God which shews his perplexity to be so great in this particular that he knew not on which side to turn himself Whilst the Greeks possess so great Tranquility in this Point that it does not appear they ever found the least difficulty in it They assure us the Eucharist does nourish our Bodies but they see none of those inconveniencies which disturb the Latins which clearly shews they do not believe the Conversion of Substances For did they believe it they would not fail to see what common sence discovers to others and seeing it how is it possible they should express no astonishment nor any difficulty therein or at least not take that side which Mr. Arnaud has taken which is to leave these difficulties to Almighty God NEITHER do we find that the Greeks do trouble themselves about the alteration or corruption which frequently happens in the Substance of the Eucharist as the Latins do altho the former of these have more reason for it than the latter For the Latins take all possible care to keep their Hosts from corrupting but the Greeks on the contrary take none at all And keeping as they do the Sacramental Bread sprinkled with consecrated Wine the space of a whole year for the use of the sick it often happens that 't is corrupted and full of Maggots as it is observ'd by Sacranus and the Archbishop of Gnesne and consequently are more exposed to these inconveniencies than the Latins Yet do they not seem to be concerned nor inform themselves whence come these Worms which being as they are Substances it cannot be said they generate from bare Accidents Neither can it be said without blasphemy that they are made of the proper Substance of Jesus Christ THIS Proof may be extended farther for 't is certain we do not find amongst the Greeks any of these kind of things which depend on Transubstantiation I mean which necessarily and wholly depend thereon They are in this respect in a most profound silence But it 's worth our while to hear Mr. Arnaud It is indeed say's he a real truth that the Greeks take little Lib. 10 cap 8. p. 59. notice of these Philosophical Consequences Samonas speaks occasionally of a Body in two places and of Accidents without a Subject the Archbishop of Gaza does the same but both one and the other of these do this by constraint What signifies this tergiversating for he ought not to say the Greeks speak but little hereof seeing they speak not at all of it This Samonas and this Archbishop of Gaza are not Authors to be quoted seeing we shall make it appear in its place that the Book which bears the name of the first of these is deservedly suspected to be counterfeit and that the other is a Roman Proselyte wedded to the Interests of the Court of Rome It is evident that to establish a restriction of this Consequence Mr. Arnaud should have better Proofs But that we may do him right we will not conceal what he adds afterwards I drew from the silence of the Fathers touching the Miracles of Transubstantiation and its Consequences an Argument to conclude they believed it not He answers that instead of Fathers I should substitute the Greeks Armenians Ibid. pag. 63. and Copticks of those times for say's he 't is certain that all these Christians believed Transubstantiation as we do and yet take no notice of all these difficulties which Mr. Claude ' s head is full of This acknowledgment is sincere and we need desire no more The Greeks take no more notice of the difficulties arising from Transubstantiation than the Armenians and Copticks and Mr. Arnaud grants this to be so undeniable a Truth that he makes it the ground of an Answer OUR present business then is to know whether the Consequence I hence draw be just and good Which he contests me and first he say's that all these Eastern Churches profess to believe original sin and yet their Divines trouble not themselves about explaining this Doctrine He adds that they observe Ibid. pag 58 59. the same silence in all the Questions and difficulties which the Socinians propose against the Trinity the Person of the Holy Spirit and the satisfaction of Christ altho these difficulties are as obvious and sensible as those alledged against the real Presence BUT 't is his prejudice and not his reason that has dictated to him this Answer For first there is a vast difference betwixt the incomprehensible Mysteries respecting the Divinity which being above the natural light of reason require a profound submission and the Doctrine of Transubstantiatiation The nature of the Sacraments is well known and the matter and signs thereof are better known which are Bread and Wine Even the thing signifi'd to wit the natural Body and Blood of Jesus Christ are not only the natural Object of Reason but likewise of Sence and both one and the other of these Faculties can judge of it nay they do judge of it by a spontaneous motion even when we would not our selves Secondly besides this infinite difference which yields no room for Mr. Arnaud's comparison the Point in hand concerns not the difficulties touching Transubstantiation or the real Presence but the Doctrines which necessarily attend them and Questions which immediately arise thence of themselves There is a great deal of difference between these two Particulars The difficulties which are raised against a Truth are commonly false Consequences which the Adversaries draw thence and I confess it would not be to reason aright absolutely to conclude that a Church holds not a Doctrine because she troubles not her self in answering all the Objections which may be made against it To allow these kinds of Arguments there are distinctions to be made and particular circumstances to be observed without which there can be nothing concluded But we speak here of real Consequences of a Doctrine of Consequences I say which immediately shew themselves to the ordinariest capacity without any great Meditation and Study Now altho the Greeks do not apply themselves to answer the Objections of the Socinians against Original Sin against the Mystery of the Trinity the Person of the Holy Spirit and Satisfaction of Christ being perhaps not acquainted with them yet do we plainly see amongst them the Consequences of these Doctrines They baptise little Children and baptise them in the Name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost they believe the Father Son and Holy Spirit are consubstantial they adore the Person of the Holy Spirit they put their trust in the death of Jesus Christ and such like things Wherefore should it not be the same in respect of the Consequences of Transubstantiation Is it possible to hold this Doctrine without thinking at the same time at least on some one of these Consequences on the actual existence of a humane Body in several places the existence of this Body without its usual Dimensions the concomitancy of the Body and Blood and on the Accidents of
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
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
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
ruled the Church after their manner and drove away the Greeks whensoever they could do it with safety and as to the Rebellious and Obstinate Greeks who would not relent and embrace the Truth they severely punished them as they had done heretofore in the East and especially at Antioch He afterwards produces the Testimony of an Anonymous Greek Author which I shall here set down and so much the rather because of the Consequence which may be made of this History Since the Emperor Porphyrogennetu ' s Ibid. time to that of John Batatza ' s the Latins did nothing else but Plunder Cities and Islands They expelled the Orthodox Prelates from their Seats and substituted Cardinals in their Places who were of the same Belief with them And this they did at Constantinople Cyprus Antioch and other Cities and not content with this they constrained all the People not excepting the Priests and Monks to be of their Opinion and Communion and commemorate the Pope They were Friends to those that obeyed them but as to them that reprehended them they treated them as Hereticks and those that abhorred their Communion were punished openly even to the making them suffer Martyrdom and used in the same manner as the Kings and Tyrants handled the Primitive Christians Witness the holy Monks of the Isle of Cyprus whom they kept three Years in Prison because they would not Communicate with them Inflicting on them all manner of Torments and in fine not being able to make them acknowledg their Doctrine to be good being possessed with Rage they fastned them to their Horses Tailes and drew them over Precipices causing othres to be burnt alive John their Abbot having remained some time in the midst of the Flames calling upon God one of these furious Latins struck him down with his Mace into the Fire And thus did this Holy Man render his Spirit unto his Creator He farther adds that the Pope having sent some Monks as Spyes under pretence of a Pilgrimage to Jerusalem they saw the Patriarch Germain at Nice who complaining of these Cruelties received for Answer that the Pope was troubled thereat and if the Greeks would send any to make Peace they would be kindly received It was only saies he to deride and impose on us that they would have us send first to them as it were to accuse our selves and acknowledg our Error which plainly appeared afterwards by their Letters BUT to the end we may not think Leo Allatius who relates this Complaint of the Greeks is suspected by the Latins under pretence that he himself is a Greek by Birth it will not be amiss to see the Answer he makes If this Author saies he means the Greeks who remaining fixt to their Ceremonies embraced otherwise the Truth he is mistaaen For the Latins have Ibid. bin so far from driving them away that they have made use of them as often as they have Occasion If he means the Schismaticks and those that maintained the Errors of the Greeks he trifles for how can he imagine the Catholicks who are so Zealous for the Roman Church should suffer in a Country they had Conquered with the loss of their Blood the Greeks their Enemies and Adversaries to their Faith to live unpunished These erronious People must be reduced being Rebels to their own Faith not only by simple Banishments but by Fire and Sword And this is Allatius his Moderation which does not well accord with that which Mr. Arnaud attributes to the Latines BUT we need not oppose Allatius against him we need but hear himself to know whether the Latins did not use all manner of Violences to settle their Religion amongst the Greeks After the taking of Constantinople L. 3. C. 1. saies he the Latins possessed themselves of all the Churches they established a Latine Patriarch they filled Constantinople with Latin Priests they created a Latin Emperor who was Baldwin Earl of Flanders and prosecuting their Conquest in Greece they brought under their Obedience almost whatsoever appertained in Europe to the Emperours of Constantinople The Grecian Emperour fled into Asia having but three or four Cities left him which were all that for a long time remained under the Obedience of the Greeks Behold here then all Greece subdued not only to the Temporal Authority of the Latins but likewise to the Spiritual Authority of the Popes He adds a little after that the Popes Legats used such hard and rigorous Courses to constrain the Greeks to Communicate with the Pope that at length the Emperour Henry Baldwin ' s Successor was forced to take them off mauger the Legat Pelagus He tells us likewise L. 3. C. 7. in another place that Greece was at that time filled with Dominicans and Fryar Minorites that is to say Inquisitors as he himself calls them who had often performed this Office in France and Germany and signalized themselves by punishing an infinite number of Hereticks who made it the greatest part of their Skill to discover them and a great part of their Piety to have them severely Punished that these Inquisitors were in several places Masters of the Greeks and were ordered by the Pope to Confer with them and examine their Doctrine WERE not them of the Church of Rome fully perswaded of Mr. Arnaud's good Intentions towards them these historical Passages he has offered were enough to make him suspected For this deplorable Condition of Greece and all the East and the violent Means the Latins here used to plant their Religion for several Years together that is to say for near two hundred Years in the East and fifty eight in Greece might well introduce amongst these People the Belief of a substantial Conversion and there is methinks more reason to admire if this has not hapned than if it hath WE are not yet gotten to the end of Mr. Arnaud's Histories He tells L. 3. C. 7. us three things worth our Observation The first is that altho Constantinople was retaken from the Latins by Michael Paleologus yet they kept still several places in Greece and even whole Provinces as Achaia Secondly that the Latines were still Masters of divers great Islands as Cyprus Crete Eubeé Rhodes and divers other Places Thirdly that the Necessity the Emperours of Constantinople lay under of obtaining the Assistance of the Western Princes caused them to keep a continual Correspondency with several of them and to be in sundry particulars subservient to the Latins which remained at Constantinople so that there was always a great number there who made Profession of the Romish Religion Here is then the Latins again not only mixt with the Greeks in their ordinary Commerce but in several places their Lords and Masters and in a fit Capacity to make them receive their Religion LEO Allatius tells us likewise that when the King of England had Possessed De Perp. Consens L. 2. C. 15. himself of Cyprus and given it to the King of Jerusalem that he might
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
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
to favour the Conversion of the Substances IT is no more favour'd by several other Clauses in the same Liturgy For in that of St. James there is a Prayer which the Priest directs to our Saviour in Heaven altho he has the Consecrated Bread before him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 say's he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bibl. Patr. Graeco Lat. Tom. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 O thou Holy One that dwellest in the Holy Places sanctifie us by the Word of thy Grace and coming of thy Holy Spirit We find this same Prayer in St. Mark 's Liturgy In those of St. Basile and Chrysostom there is another directed after the same manner to our Saviour in Heaven Look down we beseech thee say's it O Lord Jesus Christ our God from the Holy Place of thy Habitation and Throne of thy Glory which is in thy Kingdom and come to sanctifie us thou that sittest at the right hand of the Father and art here with us invisibly Mr. Arnaud perverts these last words and who art here invisibly with us not considering they relate to that part of the Petition wherein they beseech him to come and sanctifie them and that they only signifie this invisible presence of his Grace and Divinity which he promised his Disciples when he left the World and ascended up into Heaven It plainly appears that the intention of the Greek Church is to send up their Devotions to the Place where our Saviour inhabits How comes it to pass we find not at least one Prayer wherein is expressed that he has clothed the proper Substance of his Humanity with the Veil of the Accidents or some such like words But on the contrary when the Priest reads with a loud voice 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Holy Things are for Holy Persons the Quire answers there is only one that is Holy only one Lord who is Jesus Christ at the Glory of God the Father For 't is clear that these words at the Glory of God the Father mean that he is above in Heaven In the Liturgy of the presanctifi'd Bread the Priest thus addresses himself to God beseeching him that his only Son may rest on this Altar by vertue of these dreadful Mysteries thereon Eurho Goar exposed thus manifestly distinguishing the Mysteries from Jesus Christ and immediately prays That he would sanctifie our Souls and Bodies by a perpetual Sanctification to the end that partaking of these Holy Things with a pure Conscience a holy assurance and enlightned mind and being quickned by them we may be united to Jesus Christ himself our true God who has said he that eateth my Flesh and drinks my Blood dwells in me and I in him By which words it is evident that the Mysteries are plainly distinguished from our Saviour himself and that those who receive them unworthily are not united with him In the Liturgy of St. Basil the Priest prays That receiving with the Testimony Vbi supra of a pure Conscience the Particle of the Sanctifications of God we may be united to the Body and Blood of his Christ and that receiving these things worthily we may have Jesus Christ dwelling in our hearts These words do moreover distinguish Jesus Christ from the Sacrament he has ordained and 't is certain these Terms of Jesus Christ dwelling in our hearts do more plainly intimate a Spiritual Communion than a corporeal one In fine in this same Liturgy the Priest having performed his Office in this particular makes a Prayer unto God in which he recapitulates whatsoever has passed in this Mystical Celebration but mentions not the least tittle concerning Transubstantiation We have say's he finished and consummated the Mystery of thy Oeconomy O Jesus Christ our God as far as we have been able For we have celebrated the memory of thy Death we have beheld the Figure of thy Resurrection we have been filled with thy never fading Life and been made partakers of thy immortal Pleasures grant we may be found worthy to enjoy the