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
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
Form of Faith he will answer 't is because the Term of Transubstantiatur is in it Tell him that in the Greek there is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Transmutatur and not Transubstantiatur he will answer that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Transmutatur and Transubstantiatur are the same thing But let this be examined it will be found to be indeed the same thing to them that believe Transubstantiation but as to others who do not there is a great difference so that to speak truly to make Mr Arnaud's Argument good it must first be supposed the Greeks believe the Substantial Conversion as well as the Latins HE may adjust these matters when he pleases but let me tell him in the mean time that the Greeks used the same expressions in the Council of Florence The Latins having demanded wherefore after the words of our Saviour Concil Florent Sess 25. Jesus Christ take eat this is my Body which has been broken for you for the Remission of your Sins c. they added this Prayer and make this Bread the precious Body of thy Christ and that which is in this Cap the precious bloud of thy Christ in changing them by virtue of thy Holy Spirit they answered they did acknowledge that the Consecrated Bread was made the Body of Christ by these words The Latin Decree has this expression fateri nos diximus per haec verba Transubstantiari Sacrum Panem fieri Corpus Christi but the Greek expressions are these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Latin say's 't is Transubstantiated the Greek that 't is Consecrated MR. Arnaud has recourse here likewise to his Synonimy's for he tells us that the Latins to whom this answer was made having taken it in the sence Lib. 4. cap. 2. pag. 345. of an acknowledgement of Transubstantiation it is ridiculous to pretend there was such a great equivocation between them and the Greeks the one understanding a change of Substance and the others a change of Virtue He adds That if the Greeks had not taken these words in the sence of the Latins Syropulus and Marc of Ephesus would have observed that the Latins were derided by this equivocation and would have accused them who made this answer of prevarication and deceit In fine he say's that Andrew de S. Cruce who deserves as much to be credited as any of the other Historians who wrote on this Council because he was there present relates this acknowledgment of Transubstantiation which Bessarion made in the name of all the Greeks in a manner more precise distinct and with greater circumstances and that he attributes to him these words we have learnt that these are the words of our Lord which Change and Transubstantiate the Bread into the Body of Jesus Christ and the Wine into his Blood and that these divine words have the full force of Transubstantiation I answer the more I study the Character of Mr. Arnaud the more clearly I perceive that these things are no otherwise ridiculous and affrightful but only as they agree not with his designs For it is certain that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Transubstantiari are two different Terms which signifie not the same thing the first is applicable in general to all Mysteries and signifies only to be conjecrated or perfectly consecrated the second signifies a Change of one Substance into another It is moreover certain that when the Latins wrote Transubstantiari the Greeks have only set down 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 why then will he have it that the Greeks took not this Term in its natural signification and in the usual sence given to it amongst them Because say's he that the Latins took this answer for an acknowledgment of Transubstantiation But who told him that the Latins did not do ill in taking it after this manner Who told him the Greeks intended the Latins should take it in this sence The Greeks have kept to their general expressions and the Latins have drawn them as far as they could to their advantage If there has been any equivocation in them the Latins have voluntarily made it and 't is very likely could they have made the Greeks say 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they would gladly have done it but not being able to effect it they have made what advantage they could of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in interpreting it by the word Transubstantiation And this is the whole Secret which is neither ridiculous nor affrightful in any other than Mr. Arnaud's imagination And as to what he say's concerning Syropulus and Mark of Ephesus namely that they would have observed the Latins were deluded by an Equivocation and accuse them who thus answered in behalf of the Greeks of prevarication and deceit I see no reason they had to do this for when the Greeks sayd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they spoke their usual Language and derided no body If the Latins understood it otherwise than the force of the Term and common use permitted them 't is they that derided the Greeks rather than the Greeks them wherefore there is no reason in this respect to accuse them who made this answer of prevarication and deceit Andrew de S. Cruce his relating the words of Bessarion according to the intention of the Latins does but confirm what I say which is that the Roman Church has ever endeavoured to expound to its advantage the general expressions of the Greeks and I know not wherefore Mr. Arnaud tells us that he deserves no less credit than the other Historians who wrote of this Council Would he have it that Bessarion who speaks for all the rest of the Greeks did not use the Term 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This is the very word in the Greek Text concerning that Council and Andrew de S. Cruce's Authority is not sufficient to correct a Publick Act neither can his Latin alter the Greek Would he have it that the Latins explain'd the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Bessarion by Transubstantiatur I grant it and the Decree of the Council shows it so that he needs not call Andrew de St. Cruce to his assistance Yet may we observe that Mr. Arnaud himself is not fully satisfi'd that the Greek and Latin expressions on this Subject do mean but one and the same thing altho he tells us he is for he calls that which Andrew de S. Cruce relates from Bessarion a more precise manner more distinct and circumstantial which is as much as to say after all that the Transubstantiari of the Latins is more precise distinct and plain than the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Greeks AND this the force of Truth has extorted from him and it were well if it could likewise so far prevail with him as to make him acknowledge that this proceeding of the Greeks is an evident mark they believed not Transubstantiation For had they believed it what likelyhood is there they should thus carefully keep themselves from using the expressions
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
change of Substance So that so far Jeremias had no cause to tell 'em they mistook his Words Neither does he do it in his Reply or second Answer but still continues to say The Bread is changed without proceeding any farther It is true in fine that the Divines having replyed to Jeremias his second Letter they expresly oppose the change of Substance and seem thereby to suppose they had taken the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Jeremias in the Sence of a real Transubstantiation which might then oblige this Patriarch to explain himself more clearly than he had done in his former Writings But it is also true that he returned them no particular Answer touching the Article of the Eucharist He contented himself with telling them in general concerning the Sacraments That seeing they admitted only some of them and moreover erroneously perverted and changed the Expressions of the ancient and modern Doctrin to obtain their Aim 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They therefore deserved not the Title of Divines Which sufficiently shews his Complaint against them for their misunderstanding of these Terms in understanding them of a change of Substance and at the same time certifying them that for his Part he would not deviate from the general and usual Expressions of his Church IT is certain there is in these Writings of Jeremias such Matters which cannot agree with the Roman Transubstantiation as that which we have already related when we treated on the real Belief of the Greeks That God has given us the Sacraments double that is to say consisting on one Hand of the Grace of the Holy Spirit and on the other of sensible things which are Water Oyl Bread and the Chalice by which our Souls are sanctifi'd For a Man that speaks thus clearly shews he understands the Substance of Bread remains We may likewise reckon in this Rank what he says concerning the Church That she is set forth to us in the Mysteries not as in the Symbols But as the Members are in the Heart and the Branches of a Tree in the Root or as the Branches in the Vine according to our Saviour's Words For here is not only a bare Communion of Name or relation of Resemblance but the Identity of the thing it self For the Mysteries are really the Body and Blood of Christ and they are not changed into our Body but we are changed into them the strongest part prevailing The Iron when put in the Fire becomes Fire it self but the Fire becomes not Iron As then when the Iron is red-hot we perceive no more Iron but Fire the Fire dispelling all the Proprieties of Iron so he that beholds Christ's Church in as much as it is united to him and partakes of his Flesh beholds nothing else but the Body of our Lord. THIS Discourse is taken Verbatim out of Cabasilas as I have observed elsewhere and shews the Change of Bread and Wine must not be urged as if they understood it of a Change of Substance seeing he uses the same Term in respect of the Communicants saying We are changed into the Mysteries They likewise shew us we must not take in a Counter-Sence what he say's concerning the Mysteries being really the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ seeing he tells us the Church is the very Body of our Lord. I alledged these last Words in my Answer to the Perpetuity and say'd That Jeremias speaks of the Church which has received the Impression of the Spirit of Christ Mr. Arnaud accuses me of Falsifying this Passage But this Accusation comes from his being out of Humor The original Words I recited are these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he will perceive nothing else but our Lord's Body And as to what I said that he speaks of the Church which has received the Impression of the Spirit of Christ I affirm this is his Sence and that Mr. Arnaud as prejudiced as he is cannot give it any other For to what relates this Comparison of Fire which changes the Iron but to the Impression of the Spirit of Christ on the Church and this Union of the Church with Christ but to his spiritual and mystical Union It is true he say's That 't is in as much as she is partaker of his Flesh But this does not in any sort change his Sence For 't is from the mystical Participation of his Flesh that comes the Impression of his Spirit and it is the Impression of his Spirit which effects this admirable Change These two things are subalternate but not contrary to one another So that Mr. Arnaud impertinently charges me with falsifying the Passage of Jeremias But it is not the same with this other Passage which Forbesius alledged and concerning which I have complained of the Author of the Perpetuity Mr. Arnaud may say if he pleases That my Complaint is unreasonable yet will it be found both Just and Reasonable Forbesius was a Person who making outward Profession of the Protestant Religion yet wrote in favour of the Church of Rome under the specious pretence of Peace and Agreement To soften what we believe is hard in the Doctrine of Transubstantiation he assures us that almost all the Greeks believe it and instances Jeremias who teaches according to what he say's That the Bread is neither a Figure nor an Azyme but the real Body of Christ contained under the species of leavened Bread The Author of the Perpetuity alledges this Forbesius as a Person whose Testimony ought to be of great weight with us being a Protestant The cause then of my Complaint is that we must have a false Translation of Jeremias imposed upon us under the Name of a Protestant without telling us what kind of Man this Protestant was When we make use of a Witness we ought certainly to consider what he is and if it appears there be just Exceptions against him we must not offer him and when we would use a Passage which he alledges we must take care his Translation be true It is to no purpose to say We are not obliged to justify the Translations of Protestants and that if he be mistaken 't is his Fault This might be indeed alledged supposing the P. 365. Author of the Perpetuity had disputed against Forbesius or were ignorant who this Forbesius was but this Mans Character sufficiently shews it self by the bare reading of his Book Neither does it signify any thing to say That Forbesius is not the Author of this Translation but Transcribed it Verbatim from Socolovius Neither is it less a Deceit in Forbesius himself who ought not to make us Believe that Jeremias said what he did not and when a Person that pretends to be of our Communion deceives us we have right to inveigh against him Let us come then to the Point and inquire whether the Translation of Jeremias be false Mr. Arnaud say's 't is not and I affirm it is The Question will be decided by the reading of Jeremias his own Words The Bread say's he of the Lord's
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
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
that the doubt was rejected in these terms I believe the Eucharist to be the true and proper Body of Jesus Christ nor to make the world believe that all Nations and Ages spake in this sort The term of true may be met with in some passages which Mr. Arnaud alledges and that of proper in others and both of these are therein used in senses far different from that which he gives them but he must not under this pretence form this proposition That the Eucharist is the true and proper Body of Jesus Christ for there 's a great deal of difference between these terms being separate which offer themselves in divers passages and in divers Authors and these same terms joyned together by way of exageration I confess that Nicephorus according to Allatius's relation joyns together the two terms of properly and truly but besides that Nicephorus is not all Ages nor all Nations we have already shew'd that he speaks only thus upon an Hypothesis far different from that of Transubstantiation or the substantial Presence and therefore Mr. Arnaud cannot make any advantage of what he says AND these are my general answers to Mr. Arnaud's passages Should we descend at present to the particular examination of these passages we must first lay aside those of Anastasius Sinait of Damascen of the second Council of Nice of Nicephorus the Patriarch of Constantinople the profession of Faith made by the Saracens that were Converts of the 12th Century and that of the Horologium of the Greeks for they have been all of 'em already sufficiently answer'd 't is only needful to remember what I have already established touching the real Belief of the Greek Church There must likewise be retrenched those that be taken from the Liturgies of the Copticks and Ethiopians seeing we have already answered them We have also answer'd that taken out of the common Liturgy of the Armenians or to speak better the Armenians themselves have answer'd it IF those of Leopolis call the Bread and Wine the true Body and the true Blood of Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour there is no likelihood for all this that they have another Belief than that of the rest of the Armenians who formally declare as we have already seen that they mean nothing else by these terms than a true mystery of this Body and Blood and in effect it is said in the same Liturgy whence Mr. Arnaud has taken his Quotation that the Priest says in Communicating I eat by Faith O Lord Jesus Apud Cassand iâ— Liturgicis Christ thy holy living and saving Body I drink by Faith thy holy and pure Blood THE passage of Adam the Arch-deacon of the Nestorians mention'd by Strozza is impertinently alledg'd for two reasons First That these are the words of a man that reconciled himself with the Church of Rome who in embracing its Religion wrote in Rome it self under the inspection of Pope Paul V. and from whose words by consequence there can be nothing concluded touching the Nestorian Church Secondly That what he says concerning our eating the true Body of God but of God Incarnate that we drink truly the Blood of a Man but of a Man that is God relates not to our question nor is not said in this respect but in regard of the Error of the Nestorians who will have the Body of Jesus Christ to be the Body of a mere man and not the true Body of God Incarnate What 's this to the question to wit Whether that which we receive with the mouths of our bodies be the substance it self of the Body of Jesus Christ WHAT he alledges touching the Liturgy of the Indian Christians that added to the saying of our Saviour these words In veritate saying Hoc est in veritate corpus hic est in veritate sanguis meus is a thing very doubtful 'T is not likely Alexis Menesez the Arch-bishop of Goa who laboured to reduce these Indians to the Faith of the Roman Church would have retrenched from their Liturgy these words in veritate had he in truth found them in it Those that wrote the actions of this Arch bishop say this addition was made by a Bishop that came from Babylon Mr. Arnaud tells us we must not much heed what they relate This is a mere Chaos wherein a Book 5. Ch. 10. p. 500. man can comprehend nothing The Deacon says he sings still in their Mass Fratres mei suscipite corpus ipsius filii Dei dicit Ecclesia But what consequence can be drawn from these words 'T is certain that this corpus ipsius filii Dei is a clause added by Menesez against the Error of the Nestorians who would have it to be no more than the Body of a mere man for every one knows this was the Heresie of the Nestorians There remains still in this Liturgy as correct as 't is several passages that do not well agree with the Doctrine of the Roman Church as what the Priest says Jesus Missae Christ apud Indos Bibl. patr tom 6. Christ our Lord the Son of God that was offer'd for our salvation and who commanded us to Sacrifice in remembrance of his Passion Death Burial and Resurrection receive this Sacrifice from our hands Were the Sacrifice Jesus Christ in his proper substance there 's no likelihood they would offer it to Jesus Christ himself Having read the passage of S. Paul That whilst we are in this Body we are absent from the Lord that we desire to be out of the body to have his presence that we desire to please him whether present or absent c. rehearsed the Creed the Priest says This Sacrifice is in remembrance of the Passion Death Burial and Resurrection of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ Then praying for the Consecration O Lord God says he look not upon the multitude of my sins ' and be not angry with us for the number of our Crimes but by thy ineffable Grace Consecrate this Sacrifice AND INDUE IT WITH THAT VIRTUE AND EFFICACY THAT IT MAY ABOLISH THE MULTITUDE OF OUR SINS to the end that when thou shalt at last appear in that humane form which thou hast been pleased to take on thee we may find acceptance with thee On one hand he restrains the Consecration to the virtue or efficacy which God gives to the Sacrament for the abolishing of our sins and on the other formally distinguishes the Sacrament from the Humane Nature of Jesus Christ in which he will appear ar the last day Immediately after he calls the gifts the Holy Sacraments of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ And then beseeches God they may be made worthy to obtain the remission of their sins by means of the Holy Body which they shall receive by Faith Again he says That he Sacrifices the Mystery of the Passion Death Burial and Resurrection of Jesus Christ and prays to God That his Holy Spirit may come down and rest on this Oblation and sanctifie it to
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
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
Grains so we likewise altho several are made one and the same Body with Jesus Christ I believe there 's few expressions to be found amongst the Greeks in the Subject of the Eucharist which exceed these BUT besides what I now mentioned touching the Church we must likewise consider the manner after which the Greeks do express themselves concerning the Book of the New Testament or Volumn of the Gospels when the Deacon who carries it in his hand lifted up enters into the Church This entrance is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the small entrance designing to represent by this Ceremony the coming of the Son of God into the World They bow before this Book and speak of it as if it were our Saviour himself crying out altogether at the same time 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Come let us worship Christ and fall down before him Save us O Son of God Assoon as they begin to read the Bishop throws off his Mantle and Simon of Thessalonica giving an account of this action tells us 't is to give a publick testimony of his Servitude For say's he when our Lord himself appears speaking in his Gospel and is as it were present the Bishop dares not cover himself with his Mantle Isidorus de Pélusé used almost the same expressions before him when the true Shepherd himself appears say's he in the reading of the Holy Gospel the Bishop throws off his Mantle to signifie that the Lord himself the Prince of Pastors our God and Master is present I do not believe the Book is transubstantiated and yet they speak and behave themselves as if it was our Saviour himself which already shews us that the Stile of the Greeks is always very mysterious and that we have no reason to impute Substantial Conversions to them every time they make use of excessive Terms We may likewise see here another Example of what I say even in the very Bread of the Eucharist before its Consecration The Greeks have two Tables one which they call the Prothesis and th' other the great Altar They place on the former of these the Symbols and express by divers mystical actions part of the Oeconomy of the Son of God that is to say his Birth Life and Sufferings They solemnly carry them afterwards to the great Altar where they consecrate 'em so that before this 't is but simple Bread and Wine yet on which they represent the principal passages of the life of Christ and they say themselves that then the Bread and Wine are but a Type or Figure Yet do they speak concerning them almost after the same Germaâ—â—n Theor. manner before they are consecrated as after Germain the Patriarch of Constantinople calls them the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ he say's that the Saints and all the Just enter with him and that the Cherubins Angels and all the Host of immaterial Spirits march before him singing Hymns and accompanying the great King our Saviour Christ who comes to his Mystical Sacrifice and is carried by mortal hands Behold say's he the Angels that come with the Holy Gifts that is to say with the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ from Mount Calvary to the Sepulchre And in another place the Translation of Holy Things to wit of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ which come from the Prothesis and are carry'd to the great Altar with the Cherubick Hymn signifies the entrance of our Saviour Christ from Bethany into Jerusalem He say's moreover that our Saviour is carried in the Dish and shews himself in the Bread 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And as yet 't is no more than Bread and Wine un-consecrated ARCUDIUS observes some call this Bread the dead Body of Jesus Arcud lib de Euch. c. 20 21. Christ He say's farther that Gabriel de Philadelphia calls it the imperfect Body of Christ and proves the Symbols are called in this respect 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the holy divine and unutterable Mysteries which are the same names they give them after their Consecration WHEN they carry them from the Prothesis to the great Altar the Quire loudly sing that which they call the Cherubick Hymn in which are these words Let the King of Kings and Lord of Lords Jesus Christ our God draw near to be sacrific'd and given to the Faithful for Food At which time their Devotion is so excessive that Arcudius did not scruple to accuse the Arcud lib. 3. de Euch. Greeks in this respect of Idolatry Goar clears them of this crime yet say's himself that some bow others kneel and cast themselves prostrate on the ground Goar in Euch. notis in Miss Chrys as being to receive the King of the World invisibly accompani'd with his Holy Angels that all of 'em say their Prayers or recommend themselves to the Prayers of the Priests and that they usually speak to our Saviour Christ as if he was personally present praying to him in the words of the good Thief Lord Remember me when thou comest into thy Kingdom The Priests answer the Lord God be mindful of us all now and for ever THEY repeat these words without ceasing till he that carries the Symbols is ent'red the Sanctuary and then they cry out Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord. And yet so far there 's not any Consecration and much less a Conversion of Substance WHILST the Symbols are still on the Table they separate a Particle from the rest of the Bread in remembrance of our Saviour and call the remainder the Body of the Virgin Mary They afterwards lay another small piece on the right side of the first in honour of the Holy Virgin to the end they may say in effect say's Goar 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Queen is at thy right hand in a Vestment of Gold wrought with divers colours They set by another small piece in honour of St. John Baptist another in honour of the Apostles and several others for a remembrance of other Saints Goar tells us they separate Goar ibid. nine pieces after this manner besides those of our Saviour and the Blessed Virgin his Mother and that this is done to represent the whole Celestial Court They afterwards carry all these to the great Altar where the Consecration is performed but when they speak of these Particles they call one of 'em the Body of the Virgin Mary th' other the Body of St. John th' other the Body of St. Nicholas and after the same manner all the rest I know Goar denies they are thus called affirming the Greeks say only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Particle of the Virgin and not the Body of the Virgin I know likewise that Arcudius seems not to be agreed in this Point and perhaps the Latins have at length caus'd the Latinis'd Greeks to leave this way of speaking But Goar himself say's that some amongst the Latins have been so simple to imagine that the Greeks believe the real Presence of the Body of
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
