop of Verone make it appear that the Scriptures and Fathers were studied Why does he say that the people had concealed from 'em the clear and solid expositions of the Fathers Was not the Eucharist therein called the Sacrament of the Body of Jesus Christ the Mystery of the Body of Jesus Christ Bread and Wine But all these interrogations are needless A man may say they did not absolutely give over the reading of the holy Scripture and expounding it Perhaps Odon and Raterius were a little studious Perhaps the Eucharist was called a Sacrament a Mystery Bread and Wine and yet it may not follow the People had a distinct knowledg of the points of Religion The Greeks Armenians Moscovites Ethiopians Jacobites Nestorians did not wholly lay aside the reading of the Holy Scripture and of some Fathers in their Church and Cloisters and yet is it true that all these people yea their very Monks and Prelates lived in a very confused knowledg of the mysteries of the Gospel WHAT he adds touching some Historians and Bishops that wrote Books is built on the same foundation Besides that there appears not any thing in these Authors but what is very mean their small number does well warrant our saying this Age was void of Learned men and that people had but a very confused knowledg of the mysteries of the Gospel 'T IS false saith he that in this Age open War was denounced against the senses If this be false how does he himself understand they taught Transubstantiation in it For can this Doctrin be taught without opposing the testimony of our senses seeing they shew us it is Bread and Wine BUT these small objections are very inconsiderable in comparison of Mr. Arnaud's grand pretension which is that this confused knowledg which I attribute to the 10th Century is but a mere empty sound whose sense I my self do not understand In searching his Book says he in what sense he took it I found that confused knowledg and distinct knowledg are one and the same thing in his language which is to say that the knowledg which he calls confused is every whit as clear as that which he calls distinct This discovery would be a very fine one indeed were it not merely imaginary 'T is grounded on that describing some-where the instructions of the Fathers of the eight first Centuries I say that they taught therein the Sacrament to be Bread and Wine that this Bread and Wine were the signs and Figures of the Body of Jesus Christ that they lost not their natural substance but were called the Body and Blood of Christ because they were the Sacraments of ' em He hence concludes that 't is in these Articles wherein consists according to my way the distinct knowledg of the Mystery of the Eucharist He afterwards observes that in another place speaking of the trurh of the Eucharist which have been always popular I say That the Mystery of the Eucharist has been always popular in the outward form of its celebration and in the general acts which Christians ought to perform in it To take Bread to drink Wine in remembrance of the Death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ our Lord to receive these things with a religious frame of mind as a great Sacrament which the Lord has ordained to raise up ones Faith to the Body and Blood of our Saviour to
find therein the consolation of our Souls this without doubt is popular It is popular to hearken to the testimony of sense which tells us that 't is Bread and yet to hear that 't is the Body of Christ the Sacrament of the Body of Christ its pledg its memorial It is popular to know that Jesus Christ is in Heaven and that from thence he shall come to judg both the quick and dead Whence he concludes with Authority that the distinct knowledg which I give to the first Ages and the confused one which I attribute to the 10th are but one and the same thing IT must be allowed that never any consequence was more violently drawn than that of Mr. Arnaud's First It is not true that the Articles which I give of the distinct knowledg are the same with those of the popular knowledg Among the first is found That the Bread and Wine lose not their natural substance That they are called the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ because they are the Sacraments of 'em which is not found in the Articles of the popular knowledg How will he have this to be then one and the same thing There is a great deal of difference between harkning to the testimony of ones proper senses which shew the Eucharist to be Bread and Wine and learning from the instructions of Pastors that the Eucharist is Bread and Wine The first induces a man to believe that to judg of it by sense 't is real Bread and Wine but the second goes farther for it shews this very thing which the senses depose to be the true belief of the Church Now these two things are wholly different as any man may see The first does not dispose men to reject Transubstantiation as a novelty contrary to the Faith of the Church for it remains still to know whether the Faith of the Church be not contrary to the testimony of sense The second does dispose 'em to it for it shews that the Doctrin of the Church is according to the deposition of the senses Now the first is according to my rule belonging to the popular knowledg and the second belongs to the distinct knowledg What reason is there then in having these two knowledges to be the same Thirdly Mr. Arnaud has not observed that when I spake of the distinct knowledg of the eight first Centuries I did not pretend exactly to denote all the Articles of it this was not my business in that place But only t' observe some of the principal ones which were sufficient to make known the sense of these Propositions The Bread is the Body of Jesus Christ it is changed into the Body of Jesus Christ But it does not hence follow but that there were therein some others very considerable ones which may be gathered from the passages of the Fathers which I produc'd in my first part as that the change which happens in the Eucharist is not a change of Nature but an addition of Grace to Nature that Jesus Christ as to his human Body or human Nature is so in Heaven that he is no more on Earth that the manducation of the Body of Jesus Christ is spiritual and mystical that we must not understand it literally it being a figurative expression that the Sacrament and the verity represented by the Sacrament are two distinct things and several others which are not necessary to be related Supposing it were true that the Articles of the popular knowledg were the same with those I mark'd of the distinct knowledg which is evidently false yet would it not follow that these two knowledges according to my sense would be the same thing seeing I never pretended to make an exact enumeration of all the points of the distinct knowledg nor exclude them which I now denoted which are no wise popular In fine Mr. Arnaud has not considered that of the same Articles whether popular or not popular a man may have a distinct knowledg and a confused one according as he makes a greater or lesser reflection on them according as they are respected with more or less application according as each of those that has the knowledg of 'em has more or less understanding natural or acquired so that supposing we attributed to the distinct knowledg of the eight first Centuries only the Articles which I specifi'd supposing these Articles were the same as those I attribute to the popular knowledg which is not true supposing again there were no difference in 'em as there is in respect of some of these Articles between the knowing of 'em popularly that is to say either by the help of the Senses or by the natural motion of the Conscience and to know them by the instruction of the Pastors as a thing which the Church believes and from which a man must not vary it would in no wise thence follow that the confused knowledg were according to what I laid down the same thing the object of these two knowledges would be the same but the knowledges would be distinct And thus have we shewed Mr. Arnaud's subtilties CHAP. VI. Mr. Arnaud's Objections against what he calls the Machins of Mollification and the Machins of Execution Examin'd The state of the Twelfth Century MR. ARNAVD will not suffer me to say in my Answer to the Answer to the second Treatise Part 2. chap. 7. Author of the Perpetuity That Error does not insinuate it self by way of opposition or a formal contradiction of the truth but by way of addition explication and confirmation and that it endeavours to ally it self with the ancient Faith to prevent its immediate opposition And this is what he calls my Machins of Mollification which he pretends to overthrow in his fifth Chapter The inventions says he of Mr. Claude are Book 9. ch 5. page 899. usually attended with very considerable defects To which I have no more to say but this that the pretensions of Mr. Arnaud are commonly very high but generally very ill grounded well offer'd but ill defended 'T IS false says he that Paschasus did not teach his Doctrin by expresly condemning those that were of a contrary Opinion Mr. Arnaud hides himself under a thin vail pretending not to understand what he does very well We do not say that Paschasus did not propose his Doctrin by condemning those of a contrary Opinion This is not the point in question The question is Whether he did not propose his Doctrin as the Doctrin of the Church which was not sufficiently understood and which he therefore more clearly explain'd Now Paschasus himself decides this difference as I have shewed in my Answer to the Perpetuity For speaking in the beginning of his Book touching his design he says That all the Faithful ought to understand the Lib. De Corpore Sang. Dom. cap. 2. Sacrament of our Lords Body and Blood which is every day celebrated in the Church and what they ought to believe and know of it That we must seek the