same in the World to come Is it not a wonderful thing there should not in all this be the least mention of the conversion of the Substances which is yet in the sence of the Roman Church the most essential part of that Mystery that whereunto all the rest does tend and whereon depends so much that the rest without this would signifie nothing Let Mr. Arnaud alledge what he pleases 't is not to be imagin'd the Greek Church would forget this part of the Mystery in such a solemn recapitulation which it makes to God at the end of its Office did she in effect believe any other Change in the Bread than that of its Virtue and Holyness CHAP. VI. The Tenth Proof taken from that the Greeks do often use an extenuating Term when they call the Eucharist the Body of Jesus Christ The Eleventh from their not believing the wicked who partake of the Eucharist do receive the Body of Jesus Christ The Twelfth from their believing the dead and those in Deserts remote from all Commerce do receive the same as we do in the Communion ALTHO the Greeks do frequently call the Eucharist the Body of Jesus Christ yet must we not thereupon immediately conclude that they are in this respect of the same opinion with the Church of Rome and adopted Transubstantiation or the substantial presence amongst the Articles of their Faith One Proof of the contrary of this is that sometimes when they mention the consecrated Bread and give it the name of the Body of Jesus Christ they add a Term of Diminution which shews they do not mean that it is his Body in propriety of Substance Which appears by a passage taken out of Balsamon on the Seventieth Canon of the Apostles This Canon ordains a punishment to those that shall fast with the Jews and celebrate their Feasts and Balsamon takes hence an occasion to inveigh against the Feasts of unleavened Bread in these words If a Balsam in Canon 55. Apost Can 70. man deserves to be deposed only for eating unleavened Bread with the Jews and expelled the Christian Communion what punishment do they not then deserve that partake of it as of the Body of our Lord and celebrate the Passover after the same manner as they do MATTHEW Blastarius speaks almost to the same purpose in Arcudius They say's he that celebrate the mystical Sacrifice with unleavened Bread Areud lib. 3. cap. 6. do greatly offend against the Christian Customs for if they who only eat the unleaven'd Bread of the Feast of the Jews ought to be deposed and excommunicated what excuse can they make for themselves who receive it as if it were the Body of our Lord. SIMEON of Thessalonica expounding that passage of the Liturgy where the Priest perfumes the Gifts in saying these words Be thou exalted O God above the Heavens and be thou glorifi'd thro out all the Earth the Priest say's he speaks of the Ascension of our Lord and the Glory
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
these and yet teaches a Doctrine that is easie full of piety and free from contradiction She affirms then that the Bishop or Priest in the Divine Service holds the place of Christ making the Propitiation for the sins of the People and that by the Holy Invocation of God's Name and mention of the Divine Words of our Saviour the spiritual Grace descends that sanctifies the Bread and Wine and changes them not into the sensible but spiritual Body of Jesus Christ And as to those that assert the Substance of Bread and Wine is changed into the natural Flesh of Jesus Christ if they understand hereby a supernatural change after a spiritual manner those that do thus speak concur in their Opinion with the Eastern Church But seeing they will have this to be sensibly effected our Church does therein disagree with them altho they have recourse to another way of speaking in telling us of Accidents and Species and such like things which none of the Ancients ever thought of much less mention'd For the Fathers of the Eastern Church have been ever averse to Novelties and Contentions which tend to the ruine of Souls not only detesting those Doctrines which are heretical and divide the Church but which in disturbing its Peace eclipse its Glory The Superscription is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Jeremias Doctour of Divinity in the Eastern Church ALTHO we learn no new thing from the Testimony of this Author yet does it confirm and illustrate several matters First that the Sentiment of the Greeks touching the Eucharist is not in any thing the same with that of the Church of Rome but a middle way betwixt the Doctrine of the Latins and Protestants Secondly That although the Greeks do use the Term 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 change yet do they not understand thereby a real change of one Substance into another which the Latins have invented but a spiritual change wrought by the Grace of the Holy Spirit which sanctifies the Bread and Wine Thirdly That when 't is said the Substance of Bread and Wine is changed into the natural Flesh of Christ this must be understood in a spâ—ritual manner to be conformable to the Sentiment of the Eastern Church Fourthly That those of the Church of Rome understanding it as they do in a sensible manner the Greeks reject them and their Communion Fifthly To the end there may be no pretence left for cavilling on the Term of sensibly in saying the Roman Church understands not that the Body of Christ is visible and palpable in its natural form in the Sacrament he declares that he well knows she makes use of other expressions namely of Accidents and Species meaning that this is still to understand it sensibly to assert our Saviour's proper Substance is in this Mystery although covered with the Species and Accidents of Bread And that this is a Novelty the Greeks have ever rejected and of which the Ancients have not made the least mention If Mr. Arnaud likes this let him make the best use he can of it in the mean time we will pass on to another Proof MATTHEW Caryophilus titular Archbishop of Iconia a Latinised Greek and almost of the same stamp and temper as Arcudius and Leo Allatius has published a refutation of some Propositions taken out of a Catechism made by a Greek Gentleman whom he calls Zacharias Gerganus Allatius say's he was a Bishop But be he what he will Caryophilus uses him after a dreadful manner terming his Propositions Blasphemies and calling him Serpent Basilisk Wolf the Devil's Instrument worse than the Devil himself a Lutheran But 't is a usual thing with these Gentlemen to load mens Persons with Injuries when their Doctrines agree not with theirs They thus begin continue and end their Refutations It cannot then be taken ill if laying aside their Injuries I only affirm that Caryophilus very impertinently charges this Greek with his being a Lutheran for it is apparent from the Propositions he recites and what he say's in his Preface that he was a true Greek and maintain'd the Maxims of his Religion and Church and moreover a real lover of his Country He opposes amongst other things the addition of the filioque in the Symbol and attacks the Azuma of the Latins He affirms there is but one Holy Church which is the Catholick Apostolical and Eastern which does not well agree with the Title he has given him of a Lutheran and 't is plainly seen he has given it him only to make him suspected by his own Countrymen and hinder us from any advantage by his Testimony SO that the single Authority of Caryophilus being not sufficient to hinder us from considering this Author's Testimony notwithstanding his pretended Lutheranism I shall therefore produce here some of his Propositions which he himself has taken out of his Catechism The LXI is this Râ—futatio pfeudâ—-Christianae Catechesis editae à Zacharia Gergano Graeco Auctore Matthaeâ— Caryophil Romae 1631. Blasph 61. The Holy Communion consists of two Substances the one visible and th' other invisible the visible Substance is the Bread and Wine the invisible Substance is the Word of Christ This is my Body this is my Blood The Question in this Dispute being only Whether the Greeks believe Transubstantiation it will be therefore sufficient for me to show by this Testimony that the visible Substance of Bread and Wine remain so that I am not concerned to know in what sence this Author calls the Words of Christ the invisible Substance of the Sacrament Yet will I affirm his sence is clear enough for in respect of the Bread and Wine which are in effect Substances it is plain we must take the Term of Substance in its natural signification but in respect of the Words of Christ which in effect are not Substances it is likewise apparent we must understand this expression in a metaphorical sence seeing by it is meant no more but that the internal and mystical virtue of this Sacrament is contain'd in these words This is my Body because these words shew us we must not take these things as mere Bread and Wine but as the Body and Blood of Christ of which they are the Mystery Which is what he understands by this invisible Substance that is to say the force and efficacy of the Sacrament for had not our Saviour said of the Bread This is my Body it would be no more than Bread proper to nourish our Bodies whereas the Faith we have in these words shews us in it another spiritual Substance which nourishes our Souls THE LXV Proposition does no less oppose the substantial Conversion Ibid. Blas phem 65. for it contains these words That the Laity which communicate but of one only kind receive an imperfect Communion which is directly opposite to one of the necessary Consequences of Transubstantiation which is the Concomitancy And to prevent any cavilling touching the sence of this Proposition as if he would say only that this
his Innocency and Admirers of his Virtues It is the Fate of great men to be persecuted and those that are acquainted with the Eastern Affairs must acknowledge there is no place more dangerous and exposed to more Revolutions and Tempests than the Patriarchate of Constantinople Besides the Traverses which Envy and particular Interests stirred up against Cyrillus he had the whole Party of the Latins and false Greeks against him who looked upon him as an Obstacle that withstood their old Design to bring over that Church to Roman See He Ibid. was assay'd both by Promises and Threatnings as Allatius himself acknowledges but they found him unmovable and this is the real cause of their after hatred IT is certain Cyrillus had a great aversion to the Romish Religion and his Inclination led him rather to the Protestants side Neither do I doubt but he disapproved several Superstitions in vogue amongst the Greeks and laboured with all his power to reform them according to the directions of his Conscience and Authority of his Charge But to make him pass under pretence of this for a half Calvinist that was false to his own Principles this is very disingenuously done It is true he relates himself that in a conference he held with Fuxius a Transylvanian Doctour touching the Invocation of Hottinger in Appendic◠dissert 8. Saints He acknowledged the difference betwixt having the Word of God for ones Rule and following the Fancies and Opinions of men the difference between building a man's Faith on the Foundation of Christ and on Hay or Stubble BUT besides that Hottinger from whom Mr. Arnaud has borrowed this particular sets not down the time in which Cyrillus had this Conference with Fuxius and that we must not suppose without good Proof this hap'ned before his promotion to the Patriarchate of Alexandria besides this I say it cannot be hence concluded he wholly renounced in his heart the Invocation of Saints nor that he respected it as an Impiety Hottinger indeed calls this Worship Superstition but from himself and not from Cyrillus so that it is not fairly done to confound one man's Opinion with another Cyrillus perhaps may have acknowledged in this Conference that this Invocation aster the manner some teach and practise it is a meer Fancy and humane Invention that 't is this Word Hay and Stubble Saint Paul speaks of and yet not absolutely rejected this Doctrine in the main Metrophanus Critopulus Confess Ec◠Orient cap. 17. whom I already mentioned expresly distinguishes between an Invocation directed to Saints as Mediatours and that which respects them as Embassadours whom the Church has near Almighty God to beseech him in behalf of their Brethren He rejects the first upon this Reason that there is but one only Mediatour who is Christ Jesus but he receives the second and Cyrillus himself in the eighth Article of his Confession insinuates this distinction saying that our Saviour alone performs the Office of Chief Priest and Mediatour It concerns me not now to examine whether the distinction be good or not it is sufficient to say that a man which holds it may condemn the Invocation of Saints in one respect and retain it in another and remain in the Greek Church which practises it without acting against his Conscience and being a damnable Hypocrite as Mr. Arnaud calls Cyrillus WE may judge of the Sincerity of this Patriarch by his Confession in which and some Answers which accompany it he clearly declared his Belief It contains things which does not well agree with Calvin's Doctrine as for Cyril Conf. fi◠dei art 1. art 16. instance That the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father by the Son and that Baptism is absolutely necessary for our Communion with Christ which plainly shews Mr. Arnaud has been mistaken in affirming he was a Calvinist We do not find he opposes any where Christ's Descent into Hell nor the Hierarchical Order nor regulated Fasts Lents Arbitrary use of Confession Religious Orders Monastick Vows Celebration of Feasts nor the use of the Greek Liturgy nor any of those things commonly believed and practised in that Church altho Calvin has for the most part disapproved of them He admits the use of the Images of Jesus Christ and the Saints it 's true he detests the giving them the Adoration of Latria or any Religious Worship 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Resp ad In◠terr 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and insinuates he was willing to correct the Superstition of the Greeks in this particular he teaches likewise the Doctrine of Predestination and Justification according to the Word of God more clearly than the Eastern People knew it But it must not therefore be concluded he was a Person that betrayed his Trust in performing the Functions of the Patriarchate nor that he was obliged to leave the external Communion of his Church nor as speaks Mr. Arnaud That Piety could not subsist with so damnable Hypocrisie OUR Saviour and his Apostle taught us not to judge so rashly of the Consciences of men Judge not say's our Lord that ye be not judged for Matt. 7. with what Judgment you judge ye shall be judged and with what measure you meet it shall be measured to you again And the Apostle cries out to us Who Rom. 14. art thou that judgest another man's servant Certainly a man cannot be guilty of greater rashness than to condemn People from the Dictates of their own Conscience when having never seen nor heard them it is impossible to have any other than a confused and general knowledge of them such as is Mr. Arnaud's touching Cyrillus For besides that a man may be easily mistaken in imagining that such and such a sentiment obliges a man in conscience to the doing of this or th' other thing if a man proceeds not to a particular consideration of Circumstances besides this I say it may be that this Obligation which appears to us so cogent and inviolable has not so appeared to the Person concerned which suffices to acquit him of the Crime of acting against his Conscience Mr. Arnaud's censure cannot be justifiable unless he could prove Cyrillus has really practised or approved the practice of things which he believed in his heart to be not only indifferent or unprofitable but absolutely evil and that he has practised them in the same time when he judged them to be so Now this Mr. Arnaud has not proved nor never will he may make it appear that Cyrillus believed we must not ground the hopes of our Salvation on humane Traditions but the word of God that we must invoke only Jesus Christ in the quality of Mediatour and render no kind of Religious Worship to Images He may prove that Cyrillus has found out the Errours in the Religion of the Latins and Superstitions amongst the Greeks and detested both He may shew that Cyrillus has approved conformably to his Confession divers Points of the Doctrine of Calvin but he cannot prove