Lord are they not Matter You must either then overthrow the Veneration and Worship of all these things or grant the Adoration of the Images of God and his Friends the Saints It is evident that by this Body and Blood of Christ he means the Eucharist and distinguishes it from the Natural Body for speaking of the Natural Body as of a Matter he adds As to the other Matter c. which shews he passes over to another kind of material things distinct from the Body hypostatically united to the Divinity It is likewise apparent he ranks this Body and Blood in the same order and degree with the wood of the Cross Mount Calvary the Holy Sepulchre the Letters of the Gospel and the Communion Table and attributes no more to all these things than one and the same Adoration an Adoration proportionable to that of Images WHEN he has occasion to discourse on the Adoration which ought to be given to the Natural Body he expresses himself after a different manner I adore say's he one God Father Son and Holy Ghost I give to him alone the Ibid. worship of Latria I worship one God one Divinity but I adore likewise the Trinity of Persons God the Father God the Son clothed with Humane Flesh and God the Holy Ghost which yet are no more than one God I worship not the Creature besides the Creator but I adore the Creator who hath made me and who without the loss of his Dignity or suffering any Division has descended to me to honour my Nature and make me partaker of the Divine Nature I do also together with my God and King adore th'enclosure of his Body if a man may so express himself tho not as a Vestment or fourth Person God forbid but as having been declared God and made without Conversion that which it hath been anointed Here the Humanity is adored in Person with an Adoration of Latria whereas the Mystical Body and Blood are only adored with a relative Adoration after the same manner as the Cross the Holy Sepulchre and Images If you say say's he in another place a little farther that we ought only to be joyned with God in Spirit and Understanding abolish then all corporeal things Tapers Incense Prayers uttered with an articulate voice nay even thâ— Divine Mysteries which consist of Matter to wit the Bread and Wine the Oyl of Unction the Sign of the Cross the Reed and Lance which pierced his Side to make Life issue out from thence Either the veneration of all these things must be abolished which cannot be done or not reject the Worship of Images What he called a little above the Body and Blood he here calls Bread and Wine but whether he designs them under the name of Body and Blood or whether he calls them Bread and Wine he attributes no more to them than a proportionable Adoration unto that which he pretends ought to be given Images and other material things he mentions that is to say a relative Adoration WE find in Photius a Passage like unto those of Stephen and Damascene in which he justifies after the same manner the relative Adoration given to Images by the example of that which is given to the Mysteries He compares these two Worships together and makes them of the same order and quality When we adore say's he the Image of Jesus Christ the Cross and the Pho. de Synod Sign of the Cross we do not pretend to terminate our Worship or Adoration in these things but direct it to him who by the unspeakable Riches of his Love became man and suffered a shameful death for us And thus do we adore the Temples Sepulchers and Relicks of Saints from whence do proceed those miraculous cures praising and glorifying God who has given them this Power and if there be any such like thing in our mystical and holy Sacraments we acknowledge and glorifie the Author and first Cause of it for the Gift and Grace which he has bestowed on us by their means AND this is what I had to say on this Point I leave now the Reader to judge whether my denyal that the Greeks do adore this Sacrament according to the manner of the Latins be the effect of an unparallel'd rashness as speaks Mr. Arnaud or whether it be not rather the effect of a Knowledge and Consideration more just and disinteressed than that of his I ground my negative on the express Testimonies of Sacranus John de Lasko Peter Scarga Anthony Caucus Francis Richard all Roman Catholicks and Ecclesiasticks who lived in those Places and are consequently unreproachable Witnesses in this particular who all of 'em expresly affirm the Greeks do not adore the Sacrament after Consecration and reproach them with it as a capital crime and brand them in this respect with the name of Hereticks I confirm this not only by the Silence of Travellers who exactly relate the Ceremonies of their Office without observing this essential particular but likewise from the proper Rituals of the Greeks and their refusal to practise the chief Ceremonies the Latins use to express their Adoration without substituting others equivalent to them I farther confirm it by express Passages taken out of other Greek Fathers who only attribute to the Eucharist a relative Adoration like unto that given to Images Temples Crosses and Relicks of Saints And yet Mr. Arnaud tells me that he is both ashamed and sorry for me and that my negative is the effect of a rashness beyond example and he grounds this fierce charge on voluntary Adorations and internal Venerations which no body ever saw but himself that is to say on Chimera's with which the necessity of maintaining his Thâ—sis right or wrong has furnish'd him Yet how greatly soever mens minds may be prejudic'd I doubt not but good men of his own Communion will be of another mind I hope at least they will not say I have been rash in affirming the Greeks adore not the Sacrament as do the Latins For were there any rashness in this assertion they must blame these Canons Archbishops and Jesuits and not me who only denied it after them I hope likewise the Proof I have made touching these same Greeks not believing Transubstantiation will not be esteemed inconsiderable my Consequence being grounded on Mr. Arnaud's own Principle Not only say's he the Doctrine of the real Presence is necessarily Book 10. chap. 9. annexed to the internal Adoration but also to some act of external respect For altho they may be separated by metaphysical Suppositions or extravagant Errors such as those of some Hereticks in these latter days yet is it impossible to separate them by the real Suppositions of Persons endued with common sence CHAP. VIII The Fourteenth Proof taken from that the Greeks when ever they argue touching the Azyme do carry on their Disputes upon this Principle That the Sacrament is still real Bread after its Consecration The Fifteenth from the little care they take to
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
is famous amongst the Greeks and lived in the Eleventh Century expounding these words of Saint Peter Let your Conversation be honest among the Gentiles that whereas they speak ill of you as of evil doers they may glorifie God Saint Peter say's he speaks here of the false Accusations of the Heathens and if you would know the particulars thereof read what Ireneus Bishop of Lyons has written touching the Martyrs Sanctus and Blandina and you will be perfectly informed This in few words is an account thereof The Greeks having taken some Slaves belonging to the Christian Catecumenists used great violence towards them to make them confess the Christians Mysteries and the Slaves not knowing what to say to please those that so rudely handled them remembred they heard their Masters relate that the Holy Communion was the Body and Blood of Christ imagining that 't was In effect Flesh and Blood Whereupon they taking this as if the Christians were wont REALLY to eat and drink human Flesh and Blood made report hereof to all the other Greeks and by torments forced the Martyrs Sanctus and Blandina to confess it But Blandina afterwards very pertinently demanded of them how they could imagine People who out of Devotion did abstain from eating Flesh whose use was permitted them should do any such thing THIS passage may be considered in two respects either as being of St. Ireneus or Oecumenius I know very well there are several Learned men that believe Oecumenius was mistaken in relating this Story as if it came from Saint Ireneus and in effect we do not thus find it in the Letter of the Churches of Vienna and Lyons produced by Eusebius But in the second respect under which I now offer it we may certainly conclude that 't was the Sentiment of Oecumenius himself For how can we suppose he would call the belief of the Slaves and Heathenish Inquisitors a mistake That the Holy Communion did in effect consist of Flesh and Blood and that the Christians did really do this Wherefore would he reckon this Errour amongst the Slanders of the Heathens Wherefore should he introduce Blandina refuting this Imagination had he himself believed the Communion to be in effect and reality the Flesh and Blood of Christ in its proper Substance and had this been the real Sentiment of his Church How came it to pass he did not endeavour to mollifie and explain these Terms and show that Blandina was mistaken in denying the Eucharist to be in effect and reallity Flesh and Blood or that what she did in this case was only to conceal from the Heathens the Churches Belief in this particular or in fine that she only denied it in one sence to wit that it was visibly and sensibly Flesh and Blood How happened it he feared not lest the Greeks amongst whom he lived when he gave this account would not be scandaliz'd at it or the weak take hence occasion to call in question the truth of the Doctrines of Transubstantiation and the real Presence Yet does he not trouble himself in searching after mollifying Terms or Explanations and the manner in which he has laid this down does clearly shew us that he did not in any sort believe the Holy Communion to be really and in effect the Body and Blood of Christ nor imagin'd he affirm'd any thing contrary to the Doctrine of his Church or which might be taken in an ill sence CHAP. IX The Seventeenth Proof taken from the Dispute agitated amongst the Greeks in the Twelfth Century touching the Eucharist some of 'em affirming the Body of Jesus Christ to be incorruptible and others corruptible The Eighteenth from a Passage out of Zonarus a Greek Monk that lived in the Twelfth Century I Mention'd in my Answer to the Perpetuity a Dispute which arose amongst the Greeks in the Twelfth Century touching the Body of Jesus Christ which we receive in the Eucharist from whence I took occasion to prove the Greeks do not believe the Transubstantiation of the Latins Mr. Arnaud contents not himself with pretending my Proof is not good but will needs draw a contrary Conclusion from the same Principle I made use of It then lies upon me to examine in this Chapter two Passages the one of Nicetas Choniatus and th' other of Zonarus who both take notice of this Controversie and to know whether this difference do's suppose Transubstantiation or not I will begin with Nicetas who lays down the Question in these Terms The Question say's he was whether the Sacred Body of Jesus Christ which we Nicet Chon Annal. lib. 3. receive be incorruptible such as it has been since his Passion and Resurrection or corruptible as it was before his Passion Before we go any further we should consider whether 't is likely such a Question should be stated in a Church that believes Transubstantiation This is a Point easily decided if we consider that those that hold this Doctrine do not reckon the Body of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist to be either in a corruptible state such as it was before his Passion or an incorruptible one wherein it has been since his Resurrection They have invented a Third which holds the middle between the two others and which equally agrees with the two times before and after his Resurrection which is that they call the Sacramental State in which they will needs have this Body to lie hid under the Accidents of Bread being invisible and insensible in it self without Extension Action or Motion having all its Parts in one Point and existing after the manner of Spirits In this State according to them he has neither the incorruption he obtained by his Resurrection nor the Corruption he put on in coming into the World but is corruptible in respect of the Species which enclose him and incorruptible by reason of that Spirituality which Transubstantiation gives him How can Mr. Arnaud imagine that in this Principle of the Sacramental State there may be formed the Question whether he is incorruptible such as he has been since his Resurrection or corruptible as before his Passion How can he conceive that Persons who have his third State in view and are agreed amongst themselves can fall into a debate touching the two others For it cannot be supposed the ignorance of the Greeks has bin so great as not to let them see the inconsistency there is between their Question and the Doctrine of the Substantial Conversion as it is taught by the Latins No People can be so ignorant as not to know that a humane Body such as is that of our Saviour being under the Accidents of the Eucharistical Bread is neither the same that was on the Cross nor that which Thomas touched when it was risen and we must necessarily suppose that he has neither the corruptibility under which he was before his death nor the incorruptibility he received when he arose from the Sepulchre but another incorruptibility which comes to him from his existence
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
〈◊〉 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
Wax imprints its Character thereon which does moreover represent this impression of virtue we now speak of VIII IN the Fifth Century lived Cyrillus Alexandriensis and Victor of Antioch which latter relates these Words of Cyrillus not to contradict but to approve them Lest we should conceive horrour at the sight of Flesh Victor Antioch Com. MS. in Marc. and Blood on the Holy Table God in regard to our weakness indues the things thereon offered with a VIRTUE of life and changes them into the efficacy of his Flesh to the end they may be to us a vivifying Communion and that the Body of life may be found in us as a living Seed IX IN the Fourth Century Saint Epiphanius held the same Language Epiph. Serm. de Fide Eccles in Anacephal They that come say's he to the Baptism receive the virtue which Jesus Christ brought to it when he descended into it and are illuminated by the communication of his light Thus is the Oracle of the Prophet accomplished which say's that there shall happen in Jerusalem a change in the virtue of Bread and Water and there shall be given to them a saving virtue For here to wit in Jesus Christ the virtue of Bread and force of Water are made strong not that the Bread is thus powerful to us but the virtue of the Bread For as to the Bread it is indeed an Aliment but there is in him a VIRTUE to inliven us X. GREGORY of Nisse in this same Century spake to the very same Greg. Niss in Bapt. Chr. effect You see say's he that Water is made use of in the Holy Baptism but you must not therefore despise it for 't is of great virtue and marvellous efficacy Do you see this Holy Altar where we attend As to its nature 't is a common stone which differs in nothing from others with which we build our Houses But when it has been sanctified by the Divine Service performed thereon and received the blessing it becomes a Holy Table an impolluted Altar which all the World cannot touch the Sacred Ministers alone touch it but yet with respect So the Bread is at first common Bread but after the Mystical Consecration it is called and is the Body of Jesus Christ I affirm the same concerning the Mystical Oyl and Wine these are things of small value before their Consecration but when bless'd by the Holy Spirit both the one and th' other operate after an excellent manner His Design is to shew how mere Water such as is used in Baptism comes to have such great virtue and produces such admirable effects For this purpose he alledges divers Examples of mean and despicable things in themselves which by their Consecration acquire an excellent virtue and efficacy Amongst which he especially reckons the Bread and Wine in the Eucharist As to the Wine he makes use of the Term of operate but as to the Bread he say's 't is the Body of Jesus Christ which plainly shews that in his sence to be the Body of Jesus Christ and to have an excellent operation is but one and the same thing XI WE find at the end of Clement Alexandrinus his Works a Treatise Epitome Theodot in calce oper Clem. Alex of a Greek Author named Theodotus who lived in the Third Century wherein he asserts this same change of virtue The Bread and Oyl say's he are sanctified by virtue of the Holy Spirit They are no longer then what they were before notwithstanding their outward appearance but are changed INTO A SPIRITUAL EFFICACY WE have here then the Doctrine of the Greeks cleared up by express Testimonies both from Modern and Ancient Authors So that methinks Mr. Arnaud has no reason to turn into sport and raillery as he has done this change of virtue in calling it our Key of Virtue Every man sees 't is no invention of ours and that we alledge nothing concerning it but what is authoriz'd by good and real Passages and by the Sentiments and proper expressions of the Greeks of greatest account in all Ages When Mr. Arnaud shall produce as many and solid Testimonies for his change of Substance we will give him leave to deride our change of virtue as he is pleased to term it But till then I have reason to desire him to stop his Laughter I should now pass on to the proving my Proposition That the Greeks believe the Bread and Wine only thus become the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ to the Faithful but having already established this Article in the Sixth Chapter and drawn from thence an Argument to shew they believe not Transubstantiation I shall therefore for the avoiding needless Repetitions refer the Reader to it I come then to the last Article which contains that the Greeks hold the Bread is made the proper and real Body of Jesus Christ by means of the addition of his Natural Body This Point calls for a particular consideration for not only it will further discover to us what the real Opinion of the Greeks is but likewise shew us whence come these emphatical expressions which they sometimes use in saying 't is the very Body of Jesus Christ and no other Body than that which was born of the Virgin Mary and likewise shew us in what sence we must understand them I. I say then among other Comparisons the Greeks use for the explaining the manner of this change which happens to the Bread and Wine they especially imploy that of Food which being received by us is changed into our Bodies Now every man knows that the Matter or Substance of Food is not changed into the first Substance which we had before we take it in such a manner that the one must be absolutely the other and by a Numerical Identity on the contrary each substance conserves its proper being and that of the Food is joyned to that of our Body and receives its Form it augments it and by way of Union Augmentation and Assimilation as they speak becomes ours and makes but one and the same Body and not two with that which we had before And this is the Comparison the Greeks do most often urge whereby to express their Conceptions touching the Holy Sacrament Theophilact in his Commentaries on Saint John's Gospel having told us the Bread we eat in the Mysteries is not an Antitype of the Flesh of Jesus Christ but the very Flesh it self immediately adds these Words The Bread is changed into the Flesh of Christ by the Ineffable Words the Mystical Theophil 1. Joan 6. Benediction and coming of the Holy Spirit No man ought to be troubled in being obliged to believe that Bread becomes Flesh For when our Lord was conversant on Earth and received his nourishment from Bread this Bread he eat was changed into his Body being made like unto his Flesh and contributed to augment and sustain it after a humane manner And thus now is the Bread changed into our Lord's Flesh THEODORUS Abucara
Bishop and Metropolitan of Carie and contemporary with Photius according to Gretzer the Jesuites conjecture borrowed the same Comparison whereby to explain how the Bread is made the Body of Christ He introduces in one of his Dialogues a Saracen disputing Bibl. Patr. Tom. 2. Graeco-Lat with him on this Subject The Saracen Tell me Bishop why do ye Priests so impose on other Christians Of the same Flower you make two Loaves the one for common use and th' other you divide into several pieces distributing 'em to the People which you call the Body of Jesus Christ and perswade them it confers remission of sins Do ye deceive your selves or the People whose Guides you are The Christian We neither abuse our selves nor others The Saracen Prove me this then not by Scripture but by reason The Christian What do ye say Is not the Bread made the Body of Jesus Christ The Saracen I know not what to answer to that The Christian When your Mother first brought you forth into the World was you then as big as you are now The Saracen No I was born a little one and became bigger by means of Food God thus ordering it The Christian Has the Bread then been made your Body The Saracen Yes The Christian And how was this done The Saracen I know not the manner thereof The Christian The Bread descends into the Stomach and by the heat of the Liver the grossest parts separating themselves the rest are converted into Chyle the Liver attracting them to it and changing them into Blood and afterwards distributes 'em by means of the Veins to all the parts of the Body that they may be what they are bone to bones marrow to marrow sinew to sinews eye to eyes hair to hair nail to nails and thus by this means the Child grows and becomes a Man the Bread being converted in to his Body and the Drink into his Blood The Saracen I believe so The Christian Know then that our Mystery is made after the same manner the Priest places Bread and Wine on the Holy Table and praying the Holy Spirit descends thereon and the efficacy of its Divinity changes them into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ neither more nor less than the Liver changes the Food into the Body of a Man THEODORUS Graptus a Greek Monk who lived in the Ninth Century Apud Leonem Allat post diatribas de Simeon â—â—ia Collect 1. uses likewise the same Comparison We do not call say's he the Holy Mysteries an Image or Figure of the Body of Jesus Christ altho they be a Symbolical Representation thereof but the very deified Body of Jesus Christ he himself saying if ye eat not the Flesh of the Son of man and drink his Blood ye have no life in you And this is what he taught his Disciples when he said to 'em take and eat my Body not a Figure of my Body for thus did he form his Flesh of the Substance of the Virgin by the Holy Spirit Which may be explained likewise by things familiar to us for as the Bread Wine and Water do naturally change themselves into the Body and Blood of him that eats and drinks them So by the Prayers of the Priest and Descent of the Holy Spirit these things are supernaturally changed into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ And this is done by the Priest's Prayer and yet we understand not that this is two Bodies but one and the same Body NICEPHORUS the Patriarch of Constantinople and Contemporary Allat de perp Cons lib. 3. cap. 15. M. Arn. lib. 7 cap. 5 p. 662. with Theodorus Graptus say's the same thing in a Passage which Allatius and Mr. Arnaud after him has related If it be lawful say's he to explain these things by a humane Comparison as the Bread Wine and Water are naturally changed into the Body and Blood of those that eat and drink them and become not another Body so these Gifts by the Prayer of him that officiates and descent of the Holy Spirit are changed supernaturally into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ For this is what is contained in the Priest's Prayer and we understand not that this is two Bodies but one and the same Body THIS way of explaining the change of the Bread and Wine is not peculiar to these Authors alone whom I now alledged Damascen who according to Mr. Arnaud is to be esteemed as the common Oracle of the Greeks made use of it in his Fourth Book of the Orthodox Faith As in Baptism Damascen de fide Orthod lib. 4. cap. 14. say's he because men are wont to wash and anoint themselves God has added to the Oyl and Water the Grace of his Holy Spirit and made thereof the Laver of our Regeneration so in like manner because we are wont to eat Bread and drink Wine and Water he has joyned to these things his Divinity and made them his Body and Blood to the end that by things familiar to our nature he might raise us above nature This is really the Body united to the Divinity the Body born of the Virgin Not that the Body which ascended up on high descends from Heaven but because the Bread and Wine are changed into the Body and Blood of God If you ask how this comes to pass it will be sufficient to tell ye that 't is by means of the Holy Spirit and after the same manner as he became Flesh in the Virgin 's Womb. All that we know of it is this that the Word of God is true efficacious and Almighty and that the manner of this change is inconceiveable Yet we may say that as naturally the Bread we eat the Wine and Water we drink are changed into the Body and Blood of him that eates and drinks and yet become not another Body than that which he had before so after the same manner the Bread and Wine which are placed on the Altar are supernaturally changed into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ by Prayer and Descension of the Holy Spirit and these are not two Bodies but one and the same Body IT is probable that Damascen and the others aforementioned who use this Comparison have taken it out of the Catechism of Gregory of Nysse wherein we find almost the same Conceptions For he say's that as the Gregor Nyss in Orat. Catâ—chet Bread which Jesus Christ eat was changed into his Body and received thereby a divine virtue the same likewise comes to pass in the Eucharist For there it was the Grace of the Word that sanctified the Body which was nourished with Bread and was in some sort Bread and here after the same manner the Bread is sanctified by the Word of God and by Prayer not being in truth made the Body of the Word by Manducation but by being changed in an instant by the Word into the Body of Christ according to what he said himself this is my Body THIS Comparison does already
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
receives the impression of the inlivening and sanctifying virtue residing in the natural Body of Christ and that as the Food in receiving the physical Form of our Flesh becomes an Augmentation of our Body so the Bread in the Eucharist receiving the impression of the virtue of the Body of Jesus Christ becomes an Augmentation This is a Comparison wherein there is some proportion of one thing with another but not an intire resemblance The Greeks conceive the sanctifying virtue of the Body of Jesus Christ as its supernatural and oeconomical Form which belongs to it not so much for that it is a mere Body as that it is the Body of the Word the Principle of our Spiritual Life and Salvation THERE is made then according to them not a Communication or an extension of the natural Form of the Body of Jesus Christ on the Bread but a communication or an extension of its virtue WHICH plainly appears by what we have already alledged For first hereto relates this composition of Bread and Holy Spirit and Union of Bread with the Divinity which they assert Secondly hitherto expressly relate all the Passages we have seen touching the change of virtue to which the Greeks so strictly keep themselves never mentioning the impression of the physical Form but ever that of virtue Thirdly we gather the same thing from their comparing the Bread in the Eucharist with the natural Body whereby to establish how the Bread is made an Augmentation of the Body they say not that the same physical Form of the one is communicated to the other but only that the same Oeconomy which is observed in the natural Body is likewise observed in the Bread And explaining in what consists this same Oeconomy they say 't is in that the Bread receives the Holy Spirit as the natural Body receives it that 't is raised up as it were into a Cross in the like manner as the natural Body that 't is buried in us and becomes in fine incorruptible as the natural Body does Now this is quite different from the impression of the physical Form and gives only the Idea of an impression of virtue Fourthly the same thing appears from a great part of the Proofs I produced in this third Book as from what they teach touching the unconsecrated Particles that they become in some sort the Body of Jesus Christ by connection with that which is consecrated and that the People may receive them as well as the Sacrament for this shews they mean the consecrated Bread becomes only the Body of Jesus Christ by the impression of this sanctifying virtue of which we speak And that which they believe touching the Eucharist consecrated on Holy Thursday that 't is of a more excellent virtue than that of other days for this would have no sence did they hold the impression of the natural Form of the Flesh of Jesus Christ on the Bread And all the Clauses of their Liturgies by which it appears they restrain the effect of the Consecration to the Bread's becoming the Body of Jesus Christ in Sanctification and Virtue And what they say touching the dead that they receive the same as we do in the Communion which would be absurd if they meant the physical Form of the Flesh of Christ was imprinted on the Bread for the dead receive not this physical Form And their not adoring the Sacrament with an absolute Adoration of Latria as do the Latins and as the Greeks would do without doubt if they held the impression of the physical Form And that which the Greeks of the Twelfth Century mentioned touching the Eucharist namely that 't is not indued with a Soul or Understanding which shews clearly they do not mean the Bread in the Sacrament receives the impression of the Soul of Christ And in fine that they take so little care to preserve the Substance of the Sacrament using it after such a negligent manner as would be highly criminal and impious or to speak better after such a manner as is not conceivable did they believe the physical Form of the Flesh of Jesus Christ BUT to finish the justification of my Proposition touching the Belief of the Greeks there only remains to be proved the Comparison of the Paper which becomes the Princes Letter when it receives his Characters or Seal For as concerning that of the Food we have already sufficiently treated on it we have likewise considered that of Wood in conjunction with Fire that of Wool which takes the dye and that of Wax or Matter which receives the impression of the Seal As to that of Paper Nilus Abbot of Mount Sina an Author of the Fifth Century and who was Saint Chrysostom's Schollar furnishes us with it in one of his Epistles Paper say's he consists of a certain Matter and is called only Paper but when the Emperor puts thereunto his Seal or Name it becomes Sacred In the same manner must our Mysteries be conceived Before the Words of the Priest and Descent of the Holy Spirit 't is mere Bread and Wine which are offered but after the Holy Prayers and coming of the holy and enlivening Spirit 't is no longer mere Bread and Wine but the pretious and immaculate Body of Jesus Christ who is God over all and therefore those that receive them with fear and reverence are cleansed from all filthiness HAVING thus historically and sincerely shew'd the real Belief of the Greeks touching the Eucharist it will be no hard matter to observe wherein they agree with the Latins and wherein they differ which is the second thing I proposed to do in this Chapter First They agree with them in the general Terms which denote the change of the Bread and Wine into the Body and Blood of Christ Secondly They agree in those other expressions which bear that the change is made into the real Body of Christ into his own proper Body born of the Virgin Mary and that he has not two Bodies but one alone Thirdly They agree in that both of them attribute this change to the Holy Spirit who descends on the Bread and makes it the Body of our Lord. Fourthly They agree in fine in that they both assert this change to be an effect of the Almighty Power of God above all the Laws of nature So far the Greeks and Latins agree BUT they differ in several things First In that the Latins believe that the Substance of Bread ceases the Greeks on the contrary believe its existence Which we plainly gather from the Proposition I now established and the Proofs I offered For seeing they make the Eucharist to consist of the composition of a sensible Substance which is the Bread and the Holy Spirit as we have already observed seeing they joyn the Bread to the Divinity believing that what results thence is double that is to say that it has two Natures it is clear the Greeks hold that the Nature or Substance of Bread remains This same truth appears likewise concerning what
the Bread SIXTHLY These principal and essential differences produce others For it hence appears that altho they agree with the Latins in these general expressions which bear that the Bread is changed into the Body of Christ into his real Body into his own proper Body yet they differ from them in the sence of these expressions understanding them in a quite different manner For the Latins mean the Bread is changed into the Body by a real Transubstantiation which making the Substance of Bread cease becomes the proper substance of the Body of Jesus Christ the same in number which it was before The Greeks on the contrary mean that the Bread remaining Bread in its proper Substance is changed into the proper Body of Christ in asmuch as that 't is made an increase or augmentation by the impression it receives from its virtue So that when both one and the other say the Bread is the Body of Christ they in no sort agree in the sence of this Proposition the Latins understanding it in a divided sence as they term it which is to say that that which was before Bread is now no longer so but the Body of Jesus Christ the Greeks on the contrary that that which is still Bread is also this Body VII THE Latins following their Hypothesis are forced to admit the Existence of Accidents without a Subject the Greeks are not Whence it is they never mention this pretended Existence and we find no such thing in their Authors VIII THE Latins are obliged to give a reason for several natural Experiments which denote that the Substance of Bread remains and which seem incompatible with their Belief as that our Bodies are nourished with the Eucharist that it breeds Maggots in it c. in which they are extreamly puzled The Greeks are not so neither do we find the least hint thereof in their Books IX THE Latins cannot but admit the Existence of the same Body in several places at once The Greeks know not any thing of this neither are they concerned at it X. THE Latins are forced to make the Body of Christ exist in the Sacrament void of his natural proportion and properties The Greeks do not so and therefore we see them never troubled at these difficulties which follow the Doctrine of the Latins XI THE Latins by an unavoidable consequence of their Doctrine adore with a Sovereign Adoration the Eucharist which is according to them the proper Substance of our Lord 's natural Body separate from any other Substance The Greeks do not so as we observed in the seventh Chapter XII THE Latins believe the wicked receive the Body and Blood of Christ with the mouths of their bodies altho to their condemnation The Greeks hold that the Bread and Wine are made this Body and Blood only to the Faithful NOT to insist on several other differences which do not precisely relate to our Question as that the Greeks do all of 'em communicate of both kinds whereas the Latins give only to the People that of Bread that the Greeks hold the Consecration is performed by the Prayer of the Priest and the Latins on the contrary by these Words This is my Body that the Latins use Wafers or unleavened Bread whereas the Greeks abhorring the Azymes use only that which is leavened There are likewise several other differences which I shall not here repeat because the Reader may find them in what has been already said in the foregoing Chapters AND here have I represented as exactly as I could the Differences and Agreements of the two Churches If it be now demanded in what Points we agree with the Greeks this may be easily collected from what I have already said WE agree almost with them in all Points wherein they differ from the Latins 1. In that we do not believe the Conversion of Substances any more than they nor admit the substantial Presence of the Natural Body of Christ under the Species of Bread and Wine that we adore not the Sacrament nor acknowledge any of the Consequences of the Doctrine of Transubstantiation 2. We agree with the Greeks in that they conceive the change which is made in the Bread and Wine to be a change of virtue by the efficacy of the Holy Spirit God not destroying the Nature of Bread and Wine but adding his Grace to Nature 3. In that we do not believe any more than they that the wicked receive the Body of Jesus Christ 4. In that we believe with them that we ought to communicate of both kinds 5. In our holding the Consecration is performed by Prayer 6. In fine that we deliver the Sacrament in leavened Bread altho we hold the use of the Azyme an indifferent thing YET it must not be imagined we pretend there 's no difference in the Opinion of the Greeks and ours I do not believe any of our Doctors ever asserted such a thing Mr. Arnaud would make the World believe I maintained this and has triumphed thereupon in several places of his Book as if I supposed the Greeks were Berengarians or Calvinists But this is a groundless charge I only denied that the Greeks which are called Schismaticks believed Transubstantiation and the Adoration It belongs to him therefore to see whether he had reason to accuse me in this of rashness and inconceivable boldness or whether he himself rather was not guilty of this when he bragged of confounding Ministers with the number of his Proofs Perhaps he would have hit better on it had he said he had confounded his Readers But to let this pass I shall here truly denote the principal differences between the Doctrine of the Greeks and ours I. THE Greeks since the Eighth Century rejected the Terms of Type and Figure in reference to the Eucharist altho they use them of Symbol and Representation We admit equally both as the Fathers of the first six Ages ever did II. THEY seem willing to keep in some sort the literal sence of these Words This is my Body which we do not For we understand 'em in this sence this Bread is the Sacred Sign or the Sacrament of my Body or which is to the same effect the Bread signifies my Body They on the contrary taking the Term est in some sort according to the Letter will have the same Substance which is Bread to be also the Body of Jesus Christ and therefore they so often say that the Bread is not the Figure of the Body but the Body not the Figure of the Flesh but the Flesh it self because the Lord did not say this is the Figure of my Body but this is my Body Whereunto relates that saying of Theophilact we already cited which is we must not be troubled to believe Bread is Flesh III. 'T IS likewise to keep this pretended literal sence that they would have the Bread to be made one with the Body by its Union to the Divinity by the impression of the Holy Spirit and by a change of
virtue And therefore they bring the comparison of Food which becomes one with our Bodies and invented this way of Growth or Augmentation of a natural Body for all this ends only in establishing a Unity between the Bread and the Body which may make us say literally and without recourse to a Figure that the Bread is the Body As to what concerns us we need not take such a great circuit because the Question concerning a Sacrament we believe we may take the Words of Christ in a sacramental and figurative sence IV. IT seems likewise that the Modern Greeks understand some real or physical impression of the Holy Spirit and inlivening virtue of Jesus Christ on the Bread with some kind of inherency yet I will not positively affirm this was the general Belief of their Church altho their expressions intimate as much But howsoever this is not our Opinion We do indeed believe that the Grace of the Holy Spirit and virtue of Christ's Body accompany the right use of the Sacrament and that in the Communion we participate of the Body of Christ by Faith in as great a measure and more really than if we received him with the Mouth of our Bodies but we hold not this impression or real inherence of virtue which it seems the Greeks admit whence it happens that our expressions are not so emphatical as theirs AND this is what I had to say touching the real Opinion of the Greeks with its principal Circumstances and in reference to that of ours and the Church of Rome's I do not doubt but several People reading this Chapter will say I charge the Greeks with a very foolish and unreasonable Doctrine They 'l make Objections touching this composition of Bread and Holy Spirit this Union of the Symbols with the Divinity and especially concerning this manner of being the Body and Blood of Christ by way of Growth or Augmentation But to this I need say no more than that it concerns me not to justifie the Opinion of the Greeks Our business here is to know what it is and not whether it be justifiable nor to answer the Objections may be made against it because we adopt not either their Expressions or Opinions Yet I shall endeavour to solve two difficulties which may trouble the Readers the one is that according to the Hypothesis of the Greeks it seems as if it might be said in some sence that the Bread is changed into the Substance of the Body of Jesus Christ after the same manner we say the Bread we eat is changed into our Substance Th' other is that by this Union of Bread to the Divinity it seems they understand a real hypostatical Union like unto that which joyns the natural Body to the Word TO the first I answer the Greeks mean not the Bread receives the natural or physical form of the Flesh of Christ as we have proved neither do they say the Bread is changed into the Substance of the Body of Christ because this way of speaking which we use in respect of the Bread we eat is grounded upon the Food 's receiving the Substantial or physical form of our Flesh Now they mean no other impression on the Bread in the Eucharist than an impression of the inlivening virtue of Christ's Body by means of the Holy Spirit And thus the Bread keeps its proper and natural Substance wholly intire and yet is augmented by an Augmentation of the Body of Christ in asmuch as the supernatural virtue which is proper to this Body is communicated to the Bread As to what remains altho this pretended Augmentation of the Body of Jesus Christ by means of the Bread is absurd enough yet we may give it a plain sence in saying 't is not necessary for this that the Bread and Body be locally joyned it being sufficient to conceive the Holy Spirit is the mutual link which unites them together and the Bread receiving only the virtue of the Body by a dependance thereon and in asmuch as 't is the Mystery of it this is a kind of Growth and Augmentation a Mystery being as it were an Appendix or Circumstance to the thing of which 't is the Mystery TO the second Question I answer that altho the whole Hypothesis of the Greeks and especially some of their expressions seem to induce us to attribute to 'em the Belief of the hypostatical Union of Bread to the Divinity yet their Authors not plainly expressing themselves in this matter and it not appearing elsewhere by their practice that they hold this Opinion there is more justice in not charging them with it than in imputing it to 'em and so much the more because there is none of their usual expressions how emphatical soever but may agree with a simple Union of efficacy The Term of Assumption used by Damascen Panis Vinum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 assumuntur induced me to believe at first with Mr. Aubertin he meant thereby a real hypostatical Lib. 4. de Fid. Orth. cap. 14. Assumption but having since carefully examined this Passage it seemed to me this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be easily referred not to the foregoing Words in the same Discourse but to that which follows in the simple sence That the Bread and Wine are used in the Eucharist because they are things familiar to us BUT howsoever we may here observe that ever since both Greeks and Latins deviated from the simplicity of the Gospel and natural Exposition which the Ancients gave this Mystery how they have fallen I say into vainand idle Speculations both of 'em wandring from the Truth Which commonly happens to such as love rather to follow their own imaginations than the Word of God Our Saviour tells us concerning the Sacrament that 't is his Body and added that it was for a remembrance of him and Saint Paul thus commented on it This is a Declaration of the Lord's death till his coming What could be more easie than to keep here and to judge thereof by the very nature of a Sacrament by the expressions of our Saviour and his Apostle and other parts of Christian Religion But instead of this we have abused several excessive expressions of the Fathers taking no notice of divers others by which they explain themselves these have been extended and altho innocent yet are made a Rock of Offence The Latins proceed to a real Presence a real Transubstantiation and Accidents without a Subject and all the rest of those Doctrines unknown to the Ancients which they heap up without number The Greeks on their side have imagined a Union of the Bread with the Divinity a kind of real impression of supernatural virtue of Christ's Body on the Bread a Growth or Augmentation of this Body I hope I shall have this Justice done me that it will be acknowledged I have produced nothing touching the Doctrine of the Greeks but what has been taken out of their best Authors from them I say that are of greatest account
preserve Orthodoxy and stifle Heresies supposing the Eastern People believed Transubstantiation MR. Arnaud finding Berengarius his Affair would not do his Business betakes himself to another Artifice It concerns us not to know say's he whether Lib. 2. cap. 5. pag. 143. Cerularius and Leo D'Acrida could be ignorant of Berengarius his Condemnation Yet this was the Author of the Perpetuitie's Chief Argument But whether they could be ignorant of the Opinion of the whole Latin Church touching the Eucharist which was then by the Calvinists own Confession most clear distinct and determinate for the real Presence But let the Matter concern what it will his Proof will be never the better But instead of saying for the real Presence he should say for Transubstantiation for our Question touching the Greeks being only on this Point if Mr. Arnaud will make advantage of Cerularius and Leo d' Acrida's silence he must establish that the Latins made it then an Article of their Belief There is a great deal of ambiguity in these Terms of real Presence the Greeks do and do not believe it they believe as we already observed a real Presence of Virtue but not areal Presence of Substance And even we our selves who deny the real Presence Mr. Arnaud means profess to believe another which we hold not only for real but a thousand times more real than that which Mr. Arnaud intends If then he designed to explain himself clearly and to the purpose he must say that the Opinion of the whole Latine Church was plainly and distinctly for Transubstantiation BUT 't is not enough to say so it must be proved for endless and impertinent Stories will never satisfie our Reason He tells us that Cerularius having sent his Letter caused the Latin Churches at Constantinople to be shut Lib. 2. cap. 5. up and took away from the Latin Abbots and other Religious Persons their Monasteries That in the following year Pope Leo sent Cardinal Humbert and the Bishop of Blanche Selve and the Archbishop of Melphus in quality of his Legats to Constantinople with Letters to both the Emperour and Patriarch Which is no more than what we know already without Mr. Arnaud's telling us HE adds That Humbert wrote a refutation of Cerularius his Letter by way of Dialogue and amongst the rest that the Azyme is made by invocation of the Trinity the real and individual Body of Christ There are so many faults to be reprehended in this Allegation that a man scarce knows where to begin to refute it Were his Translation as it should be it would appear these words do not so clearly assert Transubstantiation as to give Cerularius an occasion to reproach the Latins with it For may we not understand that the Bread is made the real and individual Body of Christ in as much as he has not two Bodies but one only in the same sence Saint Chrysostom say's that Chrysost Ep. ad Ces although the nature of Bread remains even then when it becomes worthy to be called our Lord's Body Yet do we not say that the Son of God has two Bodies but one And in the same sence Damascen say's also That when the Bread Damascen I. pist ad Zac. Doar Humbert cont Graec. Bibl. Patr. 1. 4 Edit and Wine pass into the growth of our Lord's Body and Blood it becomes not two Bodies but one Moreover Humbert say's not what Mr. Arnaud makes him say viz. that the Bread becomes the Individual Body his words are Corpus Singulare the Singular Body that is to say the Body which singly and only belongs to Jesus Christ and not to the Father and Holy Spirit and there is so great blindness or rather unfaithfulness in this Translation that I cannot suppose it to be Mr. Arnaud's He has published it without doubt from the Collection of some of his Friends and not from Humbert's Text For how great soever his prejudice may be I do not believe he would venture his reputation for so small an advantage as might be expected from this false Translation Observe here what Humbert say's The Azyme being thus prepared is made by an hearty Invocation of the Holy Trinity the real and single Body of Christ Not as the Theopaschites would have it the Body of the Father Son and Holy Ghost Which it seems you believe likewise seeing you say the Azyme does not participate of the Father Son and Holy Spirit as the Leavened Bread does Leave this wicked Opinion unless you will be condemned with the Theopaschites In the Commemoration of our Lord's Passion the Holy and Impassible Trinity has nothing in common except the single Consecration wherein all the Persons co-operate For the death of the Humanity only of the Son of God is celebrated in this visible Sacrament the Apostle saying every time ye cat of this Bread and drink of this Cup ye shew the Lord's death till he comes Our Lord himself in this particular Commemoration delivering the Bread to his Disciples said to em this is my Body which was given for you Mine say's he which by the Grace of the Holy Spirit I who am the Wisdom of the Father have built as a Temple in 46 days in the Womb of the unspotted Virgin It now plainly appears what is the meaning of this Singulare Corpus Christi which is to say the Body which the second Person only assumed and not the Father nor Holy Spirit To make of this the individual Body of Jesus Christ to conclude from thence Transubstantiation is so gross and ridiculous a mistake that had Mr. Arnaud met with the like in my Writings in the humour he seems to be of he would have made it the Subject of a whole Chapter I shall only advise him to take more care another time and not labour so confidently hereafter upon other Peoples Memories This first Passage is attended by another almost of the same kind He say's say's he that the Latins honouring the Body of Truth that is to say the Body of Christ made of an Azyme and in the Azymes taste with their Mouths and Heart how sweet the Lord is This adds he is clear enough and a man must be very dull not to understand this Language I confess I am not quicker of apprehension than another yet I understand very well Humbert ' s Discourse without Transubstantiation We say say's he that the Azyme of the Christians is very different from that of the carnal Jews who observed and pursued the shadow of Truth invited hereunto by the promise and desire of a Terrestial Felicity such as a long Life Riches a numerous Off-spring and such like things But as to us honouring and retaining the Body of Truth which is of the Azyme and in the Azyme we taste with our mouths and heart how sweet the Lord is desiring of him no more but that he may dwell in us and we in him eternally Is not this to deride People to alledge such a Passage as this whereby to
him and so much the more because Mr. Arnaud acknowledges this Cardinal was very hot in this Dispute and on the other 't is very uncertain whether the Greeks went so far as this Consequence Besides this I say the Consequence it self is neither demonstrative nor unavoidable for it does not follow from a mans denying the Eucharist is digested and breaks ones Fast that he acknowledges no other Substance than that of the Body of Christ He may believe the Substance of Bread becomes incorruptible as soon as 't is in the Stomach and that it passes immediately without Digestion into our Substance according to the Opinion of Damascen Zonaras and almost all the Eastern Churches as we shall see hereafter For in Humbert's sence all Food that breaks our Fast is digested and passes into Excrements as the common nourishments do Whence I conclude that Mr. Arnaud deceives us when he say's this Dispute does invincibly prove the Roman Church then believed Transubstantiation and that her Belief was sufficiently made known to the Greeks for neither one nor the other of these do hence necessarily follow NEITHER can it be thence concluded she believed the real Presence I mean this local and physical Presence of the proper Substance of the natural Body of Jesus Christ as she does believe it at this day nor that Humbert thought the Greeks believed it and this Mr. Arnaud's last Consequence is moreover found defective altho this is not the Point in question betwixt us For supposing the Bread remaining Bread becomes the Body of Christ by way of Augmentation of this Body being united to the Divinity and receiving by the Holy Spirit the impression of the inlivening virtue which is Jesus Christ according to the Sentiment of the Greeks Humbert might without being thought senceless or extravagant tell Nicetas that in teaching the Eucharist breaks our fast he exposed the Body of Jesus Christ to the condition of common Food For altho on this Hypothesis the Bread is not the Body of the Son of God in propriety of Substance yet is it his Body in such a manner that seems to exempt it from the quality of other Food which is sufficient to occasion Humbert's Reproach and render ineffectual all these little Subtilities of Mr. Arnaud I replied in my Answer to the Perpetuity that this Dispute of Humbert Answer to the second Treatise and Nicetas furnished us wherewith to shew that the Greeks did not believe the Transubstantiation of the Latins forasmuch as Nicetas maintains therein that the Eucharist breaks our Fast which supposes it conserves its first nature of corporeal Aliment and that he believed it descends into the Stomach like other Food which moreover shews he held it still for real Bread I strengthened this Proposition by the Testimony of Humbert Algerus and Cellot the Jesuit I added likewise that Durand Abbot of Troarn tells us that those heretofore called Stercoranists were the Berengarians which is to say those held the Bread keeps its first nature and I confirmed my Proof by several weighty Considerations as that it was not to be imagined men that were Christians would expose the proper Substance of the Son of God to these Accidents of Corporeal Food that this Opinion would be inconsistent with that State of Glory wherein we all believe it to be as also with that Sacramental State wherein 't is made to be in the Eucharist MR. Arnaud finding he could not establish his own Proof applies himself to the refuting of mine and immediately making use of his Priviledge he singles out what he pleases and leaves the rest He takes no notice of Cellot the Jesuit's Testimony for what reason he best knows He passes over in silence what I said touching the State of Glory wherein the Son of God now is and so likewise what I mentioned concerning his Sacramental State And from the remaining part of my Proof he is pleased to make this Argument The Greeks are Stercoranists according to Humbert and Algerus The Stercoranists are Berengarians according to Durand The Greeks Lib. 2. cap. 6. pag. 153. then are Berengarians But seeing my Proof is to be modelled I crave leave to take it out of his hands and state it my self Observe here then how I reasoned Those that believe the Eucharist breaks our Fast and give cause to charge them with Stercoranism hold the Substance of Bread remains But the Greeks believe the Eucharist breaks our Fast and yield occasion to accuse them of Stercoranism They hold then the Substance of Bread remains And thus do I reason but by misfortune Mr. Arnaud can neither deny the major minor nor Conclusion of this Argument He was constrained therefore to new mould it and then knew not how to give it a direct Answer IT is true say's he that Humbert charges Nicetas with believing the Body Ibid. of Christ was digested but this is only as a Consequence of what he offered touching the Eucharist ' s breaking our Fast and not as a Doctrine which he expresly asserted It is all one to me whether he attributes to him this Opinion either as a Doctrine or a Consequence either of 'em being sufficient to establish the solidity of my Proof Mr. Arnaud may dispute this Point with Cellot or Algerus it not lying upon me to prove it When it should be true this Consequence were not well drawn from the Principle which Nicetas lays down from the part of the Greeks and that the Greeks might reply thereunto there would be still enough in the Principle it self to make my Conclusion just and necessary For those that absolutely and sincerely believe the Eucharist breaks our Fast cannot but likewise believe that it nourishes after the manner of Food which is to say that it distributes it self through all the parts of our Body being added to our Substance and consequently that 't is still real Bread And it will be to no purposE to say the Greeks might believe That the troublesomeness of fasting is effectually eased thereby and that we are really Ibid pag. 155. nourished not with the Body of Christ but by some other means known only to God For there being in the Eucharist only the Substance and Accidents those that believe 't is in Substance the proper Body of Christ and yet affirm it nourishes must attribute this nourishment either to the Body of Christ or to the Accidents As to the Body of Christ it is absurd to affirm that a Substance which exists after the manner of an invisible and insensible Spirit can nourish our Bodies that is to say augment the Substance of them And as to the Accidents besides the absurdity there is in supposing Accidents alone nourish us the Greeks know not what belongs to the existence of Accidents without a Subject which Mr. Arnaud himself grants when he say's they trouble not themselves with these Phylosophical Consequences To affirm likewise as Mr. Arnaud does that the Greeks perhaps only asserted the Lib. 2.