Cyrillus ever contradicted by his Actions any of these Sentiments nor believed these Opinions obliged him to seperate himself from the Communion of the Greeks and forsake the Patriarchal Functions His whole Conduct shewed on the contrary he believed 't was his duty to labour at the establishment of perfect Piety in his Church in opposing to the utmost of his power the progress of Error and Superstitions he condemned and not leave a Flock which God had committed to his charge and of which he was to render an Account All which he did to the last breath He held not the truth in unrighteousness nor was he false to the Dictates of his Conscience He published his Confession and put it in the hands of all the Greeks and maintained it before Kings and Princes in the presence of Ambassadors from Christian Monarchs so that 't was only passion that extorted this saying from Mr. Arnaud That he was a damnable Hypocrite and one that made his Faith buckle to his Interest 'T IS the same Passion caus'd him to say That the advantagious Judgment Lib. 4 cap. 11. pag. 417. we make of this Person shews that our Sect has no true Principle of Religion That the Spirit which animates us is rather a Spirit of Faction and a Cabal against the Catholick Church than a Spirit of Zeal for the establishment of true Piety God who is the Witness of our Innocency can be when he pleases the Protectour of it Our Interests are in his hands and as we pray him to defend them so likewise we beseech him to forgive Mr. Arnaud the Injury he does us We appear extream odious in his sight but when pleases God to inspire him with more equitable Sentiments he will judge wholly otherwise In this hope we will comfort our selves by the example of the Holy Apostles and of our Saviour himself who were accused say's Saint Chrysostom to be seditious Persons and Innovators that made it their business to disturb the Chrysostom Hem. 23. in Rom. Publick Peace We will endeavour to refute these kind of Accusations by a Christian Deportment without forgetting our Duty is to bless them that curse us and pray for them that despitefully use us ENGLAND and Holland are able to justifie were there occasion the Actions of their Ambassadours in relation to the business of Cyrillus without my interposing And as they were not the Masters nor Directours of his Conscience so they were never able to prescribe him what he had to do so that 't is very unreasonable to make them responsable for his Conduct in those particulars They have been no farther concerned in the Actions of this Patriarch than this that having known him in their Countries when he was there their acquaintance was turned into mutual familiarity when they found him at Constantinople But this familiarity reached no farther than the usual Services Persons of merit are wont mutually to render to one another notwithstanding the difference of their Opinions in Religion They helpt him to Books and to the keeping a correspondence with Learned men If Mr. Arnaud condemns this Commerce and makes it a Mystery of Iniquity Pag. 422. as he is pleased to call it who need be troubled thereat Strangers at Constantinople are not bound to give him an Account of their Friendships and Civilities I do not doubt but these Ambassadours were glad to find this Patriarch's Confession to be so agreeable with several Doctrines which the Protestants believe to be of great Importance and that he had no Inclination to a Union with the Church of Rome Neither do I doubt but they condoled the Afflictions to which his Dignity and Virtues rendred him obnoxious and would gladly have done him all the good offices in their power and what is there unlawful in all this Must Cyrillus therefore be one of their Creatures or govern himself according to their Directions Had they said Pag. 420. say's Mr. Arnaud that they had obliged him to make a Declaration of his Faith agreeable to their Doctrine Why would he have them acknowledge an untruth Did ever any body see any thing more captious than to establish in the form of an Answer from our part a false Foundation to build thereon an Invective Had they said they had in fine obliged him But should they say they obliged him not to this Confession but that he made it according to the Dictates of his own Conscience and Knowledge Now this is what they are without doubt ready to affirm seeing 't is the real truth As to his being canonized amongst us for a Saint and Martyr as Mr. Arnaud is pleased to affirm he knows we have no such power 'T is certain as I already mentioned his memory is still precious amongst the Greeks as that of a Saint and Martyr of Christ as I shall make appear hereafter but this is not to make him one of our Saints or Martyrs SHOULD we press those that judge thus of the Consciences of other men perhaps they would be straitned to give us a reason for theirs on the same Maxims on which they would have that of this Patriarchs judged and the Ambassadors of England and Holland For not to go farther how can they in conscience approve that their Scholars brought up in the Seminary at Rome which were wholly their Creatures sent into Greece to promote the Interest of the Roman See should take Orders from Schismatical Bishops and afterwards be raised to Bishopricks by Schismatical Patriarchs that they should live in their communion and dependance in the midst of a Church in which the Pope and all the Latins are continually excommunicated on Holy Thursday by the Patriarch of Jerusalem where their Sacrifice is abhorred and this Sentence read every Year in their Churches confounded be all they that In Triod offer unleavened Bread in the Sacrifice wherein Purgatory is rejected and 't is held a crime to say the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son wherein the necessity of communicating under both kinds is held carved Images condemned and several other such like things which are not over favourable to the Latins How in Conscience can these said Scholars be advanced to Patriarchates elected and consecrated by Schismatical Metropolitains and placed at the Head of a Church which professes an open Seperation from the Church of Rome and live in Communion with that of Jerusalem in which all the Latins in general are excommunicated What I say is grounded on matter of Fact which Mr. Arnaud dares not deny for should he do it he would be convinced by the Testimony of Thomas à Jesu who expresly tells us That it has been ever thought fitting to permit the Schollars Thom. à Jesu de procuran Salute omn. Gent. lib. 1. cap. 4. of the Seminary at Rome to take Orders when in Greece from the hands of Schismatical Bishops it being necessary to use this Indulgence or Dispensation to the end the Patriarchs may not
any Purgatory but Sigism Com. ver Moscov hold that every one after death goes to the place he deserves good People into a place of Serenity amongst Angels and the wicked into dismal and dark shades amongst terrible Devils where they expect the last Judgment that the Souls of the faithful know they are in God's favour by the nature of the place they are in and by the presence of Angels which accompany them and so the others on the contrary Goar testifies that Ligaridius a Greek Author of the Isle of Chios expounding Jacob. Goar in notis in offic Exeq. the meaning of those frequent Allelujas sung at the Funeral of the deceased say's They are sung as sign of joy that those who remain alive may rejoyce in that the defunct has happily left this miserable life and is now in possession of Everlasting Bliss IT appears then by this diversity that there is nothing so regulated on this Subject amongst the Greeks but that Cyrillus may assert the Doctrine contained in the Article before us without contradicting the general Belief of his Church Besides his Terms are not so strict but that they may be well accommodated with the Sentiment of those who affirm the Souls Enjoy not the Beatifical Vision or a perfect Felicity till the last Judgment and that hold there are three States of deceased Persons for he say's only That the Souls of the deceased are in bliss or misery and assoon as ever they leave their Bodies are either in Heaven or Hell which will bear this sence that Judgment is already passed upon them and that God has already shown them their condition which hinders not but it may be said that the damnation of the one is not yet perfect and the felicity of the others not yet compleated And this sence seems to be favoured by what Cyrillus adds immediately afterwards That every one is judged according to the condition he is in at the hour of death which seems to intimate that he would be understood to speak only of the Judgment and not of the full and perfect execution of this Judgment There are two things most certain in reference to the Greeks the one that they pray for the dead and th' other that they reject the Purgatory of the Romane Church Now Cyrillus touches not on the first of these and as to the second he agrees very well therein with his own People for he calls Purgatory an imagination not to be admitted So that Mr. Arnaud impertinently accuses him of contradicting the Greeks in the chief Articles of his Confession WE come now to Mr. Arnaud's third Objection which consists of two pretended condemnations of Cyrillus his Confession the one under Cyrillus of Berrhaea and th' other under Parthenius I have already discoursed of those two Pieces in my Answer to Father Nüet wherein I have shewn they are suspected to be fictious But if the Reader will not trouble himself with consulting what I have elsewhere written touching the matter he may here behold a Compendium of my Reasons I. ALTHO these Narratives have been often printed there has been no body yet that has taken upon 'em to own and warrant the Truth of them to the Publick There is one of them printed from a Manuscript sent from Rome and th' other from an Edition printed at Jasi in Moldavia published by a certain Monk named Arsenius It seems to me there ought to be greater assurance given than what we have already seeing it is not sufficient to authorize so important a matter as the Determinations of two late Councils the one in the year 1639. and th' other in 1642. II. THESE two Narratives contradict one another the first of them which is published under the name of Cyrillus of Berrhaea is subscribed by several of those whose hands are to the second and by the same Parthenius to whom this last is attributed and yet in the second there is no mention of the first The first expresly anathematizes Cyrillus and calls him an impious and wicked Person The second say's only There are certain Articles produced under the name of the Patriarch Cyrillus The first condemns with an Anathema these Articles The second say's It was proposed in the Synod whether they should be received and held for pious and orthodox Points or rejected as being contrary to the Doctrine of the Eastern Church which plainly shews that they that made the second knew nothing of the first and yet they are both found subscribed by the same Persons III. THERE is no likelihood that Metrophanus the Patriarch of Alexandria who is said to have been an Assessor at the first Synod under Cyrillus of Berrhaea nor that Parthenius who is said to have held the second would have so lightly and fraudulently condemned Cyrillus Lucaris seeing one of 'em had been the Chief Officer of his Chamber and th' other his Protector and intimate Friend IV. ARSENIUS the Monk from whom 't is said we have the pretended account of the Synod under Parthenius and who sent it from Constantinople to a nameless Friend at Venice having stuffed his Letter with Railings against Cyrillus and his Confession yet mentions not a word touching its first condemnation under Cyrillus of Berrhaea Which shews us that these are counterfeit Pieces composed at several times and by different Persons who not consulting one another nor furnished with sufficient Instructions have been guilty of several Contradictions I will now add to what has been already said some other Remarks which are no less considerable the first is that when Cyrillus his Confession of Faith appeared in our Western Parts the first Game that was played was to deny it and affirm 't was a feigned Story but when this Shift would no longer serve turn and that the thing was made evident then an account of these pretended Councils appeared which shows that they were substituted as a new remedy instead of the other which could be of no longer use Secondly what Parthenius is made to say That there have been some Articles produced under Cyrillus his name is as every man may discover the Style of the Western People and not that of Parthenius himself who could not speak after this manner nor his Synod neither because 't was notorious in Constantinople that this Confession was in effect Cyrillus his own seeing he offered it in a Council and openly justified it before the Ministers of the Grand Senior in the presence of several Ambassadors and because Parthenius and his Bishops in the preceding Synod had already considered it as unquestionably his Moreover what likelihood is there that Parthenius and his Council would thus grosly and slanderously imputed to Cyrillus a thing that was false as they do For Cyrillus having said in the first Article of his Confession That the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father by the Son which is an expression from which the Greeks never vary The first Article of the Censure bears That he asserted contrary to
the sence of the Catholick Church the Substantial and Eternal Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and the Son which is exactly the expression the Greeks abhor WE may add to this that Mr. Arnaud tells us of a Treatise of Paysius Ligaridius Archbishop of Gaza in which Ligaridius discourses of Cyrillus and his Confession and raises an Objection about it which he himself answers saying That several boubted of the truth of this Piece and that should it be true yet one Swallow does not make a Summer but he makes no mention of these two pretended Censures which without doubt he would never have forgotten being as he is a man full of Zeal for the interests of the Roman Religion were they acknowledged to be good and Authentick Acts in the Greek Church I might say the same thing of the Barons of Spartaris did it not elsewhere appear that he was a Person of small Knowledge in the Affairs of the Greeks HEYDANUS a Dutch Professour of Divinity relates that in the year 1643. The News being come to Constantinople that this pretended Heydanus praefat ad lib cui titulus est causa Dei Council was confidently reported to be true in the West Parthenius himself was so surprised and offended thereat that assembling his Clergy and People in the Patriarchal Church he openly professed 't was false and that he never intended such an injury to the memory of Cyrillus IN fine Mr. Rivet Doctor of Divinity in Holland writing to Mr. Sarrau a Councellour in the Parliament of Paris the 21 of March 1644. tells him touching this Business That he saw at Mr. Hagha ' s a Letter written in Vulgar Greek from Pachomius the Metropolitain of Chalcedon which disowned the pretended Council under the Patriarch Parthenius Farther affirming that the Subscriptions were counterfeit and particularly his That this Piece was contrived by a Rascal c. That the Patriarch was a double minded man yet denied what was printed in Moldavia to be the Act he signed and that the Prince of Moldavia banished the Author of this Impression from his Territories BUT supposing what I now alledged to be wholly untrue and that these two pretended Councils were as really true as I believe 'em to be false yet is it certain they will but confirm the Proof we draw from Cyrillus his Confession against Transubstantiation and change it into Demonstration Which will clearly appear if we consider that whosoever composed them did all they could to turn Cyrillus his words into a sence odious to the Greeks even to the imputing to him several Falsities that Cyrillus of Berrhaea who presided in the first Council was a false Greek and one of the Jesuits Scholars engaged long since in the Party of the Latins and that Parthenius seemed likewise fastned to the Roman Interest if we take that for one of his Letters which one Athanasius a Latinising Greek published in which he makes him thus write to the late King That he heartily desired the Peace of the two Churches Athan. Rhetor Presbyt Bisant anti patellar Paris 1655. as much as any of his Predecessors but if the Turk under whose Empire they lived knew of this Affair he would kill 'em all Yet could the King find out a way whereby to secure them from this danger he solemnly protests that for his part he would not be wanting So that we see here what kind of men the Authors of these two Censures have been supposing 'em true and yet they have not expresly censured what Cyrillus Lucaris asserted touching Transubstantiation the first of these to wit Cyrillus of Berrhaea say's Anathematised be Cyrillus who teaches and believes that neither the Bread of the Altar nor the Wine are changed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the Priests Consecration and coming down of the Holy Spirit into the real Body and Blood of Jesus Christ seeing 't is written in the seventeenth Article of his Heretical Doctrine that what we see and take is not the Body of Jesus Christ The second namely Parthenius say's His Doctrine is so destructive to the Eucharist that he attributes only the bare Figure to it as if we were still under the Old Law of Types and Shadows For he denies the Bread which is seen and eaten becomes after Consecration the real Body of Jesus Christ in any other than a spiritual manner or rather by imagination which is the highest pitch of Impiety For Jesus Christ did not say This is the Figure of my Body but this is my Body this is my Blood this to wit that which was seen received eaten and broken after it was blessed and sanctified Not to take here notice how captiously these People turn the Words of Cyrillus to make them contradictory to the Belief and common Expressions of the Greeks it will be sufficient to observe that howsoever prejudiced these Persons have been they durst not re-establish the Transubstantiation he expresly condemned nor take any notice of that part of the Article which rejects it in express Terms But to the end we may better judge of this it will not be amiss to recite Cyrillus his own Words We believe say's he that the second Sacrament which the Lord has instituted is that which we call the Eucharist for in the Night in which he was betrayed taking Bread and blessing it he said to his Apostles take eat this is my Body and taking the Cup he gave thanks and said drink ye all of this this is my Blood which is shed for you do this in remembrance of me And Saint Paul adds as often as ye shall eat of this Bread and drink of this Cup ye shew the Lord's death This is the plain true and lawful Tradition of this admirable Mystery in the administration and understanding of which we confess and believe a real and certain Presence of our Lord Jesus Christ to wit that which Faith offers and gives us and not that which Transubstantiation has rashly invented and teaches For we believe the faithful eat the Body of Jesus Christ in the Sacrament not in a sensible chewing of him with the teeth in the Communion but in communicating by the sence of the Soul For our Lord's Body is not in the Mystery what our eyes behold and what we take but that which Faith which receives after a spiritual manner presents and gives us Wherefore it is certain if we believe we eat and participate but if we believe not we are deprived of this benefit If you compare this Article with Cyrillus of Berrhaea and Parthenius's Censures you will find they apply themselves to that which is said concerning Our Saviour's Body being not what we see and eat but that which our Faith does spiritually receive and that they endeavour to give these Words a construction abominated by the Greeks and different from their usual expressions But as to what he says touching Transubstantiation which he calls a rash invention 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we see they