cap 6. pag. 155. Eucharist broke our Fast because they believed the Oblation of the Sacrifice did not belong to the Fast and that they were permitted to eat after they had communicated is a mere Evasion which plainly denotes Mr. Arnaud's perplexity For the Greeks accuse the Latins not for their eating so soon after the Communion in Lent for this Accusation would be false and slanderous seeing they know the contrary But he accuses them in that they break their Fast by receiving the Eucharist Whence have you this Custom say's Nicetas to celebrate Nicetas Contra Lat. Bibl. Patr. Tom. 4. Edit the Oblation of the Paschal Mass every day even on the Holy days of fasting as well as on Saturday and Sunday What Doctors thus taught you Were they the Apostles No For the Apostles made a Canon to this effect that if any Bishop Priest Deacon Reader or Chanter that is in health fasts not on the Fridays and Saturdays in Lent he ought to be degraded Seeing then you celebrate Mass at nine of the Clock which is the hour in which the Sacrifice is to be offered how then keep you the Fast till three in the Afternoon breaking it as you do in the time of the Administration You do not at all observe it and therefore you are accursed It is plainly seen here the matter concerns the reception of the Eucharist and that he means it breaks the Fast for he say's they break it in tempore ministrationis Missae Where then has Mr. Arnaud found this Evasion that the Greeks say the Eucharist breaks the Fast only because they believe the Oblation of the Sacrifice does not belong to the Fast and that it was lawful to eat after the participation of the Communion This is say's he the conjecture of a very Learned man who has taken the pains to read over this Treatise Is Mr. Arnaud so tired with his Work and his time so mightily taken up that he cannot afford one half hour for the reading this Treatise himself for it requires no more These Anonymous Learned men do often deceive us with their Conjectures and when a Person makes a Book which he designs to render famous throughout all Europe in sending it to all the Courts in Christendom it is absolutely requisite not to trust all sorts of People He say's in his Epistle Dedicatory to the Pope that his Friends have laboured with him In the Twelfth Book he gives us a Dissertation of a Religious man of Saint Genevieve on John Scot's Case and that of Bertram Moreover he tells us he has desired some Persons to translate for him that Passage of Herbert's about which we have made such a noise here he gives us the conjecture of an Anonymous I am afraid some indiscreet Person or other will judge hereupon that Mr. Arnaud's whole Book is made up only of incoherent Fragments As for my part I do not thus judge but I wish Mr. Arnaud had rectified and digested himself what others have furnished him with and not been like the Sea in this particular which receiving into its Womb all the Waters of Rivers communicates only to them its bryniness HUMBERT never thought of giving any of these Sences to the Passage proposed to us out of Nicetas He never imagined that the Greeks believed the Communion breaks the Fast either because they were permitted to eat immediately after or because our Bodies receive the same impressions and the same strength by receiving of the Eucharist as by any other common Food But he only understood they taught that the Eucharist does really nourish us in the same manner as other Food which changes it self into our Substance and 't is thereupon that he grounded his charge of Stercoranism Do Mr. Arnaud and his Anonymouses know better now in Paris the true meaning of Nicetas than Humbert who lived in that time and was at Constantinople with this Religious Leo the Ninth having affirmed the latins have the same Faith as the Greeks Mr. Arnaud thereupon takes occasion to insult over me and tells me he will be judged by my self Whether 't is likely Lib. 2. cap. 50 pag 141. Leo that lived amongst the Greeks did not know better than I their Opinion who now come six hundred years after assuring the World upon my own bare word of the contrary without any Proof or Testimony And ten or twelve Pages further he would perswade us that Humbert who was Contemporary with Nicetas and in the same City with him did not well comprehend Nicetas his meaning and that himself Mr. Arnaud and Mr. his Anonymous understand it better than Humbert Whence comes this partiality BUT say's he Nicetas asserts Transubstantiation as fully as Humbert Lib. 2. cap. 6. pag. 1â—â— could do Which we must examine Those say's Nicetas who walk in the Light eat the Bread of Grace which is the Body of Christ and drink his immaculate Blood In the Bread say's he moreover that is to say in our Saviour's Body there are three living things which give life to those that eat worthily thereof to wit the Spirit the Water and Blood according to that saying there are three that bear witness and these three are in one He proves the Water and Blood are in our Saviours Body by the Water and Blood which gushed thence in his Crucifixion and as to the Spirit observe here what he say's The Holy and living Spirit remains in his inlivening Flesh and we eat this Flesh in the Bread which is changed by his Holy Spirit and made the Body of Jesus Christ We live in him by eating his living and deified Flesh Could Nicetas adds Mr. Arnaud more plainly shew his Opinion touching the Eucharist and more positively exclude Mr. Claude ' s vain Conjectures AND this is that which in the Style of Mr. Arnaud is precise and positive I answer that by the Bread of Grace Nicetas means the Bread of the New Testament in opposition to the Azyme of the Law and that his Sence is that this Bread is the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ which the Azyme cannot be which he proves 1. Because the Azyme is not Bread till it receives the perfection of Leaven 2. Because the Azyme is a dead thing having no inlivening virtue in it whereas the leavened Bread has Leaven which is to it as it were Life and Soul whence he concludes 't is proper to become the Mystery of the Body of Christ seeing there is in this Body three living things the Spirit the Water and Blood the Water and Blood because they run down from his pierced side and the Spirit because his Flesh was ever joyned to his Divinity Whence he inferrs 't is in the Bread and not in the Azyme we eat this Flesh and that the Bread being changed by the Holy Spirit and made Christ's Body we live in him by eating his living and deified Flesh And this is Nicetas his reasoning which I confess is a little odd but howsoever 't is
no more mens Thoughts than those which were written concerning the Pagans or those the Fathers wrote on the Subject of Christian Religion IT seems these Gentlemen Consult only their own Interest When any Authors savour them they are worthy of publick Praise and when they do not they deserve to be Contemned and their Arguments become strong or weak good or bad accordingly as they are serviceable or otherwise It is certain if Mr. Arnaud's and my Proof be compared together in respect of Form they are equal for we suppose the same Principles and draw thence the same Consequences but if they be compared in respect of the matter the Advantage is wholly on my side for all the Circumstances strengthen my Argument whereas they weaken his The Pagans were Learned they had the Power in their Hands they needed not dissemble with the Christians They knew very well the Doctrines of Christianity The matter concerned the pulling down of their Altars and they were interessed to conserve their ancient Religion to decry these Novelties which had introduced themselves into the World There can be nothing said like this concerning the Greeks as will appear in the Sequel of this Chapter And yet my Argument is not Conclusive in the Author of the Perpetuity's Judgment and Mr. Arnaud's Argument if we believe himself is undeniably Evident that is to say these Gentlemen bestow on Arguments when they are pleased to make use of them the Title of good ones but when the same Arguments are urged against them then they become bad ones This partiality proceeds only from prejudice BUT in the second place without wandring from the Subject in Hand I can oppose against Mr. Arnaud's negative Proof several other Proofs of the like kind I have already made use of in the preceding Book which conclude with a thousand times more strength than his and consequently deserve to be preferred before them according to the Rules of right Reason The Greeks in explaining the Mystery of the Eucharist do assert neither the Existence of Accidents without a Subject nor the Concomitancy or Existence of the Body of Christ in the Eucharist after the manner of Spirits nor his Existence in several places They trouble not themselves with inquiring how our Bodies are nourished when they receive the Sacrament nor of what matter the Worms are formed which are bred in the Eucharist nor several other Questions In short they mention not a Word touching any of the natural Consequences of Transubstantiation which a man cannot but consider and which common Sence discovers without the help of any Philosophy as I already shewed in the tenth Chapter of the foregoing Book ALL that I now desire is that my negative Proofs be compared with that Proof Mr. Arnaud draws from the Greeks not making Transubstantiation a point of Controversy between them and the Latins The Greeks say's he have bin silent on the Transubstantiation of the Latins they neither opposed nor condemned it therefore they believed it as well as the Latins The Greeks say I have for Example bin silent on the Existence of the Accidents of Bread separated from their proper Substance they neither handled this Point nor so much as made mention of it therefore they do not believe it nor consequently Transubstantiation Mr. Arnaud must acknowledg that my Proof is far more conclusive than his for 't is a thousand times more natural for people that hold the Substance of Bread ceases and yet and tast behold all the Qualities and Properties thereof to consider how these things subsist or at least to speak in some sort of it than 't is natural to those that do not believe Transubstantiation to reproach them with it that do believe it If we weigh all Circumstances we shall find the Commerce the Greek Doctors have had either with their own people or with themselves in reflecting on what fell under their Sence has bin more particular and frequent than that which they have had with the Latins That which they saw and believed has bin more distinctly known to them than what the Latins taught or Gregory the VII or Innocent the III. determin'd in their Councils The Interest of quieting their own Consciences and satisfying their own Minds must needs be more prevalent with them than that of quarrelling with the Latins The occasions of satisfying themselves and instructing their people oftner presented themselves than those of condemning strangers with whom they dealt only by their Ambassadours and Interpreters The reasons of their Silence in respect of the Latins are easilyer found out than those which would oblige them to be silent in respect of themselves For what signifies the telling us the Glory of God and Respect to his Mysteries were the cause of their Silence touching the Existence of the Accidents without a Subject For this same Glory of God and respect to his Mysteries would engage them to declare the reasons of their Silence to the end they may be known to all the Faithful under their Charge and to exhort them to the same Silence Were I willing to enlarge my Book after Mr. Arnaud's Example who has hunted after little Stories whereby to bring over again a hundred times the same Argument I should tire my Readers Patience for I could argue touching all the Occasions the Greeks have had to see and administer the Eucharist to discourse and partake of it the Easters in which time the people do universally Communicate touching the Sick that desire it and received it the Books wherein they explain'd the Mystery of it and in general touching whatsoever may administer them an Occasion of considering the Accidents and I might as often draw this Conclusion that they do not believe Transubstantiation seeing they have said nothing concerning this pretended Miracle of the Existence of Accidents separated from their Subject 'T IS the same with the other Consequences of the substantial Conversion A Man needs only his Eye-sight to assure himself that if what we receive in the Eucharist be really and substantially the natural Body of Christ according to the Sence of the Latins it is not in the usual form of a humane Body whence there immediately arises this Consideration how it can be without this Form How it can be in a place after an unlocal manner neither palbable nor divisible thus more like a Spirit than a Body and yet without Motion Sense or Action and in this more like an inanimate Body than a Spirit A Man needs but little Sense to comprehend that if the Substance of Bread ceases there can be nothing found in the Eucharist to which may be attributed the effect of the Nourishment we receive thence Neither needs there much Study to find out that if the Substance of the natural Body of Christ be present in the Sacrament he is then in several places at the same time to wit in Heaven and on all the Altars whereon are celebrated this divine Mystery Yet do they make no mention of
our Sence he must say if it be so that the Bread contains the Virtue of Christ's Body why does it not appear Flesh to us For this Doubt does not arise from the Bread's being Flesh in Virtue on the contrary 't is that which dissipates the Doubt and makes it vanish It comes either from the general Proposition that the Bread is Flesh and not the Figure of Flesh or from this other Proposition that it is Flesh even as the Bread which Jesus Christ eat was changed into his Flesh but the Doubt resolves it self by this last Proposition that it is changed into the Virtue of Flesh and Blood SECONDLY It appears likewise from thence that Theophylact had not Transubstantiation in his Thoughts For if he had it in his Thoughts he must have solved the Difficulty in another manner He must have said that the appearance of Bread remains but that its Substance is changed into the Flesh of Christ and for this Reason does not appear Flesh but Bread But yet notwithstanding the Doubts would not have ceased as they do now for it might be demanded how this appearance of Bread subsisted alone without its natural Substance how our Sences could be deceived by an appearance of Bread which was not Bread and by a real substance of Flesh which appears not Flesh how this same Substance of the Flesh of Christ can be in Heaven and on Earth at the same time and several other such like Questions which are not to be found in Theophylact's Text. 3dly It appears likewise that Theophylact believed that if the Bread was Flesh otherwise than by an Impression of Virtue it must needs appear Flesh For in saying that 't is in Condescention to our Weakness that God changes it into the Virtue of his Flesh he leaves it to be concluded that otherwise our Infirmities would not be succoured and we must unavoidably behold Flesh in its natural Form MR. Arnaud not liking this change of Virtue which is found thus described in proper terms in Theophylact's Discourse endeavours to give three different Explications of them and leaves us at liberty to choose either of them First that by the virtue of Flesh we must understand the Reality the internal Essence of this Flesh The second that this is a way of speaking which is usual with the Greeks to say 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Force or Power of Flesh to signify Flesh full of Efficacy The third that when two things are joyned together in Truth and in the Mind of those to whom we speak it often happens These 2. that in expressing them we denote but one without excluding the other and with a design to make the other understood which we do not express by that which we do Which he afterwards explains in these Terms It is certain that the Consecrated Bread is changed into the Body of Christ It is certain likewise that it becomes full of its Virtue and Efficacy These two Truths are joyned and are the Consequences of each other And therefore it oft happens that Authors do joyntly express them as does Euthymius who tells us in express Terms That as Jesus Christ deified the Flesh he took by a supernatural Operation so he changes the Bread and Wine after an ineffable manner into his proper Body which is the Fountain of Life and into his proper Blood and into the Virtue of both one and the other But as these two changes are still joyned in Effect and the Fathers supposing they were joyned in the Spirit of the Faithful It sufficed them to express the one to make the other understood And thus they tell us a hundred times that the Bread is changed into the Body of Christ without expressing it is filled with its Virtue because one follows the other and Theophylact having told us several times that the Bread is changed into the Body of Christ tells us once that 't is changed into its Strength as the sequel of a Mystery which makes it conceived wholy entire because the Faith of the Faithful does not separate the virtue of Christs Body from the Body it self nor his Body from its Virtue it never having entred into their Minds that Christ's Body was in Heaven and that we have only in the Eucharist its Strength and Virtue whereas they believe that we have only this Strength and Virtue upon the account of its being really and truly present in our Mysteries And 't is by these Engines Mr. Arnaud pretends to draw Transubstantiation from the Passage of Theophylact. BUT in general all these three Explications appear to us to be forced and neither of 'em to be chosen There needs not this great stir to find Theophylact's real Meaning He means no more than what his Expressions plainly intimate to wit That the Bread and Wine are changed into the Virtue of the Flesh and Blood of Christ and he means nothing else Had he believed a change of Substance he would have said so as well as a Change of Virtue and so much the rather as I observed that the Difficulty which he proposed to resolve obliged him to explain himself clearly about it Why does not the Bread being Flesh appear to be so Because its Substance is only changed and its Accidents remain A Man that believed Transubstantiation must needs say thus THE first Explication especially can have no grounds because that when we speak of the Virtue of a thing to signify its Truth Reality and inward Essence It is only when the Question concerns this Truth or this Reality in respect of its Operation or Effects and Mr. Arnaud's Instances confirm what I say For when St. Paul said speaking of Hypocrites that they have a Form or Appearance of Godlyness 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but that they denied the Power 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he means they have only a false Appearance of it a vain Shadow but not the Reality of it which is seen by its Effects So when Hesychius say's that it is to receive the Communion ignorantly not to know the Virtue and Dignity of it and to be ignorant that 't is the Body and Blood of Christ according to Truth That this is to receive the Mystery and not know the Virtue of them he did not mean that the Mysteries were the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ in Substance but according to the spiritual Understanding which is what he calls the Truth of the Mystery it is the Body and Blood of Christ because what offers it self to our sight is only the Shadow and Vale of the Mystery but that the Divine Object represented by these sensible things is the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ Which is what he calls the Virtue of the Mystery because its whole Operation and Effects depend only on them As to what he alledges of Paschasius besides that he is an Author who affects Obscurity as is usual with Innovators and that there is a great deal of Injustice in
than that which receives Augmentation and they make use of the Example of a Child which Eating and Drinking and Growing by this means has not two Bodies but one MR. Arnaud then has in vain collected all the Passages of Cabasilas which assert The Gifts are changed into the Body and Blood of Christ that the Bread is Lib. 3. c. 8. the very Body of our Saviour the Sacrifice offered for the Salvation of the World that the Lord is seen and handled by means of the Holy and Dreadful Mysteries and that we receive him in the Eucharist These Expressions are common both to the Latins and Greeks from whence he can conclude nothing to the Prejudice of these Differences we have observed and which decide the Question IT is in vain he tells us that Cabasilas Disputing against the Latins on the Subject of this Prayer which they make after the Consecration Jube sursum ferri dona haec in manu angeli ad supercaeleste tuum Altare Reasons on these four Principles which include the real Presence and Transubstantiation 1st That we ought not to wish the Body of Christ be taken up from us 2ly That the Body of Christ being in Heaven and on Earth we ought not to desire it should be carried up into Heaven because it is there already 3dly That it cannot be offered by Angels because it is above Angels 4ly That we cannot without Impiety wish the Gifts a greater Dignity seeing they are the Body of Jesus Christ AS to what concerns the first of these Cabasilas say's only We must not pray that the Holy Gifts be taken away from us but on the contrary that they may remain with us and must believe they do so because it is thus that Christ is with us to the end of the World Hitherto we see neither Transubstantiation nor Cabas expos Liturg. c. 30. real Presence As to the 2d Cabasilas say's That if the Latins acknowledged it to be the Body of Christ they must believe he is with us and that he is above the Heavens seated at the right Hand of the Father in a manner known to him which still supposes neither real Presence nor Transubstantiation For according to the Greeks the Eucharist which is on the Earth being the Growth of the Body of Christ is one and the same Body with that in Heaven So that in manner the same Body is in Heaven and on Earth In Heaven in respect of its natural Substance and on Earth in respect of the Mystery which is its Growth which is far from the Sence of the Latins and does not suppose any Transubstantiation As to the 3d. How say's Cabasilas can that be carried up by an Angel which is above all Principalities and Powers and above every Name But methinks this would be to extend the use of Consequences too far to conclude from hence that the Eucharist is the Body of Christ in propriety of Substance For it is sufficient to establish the Truth of what Cabasilas say's that the Bread is the Body of Christ in Virtue and by way of Growth as we have already observed the Greeks explain it seeing it is true that this Dignity raises it up in some Sence above the Angels themselves not in respect of its Nature or Substance but in respect of the Virtue which accompanies it which is the supernatural Virtue of our Lord's Body As to the 4th It is certain that Cabasilas has had reason to say that if the Latins desired the Gifts might after their Consecration receive some new Dignity and a Change into a better State their Prayer would be impious seeing they acknowledged they were already the Body of Christ For as he afterwards adds to what more excellent or Holy State can we believe they pass into His Reasoning is good but I do not see it includes as Mr. Arnaud tells us the real Presence and Transubstantiation He ought to shew us this and not assert it without Proof for it may very well be said in the Sence of the Greeks that the Bread is capable of no higher a Dignity than that of receiving the Impression of the Virtue of Christ's Body and to be made this Body by way of Growth and Augmentation IT is moreover in Vain Mr. Arnaud endeavours to shew that in the Sence of Cabasilas Christ does not really dye in the Eucharist for we never imputed Lib. 3. c. 8. to this Author so strange a Doctrine Neither have we ween deceiv'd touching the Participles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Mr. Arnaud has imagined For we find that Cabasilas calls the Body of Christ not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Mr. Arnaud supposes this is a Fault in Grammar which has scaped his Pen for want of heed and which we must not impute to a Greek but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we have seen likewise he deny's the Body is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Mr. Arnaud does again assert by a Mistake thro Incogitancy for we are not willing to attribute it to any thing else The Greeks do not say 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in that Sence to say the Sacrificed or Slain Body no more than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is to say that Cabasilas means that the Body has been slain heretofore and not at present But this does not hinder it from being true as I said in my Answer to the Perpetuity that Cabasilas has respect to the Body of Christ in the Eucharist as dead that is to say under a respect or quality of Answer to the 2d Treat c. 8. Death Which appears by what he say's that it is not an Image or Representation of a Sacrifice but a real Sacrifice not of Bread but of the Body of Christ Cabas expos Lit. cap. 32. and that there is but one Sacrifice of the Lamb of him which was once offered Whence it follows that Christ is in the Eucharist as Dead and Sacrificed on the Cross which is precisely what I said MR. Arnaud will say that the Consequence which I draw to wit that Christ is not substantially present in the Eucharist is contrary to Cabasilas his Discourse who assures us That the Bread is changed into the thing Sacrificed altho the Sacrifice is not presently offered But Mr. Arnaud having never well Ibid. comprehended the Hypothesis of the Greeks it is no marvel if he has misunderstood Cabasilas his Sence in this Discourse which he makes of the Sacrifice in his thirty second Chapter The Greeks will have the Bread pass thro all the Degrees of the Oeconomy thro which the Body of Christ has passed that as the Holy Spirit came upon the Substance of the Holy Virgin so does he come upon the Bread that as the Body of Christ was in a corruptible state Crucifi'd and Buried so in like manner the Bread is first Corruptible lifted up as it were upon a Cross and buried in our Bodies as in a Sepulchre That in fine it becomes
incorruptible as the Body of Christ was after his Resurrection which they establish by this Reason that the Bread is an augmentation of the Body of Jesus Christ and that as Nature observes on the Food which nourishes us and augments our Body the same order she kept in the first matter from which we were formed So Grace observes in the Eucharistical Bread the same order she observes in the Natural Body By this means they will have the Bread become first the Body of Christ in asmuch as 't is Mortal and Corruptible that it be afterwards this dead Body and in fine this Incorruptible and Raised Body Cabasilas his Sence then is that when the Bread is mystically sacrificed it is made the dead Body of Jesus Christ as he speaks himself the Lamb slain not that the Body suffers Death in this Moment but because in this Moment the Bread passes thro the Oeconomy of Death And thus the Bread is changed into the dead Body of our Lord not that our Saviour dyes in effect but because the Bread which is the Growth of his Body is then changed into this Body in as much as it suffered Death heretofore And this is Cabasilas his real Sence which is conformable to the Hypothesis of the Greeks and not that which Mr. Arnaud attributes to him HE likewise uses to no purpose several Passages out of Simeon of Thessalonica They say nothing but what I already often answered to wit That the Bread is the real Body of Jesus Christ that it is the very Body of Christ and I shewed in what Sence the Greeks use these Expressions and therefore will not any more repeat it I likewise answered what he alledged touching the Adoration and the unconsecrated Particles AS to Jeremias the Patriarch of Constantinople we may well wonder that he should so confidently offer him us as a Person that teaches Transubstantiation seeing that not only Jeremias holds the same Language as the others but asserts several things which opposes the Roman Doctrine Mr. Arnaud having according to his Custom impertinently related several historical Passages Lib. 4. c. 4. tells us That the Article of the Ausbourg Confession which respects the Sacrament expresly asserting the real Presence but not mentioning Transubstantiation Jeremias answers that Point is handled in it very briefly and obscurely and adds that the Catholick Church holds the Bread is changed into the very Body and Blood of our Lord thro the Holy Spirit So that then Jeremias held Transubstantiation And thus does Mr. Arnaud draw his Consequences But he is too quick Some Protestants in Germany sent the Ausbourg Confession to the Patriarch of Constantinople without any Commentary or Exposition on it The Patriarch examining its tenth Article which runs thus Touching the Lord's Supper they hold the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ are really present in it and are distributed to those that participate thereof and condemn the Opinion of those that hold the contrary He say's This Article treats of the Lord's Supper very briefly and to say the Truth somewhat obscurely For adds he we are told several things of you which we do not approve To say hereupon that the Lutherans understood this Article in the Sence of the real Presence and that the Greeks could not be ignorant of it signifies nothing For it appears that the Patriarch only considered the Expressions of the Article barely as they are laid down and found them obscure And as to those things which were told him of them on this Subject and which he disapproved he does not specify them When then he adds That the Catholick Church holds the Bread is changed into the Body and Blood of our Lord thro the Spirit It is clear his Design is without proceeding any farther into the Examination of their Belief to tell them that of his Church and oppose it against their Article so that we must always return to the Inquiry whether by these Expressions The Bread is changed into the real Body he means Transubstantiation or the other Change by way of Augmentation and Impression of Virtue for 't is certain the Article of the Ausbourg Confession respects neither of these Changes MR. Arnaud tells us This was a proper place wherein to assert the Body and Ibid. p. 361. Blood of Christ are not really present in the Sacrament seeing only their Virtue is in it I answer a presence of Virtue is a real Presence of the Body and Blood of Christ even as the Sun is really present with us by the Efficacy of its Beams so that Jeremias had no reason to oppose the reality of the Presence but 't was better said by him that the Terms of the Confession were Ambiguous and that they ought to acknowledg clearly the Body and Blood are substantially present in it supposing he believed this substantial Presence MR. Arnaud adds That the Patriarch does not say the Bread is changed in p. 362. Virtue Power and Efficacy I answer neither does he say 't is changed in Substance and there is this Difference betwixt Mr. Arnaud and I that I add it was not necessary that Jeremias should explain himself touching this change of Virtue because the Greeks who preceded him had already plainly done it but the same cannot be said touching the change of Substance for not one of the Greeks ever mentioned it any more than he so that he was necessarily obliged clearly to express it if he intended it should be understood BUT Mr. Arnaud further say's The Divines of Wittemberg and Tubinga believed upon the Answer of the Patriarch that he taught the real Presence and p. 370. Transubstantiation When this were true we need not be astonished thereat For it might well be that Divines who held the Consubstantiation should take the Words of Jeremias in a Sence which opposed only one part of their Opinion rather than in another which would wholly overthrow it Their Prejudication signifies nothing to the Exposition which the Greeks make themselves of their own Opinion BUT Mr. Arnaud say's moreover If the Divines of Wittemberg Misunderstood the Patriarchs Sence it lay upon him to rectify their Mistakes I answer there cannot be any Advantage made of Jeremias's Silence in this Respect For it is certain that in these Divines first answer they reckon amongst the Points in which they agreed with the Patriarch this That the Communion or Supper of our Lord unites us to him in as much as we truly partake therein of his Flesh and Blood But these were the proper Expressions which this Patriarch used and so far there was no reason to say they charged him with believing what he did not seeing they only repeated what he said It is likewise true they denyed the Bread was changed therein which they grounded on the Testimony of St. Paul who calls it Bread yet did they make use of the same Term Jeremias did which is that of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without the least mention of a
Body which is administred by the Priests is neither a Type nor an Azyme but it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a leavened Loaf and the very Body of our Lord and the Translation runs Illud ipsum verum Christi corpus sub speciebus fermentati panis contentum The Body it self the real Body of Christ CONTAINED UNDER THE SPECIES OF LEAVENED BREAD Mr. Arnaud affirms that this is not a Falsification because Jeremias his true Sence is represented in it For say's he these Words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are capable of two different P. 366. Sences First This Bread is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Leavened because it remains in effect leavened Bread and that it is only the Body of Christ in Figure or Virtue Secondly It is called by this Name of leavened Bread because it was originally leavened Bread and does still appear so altho it be the Body of our Lord. But the first of these Sences has been several times excluded by Jeremias his own Words wherein he clearly asserted that after the Consecration the leavend Bread is changed into our Lord's real Body that it is not a Figure but our Lords Body that it is this Flesh concerning which he speaks The Bread which I shall give you is my Flesh It is excluded in what follows sundry different ways and by the very Words of that passage which asserts it is our Lord's Body Whence it follows it is not then really leavened Bread I answer that this pretended Sence which Mr. Arnaud attributes to Jeremias is precisely the Point in Question Now whilst a matter is in Dispute we must never translate a Passage according to the Sence of one of the Parties which th' other denies him To deal sincerely the proper and natural Signification of Terms must be kept and every man left at his liberty to judg of them For when men translate according to the Pretention of one Party they are no longer the Words of this Author but the Prejudication of this Party and consequently an Alteration even when the Prejudication of this Party should be just and reasonable in the Main Moreover Mr. Arnaud is mistaken if he believes the other Passages of Jeremias determine a Sence of substantial Reality for according to the Hypothesis of the Greeks the Bread still remains Bread in Substance altho it be changed into the Body of Christ and be the very Body of Christ and not a Figure as we have often already declared whence it follows the Translation in question cannot be justified A Man of never so mean Capacity may perceive that Jeremias his Sence is not that which Mr. Arnaud attributes to him For in the same place where he say's The Bread is changed into the real Body of Christ and the Wine into his Blood and wherein he alledges the Words of Christ which tell us not This is an Azyme or this is the Figure of my Body but this is my Body He adds by way of Explication This is not to say that the Flesh which our Saviour then had was given to be eaten by his Disciples nor his Blood to be drunk nor that now in this sacred Ordinance our Lord's Body descends from Heaven This would be Blasphemy But then and now by Prayers and the Grace of the almighty Spirit which operates in the Mysteries by means of the Holy Orisons the Bread is changed into our Lord's real Body and Blood These Words being applyed to the Hypothesis of the Greeks that the Bread remaining Bread and receiving the Impression of the Holy Spirit is changed into the Body of Christ by way of Augmentation are clear and void of Difficulty But if we apply them to the Hypothesis of the Latins who affirm the Substance of Bread is changed into the natural Flesh of Christ and becomes the Same numerical Flesh which our Lord had when on Earth In what Sence shall we understand that saying of Jeremias namely that the Flesh which Christ had then was not given to be eaten by his Disciples For if we grant Transubstantiation it is certain the Disciples eat the same Flesh which Christ then had and Jeremias his Proposition can not subsist Mr. Arnaud endeavours but in vain to expound Jeremias his Discourse in saying That Christ gave not to be eaten by his Disciples the Flesh which he had in ceasing to have it and to appear before them in his usual manner in cutting his Body into Morsels or having no other place of Abode than his Apostles Stomach To make us receive this Gloss it must be grounded on Jeremias his own Words and not on Mr. Arnaud's Imagination These Corrections and fine Explications hinder not but that the Patriarch's Proposition is absolute and contrary to the Doctrine of Transubstantiation For that which Jeremias denies is not that our Saviour disappeared before his Disciples nor cut his Flesh into Morsels but that he gave them to eat the Flesh he then had The Question respects not the manner in which our Lord gave his Flesh to be eaten but whether he did give it and Jeremias asserts he did not What likelyhood is there that a Man who believes Transubstantiation would thus roughly offer a Negative which is directly opposite to his Belief What likelyhood is there he would offer it in the same place and Discourse wherein he asserts Transubstantiation without explaining and lessening the Offence which might be taken at his Words But in short how is it probable he would treat as Blasphemous the Proposition contrary to his Negative Of these two Propositions Christ gave to be eaten by his Disciples the Flesh he bore and Christ gave not the Flesh he bare to his Disciples to eat The first would be the only true one according to the Letter without Gloss and Commentary supposing Transubstantiation Th' other taken litterally would be false and heretical and to make it tolerable it must have Expositions and Molifications contrary to what the Letter bears Mr. Arnaud is forced to change the first and natural Sence of the Terms and impose on them a forced and unusual one Who can then imagine that a Man who believed Transubstantiation or the real Presence and positively asserted it should be so senceless as to condemn the first of these Propositions which expresly contains his Belief to condemn it I say as Blasphemous and establish the second as the only true one without using any Corrective or Illustration This is wholly improbable AND this is what I had to say concerning Jeremias There remains nothing more of all Mr. Arnaud's pretended Proofs than the Passages taken out of some common Authors wherein there being nothing extraordinary and containing only that the Bread is the Body of Christ and that it is changed into his Body The same Answer being applyed to them will be sufficient CHAP. IX Several Passages of Anastasius Sinaite Germane the Patriarch of Constantinople and Damascene Examined HAVING satisfied Mr. Arnaud's Objections concerning the Greeks since the eleventh Century to this
than Adventures are dealt out in Romances that builds Castles in the Ayr and makes all Men in the World Senceless provided they speak and think according to my Desires and Pretensions that prefers the smallest Reasons before the strongest and clearest Proofs and proposes all this in a confident insulting manner giving myself those Applauses which I would willingly receive from others and treating my Adversaries with Contempt and Disdain And here is the Tempest which has followed my Sun-shine my happy Days But I am sorry Mr. Arnaud should be thus angry upon no occasion Howsoever we will Examine the Passages he has offered THE first is a Passage taken out of Anastatius Sinaite wherein a Monk argues against Hereticks who asserted Christ's Body was incorruptible before his Resurrection To prove that it was Corruptible he takes it for granted by his Adversaries That the Eucharist is really the true Body and Blood of Christ Anast Sin 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not mere Bread such as is sold in the Market nor a Figure such as was the Sacrifice of the paschal Lamb amongst the Jews To this Principle he adds another which is That the Eucharist is corruptible as Experience shews us and from these two Propositions he concludes That the Body of Christ was Corruptible before his Resurrection Every Man sees this Reasoning is grounded on this Supposition That the Eucharist is the Body of Christ such as it was before his Resurrection that is to say in the same State Now it is likewise manifest that this Supposition is wholy inconsistent with the Doctrine of Transubstantiation and that of the substantial Presence For besides that 't is both foolish and impious to imagine that our Lord's Body which is risen out of its State of Humiliation descends into it again and exists still Mortal Corruptible and Passible as it was heretofore This is moreover directly contrary to his Sacramental State wherein we must necessarily suppose it if we would have it to be in the Eucharist in proper Substance For it is not to be imagined that a Body which exists after the manner of a Spirit impalpable and indivisible which can be neither seen nor touched should be at the same time Mortal Corruptible and Passible as our Saviour's Body was before his Resurrection These two States are inconsistent with each other whence it follows that whatsoever otherwise the Sence of this Author might be he held neither Transubstantiation nor the Reality which the Church of Rome holds YET if we believe Mr. Arnaud he is a Witness for him For as soon as ever he finds in any Passage that the Eucharist is not a Figure but the true Body of Christ he requires no more for the making of a Proof altho he sees otherwise several things absolutely contrary to him One of the usual Artifices with which he imposes on his Readers is that when he offers any Passage importing what I now mentioned or something like it he sets himself to shew not that 't is the Romane Transubstantiation therein contained but that 't is not our Doctrine And thus has he done in that Passage of Anastasius's Can any Man say's he that has but the least spark of Sence and believes the Ibid. p. 625. Eucharist to be only a Figure of Christ's Body and not the real Body of Christ Express this his Opinion by these Terms The Eucharist is not the Figure but really the true Body of Christ Can any Calvinist in the World refuse to acknowledg this Discourse overthrows his Doctrine And I say can there be any Man that has but the least dram of Sence that believes the Body of Christ exists in the Eucharist after the manner of a Spirit and is therein in a Sacramental State and yet expresses this his Belief in saying the Eucharist is subject to Corruption and concluding from thence that the Body of Christ was then Corruptible before his Resurrection Is there ever a one of Mr. Arnaud's Friends that can contain himself from believing this Discourse overthrows his Doctrine When I speak in this manner I keep to the State of our Question and deceive no body But when Mr. Arnaud speaks as he does he wanders from the Point in hand and deludes his Readers WHATSOEVER Anastasius his Doctrine may be 't is certain 't is not that of the Church of Rome which cannot consist with the Principle on which Anastasius argues He expresses himself say's Mr. Arnaud a little crabbedly towards the end of his Discourse in making use of weak Arguments not only here but in almost all parts of his whole Discourse But if Mr. Arnaud be forced to confess that this man's Expressions are of hard digestion when applyed to the Hypothesis of Rome Why may not I as well say they are so being applyed to our Hypothesis and consequently they must not be urged against us If Anastasius could not carefully consider the Consequence he drew himself how could he foresee that which Mr. Arnaud would one Day draw from his Discourse If it be usual with Anastasius to argue weakly why may it not also be usual with him to Discourse with little foresight Why must Advantage be taken from some of his Expressions against us and we withheld from taking any against Mr. Arnaud from the whole Sequel of his Discourse and Coherence of his Thoughts which a Man more minds than his Terms or manner of expressing himself MR. Arnaud endeavours but all in vain to molify Anastasius's Sence in saying That he concludes the Body of Christ was corruptible before his Passion Ibid. p. â—3â— seeing he suffers still in the Eucharist an apparent Corruption by the sensible Corruption of the Species which are the Symbol of the State wherein he was before his Death This Arguing adds he is very weak and roughly Expressed but 't is no unusual thing for this Author to Reason weakly and it would be but a bad Consequence to conclude that an Argument is not his because 't is weak It is sufficient that it be not extravagant in the highest Degree as is that which Aubertin attributes to him ANASTASIUS his Argument according to Mr. Arnaud must be put in this Form The Body of Christ before his Resurrection was such as is in the Eucharist the Symbol of the State wherein he was before his Death But this Symbol is corruptible Therefore the Body of Christ was then Corruptible This Argument is like that which Mr. Aubertin imputes to him according to Mr. Arnaud That which happens to the Figure of Christ's Body P. 629. happened to his Body before his Passion Now it happens to the Bread which is the Figure of it to be subject to Corruption The Body then of Jesus Christ was Corruptible before his Passion Take the Word Figure from this Argument insert that of Symbol which Mr. Arnaud has used in his and the two Arguments are the same Yet he will have his to be good and Mr. Aubertin's ridiculously Extravagant BUT it
that he must of necessity either deny what the whole Church believes to wit the Conversion of the Substance of Bread or fall into this other Absurdity of maintaining that this Conversion is made in the Divine Nature Common Sence leads him to this and yet we find no such thing in all his Discourse AFTER Anastasius comes Germain the Patriarch of Constantinople Mr. Aubertin has placed him according to the common Opinion in the eighth Century but in effect there is more likelyhood according to Allatius his Conjecture that he lived in the twelveth and the Reflections Mr. Arnaud makes on this Subject seem to me just enough to be followed till we have greater Certainty But howsoever this Author say's no more than That the Bread is changed into the Body of Christ and that it is his Body To which we have Lib. 7. c. 3. so often already answered that it will be needless to say any more Mr. Arnaud sets to Phylosophising on some Passages which Mr. Aubertin alledged in his Favour but this is an Illusion for when what Mr. Aubertin alledges concerning Germane to show that 't is contrary to Transubstantiation should not be Conclusive 't would not thence follow he believed it nor Taught it if this does not appear elsewhere from good Proofs and Mr. Arnaud is obliged to produce such without supposing it is sufficient he Refutes Mr. Aubertin's Consequences For Refuting is not Proving GERMAIN sufficiently shews us towards the end of his Treatise in what Sence he understood the Bread to be the Body of Christ Moses say's Germ. Theor. rer Eccles sub finem he sprinkling the People with the Blood of Goats and Heifers said This is the Blood of the Covenant But our Saviour Christ has given his own proper Body and shed his own Blood and given us the Cup of the new Testament saying This is my Body which was broken for you this is my Blood shed for the Remission of your Sins As often then as ye eat this Bread and drink of this Cup ye declare my Death and Resurrection Thus believing then we eat the Bread and drink of the Cup as of the Flesh of God declaring thereby the Death and Resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ. We have already observed in the foregoing Book that the Greeks do often use this Expression As the Flesh As the Body to mollify and abate in some sort their usual way of speaking which is that the Bread is the Body of Christ and to signify that the Bread is to us instead of this Body It appears from the sequel of Germain's Discourse his Sence is that for the better applying our Minds to the Death and Resurrection of our Lord we eat the Bread and drink of the Cup in the stead of his Body and Blood AS to John Damascen the Author of the Perpetuity having alledged him as a Witness of the Doctrine of the ancient Church I said He ought not Answer to the 2d Treatise of the Perpet c. 2. to produce the Testimony of a Person whom we except against and that with good Cause seeing he was one of the first that left the common Road of the Churches Expressions and betook himself to affected and singular ones which are at as great distance from the Roman Church as the reformed one Now this Exception is so just in respect of the Question concerning the Sentiment of the ancient Church that excepting Mr. Arnaud I do not believe there is any Man how little Conversant soever in the Writings of the Fathers but grants it For all the Ancient Fathers term the Eucharist a Figure or Representation of our Lord's Body and Damascen not only deny's that it is one but also that the Fathers thus termed it after Consecration He is one of the first that brought into Credit the Comparison of Food which changes it self into our Bodies whereby to explain the Change which happens to the Bread in as much as it is made an Augmentation of the Body of Christ that of the Blessed Virgin which the Holy Spirit overshadowed and that of Wood united to the Fire His Expressions being compared with those of the Ancients are wholly extraordinary He tells us that the Sacramental Bread and the Body born of the Virgin are but one and the same Body because the Bread is an Augmentation of the Body and that the same Oeconomy has been observed in both I suppose Damascen was not the first that had these kind of Conceptions seeing we have met with something like this in Anastasius his Discourse and if I mistake not some Trace of this in Gregory de Nysses his Catechism but howsoever it must be acknowledged I had reason to call these Conceptions Affected and Singular in respect of the usual Expressions of the Fathers and to say they vary as much from the Doctrine of the Romane Church as ours YET to hear only Mr. Arnaud a Man would imagine that Damascen clearly taught Transubstantiation To prove it he alledges these same Passages of his fourth Book touching the true Orthodox Faith wich has been a thousand times canvass'd by Controvertists and which conclude nothing Damascen say's That God makes the Bread the Body of Christ and the Wine his Blood that it is an effect of his Almighty Power which has created all things that seeing the Lord took his Body from the pure and immaculate Blood of the Virgin we must not doubt but he can change the Bread into his Body and the Wine into his Blood that if we demand how this Change happens he answers that this is wrought by the Holy Spirit that the Word of God is True and Almighty but that the manner is Incomprehensible But yet it may be rationally say'd that as the Bread and Wine wherewith a Man is nourished are changed into his Body so that they become another Body than that which they were before so the Bread and Wine mixt with Water are changed into the Body and Blood of Christ in awonderful manner by Prayer and Descent of the Holy Spirit and that they are not two different Bodies but one and the same Body HAD not Damascen expressed himself as he has done it would be to no purpose for us to tell Mr. Arnaud the Change he speaks of is not Transubstantiation seeing his Sence is that the Bread becomes a growth of our Lord's Body and is made by this means one with this Body that this is the effect he attributes to the Holy Spirit and Almighty Power of God acting above Nature and not that of a real Conversion of the Substance of Bread into the same Substance which the Body had before Mr. Arnaud would not fail to term this Extravagancy and Dotage But seeing we say no more in this matter than what is grounded on Damascen's own Words as it appears by what we related when we treated on the real Belief of the Greeks This Illustration will be sufficient without proceeding any farther to make Insignificant this long
Chapter which Mr. Arnaud has written touching the Equivocal Expressions of this Author In effect let him say as long as he pleases That the Point here concerns neither Figure nor Virtue that this effect Lib. 7. c. 3. p. 650. 651. which surpasses humane Conception is in Damascen ' s Sence this to wit That the Bread is made the Body of Jesus Christ that it is the Body really united to the Divinity the Body taken from the Virgin because the Bread and Wine are changed into the Body and Blood of God That Damascen speaks of it as if he designed to refute expresly all the Attempts and Shifts of the Ministers some of whom turn his Words into a change of Virtue and others to an Imaginary Union of the Holy Siprit with the Bread remaining Bread That the Fathers have expressed themselves after two different manners that is to say sometimes as Philosophers and otherwhiles as Divines All this signifies nothing considering the Explication which Damascen himself hath given us of his own Sence in his Letter to Zacharias Bishop of Doarus and Homily at the end of it These two Pieces published by the Abbot Billius and which were acknowledged for Authentick by Labbus the Jesuit the learned M. de Marca Arch-Bishop of Paris and Leo Allatius himself Mr. Arnaud's great Author These two Pieces I say end the Difference and suffer us not any longer to dispute about Damascene I shall only say that Mr. Arnaud has not done fairly in relating the Passages of the fourth Book of the Orthodox Faith to leave out this Homily and Letter as he has done CHAP. X. An Examination of the Advantages which Mr. Arnaud draws from the two Councils held in Greece in the eighth Century upon the Subject of Images the one at Constantinople and th' other at Nice IT cannot without doubt but trouble good People to see how Mr. Arnaud suffers his Pen to be guided by his Passion and fills up his Book with Injuries so ill becoming a Man of his Age and Profession making them continually the Subject of his Eloquence Yet in truth are we obliged to him for this way of proceeding not only for that thereby he gives us Occasion to exercise our Christian Patience but does also himself furnish us with an assured means of bringing his Chapters into a lesser Compass And to this end we shall pass by all his personal Reflections as Matters which concern not our Dispute Let us then consider those four terrible Chapters wherein he Treats of the two Councils which were held in the eighth Century the one at Constantinople against Images and the other at Nice for them MR. Arnaud begins with the Council of Nice that is to say with a Writing Lib. 7. c. 5. p. 661. which the Fathers of this Council caused to be read in the sixth Session from whence he forms these five Propositions 1st That the Eucharist was not called by the Name of Image or Figure by the Apostles and Fathers after Consecration 2dly That they have called it the Body it self and the Blood it self 3dly That the Gifts are properly Body and Blood 4ly That they are not Images but Body and Blood 5ly That it is impossible they should be both the Image and Body of Christ so that being the Body they are not the Image He moreover tells us that Anastasius made use of the same Reasoning to shew the Eucharist is not an Image That John Damascen likewise used it and Nicephorus the Patriarch of Constantinople concludes after the same manner that the Eucharist is not the Image of Christ because it is his Body Whereupon Mr. Arnaud cries out These are the very things wherein Arguments are useless and wherein the Impression of Truth appears so plainly that those that deny it are P. 663. to be regarded as Persons no longer to be reasoned with But how clear soever his Motives may be we can assure him this comes from his Prejudice and not from the Truth The Understanding of all these Discourses of the Adversaries of the Iconoclastes depends only on the knowing in what Sence they meant the Eucharist is properly the Body and Blood of Christ For this Point being once dispatched we shall soon perceive why they denyed it was an Image and wherefore they thus reasoned that being an Image it could not be the Body We must observe all these Greeks have followed the Opinion of Damascen and speak as he does that they borrow all his Conceptions and Expressions as appears by the Writing which was read in the second Council of Nice by the Fragment of Theodorus Graptus and Mr. Arnaud's own Author Nicephorus NOW after the Notices Damascen has given us we can no longer doubt but their Sence is that the Bread and Wine are made the Body and Blood of Christ inasmuch as that receiving the Supernatural Virtue of this Body and Blood they are a Growth and Augmentation thereof and therefore are not two Bodies but one and the same Body the proper Body of Christ as the Food becomes our proper Body AND this will appear from the bare reading of a Passage in Nicephorus Allat de Eccles Occid Orient Perp. Consens Lib. 3. cap. 15. which Mr. Arnaud himself has related and taken from Allatius And if it be needful say's he to explain these things by what passes in our selves as the Bread Wine and Water are naturally changed into the Body and Blood of those that eat and drink them and become not another Body so these Gifts by the Prayer of him that Officiates and Descent of the Holy Spirit are changed supernaturally into the Body and Blood of Christ For this is the Contents of the Priest's Prayer and we do not understand they are two Bodies but we believe it be but one and the same Body And this is the Greeks Hypothesis the Bread is made the proper Body of Christ as the Meat we eat becomes our Body to wit inasmuch as it is united to it and receives its Form increases and augments it THE same will appear if we compare the Discourses of the Fathers of Constantinople with the Censure past on them in the Council of Nice The Fathers of Constantinople called the Eucharist a chosen Matter a Substance of Bread Those of Nice were not offended thereat Neither at the others calling the Eucharist Bread filled with the Holy Spirit an Oblation translated from a common State to a State of Holyness a Body made Divine by a Sanctification of Grace So far they agree But when the Fathers of Constantinople call the Bread an Image those of Nice could not suffer it neither could they bear with them in saying it is the Body by Institution Why do they make this Difference but because these first Expressions which are contrary to Transubstantiation and the substantial Presence yet do not contradict their Hypothefis of Augmentation by an Impression of Virtue whereas the others oppose it For they do not say the Food
Image of the Body of Christ and the Eucharist is the proper Body of Christ altho they understood a Propriety by an Impression of Virtue I confess there is not between these two States of Image and proper Body in the Sence wherein those of Nice understood them a real Inconsistancy But we must likewise acknowledg that there is an apparent one especially when 't is made to consist only in the Terms as I believe these Greeks have made it If Mr. Arnaud will have them make it to consist in the same thing besides that this Difference will be of small Importance as to the Main I need only offer him what himself has told us concerning Anastasius and others who denyed the Eucharist was a Figure That Lib. 7. c. 2. p. 630. these were not two inconsistent Principles nor two contrary Expressions in the Language of those Times to say that the Eucharist is not the Figure of Christ's Body and yet a Representation of the Mysteries of his Life and that the same Authors that teach the one teach us likewise the other I need only tell him that in the same Place wherein they earnestly deny the Eucharist to be an Image they acknowledg it is a Symbol and that Damascen himself who will not suffer it to be called an Image or Type yet assures us that the same Oeconomy which was observed in Christ's natural Body is observed in the Bread which establisheth a true Resemblance at bottom I need only offer him the Exposition Bessarion makes of Damascen's Words By the Figure say's he he means a Bessarion de de Sacram. Eucharist Shadow which is no more than a Figure barely signifying another Subject yet without having any Substance for acting MR. Arnaud answering this Passage of Bessarion which I offered against the Author of the Perpetuity say's That Bessarion had reason to say St. John Damascen in denying the Eucharist to be a Figure means a bare Figure without C. 6. p. 680. Efficacy Not that he pretends an efficacious Figure is not a Figure but he supposes to say the Eucharist is the Sign of Jesus Christ and not his Body is asmuch as to say it is a bare Figure without Virtue and Efficacy because the Quality of a Figure does not include any Virtue and that it would have no other which could give it this Virtue So that according to Bessarion 't is certain that Damascen in denying the Eucharist to be a Figure of Jesus Christ means by the Word Figure a Shadow and a Figure without Efficacy because that in effect if the Eucharist be a bare Figure it would be a Figure without Efficacy and there would be no place of Scripture which could prove this Efficacy as we will shew elsewhere This Proposition then is true in one Sence if the Eucharist were but a Figure it would be but an empty Figure But this is not true in any Sence seeing if the Figure were an Efficacious Figure it would not be a Figure HE means it is impossible to attribute any Virtue to the Eucharist if it be not acknowledged the Body of Christ in Substance But 1st This Principle is false in it self and the contrary may be proved by an Instance from Scripture which St. Paul calls The Power of God to Salvation Rom. 1. And by the Example of Baptism which is accompanied with the Virtue of Christ's Blood and which according to the Scripture is the Laver of our Regeneration In effect to apply to us the supernatural Virtue of the Body of Christ it is not necessary that the Substance of this Body be locally in the Eucharist it is sufficient that his Spirit be in it and operates therein 2ly It is false there is no Passage of Scripture whereby to prove this Efficacy That which our Saviour himself say's Do this in Remembrance of me and what St. Paul adds That as often as we eat of this Bread and drink of this Cup we shew forth the Lord's Death till he comes this I say includes the Communication of his Virtue For Christ and his Death are not Objects of a mere historical Consideration It is the same with this Divine Saviour as with the Sun which it is impossible to behold without being inlightned by it and cheared with its Rays If we behold him say's one of the Prophets we are inlightned by him To declare his Death as we ought is without doubt an Action inseparable from the feeling of his Efficacy and that Man who deny's this Truth knows little of Christ 3ly Neither is it true that Damascen opposes those that deny the Eucharist to be the Body of Christ in Substance and say it is only so in Virtue neither is it true Bessarion imputes to him this Reasoning Were not the Eucharist the proper Substance of Christ's Body it would be no more than a mere Figure without Virtue and Efficacy This is one of Mr. Arnaud's Circuits which has no Grounds either in the Passage of Damascen nor in that of Bessarion Bessarion indeed would have Damascen to believe Transubstantiation and the substantial Presence for being a Cardinal in the Roman Church 't is no marvel he maintained not the contrary but he does not say Damascen argued as Mr. Arnaud supposes 4ly Mr. Arnaud does himself furnish us wherewithal to dissipate all his Subtilties touching the Council of Nice for we need only apply to the Council of Nice what he say's concerning Damascen in making these Fathers argue after this manner To say the Eucharist is an Image of Christ is the same as to say 't is no more than a bare Image without any Efficacy because the Quality of an Image includes not any Virtue and the Eucharist cannot have elsewhere this Virtue there being no place of Scripture which attributes it to it nor from whence it can be concluded Now the Iconoclastes affirm the Eucharist to be an Image They say then that 't is a bare Image without Virtue and Efficacy and consequently they contradict themselves when they afterwards call it the Body of Jesus Christ for if it be a mere Image it cannot be Virtually this Body This Reasoning attributed to the Fathers of Nice would be better grounded than that which he Imputes to Damascen because it does not appear Damascen Disputes against Persons that Expounded the Words of Christ This is my Body in this Sence This is the Figure of my Body whereas it appears that the Iconoclastes had Expounded them in this Sence This is the Image of my Body whence it follows they might been told better than they have been by Damascen that having no other Passage of Scripture whereby to prove it was the Body of Christ in Virtue it was no more according to them than a mere Image without any Efficacy AS to what Mr. Arnaud say's That altho Paschasius his Adversaries Expounded C. 6. p. 683. these Words The Body of Jesus Christ the Virtue of Jesus Christ yet did they not say it was the