that their Faith must be the rule of ours yet will I endeavour to satisfie the Reader in this particular I do also hope that this inquiry will not be useless towards the clearing up of the principal Question between Mr. Arnaud and my self because that in shewing what the Greeks do believe I do at the same time shew what they do not believe I shall do then three things in this Chapter the first of which shall be to shew the real Belief of the Greeks touching the Eucharist Secondly describe in what they agree and differ from the Church of Rome And thirdly likewise wherein we of the Reformed Church do agree with them and in what particulars we do not AS to the first of these Points to the end we may have a fuller and clearer understanding of the real Opinion of the Greeks it will be necessary we make several Articles of it and reduce them into these following Propositions FIRST in general the Eucharist is according to them a mystical representation of the whole Oeconomy of Jesus Christ They express by it his coming into the World his being born of a Virgin his Sufferings Death Resurrection Ascension into Heaven and the Glory he displayed on the Earth in making himself known and adored by every Creature Were it necessary to prove this Proposition we could easily do it by the Greek Lyturgies and Testimonies of Cabasilas Germain Simeon Thessaloniensis Jeremias and several others but this not being a matter of contest I shall not insist upon it SECONDLY They consider the Bread in two distinct respects either whilst it is as yet on the Table of the Prothesis or on the great Altar Whilst 't is on the Prothesis they hold 't is a Type or Figure Yet do they sometimes call it the Body of Jesus Christ sometimes the imperfect Body of Christ sometimes the dead Body of Jesus Christ although they do not believe the Consecration is then compleated This is confirmed by what I related in the Fourth Chapter of this Third Book and it is not likewise necessary to insist any longer thereon because this particular concerns not the matter in hand THIRDLY When the Symbols are carried and placed on the great Altar they say that by the Prayers of the Priest and Descent of the Holy Spirit the Bread and Wine are perfectly consecrated and changed into the Body and Blood of Christ To express this change they use these general Terms I already noted to wit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. which signifie a change They say the Bread is the Body of Christ and that it is made the very Body it self or the proper Body of Christ and hereunto refer all those Citations Mr. Arnaud has alledged out of Theophylact Euthymius Nicholas Methoniensis Cabasilas Simeon Thessaloniensis and Jeremias We do not deny that the Greeks use these Expressions it concerns us here only to know in what sence the Greek Church uses them and what kind of change they mean thereby I say then that when we come to examine this change and determine in what manner the Bread and Wine are made the Body and Blood of Christ they curb our curiosity and remit this knowledge and determination to God and for their own parts keep within their general Terms Which appears by the profession of Faith which the Sarrazins made in the Twelfth Century when they imbraced the Greek Religion I believe Bibl. Patr. Tom. 2. Graeco-Lat say's the Proselyte and confess the Bread and Wine which are mystically sacrificed by the Christians and of which they partake in their Divine Sacraments I believe likewise that this Bread and Wine are in truth the Body and Blood of Christ being changed intellectually and invisibly by his Divine Power above all natural conception he alone knowing the manner of it And upon this account it was that Nicetas Choniatus complains that in the Twelfth Century the Doctrine Nicetas Choniat Annal. lib. 3. of the Divine Mysteries was divulged and therefore censures the Patriarch Camaterus for his not having immediately silenced a Monk who proposed this Question to wit whether we receive in the Eucharist the corruptible or incorruptible Body of Jesus Christ He should have been condemned say's he for an Heretick that introduced Novelties all the rest silenced by his example to the end the Mystery may ever remain a Mystery John Sylvius in his Cathe'merinon Joan Sylv. aâ—rebat Cathem of the Greeks recites a Prayer wherein it is said That the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ are touched and changed on the Altar after a supernatural manner which must not be inquired into We have likewise already seen in the Tenth Chapter of this Book the Testimony of Metrophanus the Patriarch of Alexandria who having told us the consecrated Bread is really the Body of Jesus Confess Eccles Or. cap. 9. Christ and that which is in the Cup undoubtedly his Blood he adds That the manner of this change is unknown to us and the knowledge thereof reserved for the Elect in Heaven to the end we may obtain more favour from God by a simple Faith void of curiosity And thus acquits himself ANOTHER Greek Author cited by Allatius under the name of John Allat adversus Chreygton exercit 22. the Patriarch of Jerusalem You see say's he that Saint Paul scruples not to call this Body Bread But be it so if you will that it be no longer called Bread and being no longer Bread is neither leavened nor unleavened you see that it is not bereaved of these Appellations till after Sanctification But before this dreadful Sacrifice when you offer it to sanctifie it shall this be neither Bread nor an Azyme Now that which is done in this Oblation is by our selves but that which happens in this admirable change is not from us but God It appears by this passage recited by Allatius and taken if I be not deceived out of a Manuscript wherein this Author disputes touching the Azymes against a Latin who told him that this Controversie was vain seeing that after the Consecration it is no longer Bread but the Body of Jesus Christ and it seems this Patriarch maintains against him that 't was still Bread and proves it by the Authority of Saint Paul who so calls it It seems likewise by what he adds that he would say that supposing it was no longer called Bread and lost this name yet we must not speak of what it becomes by Consecration because God only knows that and not men ALTHO the Greeks are sometimes thus reserved restraining themselves within their general Terms yet for the most part they shew more particularly their thoughts touching the nature and kind of the change which happens to the Bread and Wine and which makes them to be the Body and Blood of Christ And they do it likewise in such a manner that 't is no hard matter to find out their meaning Which is what we have now to demonstrate But before we enter into
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
〈◊〉 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
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
demanded why then did they Dispute on the Procession of the Holy Spirit and the Azymes I answer because these two Points first occasioned the Separation of the two Churches Photius adhered especially to the first of these and Cerularius to the latter The reason why the Greeks have so earnestly stuck to these two Particulars seems to be out of a Principle of Constancy They have followed the first and original Causes of their Quarrel with the Latins treading in the Steps of their Predecessors Had they found the Article of the substantial Conversion in their way they had without doubt stumbled at it but not meeting with it 't is no marvel if they took no notice thereof no more than of other Doctrines But why was not this point at first comprehended amongst those that caused the Separation of the two Churches The Answer is easy because Transubstantiation was not then established in the Roman Church Photius began the Separation towards the end of the ninth Century Cerularius renewed it about the middle of the eleventh and the first that determin'd the substantial Conversion was Gregory the VII in the Year 1079 so that 't is no marvel if they disputed not about it VII NEITHER do I understand the Greeks could have just Cause to dispute this Point against the Body of the Latin Church in general before the Council of Constance that is to say before the fifteenth Century For altho Gregory the VII made his Determination in the Year 1079 as I already said and Innocent the III had done the same in the Council of Latran in the Year 1215 yet there were several People that did not esteem these kind of Decisions as legitimate and authentick Declarations of the Church Every body knows that Rupert who lived in the twelveth Century publickly Rupert in Joan lib. 6. in Exod. l. 2. c. 10. taught that the substance of Bread remains in the Eucharist and becomes the Body of Christ by an hypostatical Union with the Word Anselm wrote against him and Algerus disputed against his Opinion but he was never Condemned for an Heretick We know likewise what Durand of St. Porcien taught who lived in the beginning of the fourteenth Century to wit that the Substance of Bread remains and that losing its first form of Bread it receives the form of the Body of Christ in the same manner the Food we take receives the form of our Body * Bell. de Sacr. Euch. l. 3 c. 13. Thom. Waldens tom 2. de Sacr. cap. 65. cod Ms. qui asservatur in Biblioth S. Victor Paris cuititul Determinatio fratris Joan. de Pariscis praedieatoris de modo existendi corporis Christi in Sacr. Altare c. Intendo dicere vâ—ram existentiam realem corporis Christs in Sacramento Altaris quod non est ibi solum in signo licet teneam approbem illâ—rum solemnem opinionem quod corpus Christi est in Sacramento Altaris per conversionem substanciae panis in ipsum quod ipsi maneant accidentia sine subjecto non tamen audeo dicere quod boc cadet sub fide mea sed potest aliter salvari vera realis existentia corporis Christi in Sacramento Altaris Protestor tamen quod si ostenderetur dictus modus determinatus esse per Sacrum canonem aut per Ecclesiam aut per Concilium generale aut per Papam qui virtute continet totam Ecclesiam quicquid dicam volo haberi pro non dicto statim paratus sum revocare quod si non fit determinatus contingat tamen determinari statim paratus sum assentire In 4. Sent. Quaest 6. Art 4. Bellarmin acknowledges that this Opinion may be called a Transformation but not a Transubstantiation Yet was not Durand Prosecuted nor Condemned as an Heretick nor his Doctrine Censured We moreover know what was taught by John of Paris of the Order of Fryar Preachers and Divinity Professor at Paris who lived towards the end of the thirteenth Century That altho he approved of the common Opinion touching the Conversion of the Substance of Bread into the Body of Christ yet he durst not affirm this to be an Article of Faith necessarily to be believed as determin'd by the Church and that there was another more popular Opinion and perhaps more rational and conformable to the true Doctrine of the Sacrament namely the Assumption of the Substance of Bread by the person of the Word We know in fine what Peter Dailly Cardinal and Bishop of Cambray wrote who lived about the beginning of the fifteenth Century namely that it does not follow in his Opinion from the Churches Determination that the Substance of Bread ceases BUT to the end it may not be said these are the Opinions of particular Titulus Judicium facultatis Theologiae in presentia Collegij magisirâ—rum in Theologia dictum est utrumque â—â—cdum ponendi corpus Christi esse in Altari tenet pro opinione prohabilâ— approbat utrumque per hic est lacuna per dicta Sanctorum dicit tamen quod nullus est determinatus per Ecclesian idco nullum cadere sub fide Et si aliter dixisset minus benc dixisset qui aliter dicunt minus benc dicunt qui determinate asseveret alterutrum praecise cadere sub fide incurreret sententiam Canâ—nis Anathcmatis Persons who might be mistaken I will here produce the Judgment of the Divines at Paris in the beginning of the fourteenth Century that is to say about the Year 1304 touching John of Paris and concerning the Assumption of the Substance of Bread as is contained in a Manuscript of the Library of St. Victor in these Words The Opinion of the Faculty in Theology in the Presence of the Masters of the Colledg touching both the Ways whereby the Body of Christ may be said to exist on the Altar to wit that of the Conversion of the Substance of Bread and that of the Assumption of this Substance by the Word both which Opinions it holds and approves by and by the Testimonies of the Fathers Yet it says that neither of these two ways has been determined by the Church and therefore never a one of them is an Article of Faith and if it said otherwise it would not have said so well and those that express themselves otherwise say not so well and he that positively asserts that either one or the other of these Modes is an Article of Faith incurs the Sentence of an Anathema I denote in the Margin the proper terms of the Manuscript according as they lye under this Title Judicium Facultatis Theologiae JOHN of Paris met with Opposition from William of Orillac Bishop of Paris and several other Bishops Yet did they not condemn his Sentiment nor contradict what the Faculty of Theology said but silenced him and forbad him the Chair Whereat he made his Appeal to Rome where he came himself and had a Committy appointed to hear
He say's for Example that Theophylact reduces all the Differences which separated in his time the two Churches Lib. 2. c. 9â— p. 174. to the single addition of the Filioque in the Symbol So that if this Principle be true the Greeks and Latins agreed in all other things but this one of the Filioque He say's that Basil the Archbishop of Thessalonica writing to Pope Adrian the IV Protests to him that the Greeks differ not from the Latin Church If this be true Theophilact has deceived us when he tells us they differ in the Filioque He tells us that the sharpness of Balsamon who was very much against the Church of Rome would not suffer him â—o dissemble this Accusation to wit to believe Transubstantiation which would be the most specious of all others and the most proper to alienate the Affections of the Greeks and hinder their Reconciliation with the Latins But if we must refer our selves in all particulars to Balsamon's Silence in how many Points shall we establish Peace wherein there was a real Division He tells us Eutymius wrote a Book against Lib. 2. c. 11. p. 204. the Latins in which he only treats of the Procession of the Holy Spirit that Chrysolanus the Archbishop of Milain reduced to this single Article all whatsoever he upbraided the Greeks with that John Phurnius wrote against Ibid. Chrysolanus and mentions only the Procession and that this same Phurnius Ibid. p. 205. Ibid. p. 204. Ibid. p. 205. disputed against another Archbishop of Milain named Peter on this Article alone But if Mr. Arnaud goes on after this rate what will become of the Controversy touching the Azyme He tells us that Nicolas Methoniensis answers Chrysolanus and that he wrote another Treatise concerning the Azymes that Eustratius Bishop of Nice Theodorus Prodromus Nicetas Seidus and several other Authors of the twelveth Century that wrote against the Latins applyed themselves only to the Controversies touching the Holy Spirit and the Azymes He makes an exact Computation of all the Greeks of the fourteenth Century that wrote against the Roman Church and assures us they Lib. 3. c. 7. all of 'em restrainâ—d themselves to these two Points He farther shews us Lib. 3. c. 2. that in the Treaty of Agreement which was begun in the Year 1232 between Gregory the IX and Germain the Patriarch of Constantinople there Lib. 3. c. 4. were no more mentioned than these two Questions and that the Patriarch Veccus having been condemned under Andronicus for favouring the Latins his whole charge consisted only of the Procession of the Holy Spirit So that if we stop here we may restrain the differences of the two Churches to these two Articles and establish an intire Conformity in all the rest AS fast as Mr. Arnaud produces each of these things in particular he fails not to conclude that the Greeks and Latins had but one and the same Faith touching Transubstantiation But how happens it he has not seen that if his Consequence be good it may be likewise concluded they have the same Opinion touching other Articles wherein yet is found a manifest Difference His Proofs have this Property that if we take each of 'em in particular they overthrow one another For if the Greeks and Latins taught