of Consecration the Bread and Wine are Transubstantiated into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ Born of the Virgin who suffered and rose again But they hold that this Sacrament is a representation a resemblance or a figure of the true Body and Blood of our Lord. And this some of the Armenian Doctors have particularly asserted to wit that the real Body and Blood of Jesus Christ are not in the Eucharist but that it is a representation and a resemblance of them They say likewise that when our Saviour instituted this Sacrament he did not Transubstantiate the Bread and Wine into his Body but only instituted a representation or a resemblance of his Body and Blood and therefore they do not call the Sacrament of the Altar the Body and Blood of our Lord but the Host the Sacrifice or the Communion One of their Doctors called Darces has written that when the Priest says these words this is my Body then the Body of Jesus Christ is Dead but when he adds by which Holy Spirit c. then the Body of Jesus Christ is alive yet has he not expressed whether it be the true Body or the resemblance of it The Armenians likewise say we must expound that which is say'd in the Cannon of their Mass by which Holy Spirit the Bread is made the real Body of Jesus Christ in this sence that by the real Body of Jesus Christ we must understand the real resemblance or representation of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ And therefore Damascen censuring them for this says that the Armenians have this Two Hundred years abolished all the Sacraments and that their Sacraments were not given them by the Apostles nor Greek or Latin Church but that they had taken them up according to their own Fancy MR Arnaud who in looking over his Raynaldus has met with this clear Testimony yet 〈◊〉 has not been perplexed with it for his invention never fails of finding out ways to shift the force of the most plain and positive truths and to turn them to his own advantage He tells us that after an exact search into the cause which might move Guy Carmes to impute this Error to the Armenians he at length found it in this information which Pope Benedict the XII ordered to be drawn up He adds that if this Original has been known to the Ministers yet they have found greater advantage in standing by the Testimony C 9. 348. 485. of Guy Carmes then in ascending up to this Source BUT all this Discourse is but a meer Amusement For when Mr. Arnauds conjecture should be right it would not thence follow Guy Carmes his Testimony were void and the Ministers had no right to alledge him nor that the Information aforementioned do's impute to the Armenians those Doctrines which they have not There is great likelyhood that Guy Carmes made not this information his rule for besides that he say's nothing of it he reckons up but Thirty Errours of the Armenians whereas the information computes 'em to be about One Hundred and Seventeen But supposing it were so all that can be concluded thence is that in the Fourteenth Century the truth of the things contained in this act was not questioned but past for such certainties that the Writers of those times scrupled not to make them the Subject of their Books And this is all the use which can be made of Mr. Arnaud's Remark BUT howsoever what can be said against an act so Authentick as that of Benedict's which was not grounded on uncertain Reports but on the Testimonies of several Persons worthy of credit Armenians or Latins who had been in Armenia and whom the Pope would hear himself that he might be ascertain'd of the Truth TO know of what weight or Authority this piece is we need but read what the Pope wrote on this Subject to the Catholick or Patriarch of Armenia Raynald Ibid. We have long since says he been informed by several Persons of good credit that in both the Armenia's there are held several detestable and abominable Errors and that they are maintained contrary to the Catholick Faith which the Holy Roman Church holds and teaches which is the Mother and Mistress of all the Faithful And altho at first we were unwilling to credit these reports yet were at length forced to yield to the certain Testimony of Persons who tell us they perfectly understand the state of those Countries Yet before we gave full credit we thought our selves Obliged to make exact search of the Truth by way of judiciary and solemn information both by hearing several witnesses who likewise told us they knew the state of these Countrys and taking in Writing these their Depositions and by means of Books which we are informed the Armenians do commonly use wherein are plainly taught these Errors He says the same in his Letter to the King of Armenia and in his information 't is expresly said that the Pope caused these Witnesses to appear personally before him and gave Raâ—nald Ibid. them an Oath to speak the truth of what they knew concerning the Doctrines of the Armenians that these Witnesses were not only Latins that had been in Armenia but Armenians themselves and that the Books produced were written in the Armenian tongue and some of those were such as were in use in both the Armenia ' s I think here are as many formalities as can be desired and all these circumstances will not suffer a man to call in question the truth of those matters of fact which are contained in this act YET will not Mr. Arnaud agree herein He says that in this monstrous heap of Errors there are several senceless extravagant and Socinian Opinions Lib. 5. C. 9. P. 4â—4 That therein Original Sin the Immortality of the Soul the Vision of God the Existence of Hell and almost all the points of Religion are denyed That therein are also contrary Errors so that 't is plain this is not the Religion of a People or Nation but rather a Rapsody of Opinions of several Sects and Nations I confess there are in these Articles several absurd Opinions and some that differ little from Socinianism but this hinders not but they may be the Opinions of a particular People The Pope expresly distinguishes in his Bull three sorts of Errors contained in his information some that are held in both one and the other Armenia others which are held only in one Armenia and the third which are only held and taught by some particular Persons And this distinction is exactly observed in the Articles themselves in which the Particular Opinions are Described in these terms quidam or aliqui tenent as in Article CVI. Quidam Catholicon Armenorum dixit scripsit quod in generali Resurrectione omnes homines consurgent cum Corporibus suis sed tamen in Corporibus eorum non erit Sexuum discretio And in the CVIII Article Aliqui magni Homines Armeni Laici dixerunt
quod sicut bestiae in morte expirant sic moriuntur ita Homines sicut bestiae cum semel morte fuerunt nunquam resurgent ita nec homines The Opinions held only in one Armenia are likewise denoted exactly in these Words In majori Armenia In minori Armenia or Catholicon majoris Armeniae Catholicon minoris Armeniae The common Opinions are expressed in these Terms Armeni dicunt Armeni tenent And altho in the Article which respects the real Presence and Transubstantiation we find these words Et hoc specialiter aliqui magistri Armenorum dixerunt videlicet quod non erat ibi Corpus Christi verum Sanguis sed exemplar similitudo ejus yet is this same sentiment imputed generally to all the Armenians for the Article begins thus Item quod Armeni non dicunt quod post verba consecrationis Panis Vini sit facta Transubstantiatio Panis Vini in verum Corpus Christi Sanguinem And towards the end of the same Article there is Quod etiam Armeni illud quod ponitur in eorum Canone Missae per quem panis Benedictus efficitur verum Corpus Christi exponunt quia efficitur ibi vera similitudo exemplar Corporis Sanguinis Christi Unde Damascenus propter hoc reprehendens eos dixit quod ducenti tunc anni erant quod Armeni perdiderunt omnia Sacramenta c. It is then clear that this information attributes this Opinion not to some particular Persons but to the whole Body of the Armenians seeing that on one hand this Article bears the Character of Errors common to the Armenians and on the other there is applyed to 'em what Damascene say'd of 'um so long before that they had lost all the Sacraments Let Mr. Arnaud bestir himself as fiercely as he pleases he cannot hinder us from perceiving that if this Article related only to Particular Persons witnesses of the Fourteenth Century that depose what it contains would never have sought in the eight Century that is to say Six Hundred Years before the Authority of Damascen to confirm what they deposed and even to confirm it by a passage which respects the Church of the Armenians in general and which accuses it for having no true Sacrament MR. Arnaud observes afterwards that in this same Article there is accused another Armenian Doctor named Narces for saying when the Priest C. 9. P. 48. pronounces these Words Hoc est Corpus meum the Body of Jesus Christ is then in a state of Death and when he adds perquem the Body of Jesus Christ is then alive It is true says he the information adds that this Doctor do's not express whether he speaks of the true Body of Jesus Christ or of the Figure But the difference of these two states of Life and Death being to be found in a figure which does not change sufficiently shews that he spake of the true Body of Jesus Christ If these two states of Life and Death cannot be found in a figure much less in the true Body of Jesus Christ which is no more Subject to Death nor the Necessity of rising again Is Mr. Arnaud so greatly prejudic'd that he cannot perceive the sence of this Doctor is that the Eucharist is a mystery which expresses the whole oeconomy of Jesus Christ especially his Death and Resurrection according to the common Doctrine of the Greeks from which in this respect the Greeks do not vary IN the Seventyeth Error says he moreover the same Armenians are Ibid charged with believing that when any one receives the Eucharist the Body of Jesus Christ Descends into his Body and is converted therein as other aliments which is a contrary Heresie to that of Berengarius But as Berengarius would not have scrupled to call the Bread which is the Sacrament of the Body of Jesus Christ the Body of Jesus Christ so neither would he have scrupled to express himself in the same manner as this Article makes the Armenians do That the Body of Jesus Christ that is to say the Bread which is the figure of it Descends into our Bodies and is changed into our Bodies So that this contrariety which Mr. Arnaud imagins has no Ground But there is a real Opposition between this Discourse of the Armenians that the Body of Jesus Christ is Changed into our Bodies as other food and the Opinion of Transubstantiation for how can it be conceived that the proper substance of the Body of Jesus Christ which is in Heaven should be changed into our Bodies that an incorruptible substance should be digested and changed that a substance which exists after the manner of Spirits should nourish us and become food to us It appears then from this very thing that by the Body of Jesus Christ the Armenians mean only the Sacrament or Mystery of this Body which in respect of its substance is real Bread NEITHER is it to any purpose to Remark as Mr. Arnaud do's Ibid. that those to whom was attributed the believing the Eucharist to be only the figure of Christs Body were not wont to call the Eucharist the Body of Jesus Christ and yet commonly the Armenians do thus call it as appears by their Liturgies For 't is evident the sence of this Article is not that absolutely the Armenians rejected this expression seeing it immediately afterwards attributes it to them but that it was not usual amongst them especially since they saw the Latins abused it and therefore they chose rather to use those of Host Sacrifice and Communion IT is also to no purpose to say the Liturgy of the Armenians is contrary Ibid. to this Opinion seeing it contained the Bread is made the real Body of Jesus Christ for they expounded it in this sence that the Bread is made the true resemblance or the representation of the Body of Jesus Christ This explication says Mr. Arnaud is so absurd and ridiculous that it could not be very common it being impossible the generality should entertain it But does Mr. Arnaud believe that Transubstantiation being fully and truly explained as it is in it self and consequences and dependencies can be more easily entertain'd by a People than this sence which the Armenians give to the terms of their Liturgy AS to what he adds that it is say'd in the Seventyeth Article that Ibid. according to the Armenians the Eucharist do's not effect the remission of Sins nor confer Grace and that this is contrary to the Words of the Liturgy of the Armenians of Leopolis and a passage of the Catholick of Armenia in the conference of Theorien which say's they Sacrifice in the Church the son of God for the Salvation of the whole World All that Mr. Arnaud can conclude hence is That the Armenians residing in Armenia do not well agree in this point with those of Leopolis in Poland and that the Catholick which conferred with Theorien was of no great consideration amongst them but it cannot hence follow
that these People hold so monstrous an Opinion whence comes it that both Ancient and Modern Authors make no mention of it never examined the Consequences of such a Conversion have vehemently argued against the conversion of the Humane Nature into the Divine to shew that 't is impossible and not mentioned a word of this conversion of Bread into the Divinity How happens it the Emissaries never discovered to the World so important a secret never disputed against them on this point nor the Popes ever made them abjure such an absurd Opinion in the reunions made between these People and the Church of Rome Whence comes it the Greeks who have bin mixtwith them since so many ages never reproached 'um with this kind of Transubstantiation about which there may be great Volumes written Mr. Arnaud who is so ready at arguing from the silence of all these People Authors Travellers Emissaries Popes Greeks c. ought to inform us of the reason why not one of 'um has mentioned a word of this pretended change of Bread into the nature of the Divinity ALL this I think should oblige Mr. Arnaud to suspend a while his judgment touching Mr. Picquet's Letter which say's that all the Levantine Christians who are Hereticks and consequently such as have entred into a Confederacy against the Roman Church yet hold as an Article of Faith the real Presence of Jesus Christ and Transubstantiation of the Bread and Wine into the Body and Blood of our Lord. He ought at least to desire him The Contents of this Letter are thus elated by Mr. Arnaud in his 12 Book to consult what they mean in saying there is but one Nature in Jesus Christ and that the Divine one and yet the Substance of Bread to be really changed into the Substance of Christ's Body BUT this ought to oblige him likewise not to draw so lightly his Consequences from several Passages of the Liturgies which are attributed to these People wherein the Eucharist is called the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ and said to be truely this Body and this Blood For besides that these Expressions import not Transubstantiation as I have often proved and shall farther prove in what follows 't is to be considered that we have no certainty that these pieces are real or faithfully Translated seeing that in those few Passages which Mr. Arnaud produces there may be observed a Remarkable difference The Liturgy which is in the Biblictheca Patrum under the Title of Canon generalis Aethiopum mentions that the People say after the Priest has Consecrated Amen Amen Amen credimus confidimus laudamus te Deus noster hoc verè Corpus tuum est We believe it We trust in thee and praise thee O Lord our God this is really thy Body but Athanasius Kircher otherwise relates these words Amen Amen Amen credimus confidimus laudamus te Mr. Arnaud Lib. 5. C. 13. p. 518. O Domine Deus noster hoc est in veritate credimus caro tua We believe thee we trust in thee we praise thee O our God this we believe is thy Flesh in truth In one place the People are made to say they believe that 't is truely the Body of Jesus Christ and here that they believe 't is the Body of Jesus Christ in truth Now there is a difference between these two Propositions for in one the Adverb truely refers to the Body and in th' other to the Faith of the People This alteration is not so inconsiderable but that we may see by this Example that those who have given us this Liturgy which is in the Bibliotheca Patrum have not scrupled to accommodate their Translation as much as in them lay to the sence of the Roman Church and to wrest for this effect the Terms of the Original I never say'd this whole Piece was absolutely fictitious as Mr. Arnaud wou'd make the World believe But only that that passage which speaks of the Elevation of the Host is Answer to the Perp. part 2. C. 8. Lib 5. C. 13. p. 516. a mere Forgery and this we have proved by the Testimony of Alvarez and Zaga Zabo one of which positively denies the Ethiopians elevate the Sacrament and th' other declares they do not expose it 'T is to no purpose for Mr. Arnaud to endeavour to justify this alteration in saying perhaps there be different Ceremonies in Ethiopia that they elevate the Sacrament in some places and not in others that they elevate it in a manner so little Remarkable that it has given Occasion to Alvarez and Zaga Zabo in comparing it with the elevation of the Roman Church to say they elevated it not at all that is they do not elevate it so high as to make it be seen as is usual amongst the Latins 'T is plainly seen these are mere Subterfuges and vain Conjectures Had Alvarez and Zaga thus meant they would have so explain'd themselves and distinguished the Places or the manner of the Elevation whereas they speak absolutely Mr. Arnand do's not know more than these two Authors and were he to correct or expound them he ought at least to offer something that might justify his Correction or Exposition We may confirm the Testimony of Alvarez and Zaga Zabo by that of Montconies a Traveller into those parts who describing the Mass of the Copticks who as every Body knows are of the same Religion and observe the same Ceremonies as the Abyssins say's expresly that they use no Elevation IT is then certain that this Liturgy such as it is in the Bibliotheca Patrum is an altered Piece and therefore 't is inserted in it without any mention whence 't was taken or who Translated it as I already observed in my answer to the Perpetuity Yet forasmuch as the Almighty taketh the crafty in their own Nets there are several things left untouch'd which do not well agree with the Doctrine of Transubstantiation such as for Instance is this Prayer which the Priest makes after the Consecration commemorating say's he thy Death and Resurrection we offer thee this Bread and Missa sive Canon univers Aethiop Bibl. patr tom 6. Cup and give thee thanks inasmuch as that by this Sacrifice thou hast made us worthy to appear in thy Presence and exercise this office of Priesthood before thee Wee most earnestly beseech thee O Lord to send thy Holy Spirit on this Bread and Cup which are the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour for ever Did they understand the Bread and Wine were the Body and Blood of the Son of God in proper Substance would they say to him himself that they offer to him the Bread and Cup in Commemoration of his Death and Resurrection and would it not likewise be impious to desire him to send on this Bread and Cup his Holy Spirit 'T is not to Jesus Christ himself that the Latins do offer his Body and Blood those that believe the Roman reality do not
express themselves in such a manner much less can they desire of him to send down his Holy Spirit on them for as soon as ever 't is conceived to be the proper Body and Blood of our Lord in the sence wherein the Latins understand it 't is believed there is a fulness of the Holy Spirit in them I cannot but here relate what Mr. Faucheur has observed touching the Egyptian Liturgy commonly called St. Gregory's by which will appear that the complaints we make concerning these pieces are not without cause The Egyptian Liturgy say's he attributed to St. Gregory imports I offer to thee O Lord the SYMBOLS OF MY RANSOM For Faucheur on the Lords Supper Book 3. C. 6. there is in the Egyptian NICYMBOLON that is to say 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as I have bin informed by Mr. Saumaise who has an ancient Manuscript of it and not as Victor Scialach a Maronite of Mount Libanus has Translated it who being of the Seminary at Rome designed by a Notorions falsity to favour the cause of our Adversaries praecepta liberationis meae BUT besides this way of corrupting the Liturgies by false Translations it is moreover true that when these Levantine Christians were Reunited as they often have bin with the Latins the Latins never fail'd to examine their Books and take out of 'um whatsoever they found therein contrary to the Doctrine of the Church of Rome for example there has bin inserted in the Bibliotheca Patrum the Liturgy of the Nestorian Christians of Mallabar but under this title corrected and cleansed from the Errors and Blasphemies of the Nestorians by the Illustrious and Reverend My Lord Alexius Menenses Arch-Bishop of Missa Christian apud Indos Bibl. patr tom 6. ed. 4. Ibid bibl patr tom 6. Goa Victor Scialach in his Letter to Velserus on the Egyptian Liturgies called St. Basil's Gregorie's and Cyril's say's that the new Manuscripts have bin corrected by the order of the Holy Roman Church into whose Bosom as into that of a real Mother the Church of Alexandria has lately returned under the Popedom of Clement VIII THERE 's all the likelyhood in the World that this Clause which appears in the Egyptian Liturgies of St. Basil and Gregory of Victor Schialch's Translation and from which Mr. Arnaud pretends to make advantage is an Addition made thereunto by the Latins in some one of these Reunions for if we examine it well we shall easily find that 't is a confession of the reality of the Humane Nature in Jesus Christ which is a confession directly opposite to the Error of the Copticks who only acknowledge the Divine Nature OBSERVE here the terms It is the sacred and everlasting Body and the real Blood of Jesus Christ the Son of God Amen it is really the Body of the Emmanuel Ibid. our God Amen I Believe I Believe I Believe and will confess till the last breath of my Life that this is the living Body which thy only Son our Lord God and Saviour Jesus Christ took from the most holy and most pure Mary the Mother of God our common Lady and which he joyned to his Divinity without conversion mixture or confusion I make the pure confession which he made before Pontius Pilate he gave his Body for us on the Cross by his own will He has really assumed this Body for us I believe that the Humanity was never seperate from the Divinity no not a Moment and that he gave his Body to purchase Salvation Remission of Sins and eternal life for all those that shall believe in him There needs no great study to find that the design of this whole Prayer is to confess the Truth of the Mystery of the Incarnation and the reality of the Humane Nature in Jesus Christ and that these words without conversion mixture or confusion are precisely those which have bin ever opposed against the Heresy of the Eutichiens with which the Copticks are tainted Whereupon we cannot doubt but that this is an addition of the Latins who in reuniting these People to themselves have inserted in their very Liturgy several Clauses expresly contrary to their old Error that they might the more absolutely bring them off from it LET not Mr. Arnaud then any longer glory in these Eastern Liturgies for if we had 'um pure and sincere I do not question but we should find several things in 'um that do not well agree with the Belief of the Substantial Presence nor with that of Transubstantiation Neither has he reason to brag of the general Consent of all the Churches call'd Schismatical with which pretence he would dazle the Eyes of the World Upon a thro consideration of what we have so farrepresented to him whether in respect of the Greeks or other Christian Churches he must acknowledge he has overshot himself and bin too rash in his Affirmations on this Subject Which I believe I have evidently discover'd and in such a manner as nothing can be alledged against it I dare assure him he will find in this dispute no Sophisms on my part Having proceeded faithfully and sincerely in it I have taken things as they lye in their Natural order I have offered nothing but upon good grounds from Testimonies for the most part taken out of Authors that are Roman Catholicks I have never taken Mr. Arnaud's words as I know of in any other sence than in that wherein he meant them I have followed him step by step as far as good order would permit me I have exactly answered him without weakning his Arguments or Proofs or passing by any thing considerable In fine I have not offered any thing but what I my self before was convinced and perswaded to be true and I am much mistaken if I have not reduced matters to that clearness that others will be no less perswaded of what I say than my self CHAP. VII Mr. Arnaud's 8 th Book touching the Sentiment of the Latins on the Mystery of the Eucharist since the year 700. till Paschasius's time examined THE order of the dispute requires that having refuted as I have done the pretended Consent of all the Eastern Churches with the Latin in the Doctrines of the Substantial Presence and Transubstantiation I should now apply my self to the examination of what Mr. Arnaud alledges touching the Latins themselves from the 7 th Century till Paschasius's time exclusively that is to say till towards the beginning of the Ninth And this is the design of the greatest part of his 8 th Book and which shall be the greatest part of this of mine BUT not to amuse the Reader with fruitless matters 't is necessary to lay aside the first of his Proofs which is only a Consequence drawn from the belief of the Greek Church with which the Latin remain'd United during those Centuries whence Mr. Arnaud would infer that the Latin Church has believed Transubstantiation and the real Presence seeing the Greek Church has held these Doctrines as he pretends to have
the Sacrament of the Eucharist several Passages of the Old Testament which might be easily made to point at it and which several Doctors of the Roman Church at this day do in effect make to relate unto Transubstantiation It will not be found they have taken several Terms in the Sence wherein they must be taken upon the Supposition of Species for Accidents without a Subject of Spiritually to denote an Existence after the manner of a Spirit of the Vail of the Sacrament or Figure of Bread to signifie a bare Appearance of Bread that covers the Substance of the Body of Jesus Christ of Corporeal Presence for a Presence after the manner of a Body by Opposition to the Presence of this same Body after the manner of a Spirit It is plainly seen they have forced and exaggerated the Expressions of the Scripture on the Subject of Baptism the Church the Poor the Gospel at least as vehem ently as those that are to be met with in the Scripture touching the Eucharist We shall not find they have made on the Subject of the Sacrament either the Distinctions Observations or Questions which Persons prepossessed with the belief of the Conversion of Substances ought necessarily to have made without being obliged thereunto by Disputes Nor in a word the proper and inseparable Consequences of this Doctrine but on the contrary several things exactly contrary to it Now this is what I call Analogy or Relation which the parts of a Religion have with one another and against which I say 't is not Rational to prejudicate 'T IS certain we ought not only not to prejudicate against all these things but on the contrary predetermine in their favour seeing the prejudice which all these things form is so strong that we must have on the other side a very great Evidence to surmount it Especially if we examine the Centuries that preceded the seventh whereunto likewise may be applied the same Observations which I now made whence arise the like Prejudices in respect of those Ages and this Pejudice joyning it self to that which we have established touching the Seventh and Eighth Centuries do only fortify it yet more TO all which we may add that there is to speak morally a kind of Contradiction between the parts of Mr. Arnaud's Supposition He would have us imagine the Church of the Seventh and following Ages firmly believed the real Presence and Conversion of Substances altho these Doctrines were never disputed of therein nor so much as questioned But 't is very improbable the Church remain'd Seven or Eight hundred years without any Contest touching this Article supposing she held it There have bin in this Interval of time several Controversies touching the principal Points of the Christian Religion on Articles against which Nature do's less rise than against that of which we speak and which moreover are found clearly established in the Word of God How comes it to pass there has bin none on this There have bin even several Disputes in which there has bin occasion of mentioning the Doctrines of the real Presence and Transubstantiation which could not be without some Contest on this Subject Such were the Controversies of the Valentinians Marcionites Manichees Millenaries Encratites Arians Originists Eutychiens Ascodrupites and of I know not how many others which must unavoidably produce Debates on the Eucharist had the Belief which the Roman Church has at this day bin then introduced into Christianity It being then certain as it is that the Church was in peace in this respect during all these Centuries 't is a token that the Doctrines in question were therein unknown and this very Consideration overthrows Mr. Arnaud's Prejudice and confirms ours MR. Arnaud will say without doubt we must suppose the Church of the seventh and eighth Centuries to be in the same Condition wherein lay that of the eleventh which condemned the Doctrine of Berenger But besides that there are several things which may be alledged concerning this Condemnation it not being true then men believed constantly and universally Transubstantiation nor the real Presence as may be justified by several Inductions there being no likelyhood in the first Condemnations of Berenger Transubstantiation was established seeing 't was established in the Council of Rome held under Nicolas II. wherein he was condemned for the fifth time according to the Authors of the Office of the Holy Sacrament as we have already observed 't is an apparent Illusion to design the grounding of any Prejudication on this seeing we find in the ninth Century a formal Contest which arose on this Subject and that even this makes the principal Point of ouâ— Difference to wit whether there has hapned any change therein Before then the Condition of the eleventh Century can be made to serve for a Principle to conclude from thence the Condition of the seventh and eigth the Question concerning the Change must be first decided for whilst we be in this Contest there can be no Consequence drawn hence It would be a very pleasant thing for a man to prejudicate against the Change which we pretend by the seventh and eighth Century as believing Transubstantiation and at the same time to prejudicate for Transubstantiation in the seventh and eighth Centuries because 't was believed in the eleventh which is to say to draw the Principle from the Conclusion and then the Conclusion from the Principle in saying on one hand that Transubstantiation was believed in the eleventh Century because 't was believed in the Seventh and in the Eigth and on the other that 't was believed in the seventh and in the eighth because 't was believed in the Eleventh LET Mr. Arnaud then if he pleases make another System for all this great preparation of Observations and Propositious falls to the ground assoon as ever we deny him the Supposition he made and shewed him the injustice and unreasonableness of it As to this pretended contrariety of the Language of Sence with that of Faith 't is a thing we have already confuted Should our Senses take upon 'um to tell us the Eucharist was only Bread and Wine or mere Bread and Wine our Faith would not bear this Language This is not the Language of the Church But when our Senses only tell us 't is Bread and Wine this Language is in truth different from that of Faith which tells us 't is the Body of Jesus Christ but 't is not contrary to it for Faith receives and approves it in the manner wherein the Senses conceive it which is to say 't is real Bread and real Wine in a litteral sence and without a figure That which you have seen on the Altar say's St. Augustin and after him Bede an Author of the eighth Contury is Bread and Augus serm ad Infunt Wine and this your Eyes tell you but the instruction which your Faith requires is that the Bread is the Body of Jesus Christ and the Cup his Blood So that here we have
himself and howsoever he uses it that we may well say he loses both his time and his pains WOULD we really know what has been the sentiment of the ancients the way to be informed is not to take passages in a counter sense and captiously heapt up one upon another but to apply our selves to the testimony of the Ancients themselveâ— produced sincerely and faithfully some of which are these TERTULLIAN Those of Capernaum having found our Saviours Tertull. de resur car c. 37. discourse hard and insupportable as if he design'd to give them TRVLY his Flesh to eat To manifest to 'em the means he uses for the procuring us salvation were spiritual he tells them 't is the Spirit that quickens ORIGEN There is in the New Testament a letter which kills him that Origen hom 7. in Levit. does not understand spiritually the meaning of it For if we take these words in a literal sense if you eat not my Flesh and drink not my Blood THIS LETTER KILLS S. ATHANASIUS The words of our Saviour Christ were not carnal Athanas in illud si quis dixerit c. but spiritual For to how few persons would his Body have been sufficient and how could he be the food of the whole world Therefore he mentions his Ascension into Heaven to take them off from all carnal thoughts and to shew them he gave his Flesh as meat from above heavenly food a spiritual nourishment EUSEBIUS of Cesarea Our Saviour taught his Disciples that they must understand SPIRITVALLY what he told them concerning his Flesh Euseb lib. 3. de Theol. Eccles cap. 12. and Blood Think not says he to 'em that I speak of this Flesh which I now have on as if ye were to eat it nor imagin that I enjoyn you to drink this sensible and corporeal Blood know that the words I speak to you are spirit and life THE Author of an imperfect Book on S. Matthew under the name of Author oper imperf in Mat. hom 11. S. Chrysostom If it be a dangerous thing to transfer to common uses the sacred Vessels wherein THE TRUE BODY OF JESUS CHRIST is not contained but the MYSTERY of his Body how much more the vessels of our body which God has prepared as an habitation for himself S. AMBROSE The shadow was in the Law the IMAGE is in the Ambros lib. 1. de officiis c. 48. Gospel THE TRUTH IS IN HEAVEN The Jews offer'd anciently a Lamb an Heifer now Jesus Christ is offer'd he is offer'd as a man as capable of suffering and he offers himself as a Priest HERE IS THIS DONE IN A FIGURE but at the Fathers right hand where he intercedes for us as our advocate THIS IS PERFORMED IN TRUTH S. AUSTIN Before the coming of Christ the Flesh of this Sacrifice Aug. contr Faust lib. 20. cap. 21. was promised by Victims of Resemblance In the Passion of Jesus Christ this Flesh was given BY THE TRUTH IT SELF After his Ascension it is celebrated BY A SACRAMENT OF COMMEMORATION IN another place You shall not eat THIS BODY WHICH YOU Aug. in Ps 98. SEE nor drink this Blood which those that are to crucifie me will shed I have recommended to you A SACRAMENT if ye receive it spiritually it will quicken you AGAIN elsewhere The Body and Blood will be the life of every one Aug. Serm. 2. de ver Apost of us if we eat and drink SPIRITUALLY IN THE TRUTH IT SELF that which we take VISIBLY IN THE SACRAMENT si quod in Sacramento visibiliter sumitur in ipsa veritate spiritualiter manducetur Spiritualiter bibatur THE Author of the Commentary on the Psalms attributed to S. Jerom Hieronym Com. in Psal 147. Altho what Jesus Christ says He that eateth not my Flesh nor drinks my Blood may be understood in reference to the Mystery yet the word of the Scriptures the Divine Doctrine IS MORE TRULY the Body of Jesus Christ FACUNDUS The Bread is not PROPERLY the Body of Jesus Facundus def trium capit l. 9. Christ nor the Cup his Blood but they are so called because they contain the mystery of them RABAN Of late some that HAVE NOT A RIGHT SENTIMENT Raban in paenitent have said of the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of our Lord that 'T IS THE BODY it self and Blood of our Saviour born of the Virgin Mary OECUMENIUS The servants of the Christians had heard their Oecumen in 1 Pet. cap. 2. Masters say that the Divine Communion was the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ and they imagin'd that 't was INDEED flesh and blood CHAP. IX That the Fathers of the Seventh and Eighth Centuries held not Transubstantiation nor the Substantial Presence WE may judg by these passages which I now alledged as from a sampler what has been the Doctrine of the ancient Church in General That of the 7th and 8th Centuries in particular will soon discover it self upon the least observation WE shall not find therein either substantial Presence or conversion of substance nor existence of a Body in several places at once nor accidents without a subject nor presence of a Body after the manner of a Spirit nor concomitancy nor adoration of the Eucharist nor any of those things by which we may comprehend that the Church in those times believed what the Roman Church believes in these WE shall find on the contrary as I have already observed that the Greg. Mag. Isidorus Beda Haymo alii passim Beda in Ep. ad Heb. c. 7. Idem in Ps 3. in quest in 2 Reg. cap. 3. in Marc. 14. Carol. Mag. ad alcuin de Septuagint Isidor in alleg Vet. Test Idem Orig. lib. 7. Idem Comment in Genes cap. 12. Idem Comment in Genes c. 23. Authors of those Ages commonly called the Eucharist The mystery of the Body of Jesus Christ the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ the figure of Christ's Body which Bede calls the image of his Oblation which the Church celebrates in remembrance of his Passion Who in another place assures us That the Lord gave and recommended to his Disciples the figure of his Body and Blood And Charlemain to the same effect That he broke the Bread and delivered the Cup as a figure of his Body and Blood WE shall therein find that this Sacrament or figure is Bread and Wine properly so called without any equivocation The Sacrament says Isidor of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ that is to say the Oblation of Bread and Wine which is offered throughout the whole world Elsewhere Melchisedeck made a difference between the Sacraments of the Law and the Gospel inasmuch as he offered in sacrifice the Oblation of Bread and Wine Again in another place Jesus Christ is a Priest according to the order of Melchisedeck by reason of the Sacrament which he has enjoyned Christians to celebrate to wit the Oblation of Bread and Wine that
who has without doubt taken 'em from Isidor for 't was the common custom of the Authors of those days to copy out one from another He says moreover in another place expresly That no Infidel can eat the Flesh of Jesus Christ and that all those whom he has redeem'd by his Blood must be his slaves circumcised in reference to Vice and so eat the Flesh of Jesus Christ And as Bede and Alcuinus made a particular profession to be S. Austin's Disciples so they have not scrupled to transcribe into their Books several passages taken word for word out of the Writings of this great man which confirm the same thing Bede amongst others has taken this out of the Book of Sentences collected by Prosper He that is not of the same mind as Jesus Christ neither eats his Flesh nor drinks his Blood altho for the condemnation of his presumption he receives every day the Sacrament of so great a thing And he and Alcuinus Beda in Cor. 11. Beda Alcu. in Joan. 6. have borrow'd from his Treatise on S. John these words Jesus said to them this is the work of God that you believe in him whom he has sent This is then what is meant by eating the meat which perishes not but remains to life everlasting Why prepare ye your teeth and belly believe and ye have eaten it this is the Bread which came down from Heaven to the end that he which eats of it may not die This is meant of the virtue of the visible Sacrament He that eateth internally not externally that eateth with the heart not with the teeth And a little further our Saviour explains what 't is to eat his Body and drink his Blood He that eateth my Flesh and drinks my Blood dwelleth in me and I in him To eat then this meat and drink this drink is to dwell in Jesus Christ and to have Jesus Christ dwelling in us So that he that dwells not in Jesus Christ and Jesus Christ in him does not eat spiritually his Flesh altho he sensibly bites with the teeth the Sacrament of his Body and Blood but rather eats and drinks to his condemnation the Sacrament of so great a thing And again The mark by which a man may know he has eaten and drank is that he dwells in Jesus Christ and has Jesus Christ dwelling in him We dwell in him when we are the Members of his Body and he dwells in us when we are his Temple And a little lower The words which I tell ye are spirit and life What is the meaning of that They are spirit and life That is they must be understood spiritually If ye understand them spiritually they are spirit and life if carnally this hinders not but they are spirit and life but not to you IN short we find these Authors of the 7th and 8th Centuries acknowledg no other Presence of Jesus Christ on Earth than that of his Divinity of his Grace or Providence and in no wise that of the substance of his Body Jesus Christ ascending up into Heaven says Isidor has absented himself Isidor lib. 1. sentent cap. 14. as to the flesh but is ever present in respect of his Majesty according to what he has said I am with you to the end of the world THE passages of Bede on this subject are too many to be mentioned Beda Expos allegor ipsam lib. 1. cap. 12. here I shall only relate some of ' em The Lord says he having performed the duties of his Oeconomy returned into Heaven where he is ascended in respect of his Body but visits us every day by his Divine Presence by which he is always every where and quietly governs all things There is his Flesh which he has assumed and glorified for our sakes Because he is God and man says he again he was raised up into Heaven where he sits as to his Humanity which he assumed on Earth Yet does he remain with the Saints on Earth in his Divinity by which he fills both Heaven and Earth Elsewhere he says that the man mention'd in the Parable of the Gospel who leaving his house went a journey into a far Country is our Saviour Christ who after his Resurrection Idem Comm. in Mare c. 13. ascended up to his Father having left as to his bodily Presence his Church altho he never suffered it to want the assistance of his Divine Presence Interpreting mystically in another place the words concerning Ann the Daughter of Phanuel who was a Widow and aged 84. years This Ann Idem in Luc. lib. 1. cap. 2. says he signifies the Church which is as it were a Widow since the Death of her Lord and Spouse The years of her widowhood represent the time in which the Church which is still burthened with this body is absent from the Lord expecting every day with the greatest impatience that coming concerning which it is said We will come to him and make our abode with him 'T was to the same effect that expounding these words of Job I have comforted the heart Idem Exposit alleg in Job lib. 2. c. 14. of the Widow he says that this Widow is the Church our Mother which our Saviour comforts and that she is called a Widow because her Spouse has absented himself from her as to his corporeal Presence according to what himself tells his Disciples The poor ye have always with you but me ye have not always IN one of his Homilies he acknowledges no other presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist than a Presence of Divinity and Grace For having exactly denoted how many times the Lord appeared to his Disciples after his Resurrection He designed says he to shew by these frequent appearances Idem Hom. ast de temp feria 6 Paschal that he would be spiritually present in all places at the desire of the faithful He appeared to the women that wept at the Sepulchre he will be likewise present with us when we grieve at the remembrance of his absence He appeared whilst they broke bread to those who taking him for a stranger gave him entertainment he will be likewise with us when we liberally relieve the poor and strangers He will be likewise with us in the fraction of Bread when we receive the Sacraments of his Body which is the living Bread with a pure and chast heart We find here no mention of any other presence in the Sacrament but that of the Divinity ALCVINVS teaches the same Doctrine for expounding these words of our Saviour The poor ye have ever with you but me not always He shews says he we must not blame those that communicated to him their good Alcuin in Joan. lib. 5. cap. 28. things whilst he conversed amongst 'em seeing he was to remain so short a a time with the Church bodily He introduces our Saviour elsewhere thus saying to his Church If I go away in respect of the absence of my Flesh I will
Idem in Joan. lib. 6. cap. 34. come by the presence of my Divinity by which I shall be with you to the end of the world He retired from them says he again as to his manhood Ibid. cap. 35. but as God he did not leave them For the same Christ who is man is likewise God He left them then as to his manhood but remained with 'em as to his Godhead He went away in reference to that by which he is but in one place yet tarried with 'em by his Divinity which is every where LET Mr. Arnaud reflect if he pleases on these passages and on I know not how many others like 'em with which his reading will furnish him and tell us faithfully seeing on one hand there 's not to be found in Authors of the 7th and 8th Centuries either Transubstantiation or a presence of substance or any natural consequences of these Doctrines and seeing on the other so many things to be met with in them contrary thereunto as those I now mention'd whether he believes 't is likely we shall by the force of his preparations suppositions reticencies and supplements acquiesce in his Assertion that the then Church held constantly and universally as he speaks the Real Presence and Transubstantiation 'T is certain we must offer great violence to our minds and after all when we have endeavoured to imagin what Mr. Arnaud would have us we shall never be able to accomplish it We must imagin says he Christians persuaded that by the Lib. 8. cap. 2. p. 737. words of the Consecration the Bread and Wine were effectually changed into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ This Doctrine was known distinctly by all the faithful I know not where Mr. Arnaud has found any of these fanciful people that are able to persuade themselves what they list As to our parts we are not such masters of our imaginations and in an affair of this nature he must pardon us if we tell him that we cannot fancy a thing to be true when it appears so plainly to us to be false BUT lest he should again accuse us as indocible we 'l see what he has to offer us from these Authors of the 7th and 8th Centuries when they expound the nature and essence of the Eucharist S. Isidor says he calls Lib. 8. cap. 4. p. 755 756. the Eucharist the Sacrament of Christ's Body and if we desire to know in what manner 't is the Sacrament of it he 'l tell us That the Bread we break is the Body of him who says I am the living Bread He further adds That the Wine is his Blood and is the same meant by these words I am the true Vine But he should not suppress what he likewise immediately adds But the Isid lib. 1. de Offic. Eccles cap. 18. Bread is called the Body of Jesus Christ because it strengthens the body and the Wine alludes to the Blood of Christ because it produces blood in our flesh These two things are visible yet being sanctifi'd by the Holy Spirit they become the Sacrament of this Divine Body Is this the language of a man that believes a real conversion of substance HE expresly asserts says moreover M. Arnaud that this Body of Christ Ibid. which we receive in the Eucharist and of which we are deprived when 't is taken from us is the Flesh of Christ concerning which 't is said If ye eat not the Flesh of the Son of man nor drink his Blood ye have no life in you and that this is the Body the truth the original represented by the shadows and types in the Old Testament I answer that S. Isidor supposes we eat the Flesh of Christ in the Eucharist which is true He likewise supposes that if we eat not this Flesh we remain deprived of Salvation and this is moreover true From whence he concludes men ought not to abstain long from the use of the Sacrament because a total neglect of this means which Christ has ordained for the eating of his Flesh and drinking his Blood will put us in danger of being wholly deprived of them for without eating and drinking this Flesh and Blood there is no hope of salvation This is Isidor's sense whence there can be nothing concluded in favour of the Thesis which Mr. Arnaud defends For we spiritually eat our Lord's Flesh in the due use of the Sacrament and 't is this manducation which S. Isidor speaks of as appears from what he there says Manifestrum est eos vivere qui corpus ejus attingunt And as to what he asserts that this is the Body the Truth the Original represented by the ancient Figures we grant it but deny it ought to be hence concluded that the Sacrament is the Body it self of Jesus Christ in substance I have sufficiently elsewhere discoursed in what manner the ancient types related to our Sacraments and those that please to take the pains to read the first Chapter of the third part of my Answer to Father Nouet will find there if I be not mistaken enough to satisfie 'em in that particular BEDE adds Mr. Arnaud says that the creatures of Bread and Wine Ibid. are changed through an ineffable virtue into the Sacrament of his Flesh and Blood This is one of the expressions which arises from the nature of the Sacrament But what does it signifie in this Author He tells us in these following words And thus says he the Blood of Christ is no more shed by the hands of Infidels for their ruine but received into the mouths of the faithful for their salvation But this is a very weak objection The sense of Bede is that the Blood of Jesus Christ is received by the mouths of the Faithful because they receive the Wine which is the Sacrament of it Which is the meaning of this term And thus sicque for he shews in what manner the mouths of the Faithful receive the Blood to wit inasmuch as they receive the Sacrament of it Gregory the Great said before Bede in the same sense That we drink the Blood of the Lamb not only with the mouths of our bodies but with the mouths of our hearts Quando sacramentum passionis Greg. Mag. Hom. 22. in Evangel illius cum ore ad redemptionem sumitur ad imitationem quoque interna mente cogitatur When we receive with our mouths the Sacrament of his Passion and inwardly apply our selves to imitate his great Saviour I shall elsewhere in its due place examine what Mr. Arnaud alledges touching Amalarius Florus Drutmar and some other Authors of the 9th Century Contemporaries with Paschasus It only remains for the finishing of the discussion of the 7th and 8th to answer some slight Observations which he has made on a passage in the Book of Images which goes under the name of Charlemain's The Author of this Book will not have the Eucharist be called an Image but the Mystery or Sacrament of the Body
the most able Divines of his own Communion as well ancient as modern do freely acknowledg that Transubstantiation cannot be inferred thence and that there is nothing which obliges 'em to believe it but the Churches determination AS to the words of the 6th Chapter of S. John so far are they from being formal declarations touching Transubstantiation and the Real Presence that a great many of the Doctors in the Roman Church have not stuck to affirm that these words do not at all relate to the Sacrament of the Eucharist Bellarmin reckons up six besides others namely Biel Cusanus Cajetan Bellarm. de Euch. l. 1. c. 5. Albertin de Sac. Euch. l. 1. c. 30. Tapper Hesselius and Jansemius but Mr. Aubertin has computed 'em to be about thirty three which is in my mind sufficient to make Mr. Arnaud comprehend that this Chapter is not so formal nor evident for these Doctrines as he imagines I shall not here take notice of what he alledges concerning those words of S. Paul That such as eat of this Bread and drink of this Cup unworthily are guilty of our Lords Body and Blood If he takes these words for an evident declaration it is yet more evident that he is mistaken To be guilty of our Lords Body and Blood signifies according to the Fathers to be a murderer of our Saviour to be of consent with the Jews that crucifi'd him This is not very formal for Transubstantiation WHAT he says touching Zuinglius is not at all to the purpose Zuinglius was not ignorant of the sense of our Saviours words but he was ignorant of the examples of like phrases which are in Scripture Mr. Arnaud mentions this only that he might bring in again this black or white Spirit of which we have already discoursed not only from passages out of Cicero and Catullus but also out of Apuleus and S. Jerom himself so that this must be lookt upon as impertinent and tiresome Mr. Arnaud's passion herein appears in that Zuinglius having only said that some body appear'd to him in a dream to advertise him visus est monitor adesse he will needs have this monitor to be a Spirit Neither is there less ignorance in raising from a proverbial way of speaking in the Latin tongue ater fuerit an albus nihil memini which signifies that we know not a man we never saw his face rhis proposition That he knew not whether 't was a white Spirit or a black one Cannot Mr. Arnaud better spend his time than in hunting after these trifles BUT says he The first idea of our Saviours words touching the Eucharist is very favourable to the Catholicks It is favourable by an effect of prejudice I grant But let a man take off this vail from his mind and represent to himself our Saviour in his natural Body on one side and the Eucharistical Bread on the other two visible objects really distinct and locally separate from one another and judg in this case whether the first idea of these words rather refers to a Transubstantiation of one of these objects into the other or to a Sacramental sense The first idea from words does not always arise from the literal signification of them but from the matter in question and circumstances of a discourse And this is that which forms the first idea as may be justified by infinite instances should Mr. Arnaud question it Now 't is certain that in respect of our Saviours words all these things do joyntly concur to give them naturally a mystical or figurative sense ALL Nations says he have taken them in this sense All Nations that is to say the Latins since Gregory VII and Innocent III. and yet not all of them neither This is a supposition which Mr. Arnaud will have right to make when he can better prove it But supposing it were true as he would make the world believe that since a thousand years all Nations took them in this sense it will not hence follow that this was the first idea of these words nor that the Roman Church has right to suppose without any other proof that her Doctrine is clearly contained in the Scripture For it is possible for all Nations to fall into an error touching the sense of certain words be engaged in it through surprizal and afterwards remain therein by prejudice and interest And in this case every man sees that this pretended clearness which Mr. Arnaud boasts of cannot be justly supposed IN fine supposing 't were true the first idea of these words was very favourable to the Church of Rome and that all Nations since a thousand years followed this first idea Mr. Arnaud could not hinder me from saying there is not in the Scripture any formal declaration touching Transubstantiation and the Real Presence And this he well knew himself But that he might take his full carier he imagin'd 't was his best way in reciting the passage of my Answer on which he grounds his invective to eclipse these expressions from it by some formal declaration of his word because 't would appear that my sense in 'em is that the Doctrines of the conversion and substantial Presence are not taught in express terms in the Holy Scripture nor are to be drawn thence by necessary consequences which is most true Who Answer to the second Treatise of the Perpituity part 1. ch 3. will believe said I if they be of God that he would leave them as a prey to the contradictions of reason and sense which he himself has armed against them without strengthening them with his protection by some formal declaration of his word Who will believe that the Divine Wisdom c. And here observe how Mr. Arnaud cites them Who will believe that if they be of God he would leave them as a prey to the contradictions of reason and sense which he himself has armed against them without strengthening them with his protection Who will believe that the Divine Wisdom c. Mr. Arnaud has not only the right of supposing without proof what he pleases but that of maiming such passages as seems good to him to alledg that which precedes and that which follows and suppress betwixt both whole clauses because they take from him all pretence of declaiming 'T is by virtue of the same right that he thought he might lay aside that which I added towards the end of this passage Say what you will of it I cannot believe but this silence disquiets you especially if you consider that there is in the New Testament four different occasions wherein according to all appearances Transubstantiation and the Real Presence were to be found DISTINCTLY ASSERTED This distinctly asserted not well relishing with Mr. Arnaud he has ended his citation in these words Say what you will of it I cannot believe but this silence sufficiently perplexes you This privilege of curtailing and suppressing is insupportable in another But what ought we not to yield to Mr. Arnaud especially considering