only one and the same thing why are they made to dispute touching the Procession of the Holy Spirit If all their Differences may be reduced to the Article of the Holy Spirit why do they dispute on the Azymes If they be divided only in these two Points wherefore in the Council of Florence was there mentioned the Doctrine of Purgatory the beatifical Vision of the Saints and primacy of the See of Rome What certainty is there in all these negative Arguments seeing that each of 'em in particular overthrow one another HE will tell us we must take them all together and conclude from thence in general that the Greeks and Latins are not at all at Variance touching Transubstantiation seeing that in all their Disputes agitated since so long a time by so many several Authors and so many several Occasions we do not find any Contest touching this Point I answer we have taken them thus in the preceding Chapter and found they conclude no better in general than in particular I consent they be taken in any sort for if they be examined each of 'em apart their weaknesses will soon be discovered being contradictory to one another and if joyned together they can produce no greater effect by their Union than to perswade us the Greeks never made Transubstantiation a Point of Controversy with the Latins But this is no more than what we already granted to Mr. Arnand But that it follows hence the two Churches held this for an Article of both their Faiths This we deny and have given our Reasons why we do so BUT the more to facilitate the Judgment which ought to be made of these things it will not be amiss to examine some particular Circumstances by which Mr. Arnaud has pretended to give Colour to his Argument He tells us then first that the Greeks have been often together with the Latins in Councils and yet there was never any mention made of Transubstantiation Lib. 2. c. 8. p. 171. Lib. 2. c. 11. p. 210. Ibid. therein That they were together at the Synod of Barris where Anselm disputed against 'em That the Abbot Nectairus was an assessor at the Council of Latran under Alexander the III. That the Emperor Emanuel assembled a Council at Constantinople in order to a Reunion wherein the two Parties failed not to appear That there was one held at Nice upon the same Occasion That Michael Paleologus called several Assemblies in Greece for the same purpose Lib. 3. c. 2. p. 262. Lib. 3. c. 3. Ibid. Lib. 4. c. 2. That he sent his Legats and Deputies from the Greek Church to the Council at Lyons in which the Reunion was concluded and that in fine they met together in the Council of Florence I answer there was never any Council held either in the East or West by the Greeks alone or Latins nor by Greeks and Latins both together wherein all the Differences of the two Churches were proposed to be examined There were never any Points handled in them but those which were ever openly and expresly controverted and even not all of them neither In the Synod of Barry there was only handled the Point of the Procession of the Holy Ghost Does this argue they agreed in all the rest There was not say's Mr. Arnaud any other Difference in the Doctrines of Faith But what matter is it whether the other Differences were concerning Articles of Faith seeing the Greeks made them the occasion of their Separation and stuck to 'em with all possible earnestness Moreover who told Mr. Arnaud that the Greeks esteem not the Article of the Azymes as a Point of Faith and likewise those of Purgatory and the Pope's
Supremacy c Neither the Greeks nor the Latins say's Mr. Arnaud supposed there were any other Differences between them in Points of Faith than that touching the Procession of the Holy Ghost Yet did they not agree in their Opinions about Purgatory nor the Pope's Supremacy and yet according to Mr. Arnaud the Latins of those times reckoned not these Doctrines amongst the Articles of their Faith Sure I am there are People of his own Communion who will not justify him in this Assertion 'T IS the same in reference to the Council of Lateran He is willing to make use of it because he finds it amongst his Collections but it will be a hard matter for him to shew what past therein touching the Greeks for all that he can know of it is contained in the Letters of George Bishop of Corcyra to the Abbot Nectairus and from the Abbot's Letters again to George Baron ad ann 1179. mentioned by Baronius and which relate not a Word to the purpose TO refute what he tells us concerning the Council of Constantinople under Emanuel Comnenus I need only mention what he himself relates That the Latins require no more of the Greeks than that they should mention the Lib. 2. c. 11. p. 210. Pope's Name in their publick Offices acknowledg his Supremacy and right of Appeals Which is as much as to say that all the rest signified nothing provided the Pope be satisfied AT Nice were only examined the Procession of the Holy Spirit and the Azymes other Differences were laid aside And as to what passed under Michael Paleologus touching the Reunion of the two Churches Mr. Arnaud forgets to put us in mind of that Violence Deceit and Tyranny which that Emperor used to accomplish his Design as we already observed which was mannaged by Cruelty Imprisonments Punishments and Banishments and which drew on Michael such a deadly Hatred from the Greeks that they refused him Burial after his Death an Affair wherein after all he cheated the Greeks in making them believe that each Church should keep its Doctrines and Ceremonies and that it signified nothing to amuse the Pope with granting him his Supremacy right of Appeals and commemoration of him in their Liturgy AS to what concern'd the Council of Florence the Author of the Perpetuity having already made use of it I believ'd 't was sufficient to answer him that whatsoever passed in it was a meere politick Intrigue as well in respect of the Latins as the Greeks that Pope Eugenius and his Court acted therein with Violence and the Greek Emperor mannaged his Business after a very timerous and interessed manner and the Greek Bishops bewrayed Answ to the 2d Treatise 2. p. c. 8. a most pittiful Ignorance and Weakness several of 'em being won by the Latins the rest signing the Act of Reunion without any Consultation held first together whence I conclude there must not be advantage taken hence as if the Greeks and Latins were agreed in the Point of the substantial Conversion under pretence it was not debated in that Council and that the rather because the Greeks upon their return into their own Country openly renounced this pretended Reunion BE my Answers never so reasonable yet do they not relish well with Mr. Arnaud wherefore it must not be expected he was satisfied with this Much less inquire whether 't was with or without a Preface that he offered his new Objections For 't would be a kind of Miracle if he who reproaches me with my Prefaces should so much as once enter upon Examination of a thing without preparing the Readers by long Discourses Mr. Claude say's he here Lib. 4. c. 2. p. 333. who can speak when he pleases Court Language in his Books of Divinity pleasantly reproaches in the Preface of his Book the Author of the Perpetuity that he decides Questions like a Soldier I examine not at present whether he had Reason for his application of this Expression I reserve this for the Discourse wherein I design to treat of his personal Differences with this Author But seeing he has introduced this term in a serious Dispute I think I may borrow it of him whereby to express after what sort he gets clear of some considerable Difficulties and touching which we may say with great reason that never Man fought his way thro them more Soldier like than he did And a little further I cannot produce a better Instance of Mr. Claude's Soldier like Humour than the manner in which he treats of whatsoever passed in the Council of Florence IT sufficiently appears Mr. Arnaud design'd to censure the use I made of the Term of Soldier-like and the Author of the Perpetuity likewise Criticiz'd on another of my Expressions viz. Fly in a mans Face But if I may speak my Thoughts of these Censures It seems to me these kind of dealings become not Persons that profess a more profound Literature and consequently should mind things more than Words not to say these Remarks are far Remote from the Subject we handle and contribute little to the clearing up of our Question Moreover what have we to do with the Court and its Language in our Dispute I pretend not to speak the Language of the Court my Condition and Profession keeps me at such a Distance from it that I know not what Language is spoke there I do not question but they express themselves politely and rationally but passing my Life as I do out of the Palaces of great Personages and far from the Honour of their Commerce their ways of Expressing themselves are unknown to me I am not perhaps sufficiently in Love with the Age I live in to leave my common Expressions to accommodate my self to that of the Court. In short I pretend not to speak so neatly as to suppose my Style is without Fault I leave to others the Clory of becoming Masters of Language to discredit received Expressions and introduce new ones whether justly or not I refer my self to others to judg that understand them In the mean time methinks Mr. Arnaud should not so greatly find fault with this Term of Soldier-like considering the use I made of it I believed said I I ought much less to make use of this new Method which that Author has found out whereby to refute Mr. Aubertin ' s Book and in effect this is to do like Alexander who cut the knot he could not untye and to Dispute Soldier like This Term thus used in a Preface seemed supportable Yet I am sorry it has offended Mr. Arnaud if it be because we made his Friend a common Soldier let him consider likewise we represented him also as an Alexander BUT howsoever let 's see whether my Answer concerning the Council of Florence is so Soldier like as he pretends Policy say's he has its Bounds it has not a part in every Affair nor effects all things Who doubts it All that I attribute to the Effects of that Policy which
reigned so much in that Council was that it obliged the Greeks to Reunite themselves with the Latins without a Pre examination of all the Differences between the two Churches in hope each of 'em should keep their own Doctrines and suffer no Innovations This was the same Policy Michael Paleologus inspired his Bishops with as we already observed and made them consent to the Union at the Council of Lyons under Gregory the X. Now this is called in my Dictionary for Mr. Arnaud tells me too of Dictionaries of my own making this is called I say a plastered Union an external Agreement which has no more than the Shadow and appearance of a Union seeing that within there is a real Separation THE Judgment which ought to be made of my Answer depends on two Questions the first whether in effect Policy had any share in this Affair or not the second whether we may justly say that it so far prevail'd on the Greeks as to make 'em silent in the Point of Transubstantiation altho they did not believe it FOR the deciding of the first Question I desire no other Person than Mr. Arnaud himself 't is no great Mystery say's he to tell us that in this Design of an Ibid p. 337. Union touching the Differences which divided the Greeks from the Latins there should be politick Respects and humane Interests this is neither marvelous nor unjust But whether Just or Unjust is not the Question it is sufficient to me there were such Respects in this Affair The Turks say's he likewise made great Progresses and reduced the Emperor to the greatest Extremity And a little lower The Emperor chose rather to treat with the Pope and Cardinals as being more able to procure him that Assistance he needed and hoped to obtain by means of the Union than with the Council of Bale Here then we have the Policy and Interest of the Greeks described The Fathers of Bale say's he moreover were very desirous to raise up the Dignity of their Council by an Union with the Greeks and therefore they made the most advantagious Offers they were able to the Deputies of the Emperor John Paleologus Emanuel ' s Son and Successor But Eugenus the IV intending to transfer the Council from Bale to Ferrara he made use of the Reunion of the Greeks for a Pretence of this Translation and so ordered it with the Greek Emperor that he engaged him to send word he could not come to Bale So that here we have again the political Interest of Eugenus and his Bishops We might here relate several matters touching the miserable State of the Greeks and of the Negotiations of the Council of Bale and of Pope Eugenus with the Emperor and Patriarch touching the Reasons why the Pope was preferred and several other Circumstances But it is needless to prove a Point that is granted COME we then to the second Question whether it may be truly said that Policy so far prevail'd on the Greeks as to make 'em silent on the Doctrine of Transubstantiation altho they did not believe it For the clearing up of this Point the Reader must here remember what I proved in the foregoing Chapter 1. That there are two sorts of different Opinions between the Greeks and Latins some of which broke out into open Disputes and others not 2. That altho the Doctrines of the two Churches touching the Change hap'ning in the Eucharist are in the main infinitely different yet is their Difference concealed under a Vail of Expressions common to 'em both On these two Principles I say we must not imagine there was made in this Council a general Discussion of all the Points wherein these two Churches differ'd nor that the Union was carried on upon this Account It was indeed at first the Sentiment of George Scholarius who told the Emperor that to make a solid and lasting Union it was needful to examine all the Doctrines on both sides Syrop Hist Concil Flor. Sect. 3. c. 6. without omitting any But for the making of a politick temporary Union the sending of three or four Deputies was sufficient which would produce the same if not a better Effect and would be more beneficial to their Country than if the Emperor and his whole Clergy were present This Advice was presently liked of but not taken For there was neither mention in the Council of Christ's descent into Hell the Salvation of the Damned Apocryphal Books nor of any other Points but what had been openly controverted and of them how many were passed over in Silence There was no mention of the Communion in both kind altho the Greeks hold the necessity thereof nor of the Priests Coelibacy altho this had been formerly debated nor use of carved Images which the Greeks esteem Idols nor Ministry of Confirmation which the Latins hold belongs only to the Bishop whereas the Greeks administer it by their Priests altho Photius made it a Cause of Separation Neither was there any mention of the use of Blood and Creatures strangled which the Greeks hold unlawful altho Cerularius made it his chief Accusation nor of the visible Light which shined about the Body of our Saviour on Mount Tabor which the Greeks hold to be a Beam of God's eternal Light nor several other Errors broached by Palamas which the Greeks have embraced nor of the Pope's Power to grant Indulgencies which the Greeks deride nor of the three Immersions they believe necessary in Baptism There was only mention of the Procession of the Holy Ghost the Azymes Purgatory the beatifical Vision of the Saints and papal Supremacy And yet there were but two of these five Points discussed neither namely that of Purgatory and that of the Holy Spirit the others passed into the Decree without Examination as appears by the Acts of the same Council And now would Mr. Arnaud make us believe that Policy could not so far prevail on the Greeks as to make 'em silent in the Point of Transubstantiation It made 'em silent in Points expresly set down in their Books in others which were publickly controverted betwixt them and the Latins and agitated in the time of their Separation and yet it could not shut their Mouths in Reference to an Article on which they saw nothing determin'd in their Church neither for it nor against it on which neither they nor their Fathers had yet Disputed and of whose Importance they could not judg being hindred by their Ignorance MOREOVER had Transubstantiation been proposed to have been either approved or rejected Mr. Arnaud's Argument would have some Colour perhaps I say perhaps for after all if their Policy was so prevalent as to make 'em sign a Decree against their own Consciences wherein they renounced their ancient Opinions touching the five Articles and received those of the Latins who sees not that it might as well obliged 'em to receive the Doctrine of the substantial Conversion But howsoever they were not put upon to acknowledg it and their
Silence signifies no more on either part but that both were quietly permitted to enjoy their own Opinions We must not imagine they pretended to approve by Virtue of this Union all the Doctrines of the Latins and there could be no more concluded thence at farthest than a simple Toleration as of other Points which were not discussed Now if humane Interest was so powerful over the Greeks as to make 'em abjure their own Opinions and embrace in appearance others can it be thought strange they should pass over in Silence an Article of that kind It seems on the contrary that Zeal for their Religion if they had any spark of it yet left should oblige 'em to restrain the Dispute to a few Points for they would lose as many of 'em as they proposed The necessity of their Affairs forced them to make a Sacrifice of 'em to the Latins so that all those they could smother by their Silence were as so many Points won because they were not lost MR Arnaud tells us that their politick Interests were not so prevalent over Lib. 4. c. 2. p. 337. 'em as to take away from 'em all kind of Liberty and carry them forth to the betraying of their own Judgments without resistance that on the contrary they managed their Pretensions and that the Question touching the Holy Spirit was discussed in this Council with as much exactness as ever any was in any Council That if they betrayed their Conscience it was thro humane Weakness having first rendred to their Opinions all the Testimonies which could be expected from weak Persons But what could be alledged to less purpose All this is true in respect of the Doctrines which they were forced to abandon to subscribe to contrary ones but this signifies nothing to others they mention not and which consequently they were not obliged to receive amongst which that of Transubstantiation was one and moreover this Resistance and Management he speaks of only appeared in the Doctrine of the Procession and not in other Points contained in the Decree for they passed them over without Examination and Discussion except that of Purgatory which was slightly regarded MR. Arnaud sets himself to show afterwards that the Latins did not suspect the Greeks held not Transubstantiation that they betrayed not their own Sentiments nor were wilfully ignorant of those of the Greeks We shall hereafter consider the Conduct of the Latins But make we first an end of examining that of the Greeks Does Mr. Claude say's he know what he say's when he makes such unreasonable Suppositions Does he consider into what absurdities he plunges himself Or will he pretend the Greeks agreed amongst themselves before they parted from Constantinople to conceal their Opinions on this Point from the Latins and carried on this Design so dexterously that amongst so many Greeks there were not one of them that discovered this Secret to the Latins There are certainly judicious Persons enough still in the World to determine which of us two seems to consider most what he say's I do not pretend that either the Greeks plotted together at Constantinople or that they carried it so closely at Florence but that the Latins might know if they would what was their Belief touching the Eucharist Their Books speak their Minds These Complots and Conspirations are Phantasms which appear to Mr. Arnaud in the heat of his Study I pretend no more than what is true to wit that the Greeks passed over in Silence several Articles on which they had not the same Sentiments as the Latins and I believe Transubstantiation was one of them If Mr. Arnaud pretends the contrary it lies upon him to produce his Reasons Let him tell us what Complot there could be between the Greeks and Latins in reference to their Silence in so many other Points which were not discussed Let him tell us at least why in the Acts of the Council and other Writings wherein is mentioned the Eucharist when the Latins say Transubstantiate the Greeks on the contrary say only Consecrate and Sanctify Wherefore in the Decretal of the Union whether we read it in Latin or Greek we find no mention there of the substantial Conversion Why the Article of the Sacrament was expressed in these general Terms Corpus Christi veraciter confici 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Was it Policy or Ignorance or Complot or Conspiration which made them reject the Terms of Gregory the VII The Bread and Wine are changed substantially into the true proper and living Flesh c. or those of Innocent the III. The Bread is transubstantiated into the Body and the Blood into the Wine For for to tell us that the Greeks meant by their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a true and real Transubstantiation because 't was thus the Latins understood their Confici is a frivolous Pretence which I have already refuted MR. Arnaud takes a great deal of Pains to prove the Latins could not be Ignorant of the Sentiment of the Greeks nor the Greeks of the Latins But to no purpose It signifies nothing to me whether they did or did not know one anothers Opinions We will suppose if he will they made this their particular Study but then what signifies this to our Question I am satisfi'd they were reunited without any formal Declaration of their Agreement in this Point for as it cannot be concluded from their Silence on other Points that there were no difference betwixt them so is it the same concerning Transubstantiation Mr. Arnaud reasons ill because he argues from this Principle that the Greeks disputed on all Particulars wherein they knew they differed from the Latins This is a false Principle as appears by the Instances I already produced It appears from the very Acts of that Council that the Emperor wearied with the Debate hastned to Expedients whereby to conclude the Union We have left say's he to his Greeks our Families in danger exposed to the Concil Flor. Sess 23. Fury of the Infidels Time slips away and we advance nothing let us lay aside these Disputes and betake our selves to some Medium And therefore we find Sess 25. the Greeks telling the Latins That they were not for Disputing because Disputes generally ingendred Trouble But they should indeavour to find out some other means of Union We have already told you say's the Emperor to Cardinal Julian that we are not for any more Disputes for Words are never wanting Sess 25. to you Your Dialect will never suffer you to acquiesce in any thing being ever ready at a Reply and to speak the last Let us I pray then lay aside these tedious Controversies and betake our selves to some other means for reuniting us BUT the Greeks assisted at the Service of the Latins and adored the Mass in the same manner as the Roman Church say's Andrew de St. Cruce I answer Lib. 4. c. 2. p. 343. they were present at the Service of the Latins not to show they approved their Doctrine
Points cannot again be received without giving just Offence As to the Article of the Procession of the Holy Spirit there are few that understand it and should it again be controverted 't is likely 't would happen that those who were ignorant of it before would after Inquiry into that pass over to other things THE Latins greatest Interest then consists in two things the first to subject the Greeks by any means to the Roman See and th' other insensibly to change the ancient from of their Religion and slily introduce amongst them the Doctrines and Rites of the Latin Church To accomplish the first of these the Latins act and yield every thing as far as the Honour of their Church will permit them and according as they find fewer or more Difficulties Mr. Arnaud himself has discovered something of this when he told us that in the Council of Constantinople held under Emanuel Comnenus The Latins only required Lib. 2. c. 11. p. 910. of the Greeks that they should mention the Pope's Name in their publick Prayers acknowledg his Supremacy and the right of Appeals to him the rest at that time being not regarded We have likewise seen that Michael Paleologus perswaded his Bishops to Imbrace the Union seeing there were no more required of them than these three Points Yet the Article touching the Holy Spirit was so ancient and famous a Difference between them that 't was a hard matter to reunite therein and take no notice of it and we find the Greeks themselves mentioned it because it had been one of the chief Causes of their Separation The Latins then not being able to pass over this Point in Silence offered the Greeks sometimes that provided they received this Doctrine in their Belief that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son they might keep their Symbol as it was without expresly adding the Filioque And this the Popes Legats who were at Nice after the taking of Constantinople told them as from him according to Mr. Arnaud's Relation Lib. 3. c. 2. The Pope say they will not constrain the Greeks to add this Clause expresly in the Symbol when they shall sing it in the Church And it was upon this Condition that the Reunion was made in the Council of Florence But when the Latins saw a more favourable Occasion they extended their Pretensions farther and changed their Custom as will appear by what I am now going to say Nicholas the III sent Legats into Greece to the Emperor Michael Paleologus to solicit him to oblige his Patriarch and Prelates to make their Profession of Faith which they had not yet made and renounce their Schism The Emperor earnestly besought the Pope to leave the Symbol untouched and not oblige the Greeks to sing it with the addition of the Filioque to prevent all Tumults But Michael being known to be a Prince devoted for his interest to the Roman Church and therefore might be easily prevailed on the Pope gave order to his Legats to answer him touching this Article as follows That the Unity of the Catholick Faith permits not Diversity in its Confessions either in the Act of Profession or in the Chaunt or any particular Declaration of Allat de Perp Consâ—l 2. c. 15. Faith Much less was this to be suffered in the publick singing of the Creed wherein Uniformity ought especially to appear in as much as this Chant comes often in their Service Wherefore adds he the Church of Rome has determin'd and resolved that the Creed shall be sung in Conformity as well by the Greeks as Latins with this addition of the Filioque The Greeks were not so rigorously dealt withal at Nice nor Florence The Unity of Faith suffered under Gregory the IX and Eugenus the IV what it could not bear under Nicholas the III Which is as much as to say that the Faith yields as oft as need requires to this great Interest of submitting the Greeks to the See of Rome The Greeks are complyed withal when it cannot be helpt and the Spirit of Domination becomes Master of that of the Dispute AS to the second Interest which consists in changing insensibly the Religion of the Greeks and slily insinuating the Doctrine and Rites of the Roman Church in its stead it appears from the Course they take that this is the Design of the Latins It is for this purpose that Seminaries have been set up at Rome and other places and the whole East long since orespread with Emissaries It is in order to this that the Emissaries apply themselves to the converting of the Greek Bishops and instructing of Youth in the Roman Religion under pretence of teaching them the Tongues and Philosophy And 't is for this end likewise that the Scholars of the Seminaries are entertained and sent into Greece they have the Liberty to receive Orders from the Hands of schismatical Bishops and the Bishopricks are indeavoured to be filled with them and they are sometimes promoted to Patriarchates It is clear that in taking this Course they have no need to dispute it out with ' em IT will not I suppose be amiss to observe here what Thomas a Jesu who wrote a Book touching the means for the Converting of Infidels Hereticks and Schismaticks tells us is the ready way to convert all Greece to the Catholick Faith His Holiness say's he who is so vigilant for the Salvation of Souls Lib. 6. c. 4. must take care that as soon as ever the Patriarchal Church of Constantinople becomes void to pitch upon one of the Scholars of the Seminaries or Monks who have taken upon them Ecclesiastical Charges in Grece He must choose one whom he thinks most fitting and give him notice thereof but as privately as may be lest the Greeks come to know 't is he that gives him the Patriarchal Church of Constantinople Elects and Confirms him Patriarch For this effect his Holyness must order him to betake himself to Constantinople where he will find Ambassadors already prepared by his Holyness who by the Presents they shall make the Turk on whom the Election and Confirmation of the Patriarch depends altho unjustly will obtain by adding something to the usual Tribute that he command the Greeks to choose for their Patriarch him whom his Holiness shall design They will no sooner demand this than obtain it for Mony will make the Tyrant do any thing as appears by the little Difficulty he makes of taking away the Patriarchal Dignity from those that have it already Moreover there ought to be no scruple made of this as if it were a kind of Simony For this is not a setting the Patriarchate upon Sale seeing his Holyness has already given it Money is only made use of to remove some Difficulties Now Divines are unanimous in their Opinions that we may free our selves from Vexations and Obstructions by means of Money Neither can it be alledged that hereby the Metropolitains will be deprived of their right of
Solution of it as will appear by what follows Now a Man cannot fall into a greater Error than to take for the cause of a Doubt that which is the Solution thereof and which makes the Doubt cease To Dispel then this vain Shadow under which he has disguised the Passage of Theophylact we need only examine the several Parts of this Author's Discourse and show their mutual Dependence Immediately treating on the Words of Christ he rejects the Sence of Figure Jesus Christ say's he in his Commentary on St. Comm. in Mat. c. 26. Mathew by these Words this is my Body shows us that the Bread which is Consecrated on the Altar is the Lord 's own Body and not an Antitype For he did not say This is the Antitype but this is my Body this Bread being changed by an ineffable Operation altho it appears to us to be still Bread He say's the same thing on the sixth Chapter of St. John and the fourteenth of St. Marc. So far he asserts that the Bread is the Body it self and Flesh of Christ but he does not explain after what manner it is so Now because from this Proposition thus generally conceived and not explained there may arise two difficulties one how the same thing can be Bread and Flesh th' other how it does not appear to us to be Flesh but Bread Theophylact proposes 'em both Com. in Joan. and resolves ' em He proposes the first in these Terms The Bread is changed into our Lord's Flesh by mystical Words by the mystical Blessing and coming of the Holy Spirit And let no body be troubled that he must believe the Bread is Flesh He resolves it by the Example of the Bread which Christ eat and which was changed into his Body and became like unto his Flesh in augmenting it and nourishing it The Lord say's he when as yet in the World receiving Ibid. his Nourishment from Bread this Bread he took was changed into his Body and became like unto his Flesh and contributed to augment and sustain it after a natural manner so in like sort this Bread is now changed into our Lord's Flesh IT is plain this Answer supposes that the Bread is made the Body of Christ by way of Augmentation and by a kind of Assimulation as the Bread which he eat whilst on earth became his Body Now first we see that this is not the Romane Transubstantiation The substance of Bread which the Lord eat was not changed into the same Substance which he had before it was joyned unto it and made like it But moreover what relation has this with the Difficulty which Theophylact proposed to himself Is it not evident that it must be solved after another manner supposing he believed Transubstantiation For it must be said that the Bread is not Flesh but only as it is really and substantially converted into the same Substance of this Flesh The Romish Hypothesis would unavoidably lead him to this but instead of this he answers by an Example wherein Transubstantiation is not concern'd and this shows clearly that he had not this Transubstantiation in his Thoughts AS to the second Difficulty which consists in that if the Bread were Flesh it would appear Flesh as it may equally spring both from the Solution which he came from giving to the first Doubt to wit the Comparison of the Bread which Christ eat which was changed into his Flesh and from the general Proposition he established in the beginning to wit that the Bread is the Flesh and the Body it self of Jesus Christ not his Image he considers it likewise as coming from both one and the other of these two Principles He proposes it in his Commentaries on St. John as arising from the Solution he had given it For having related this Comparison of the Bread Christ eat which became his Body he adds how then can it be said Why does it appear to us to be Bread and not Flesh In effect if it be the same with the Bread of the Eucharist as that which Christ eat it seems it ought appear to us to be Flesh as the other did To this Theophylact answers that if it appeared Flesh to us we should be struck with Horror at the sight of it It is say's he to the end we may not conceive Horror in the eating of it For if it appeared to us to be Flesh we could not but abhor the Communion It is then by an effect of God's Condescention to our Weakness that the Mystical Food appears to us to be such as we are used to This Answer suffers us to conclude that 't is not the Physical or Natural from of Flesh which is communicated to the Eucharistical Bread but the other For if it received the Physical Form as the Bread Christ eat did it would appear Flesh as well as that Bread did All this agrees still very well with the Greeks Hypothesis BUT some will reply this Answer is short for it does not sufficiently explain what is this other Form which the Eucharistical Bread receives and which makes it the Body of Christ I reply the Answer would be short indeed had not Theophylact clearly explained himself thereon in his Commentary on St. Marc wherein he proposed the same doubt as arising from the general Proposition that the Bread is Flesh This Bread say's he is not a Figure of our Lord's Body but it is changed into the Lord's Body The Bread which I shall give is my Flesh He does not say 't is the Figure of my Flesh but my Flesh And in another place if you eat not the Flesh of the Son of Man But it will be replied how does it not appear to be Flesh O man 't is because of thine Infirmities For because the Bread and Wine are Food familiar to us and that we are not able to suffer Blood and Flesh before us God full of Mercy in Condescension to our Weakness conserves the Species of Bread and Wine but changes them into the VIRTUE OF HIS FLESH AND BLOOD It is clear he means that our Weakness not suffering us to eat Bread which received the natural form of Flesh God conserves the Bread and Wine in their proper Species but to make them his Flesh and Blood imprints on them this supernatural Virtue Who sees not that the whole Scope of his Discourse tends to this The Bread is the real Flesh of Christ not its Representation because there must a proper Sence be given to our Lord's Words But if it really be this Flesh why does it not appear Flesh It is by an effect of God's Condescention which seeing we are not able to bear the sight of Flesh and Blood makes the Bread his Flesh not by an Impression of the substantial Form of Flesh but by an Impression of Virtue IT appears then from the Explication which I now gave to Theophylact's Discourse 1st That Mr. Arnaud has been strangely mistaken when he imagined that to expound him according to