will without doubt better appear if for a sixth remark we cast our eyes a little on the time wherein this change has most advanced it self It was not in Hilaries nor Athanasius's times nor in that of Ambrose and S. Austin but in the 10th and 11th Centuries that is to say in the most dark Ages c. 'T is no marvel then that Error made such conquests in those times rather will it be a greater wonder if she did not And this distinction methinks does sufficiently limit my Principle To establish sincerely the state of our question these two remarks must not be separated but joyn'd together to draw from them my whole sense for the state of the question in my respect depends on my entire sense Now my whole sense does not consist only in a general Principle which I lay down nor in the general application I make of it but in the exception and limitation I give them But neither has Mr. Arnaud nor the Author of the Perpetuity dealt thus choosing rather to run after their own chimerical notions than to follow the truth MOREOVER Mr. Arnaud shews he has but little to say when he sets himself on reproaching me that I suppressed some words of my fifth Observation 't is not likely I would on purpose suppress words contained in my Book which might be easily found in turning over some leafs If I passed over 'em 't was because they made no more to the subject than those which I recite which contain the whole substance of my discourse and which are no less significant than the others But I know not whether he can so well justifie the Author of the Perpetuity in his making me say That the Church remained in this ignorance till Berenger's time altho there 's no such Lib. 6. cap. 3. p. 577. thing in my Book Mr. Arnaud's answer is that the Author of the Perpetuity represents my sense and not my words and because that this proposition which this Author imputes to me is set down in Italick letters which are those which are used for Quotations in proper terms Mr. Arnaud says that 't is the Printers fault who ought to Print them in a Roman letter I will believe it because he says so but yet my sense ought to be faithfully related and for this effect plain dealing requires it to be drawn from my express declarations contained in several passages of my first and second Answer rather than from a discourse that is maim'd and which cannot represent in this condition but half of that which I would say Whatsoever pains the Author of the Perpetuity and Mr. Arnaud have taken to disguise my sense Father Maimbourg the Jesuite who wrote since Mr. Arnaud ingenuously perceived and related it as it is in truth Mr. Claude says he asserts A Peaceable Method by Father Mainbourg ch 3. page 108. there was A CERTAIN TIME wherein through the neglect of the Pastors Christians had no more than a confused knowledg of this mystery without positively believing or rejecting either the Real Presence or absence because they studied not the point This is in effect my meaning and not that which the Author of the Perpetuity imputes to me that the Faithful could remain a thousand years in the Church without forming a distinct notion whether what they saw was or was not the true Body of Jesus Christ THE first of these three Remarks I now made considers the point in respect of the Doctrine now in question and determines it to the Real Presence alone excluding Transubstantiation The second considers it in respect of the persons and determines it to the Christians only excluding those that have no knowledg of our Mysteries and the third considers it in respect of the time and determines it to the Ages of Ignorance and Darkness that is to say to those wherein according to us the change was introduced which are the 9th and 10th and part of the 11th For altho according to the exact rigour of the Dispute the Author of the Perpetuity be obliged to prove his Thesis from the time of the Apostles to that of Berenger yet there being only to speak properly these three Ages in question in this Dispute we shall neither complain of him nor Mr. Arnaud when they shall restrain their Argument to these IT remains only now to know in what dispositions of mind we must suppose the Christians were when we imagin the Doctrine of the Real Presence was declared to 'em for on this depends the question Whether the change which we pretend was possible or impossible BUT before we enter upon this enquiry 't is necessary to make two farther Observations The first is that the question is not whether the Christians of that time had knowledg enough to discover in some sort when the Doctrine of the Real Presence was proposed to them that it agreed not with the Principles of nature but whether in supposing they believed not this Doctrine they had knowledg enough to discover 't was an innovation contrary to the Churches Faith and to reject it under this consideration For for to conclude that people would have actually opposed the Real Presence had they not before believed it it is not enough to shew that it would have opposed their senses and notices of reason I confess that if men did always what they ought to do this alone were sufficient to put them upon rejecting this Real Presence as we have elsewhere proved it But people are liable to be deceived and receive notwithstanding the contradictions of sense and common reason that which they are persuaded is a mystery of Faith and generally as soon as ever they begin to consider it as a mystery they hearken no longer to sense nor reason We should then proceed and shew that they were in a disposition to reject this Doctrin as a novelty which the Church never held and which consequently was not a true mystery of Faith THE other observation which we must make is that we ought to distinguish the belief of the Real Absence in the sense in question from the belief of the corporeal Absence To believe the corporeal absence is to form to a man's self the idea of the ordinary and natural presence of a humane body such as is that of our Saviour's and to reject it as false and extravagant But to believe the Real Absence in the terms of our Dispute is to conceive the idea of an invisible Presence such as the Roman Church conceives and rejects as an error A man may reject the substantial Presence of the Body of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist under the notion of the ordinary existence of a body in a place and yet not reject it either generally under every notion be it what it will nor in particular under the notion of an invisible existence after the manner of a Spirit as appears from the example of the Roman Church which does not believe this ordinary and natural Presence but yet
admits the invisible one It would have been well if the Author of the Perpetuity had not used in this Dispute these equivocal terms of the Real Presence and real Absence which give way to sophisms as will appear in what follows but seeing he has used them it is at least necessary to distinguish them as I have now done LET us see then upon these illustrations what are the pretensions on either side The Author of the Perpetuity maintains that these Christians must have a distinct knowledg either of the Presence or Real Absence that is to say they must have known distinctly whether that which they receiv'd in the Communion was or was not the Body of Jesus Christ in substance for thus he understands it there being no medium says he I affirm on the contrary that they had not for the most part of 'em any distinct knowledg either of the invisible Real Presence or the Real invisible Absence and that they were not come as then to this distinct question Whether the Body of Jesus Christ was invisibly present by its proper substance and after the manner of a Spirit in the Eucharist or not SO far it seems that the method and state of this Dispute is clear for 't is likely by the Real Presence the Author of the Perpetuity means not the visible Presence of which we do not dispute and which the Church of Rome it self rejects but the invisible Presence of which we dispute and which the Roman Church holds so that we need only propose the proofs of both parties for the Readers edification But Mr. Arnaud who can make clouds when he has occasion for 'em has so greatly obscured this matter by distinctions and crafty pretences that we must still spend more time to clear the difficulties he has cast in our way TO believe says he the Real Absence is to believe that the Eucharist is not Lib. 6. cap. 2. the Body of Jesus Christ or that the Body of Jesus Christ is not really present in the Eucharist Now a man may distinctly believe or know that one thing is not another or that 't is not in another in three different manners The first by an express and formal reflection but general when a man generally denies one thing to be another or affirms that 't is absent but without specifying any particular manner Thus in denying the King to be at Paris we say he is not there in any real manner altho we specifie not any one The second by a distinct reflection on all the different manners of being a thing or being really present in a place Which is as if a man should say that the King is not at Paris neither visibly nor invisibly and 't is in this manner the Sacramentaries deny the presence of Christ's Body in the Eucharist And the third without any reflection and by a simple view of the nature of things which does so comprehend the exclusion of whatsoever belongeth not to their being that the mind knows as well what they are not as if it had made an hundred positive judgments on ' em Applying afterwards this distinction he assures us first That the Author of the Perpetuity never pretended to prove that if the Faithful believed not the Real Presence they then believed the Real Absence in the second manner which is to say that they positively excluded by a formal reflection all the several kinds of presence 2. That the greatest part of his Arguments conclude that if the Faithful believed not the Real Presence they would have rejected it in the first manner and by a general reflection which denies the thing without considering the different species 3. That altho a man may draw this consequence from several of his Arguments yet 't is sufficient for his design to shew that these Faithful would have rejected the Real Presence in the third manner that is to say without reflection and by a distinct knowledg of certain verities which include it according to the ordinary manner of conceiving things WE must then examin these three manners and see in what sense the Author of the Perpetuity is obliged to maintain that if the Christians of whom we speak believed not the Real Presence they then believed the Real Absence THE first is chimerical and impossible For 't is not possible for a man naturally to consider the Real Presence of the Body of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist to reject it without conceiving at the same time in particular some kind or manner of presence Either these persons to whom Mr. Arnaud attributes his first manner of believing the Real Absence knew the invisible Presence or did not know it Supposing they knew it what necessity was there of making them reject it in general without specifying it in particular Why not say they rejected it in making a formal reflection on it If they knew it not as it seems Mr. Arnaud supposes it is not at least possible but they had formally in their minds the particular idea of the corporeal and visible Presence For as soon as ever we conceive a humane Body to be substantially present in a place the first notion that offers it self naturally to the mind is that of the ordinary and corporeal Presence It is possible we may conceive a humane body without thinking of the place wherein it is we every day make such kind of abstractions as these yet 't is not possible according to nature for a man to conceive it to be present by its proper substance in a place without conceiving at the same time the idea of its corporeal Presence Nature furnishing us with no other idea of the substantial Presence than that it cannot be but this idea will shew it self to the mind as soon as ever we imagin a body in a place To be present in a place and that corporeally are naturally one and the same idea in respect of a humane body The Philosophy of later Ages has made two ideas of this whether with reason or not I do not now dispute but howsoever nature makes but one of it and whilst we do not distinguish them nor know the secret of making two ideas of them the one general and th' other particular we shall never make this abstraction for nature puts not men upon making it Now we speak here of persons that think according to nature and suppose they never heard the least mention of invisible and incorporeal Presence it is not then possible but they must immediately form the idea of the visible or corporeal Presence in the same manner as 't is not possible for a man naturally to conceive the Sun to be present over our Hemisphere but he must conceive the idea of his visible and ordinary Presence It is then certain that a man considered in the state of nature void of the fancies of this new Philosophy cannot believe the Real Absence of Christ's Body in the Sacrament without thinking on the corporeal Presence In this
things FIRST then Mr. Arnaud makes me contradict my self He says That Lib. 6. cap. 4. pag. 550. if it be not true I admitted the confused Belief during ten Ages if I included it in the 9th and 10th it follows that I knew that during eight Centuries the Faithful had a distinct knowledg of the mystery of the Eucharist I acknowledg this Consequence to be just enough But adds he Mr. Claud bethinks himself and finds 't is more for his advantage to grant nothing to the Author of the Perpetuity and even to affirm that during these eight Centuries the Faithful had no distinct knowledg of the Presence or Real Absence Why does Mr. Arnaud call this recollecting a man's self What contrariety is there between these two things Not says he but that there 's an equivocation in all this If there be any equivocation Mr. Arnaud ought not to make a contradiction of it nor say I am at discord with my self But the truth is there is neither equivocation nor contradiction in it for we have already told him that to know distinctly the mystery of the Eucharist is neither to know distinctly the Real Presence nor Real Absence and that there 's a difference in these things To know distinctly the Real Absence in the sense wherein we take this term in this Dispute is to reject formally and by a positive act this invisible Presence as an error But to know distinctly the mystery of the Eucharist is according to us to know clearly that the Eucharist is Bread and Wine as to the substance of it that by Consecration this Bread and Wine are made signs or mystical figures of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ that this signification is grounded on several relations which are between the Bread and Wine and the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ that those who receive these Symbols with Faith and Devotion towards Jesus Christ who died for us and rose again and is reigning in Heaven they spiritually eat of his Body and drink of his Blood that these Symbols are called the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ by a Sacramental way of speech because they do both represent them to our Faith or because there 's a great conformity between them and the things which they represent or because they communicate them to us and several other like Articles In a word to understand the mystery of the Eucharist is to know positively wherein consists the nature and essence of a Sacrament which does not include any distinct knowledg either of the Real invisible Presence or Real invisible Absence I acknowledg 't is not easie to surprize people that are in this capacity nor persuade them that this Real Presence has been ever believed in the Church especially if they have Pastors that are learned and honest who acquit themselves of their Duty and watch diligently over their Flocks But howsoever this is not to understand distinctly the Real Absence in question IN the mean time to the end Mr. Arnaud may no longer equivocate on this subject let me tell him that when we attribute this distinct knowledg of the mystery of the Eucharist to the eight first Centuries we would not be understood either that they had it in a degree always equal and uniform or that all persons who lived in each of those Ages have been equally enlightned We know the light of those Ages was diminished by degrees so that the 7th and 8th had much less of it than the first six We know likewise there has been always in the Church I mean even then when 't was most flourishing a great number of pious Christians in truth but little advanced in knowledg and with them multitudes of prophane worldly wretches who little concerned themselves touching what they believed of the mysteries of Christian Religion IN the second place Mr. Arnaud reproaches me with having done two things which would be strange enough were they true the one that I ill explain'd the Author of the Perpetuity's sentiment and th' other that I granted him in effect whatsoever he pretended to He grounds these two reproaches on that I said somewhere to the Author of the Perpetuity That if Answer to the second Treatise part 2. chap 3. he meant that the Faithful who took the instructions of the Fathers in a metaphorical sense believed Jesus Christ present corporeally in Heaven without thinking on what has been said since that he is at the same time in Heaven and on Earth there after the manner of a Body here after the manner of a Spirit I acknowledged that the Faithful had in this sense a most distinct idea of the Real Absence which is to say they did not at all believe that he was substantially present in the Sacrament applying their whole mind to the presence of his Grace and Merit setting themselves to meditate on his infinite love c. without exerting their thoughts to this presence of substance invented of late by the Roman Church But if by having an idea and distinct belief of the Real Absence that Author meant they knew and rejected distinctly this means of existence of the Body of Jesus Christ on the Altar in multiplying his Presence in several places I affirm'd they had it not at all BUT these two reproaches are without grounds for in respect of the first it appears from what we have seen in the preceding Chapter that the Author of the Perpetuity must have pretended to that which I charge him with to wit that the Faithful have had the distinct idea of the substantial invisible Presence such as the Church of Rome believes and that they formally rejected it as an Error For there 's only this manner of believing the Real Absence which can have place in this Dispute seeing that of the three which Mr. Arnaud has proposed the first as we have seen is impossible and the third useless for the design of the Author of the Perpetuity so that necessarily his sense must fall upon the second which is precisely that which I have attributed to him And as to the second reproach 't is clear that if the Author of the Perpetuity pretended to no more than what I granted him his Argument will fall to the ground for it does not follow from persons not fixing their minds on the presence of an invisible substance such as the Church of Rome teaches and their applying themselves only to meditate on a presence of Grace which is precisely what I grant him it does not hence follow I say that they are led by this alone to reject the Real Invisible Presence as a novelty contrary to the Faith of the Church There needs something more than this I mean there needs greater lights to inevitably effect this rejection For a man must have for this not only the idea of this substantial invisible Presence such as is fancied in the Church of Rome but likewise distinctly know that such a Presence was never taught in the Church For
What extraordinary matter is there then in this supposition BVT whilst they were in search of it and could not find it adds Mr. Arnaud dares Mr. Claude say their minds were not smitten with any idea of the Real Presence by all the passages and instructions of the Fathers They never knew of any key of Virtue or Figure how then understood they the words of the Fathers which assured them that the Lamb of God is present on the Eucharistical Table that the Bread appearing Bread was not so but the Body of Jesus Christ that we drink the immortal Blood of Jesus Christ that the Blood of Jesus Christ is added to ours that it enters into us that this single Body which is distributed to so many thousands is entire in each of 'em that 't is the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ in truth that we must not doubt of it seeing he has said so himself that altho what we see has nothing like to a human body yet none refuse to believe what Christ himself has asserted to be true that the Bread is changed into the very Body of Jesus Christ that the Bread is made the Body of Jesus Christ by the ineffable operation of the Holy Spirit that we must not look for the usual course of nature in the Body of Jesus Christ Mr. Claude cannot defend himself from these passages but by applying to 'em his keys of Virtue and Figure and enduring a thousand vexatious oppositions Now these persons being strangers to these inventions conceived the literal idea of these words they conceived that Jesus Christ entred into us that 't was not Bread but the Body of Jesus Christ that 't was not to be question'd that they ought to give their senses the lye and thus during all the time of this search they had maugre Mr. Claude the Real Presence still in their minds TO make this arguing good there must be several things supposed which Mr. Arnaud himself will not approve to be reasonable First we must suppose that those of this fourth rank now in question had either heard a great part of the Fathers preach which the Roman Church alledges in her own favour as well Greeks as Latins of several Ages or read almost all their Writings concerning the Eucharist for what Mr. Arnaud now recited to us is a rhapsody of several expressions to be found here and there in Gelasius of Cyzique Cyril of Jerusalem Chrysostom Cyril of Alexandria Gregory of Nysse Hesychius Gaudencius Epiphany Damascen and Ambrose Secondly We must suppose they made an exact collection of all these expressions of the Fathers which Mr. Arnaud abuses and put them altogether to make a better survey of them and grounded thereupon their difficulty Thirdly We must suppose that those of this fourth rank did all the same thing or at least communicated this rhapsody to one another to behold therein all of 'em the Real Presence during the time of their doubting Fourthly We must suppose they took care to collect nothing that might carry off their minds from rhe Real Presence or offer 'em contrary objects LET Mr. Arnaud consider if he pleases that those of this fourth rank now in question are a middle sort of people whom we suppose to be persons of small reading or study who were not capable of making either for themselves or fellows collections of difficult passages but only heard their Pastors say that the Bread of the Eucharist is the Body of Jesus Christ or is made the Body of Jesus Christ For when we suppose persons that knew all these expressions of the Fathers proposed by Mr. Arnaud and that have collected 'em 't will be just to suppose likewise they were not ignorant that the Fathers taught also That what we see on the Altar is Bread and Wine creatures and fruits of the Earth that they are signs and mystical symbols of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ that these symbols leave not their own nature but remain in their first substance that our Saviour Christ has honored them with the name of his Body and Blood not in changing their nature but in adding grace to their nature that Jesus Christ as he is God is every where but as Man is in Heaven that his Body must be in one place that when his Flesh was on Earth it was not in Heaven and that being now in Heaven it is not certainly upon Earth that the Bread is not properly his Body nor the Wine his Blood but so call'd inasmuch as they contain the mystery of 'em that our Saviour has made an exchange of names having given to his Body the name of Symbol that he has called the Bread his Body to the end we might know that he whose Body the Prophet had anciently figured by Bread has now given to Bread the figure of his Body By this means when Mr. Arnaud pretends the former passages gave the idea of a Real Presence I may pretend likewise that these last mention'd carried the same persons off from it and led 'em to a Sacramental sense But as I said it is not needful to put them of this fourth rank upon collecting passages out of the Fathers on either hand seeing we suppose they were only meanly instructed in points of Religion TO finish this Chapter and the defence of the second third and fourth ranks of persons which I supposed were in the ancient Church we have only to answer in few words an objection which Mr. Arnaud has proposed in his tenth Chapter which respects these three ranks in general I mean the second third and fourth which objection consists in this That there being two sorts of doubts the one in which a man understands and conceives a thing but knows not whether it be or be not whether 't is possible or impossible as when a man doubts whether Beasts think whether our blood circulates in the body others wherein a man knows not what makes the doubt as when one doubts of the causes of the flux and reflux of the Sea or of the sense of a passage of Scripture when the sense which appears is false and yet a man sees no other there is this difference between these two ways of doubting that in the first there 's no need to have the thing explained to us 't is sufficient we have proofs given us of it But the second which includes an ignorance of the manner necessarily requires an explication That the doubt or ignorance which Mr. Claude attributes to three of the ranks which compose his system is of this second kind that is to say one of these doubts which have need of information and explication of the manner of the thing being the persons in question were offended at the inconsistency of these terms Bread and Body and knew not how it could be true that the Bread was the Body of Jesus Christ or chang'd into the Body of Jesus Christ so that their ignorance could not be cured but by shewing 'em the
Saviour did not scruple to say This is my Body when he gave the sign of his Body that he made Bread his Body in saying This is my Body that is to say the figure of my Body that we must distinguish between the Bread of our Lord and the Bread which is the Lord himself that the consecrated Bread is honored with the name of our Lords Body altho the nature of Bread remains that the nature or substance of Bread ceases not to be and that that which we celebrate is the image or resemblance of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ who knew that the humanity of Jesus Christ is local absent from Heaven when on the Earth and left the Earth when it ascended up into Heaven that to eat the Flesh of Jesus Christ is to believe in him that this locution is figurative and must not be taken according to the letter signifying we must communicate of our Lords Passion and call to remembrance that his Flesh has been Crucified for us 'T IS such kind of persons as these who are well instructed in the sense of the Fathers that are to be consulted to find the natural sense of these other expressions which Mr. Arnaud alledges in his favour What likelihood is there that with these preparatives which they receiv'd daily from their Pastors they should stick at these expressions they heard 'em use That the Bread is the Body of Jesus Christ that 't is made the Body of Jesus Christ changed into the Body of Jesus Christ that the Body of Jesus Christ enters into us that we are refresh'd with his Blood and nourish'd with his Flesh and other expressions of this nature what likelihood is there they should hesitate at 'em or see any other sense in 'em than the Sacramental or figurative one Now these are the persons whereof my fifth rank consists whom I supposed to have a knowledg of the truth more distinct and clear than the others and a mind better fitted to understand the stile and ordinary expressions of the Church Let the same instructions the same expositions be given now to the people which the Fathers gave them let neither Transubstantiation nor the Real Presence nor the conversion of the substance of Bread into the very substance of Christs Body nor the Body of Jesus Christ concealed under the vail of accidents without a subject nor th'existence of these accidents without a subject nor the real existence of the Body of Jesus Christ in several places nor his double Presence that is to say his visible and invisible one nor his Sacramental state after the manner of a Spirit be mention'd let 'em not be enjoyn'd t' adore the Sacrament of the Eucharist with that Sovereign adoration which is due to Jesus Christ alone and in a word let all things be suppress'd which we find the Fathers did not speak or do and let the impressions and prejudications which these novelties have introduc'd into mens minds be lost let the same instructions and expositions I say be given to the people now which the Fathers gave them and then let 'em be told as long as you will that the Bread is the Body of Jesus Christ that 't is chang'd into the Body of Jesus Christ for I am persuaded and believe every reasonable man will be so too that the people will never conceive from these expressions either Transubstantiation or Consubstantiation but understand 'em without difficulty in a Sacramental sense Where Where 's then this great noise which the Real Presence made knocking as the Author of the Perpetuity words it millions of times at the gate of the hearts of all the Faithful Is not this clatter a mere dream and has Mr. Arnaud any reason to reproach me with the deafness of my ears BUT 't will perhaps be question'd whether persons of mean capacity whom we do not suppose to have this knowledg of the style and sense of the Church did not receive by these words th' impression of the Real Presence I answer we shall do 'em no wrong by supposing they did not understand them You have commanded us to believe said they in S. Austin Serm. ad inf explain to us then how the Bread is the Body of Jesus Christ to the end we may understand it They did not understand it then before the explication In effect the greatest part of the Fathers words taken literally are void of any natural sense Philosophy must give 'em one for how can we understand naturally that the Bread is the Body of Jesus Christ according to a literal sense or chang'd into the Body of Jesus Christ seeing we behold it still to be Bread I confess there are some of these expressions which are apt to offer to ignorant people the idea of a Real Presence but not of the real invisible and incorporeal Presence touching which we contend but on the contrary the idea of a corporeal Presence for a mans mind especially that of an ignorant man does not imagin th' existence of a human invisible insensible and impalpable Body I moreover say that this idea of the corporeal Presence would be immediately rejected as false by the most stupid and ignorant from the testimony of their own senses which they could not but consult supposing at least they knew Christ's Body was a human one But supposing they did not 't is likely their simplicity would lead them to believe that the natural Body of Jesus Christ was really upon Earth in the form of Bread such as they saw in the Eucharist and this is what S. Austin says little Children would do were they earnestly and gravely told 'tis the Body of Jesus Christ AS to the passages of S. Hilary and Gregory of Nysse which Mr. Arnaud alledges as offering the idea of the Real Presence I confess the first is able to surprize th' ignorant and make 'em conceive a corporeal Presence seeing it has these words that Jesus Christ is in us in reality of nature and not by a simple consent of will and then again that Jesus Christ dwells in us naturally which literally signifies that our Lords Flesh exists in us in such an ordinary and corporeal manner as the flesh of animals exists in us when we eat 'em which was the sense wherein the Capernaits took the words of Jesus Christ Mr. Arnaud himself seems to have acknowledg'd this seeing he believ'd himself oblig'd to add in his Translation a corrective that mollifies or explains this term naturally Naturally says he that is to say really But this that is to say really ought not to be written in Italick as if 't were S. Hilary's own explication and if the fault be the Printer's and not Mr. Arnaud's he should at least have set it in the Errata because it causes two illusions at a time on one hand it makes a man believe S. Hilary taught the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in us in proper terms seeing he says that he remains in us naturally that is
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