regulating Theophylact's Sence by his Expressions besides this I say there is nothing can hinder us from saying that when he called the internal Essence of things their Virtue it was in respect of their Operation and Effects But this cannot be said of Theophylact for his Discourse does not concern the Effects of the Eucharist but only to know why the Bread being the Flesh of Christ yet does not appear Flesh If then he would say it is because the appearance of Bread remains and that its Substance is changed into the Substance of the Body of Christ to what purpose should he explain himself in this manner it is changed into the Virtue of the Body Why should he say Virtue for Substance seeing that here there was no Question raised about the Efficacy of the Sacrament MR. Arnaud's second Explication is no better than the first He tells us t is an usual way of speaking amongst the Greeks to say 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Strength or Power of Flesh to signifie the Flesh full of Efficacy But not to enter into the Discussion of his Criticism concerning which much might be said did he only pretend to prove it by two Verses of Horace by a Passage of Paschasius Ratbert and another of St. Bernard's I say that when Authors express themselves in this manner the Virtue of a thing to signify a thing full of Virtue or Efficacy 't is only when they consider this thing under the Idea of its Virtue or Efficacy and not otherwise Thus when Horace say's The Virtue of Scipio and the Wisdom of Lelius It is because he considered them under the Quality of Virtuous and Wise as we call the King his Majesty then when we are filled with the Idea of his Greatness It is the same in these Expressions 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Force or Rapidity of the River for a swift River 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the strength of Hercules for the valiant Hercules for then they are considered under the Idea of their Strength Our Saviour say's the Virtue of the Holy Spirit when he meant the Effects of the Power of the Holy Spirit on the Apostles St. Bernard say's likewise in the same Sence that the wise Men acknowledged the Virtue of God in the weak Body of a Child because he designed to oppose the eternal Power of the Divinity to the weakness of Childhood But there is no such thing in the Passage of Theophylact for he does not consider the Flesh of Christ in respect of the Effects which it displays on the Faithful but simply considers it in Reference to the Bread which is changed into it and the Point is not to know as I have already said why this Bread produces so great Effects but only why being Flesh it does not appear Flesh but Bread So that these two pretended Explications of Mr. Arnaud's are but mere Evasions being Groundless and Improbable AS to the third did ever any man see any thing more forc'd and Illusoâ—y than this whole Discourse he makes to establish it When the Bread say's he is changed into the Body of Christ it becomes full of its Virtue and Efficacy What means Mr. Arnaud by this If the Bread be changed into the Substance of Christ's Flesh it ceases to be Bread Now that which ceases to be is no longer filled with any thing because 't is absolutely no longer in being There remains only the external Figure and when we understand that 't is this external Figure that is filled we cannot say that that which is changed is filled for 't is not the Figure that is changed It is certain when a Mans Head is overy full of Philosophical Notions they make him forget himself IT sometimes happens adds he that Authors express these two Truths joyntly together as Euthymius has done But I already shewed that Euthymius in saying the Bread and Wine are changed into the Body and Blood and into the Virtue of both never designed thereby to express two different things but only made use of two different Expressions to signify one and the same thing the latter of which is only the Explication of the former his Et being to be taken for a that is to say MR. Arnaud goes on and say's that Theophylact having said several times the Bread is changed into the Body of Christ tells us once 't is changed into his Strength as an effect of the Mystery which makes it conceived intire But it is easy to answer him that when Theophylact say's the Bread is changed into the Body and that it is changed into the Virtue of the Body these are neither two distinct things nor two parts of the Mystery but two Expressions which signify at bottom but one and the same thing with this Difference that the one is general and th' other particular the one more confused and th' other more distinct the one which gives way in some sort to the Doubt by its generality and th' other which resolves it It is certain he has said several times the Bread is changed into the Body and only once ' that 't is changed into the Virtue of the Body but it is also true that he never said it is changed into the Substance of the Body If he only once spake of the Change of Virtue this once is sufficient to shew his meaning Others have mentioned it as well as he as Theodotus Cyrillus of Alexandria Victor of Antioch Eutychius Euthymius Ely de Crete Who could ever be perswaded all these Authors who lived in divers times have conspired together to say always Virtue and never Substance altho they had in their Thoughts a Change of Substance and not of Virtue THE Language of the Greeks is Conformable to that of Paschasius his Adversaries as he shews us himself in his Commentary on St. Mathew They said the Bread was changed into the Virtue of the Flesh of Christ and Paschasius is not so nice in his Language as Mr. Arnaud He neither say's the Virtue signifies Verity Reality internal Essence nor that the Virtue of the Flesh signifies the Flesh full of Virtue nor that 't is only one part of the Mystery which signifies the other All these Turnings were not in fashion in his time He very honestly takes this Term in the true Sence of those that used it I am astonished say's he at what some say now viz. that the Eucharist is not Paschas Rat. 6. in Mat. 26. the Flesh and Blood of Christ really but Sacramentally a certain Efficacy of the Flesh not the Flesh itself the Virtue of the Blood but not the Blood itself In this manner did they understand it who spake of a change of Virtue and thus was it taken by Paschasius But Mr. Arnaud has found that according to the Rules of his Grammar it must be taken otherwise and as if he were the sole Judg of mens Thoughts and Interpreter of their Sence he assures us that this
are so truly and not falsly So thâ—s Profession of Faith then means no more than this that we must believe the Bread and Wine are not vainly and imaginarily the Body and Blood of our Lord but really and truly altho God only knows how they are changed or what kind of Change happens to them Now this supposes on one hand that they are still Bread and Wine and on the other that we must not proceed so far as to a change of Substance MR. Arnaud then advertises the World to no purpose That these kind of Writings are design'd to represent the General Publick and Universal Sentiments of the Church and not the Particular Sentiment of Authors That they contain an P. 246. Exact Precise and Plain way of Speaking without Figure or Metaphor their End being only to give an Exact and True Account of Points of Faith It is easy to turn these Remarks against himself For seeing these kind of Writings speak Precisely and Exactly he ought to shew us Distinctly and Exactly the Conversion of Substances contained in them And seeing it is not to be found in them and yet this Profession of Faith represents the General Publick and Universal Sentiment of the Greek Church It follows that this Publick General and Universal Sentiment is not Transubstantiation TO little Purpose likewise does he add That the Church would not have the P. 247. Converted Sarracens believe that the Bread and Wine were not truly the Body and Blood of Christ but only his Figure indued with their Virtue This is not the Point the Question is to know whether they were taught the Conversion of Substances which is what he ought to show but this he will be never able to do For for to teach that the Bread and Wine are really the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ which is what is precisely contain'd in this Profession of Faith is not as as I have already said the teaching the Conversion of Substances Moreover I never told him the modern Greeks asserted the Eucharist to be a Figure And as to the Change of Virtue we do not prove it it is true by this Profession of Faith but we prove it by other Testimonies which are so plain and expressive that Mr. Arnaud can give no solid Answer to them THERE only remain now of all those pretended Proofs of Mr. Arnaud some Passages out of Cabasilas Bishop of Thessalonica Simeon Bishop also of Thessalonica Jeremias the Patriarch of Constantinople and some other Greek Authors They all say near upon the same thing which is That the Bread and Wine are the Body and Blood of Christ This very Body and Blood That they are changed into this Body and Blood But Mr. Arnaud must disabuse himself once for all touching the Thoughts he has that from these kind of Expressions may be concluded the Doctrine of the Conversion of Substances For so far are we from granting this Conclusion to be good that we pretend we have Reason to draw a contrary Consequence In effect 1st There is nothing more usual in Authors than to say That the Poor are Jesus Christ even Christ himself that the Church is the Body of Jesus Christ the very Body of Jesus Christ that we are changed into Jesus Christ changed into his Body transformed into him changed into his Flesh and such like ways of speaking Examples of which are infinite It is then a great Abuse to pretend these Terms are to be understood in a Sence of Identity and substantial Conversion as they term it For as I said elsewhere these Expressions being lyable to be Expounded in divers particular Sences and seeing they may be taken in a general and indistinct one there can be no Reason for the taking them in the Sence which Mr. Arnaud gives them II. THE Conversion of the Substances of Bread and Wine into those of the Body and Blood of Christ does of it self form so precise and distinct a Sence that when Authors would assert it they explain it in clear and distinct Terms which answer the distinct determinate Conception they have of it Whence it follows that if the Greek Authors had on this Subject the same Belief as the Roman Church they would explain themselves so clearly that there would be no need of running to the Baron of Spartaris nor Paysius Ligaridius nor yet to the six Syrian Priests to make us understand it FOR whilst he produces no other kind of Passages but such as these we shall have still Reason to conclude from hence that the Greeks do not believe Transubstantiation because if they did believe it they would without doubt speak otherwise of it III. BUT supposing these Reasons Invalid we have shewed when we treated of the real Belief of the Greeks in what Sence they understand these Expressions In effect if we compare the Doctrine of the Greeks with that of the Latins and throly comprehend what they hold in common and wherein they differ we shall easily perceive Mr. Arnaud's Sophism for whatsoever he alledges from Greek Authors respects this Equivocal part of their Hypothesis which he believed to be like that of the Latins altho at bottom 't is not so but he has studiously avoided the relating any thing concerning this other Part by which the two Hypothesis's distinguish themselves and vary from one another The Greeks and Latins agree in these general Expressions The Bread is made the Body of Jesus Christ The Bread is changed into the Body of Christ it becomes the very Body the proper Body the real Body of Christ They are not two Bodies but one Body So far you see they hold the same Language BUT go farther ask them whether the nature of Bread ceases to be The Latins answer there remains nothing of its Substance nor Matter nor inward Form but only the Accidents The Greeks on the contrary say That the Bread is joyned to the Divinity that from this Union results one composed of two Natures that there is made a Composition of Bread and the Holy Spirit Ask the Latins how the Bread is made the Body of Jesus Christ They Answer by the Conversion of its whole Substance into the Substance which this Body had before the Conversion The Greeks on the contrary say the Bread becomes an Augmentation of the natural Body of our Lord and is made by this means his Body Ask them what Change the Bread receives the Latins say it is a real Transubstantiation that is to say the change of one Substance into another The Greeks on the contrary answer that it is a Sanctification which the Bread receives and that it is changed into the Supernatural Virtue of Christ's Body Ask the Latins how the Bread becomes the real Body the very Body the proper Body of our Lord born of the Virgin Mary They answer 't is because in effect the same numerical Substance without any Difference The Greeks on the contrary say that 't is because an Augmentation makes not another Body
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
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
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
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
is the Image of our Body nor our Body by Institution but that it becomes our Proper Body not another but the same we had before THIS Point being thus cleared up it is easy to perceive why these Persons deny'd the Eucharist to be an Image For it was not because they believed the Substance of Bread did not remain or imagined it 't was absolutely and by a numerical Identity as the Church of Rome speaks the same substance of the Natural Body but because they believed that the Bread keeping its proper Substance became the proper Body of our Lord by this way of Growth or Augmentation in receiving the Impression of his Supernatural Virtue so that in this Respect it was the same thing with them whether the Bread was Virtually the Body of Christ or properly They found then that the simple Notion of Image was inconsistent with that of Propriety and thereupon denyed the Eucharist to be an Image or Representation THEY Argued from the same Principle when they said 't is not possible these Gifts could be both The Body and the Image of the Body and being the Body they could not be the Image of them For they believed the Term of Image excluded this propriety of Virtue which they established and that to call them Image was to regard them in no other manner than that wherein they were before their Consecration IT is easy to perceive that their Arguing on the Discourse of the Fathers of Constantinople is but a mere Sophism For besides that these Fathers termed not the Eucharist the proper Body of Christ and consequently could not be charged with Contradiction nor told Si imago est non potest esse hoc Divinum besides this I say all their Subtilty lyes in a mere Quible about Words They will not receive the Term of Imago and yet admit those of Representation a Remembrance and Symbol as Mr. Arnaud himself acknowledges We do not call say's Theodorus Graptus an Author of the ninth Century Origin rerumque Constantinopl variis autor manipulus a Francis Combefix ubi supra the sacred Mysteries of Christ the Images of his Body altho they become Symbols thereof 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Nicephorus say's the same thing We do not call these Gifts either Images or Figures of this Body altho they be Representations thereof Which shews they regarded more the manner of expressing the Thing than the Thing it self BUT let us see what Advantage Mr. Arnaud pretends to draw hence P. 664. 665. First he endeavours to prove that these Authors who wrote against the Iconoclastes did not believe 't was contrary to the notion of an Image to contain the Virtue of the Original nor established this Principle The Image is not the thing it represents in this Sence here The Image is not virtually the thing it represents For say's he In the same place wherein they establish this Principle the Image is not the thing it self which it represents they bring Instances of Images which contain really the Virtue of their Original and even its Essence Nicephorus the Patriarch of Constantinople who Refutes the Iconoclastes by the same Argument by which the second Council of Nice say's That that which is the Image of a thing cannot be its Body for every Image is another thing than what it represents It is True adds he That the Scripture calls the Son the Image of the Father but he is likewise distinguished from him by an Hypostasis and Person I Answer Nicephorus his Sence is that to exclude the Notion of Image we must say it is the thing it self And on the contrary to establish it there must be no means left to say it is the thing it self Now altho the Son hath the same Nature and Essence as the Father yet we cannot say he is the Father for they are different Persons So the Son may be well called the Image of the Father But altho the Eucharist be not in Substance the Body of Christ and contains only its Virtue yet we may very well say it is this very Body because an Augmentation does not make another Body than that which was before but is the same and thus the Eucharist cannot be called an Image BUT say's Mr. Arnaud The Son contains the Virtue of the Father Nicephorus understands not then his own Principle That the Image is not the thing Ibid. which it represents in Mr. Claude's fantastical Sence that it is not virtually the thing whose Image it is For it would necessarily follow hence that the Son of God is not an Image seeing he contains not only the Virtue but the very Essence of his Father This must necessarily follow according to Mr. Arnaud but not according to right Reason For it is true the Son contains the Essential Virtue of the Father as being not the Image of his Essence but he does not contain the personal Virtue of it for he has not the Virtue of begetting another Son nor according to the Greeks that of the Emanation of the Holy Spirit and consequently he may well be called the Image of the Father's Person Had Nicephorus understood his Principle in this Sence no Image is in Substance the thing it represents as Mr. Arnaud supposes he did and as in Effect he must understand it to add But the Eucharist is in Substance the Body of Christ it is not then the Image of it It would sooner and more naturally follow that the Son of God would be in no wise an Image for he most really contains the Nature Essence and Substance of his Father Nicephorus adds Mr. Arnaud Supposes the Eucharist is not really distinguished from the Body of Christ and thereby proves that it is not the Figure Ibid. of it Si igitur Sanctum corpus quod in communione sumitur imago Christi est aliud dicitur esse praeter corpus Christi That is to say if the Eucharist were an Image it would be really a distinct thing from the Body of Christ But it is not distinct from it Therefore it is not an Image Nicephorus will suppose the Eucharist is not a real distinct thing from the Body of Christ when we admit Mr. Arnaud's that is to say but he will not suppose it when we shall consider that the Proposition he rejects is this Sanctum corpus in communione quod sumitur est aliud praeter corpus Christ The Holy Body we receive in the Communion is something else besides the Body of Christ and that the contrary Proposition which he establishes is Sanctum corpus quod in communione sumitur non est aliud praeter corpus Christi The Holy Body we receive in the Communion is nothing elce but the Body of Christ That is to say in a Word that they are not two Bodies but one because the Growth of a Body does not make another Body But this is not to say but that there is a true and real Difference between the Substance which encreases a
thing and the thing it self which is encreased The Bishops of Nice and Nicephorus say's moreover Mr. Arnaud did they not know that the Water of Baptism and Oyl are the Figure of the Holy Spirit according to the Fathers which made Aubertin himself say Docent veteres aquam oleum post consecrationem repraesentare spiritum sanctum And were they ignorant that they contained and communicated the Virtue of it It is strange a Person so confident of his own Abilities should be so grosly mistaken in what he alledges concerning Mr. Aubertin and not observed that in this place Mr. Aubertin takes the Term of Repraesentare in the Sence which Cardinal Perron gives it for Praesens reddere exhibere that is to say for to make present give communicate and not for to figurate as appears thro the whole Sequel of his Discourse The Question concerned a Passage of Tertullian which bears That Christ represents his Body by the Bread Cardinal Perron alledged that by Represent we must understand make Present Communicate Exhibit Mr. Aubertin having shewed that this Expression was used by the Fathers to signify to Figure supposes Perron's Sence to be good and shews thereupon that the Passage out of Tertullian does notwithstanding overthrow Transubstantiation for it must still be said that the Bread remains Bread And because it might be answered that by the Bread we may understand Albertin de Sacram. Euchar Lib. 2. Pag. 322. the Accidents of Bread He Refutes this Evasion and say's Docent veteres aquam oleum post consecrationem repraesentare spiritum sanctum sicut ait Tertullianus pane repraesentaricorpus Christi sic enim Cyrillus sive Author Catecheseon illi tributatum oleum post invocationem c. Christi Spiritus sancti charisma est divinitatis ipsius praesentiae operativum Sic Basilius Ambrosius in aqua Baptismi praesentiam spiritus esse asserunt Nec tamen quis dixerit per oleum aquam intelligenda esse accidentia olei aquae Whence it appears that Mr. Arnaud can be mistaken as well as other People for this Passage of Mr. Aubertin cannot be alledged to prove the Fathers taught that Baptism and Oyl are the Figures of the Holy Spirit but by a very great Mistake BUT to proceed I say it is not sufficient to shew what the Fathers taught concerning Baptism and Oyl it must be shewed that Nicephorus and the Council of Nice have expresly called them Images of the Holy Spirit for otherwise there can be nothing concluded in respect of them They knew say's he that they are the Figure of the Holy Spirit according to the Fathers But they might likewise as well know that the Eucharist is the Figure and Image of the Body of Christ according to the Fathers and yet they for all that deny it and affirm none of the Fathers so term it after Consecration Moreover Nicephorus and the Fathers of Nice may tell him that whatsoever Virtue accompanies Baptism and Oyl yet they are not made the Growth of the Holy Spirit as the Bread and Wine of the Eucharist are made the Growth of the Body and Blood of Christ and consequently they are not Virtually the same thing WHAT Mr. Arnaud adds That they themselves made use of the Miracles Ibid. wrought by Images to establish the Worship of them and that the Author of the Theory of Ecclesiastical Matters say's That the unconsecrated Bread which is the Type of the Virgin Mary ' s Body communicated to those that participated of it an ineffable Benediction This I say does not deserve an Answer for it does not appear these People ever attributed to Images a supernatural Virtue ordinarily residing in them which might make them say that the Images are changed into the Virtue of Christ or his Saints much less that the Image is a Growth of Christ or his Saints And as to the Bread which according to Germain is the Type of the Virgin Marry's Body the ineffable Benediction which he say's it communicates is not the Virtue of the Virgin 's Body of which it is the Type NEITHER does it in fine signify any thing to say That the Figure refers P. 665. it self to the Original and not to the Virtue that it is opposite to the Original that 't is from the Original from which 't is distinguished that when it is deprived of Virtue it is by Accident and that 't is every whit as ridiculous to say a Figure ceases to be a Figure because it becomes Efficacious as to say a Statue ceases to be a Statue when it is gilt For it is true that the first and most natural Opposition is between the Figure and the Original and that the Figure is only opposed to the Virtue inasmuch as that by the Impression of Virtue a thing becomes in some sort the Original in a proper Sence Thus the Food we eat becomes in some sort in a proper Sence the Body we had before altho it be in effect of a distinct Substance or Matter seeing it is not the same Substance or the same Matter in number but an addition to our former Substance yet do we oppose it to the Figure and say 't is not the Image of our Body but our Body our proper Body the very Body which we had before and not another Now it is thus the Fathers of Nice oppose the Figure to the Eucharistical Bread and say it ceases to be a Figure to wit then when by the Impression of the supernatural Virtue of our Lord's Body it becomes this proper Body not another as we have already a thousand times explained AND this is what Mr. Arnaud has said of most Moment touching the second Council of Nice and other Adversaries of the Iconoclastes What he after adds consists only in Repetitions or Matters of small Importance and Lib. 7. c. 6. p. 678. which may be easily Refuted by his own Words For Example what he say's touching the Water of Baptism and Oyl that they are Figures which contain Virtue is an Objection he has several times made and which we have already answered What he say's touching the State of an Image that it has C. 6. p. 674. not any Inconsistency in it self neither Real nor Apparent with a Consecration which would fill the Bread and Wine with the Virtue of Christ's Body has been already refuted For in the Sence of the Greeks the State of Image is Inconsistent with what the Bread and Wine become by the Impression they receive from the Virtue of Christ's Body because they become in a certain Sence the proper Body and Blood of Christ So that whatsoever Mr. Arnaud say's in general touching the two States the one Consistent and the other Inconsistent has no Foundation We know there are Consistent and Inconsistent States but the Question is whither the Greeks might not believe without being Extravagant and Senceless that there was an Inconsistency between these two Expressions The Eucharist is the
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
own accord to forsake it than to be forced to it by a considerable number of Authoritys I confess this acknowledgment of Mr. Arnauds is praise-worthy but this confident Assertion of the Author of the Perpetuity is not so for altho a retractation is a vertuous effect yet methinks a man ought to be sparing in this particular But to go on with our Proofs THE Second shall be taken from the Testimony of Pope John 22. The Historian Raynaldus relates that in his time not only the Armenians which dwelt in Cilicia and Armenia embraced the Doctrines of the Roman Church but those also that were driven out by the Saracens and were withdrawn into Chersonnesus Taurique submitted themselves to the Bishop of Capha who was a Latin That he received them in the name of the Roman Church That the Pope thereupon congratulated them and shewed them that in the Divine Mysteries the substance of Bread and Wine were changed into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ and that there ought to be mingled some Water with the Wine before it be consecrated He afterwards produces this Popes Letter to the Arch-Bishop and Armenian Priests which were in the Diocess of Capha We have receiv'd says Pope John great satisfaction in Understanding how the Almighty Creator displaying his virtue in you has enlightned your minds with the Knowledge of his saving Grace and in that you have vowed to keep the Catholick faith which the Holy Roman Church truly holds which she faithfully Teaches and Preaches and that you have promised Obedience to the Roman Prelate and his Church in the presence of our Reverend Brother Jerome Bishop of Capha And therefore we earnestly desire that holding the saving Doctrines of this Church you likewise observe its Ceremonies especially in what relates to the most excellent of the Sacraments which is the ineffable Sacrament of the Altar For altho all the other Sacraments confer sanctifying Grace yet in this is contained intirely Jesus Christ Sacramentally under the species of Bread and Wine which remain the Bread being Transubstantiated into the Body of Jesus Christ and the Wine into his Blood Then he tells them they must mingle water with the wine in the Chalice because this mixture is a Commemoration of our Lords Death and of the Blood and Water which gushed out from his side 'T is evident that this Pope applyes himself only to these two Articles because the Armenians held neither of them and that in reference to them it was a new Doctrine and Ceremony in which they had need to be instructed For to what purpose should Transubstantiation be recommended to them if they before held it for a fundamental point of their Ancient Religion Why must all the other points of Controversy between the two Churches be laid aside as that of the Procession of the Holy Spirit the two Natures of our Saviour Christ Purgatory Confirmation and several others to stick wholly to Transubstantiation and the mixture of Water The thing declares it self MR. Arnaud who is of all men in the World the most ready at proofs makes one of this The Pope says he so little distrusted the Armenians believed not Transubstantiation that altho he proposes it to them expresly yet he Lib. 5. Ch. 6. p. 469. does it only occasionally and by way of principle to assert the Wine ought to be mixt with Water And this last particular is that to which he particularly applys himself and which is the Capital or Summary of his Letter whereas had he had the least thought that the Armenians believed not Transubstantiation he would without doubt have set about proving it and that with more care and earnestness than he does the mixture of Water in the Chalice MR. Arnaud must pardon me if I tell him 't is not true that the Pope does only occasionally mention Transubstantiation and by way of principle to establish the mixture of Water Raynaldus who relates this affair gives a better account of it than he ipsos instruxit says he ut in divinis mysteriis substantia panis et vini integris speciebus cum Christi corpore et sanguine commutaretur et vino consecrando aqua modica affundenda esset I believe I do not do ill in opposing against Mr. Arnaud's Illusion a truth attested by an Historian that faithfully relates the matter without the least regard to our dispute Moreover what can be more unreasonable than to say as Mr. Arnaud do's that the Pope proposes Transubstantiation only occasionally and by way of Principle to establish thereby the putting of Water into the Cup What Relation is there between these two things it do's not follow from the believing of Transubstantiation that Water must be put in the Chalice nor that those which do not do it oppose this Doctrine These are two distinct points which have their Proofs apart without any Coherence or mutual dependence and there cannot be perhaps any thing imputed to a Pope less beseeming the Dignity and Infallibility of the Head of the Church than to make him argue after this manner The Bread and Wine are Transubstantiated therefore you must put Water into the Chalice Mr. Arnaud ought to be more careful of the Honour of this Prelate and observe that Transubstantiation and the mixture of Water are not in his Discourse a kind of Principle and Conclusion this would be Ridiculous but a Doctrine and Practice which the Pope recommends to the Armenians to the end they may be henceforward conformable to the Roman Church in the subject of the Sacrament of the Altar and thus Raynaldus understood it who has been more sincere in this than Mr. Arnaud As to that minute observation that the Pope do's more insist on the mixture of Water than on Transubstantiation it is not worthconsidering for this proceeds not from the cause Mr. Arnaud imagins but only from the Popes declaring to the Armenians the mystical significations of this mixture which required some Discourse and which Raynaldus has well observed whodistinguishesthesethree particulars in the Popes Letter Transubstantiation the Mixture of Water and the mystical significations Ipsos instruxit ut indivinis mysteriis substantia panis vini integris speciebus cum Christi corpore sanguine commutaretur vino consecrando aqua modica affun denda esset acdivina ea re adumbratra mysteria aperuit that is to say he taught 'em the Doctrine of Transubstantiation the mixture of Water and shewed them the mysteries represented by this mixture MY third Proof is taken from the information which Benedict XII Successor to John the XXII caused to be made touching the Errours of the Armenians not at Rome as Mr. Arnaud has asserted through a mistake of which inadvertency were I guilty how severe would he be upon me but at Avignon where he kept his seat and whence his Bull is dated The 67 Article Raynauld ad Ann. 1341. is exprest in these Terms The Armenians do not say that after the words
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
as a Saint altho he was condemned In fine that they added the sign of the Cross to the Triasagios after the manner of Hereticks How many other Doctrines and Customs have the Armeuians besides these four Articles which the Roman Church do's not approve of They hold the Opinions of Eutyches They do not hold the Doctrine of the Propagation of Original sin They deny Purgatory They still offer Sacrifices after the manner of the Jews They condemn third Marriages for as bad as Fornication They deny the Sacrament of Confirmation They do not hold the Consecration of the Bread is made by the only words of Jesus Christ They believe the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone and several other Points which seperate 'um from the Latins and of which neither Gregory VII Eugenius III. nor Othon of Trisinga make any mention Which shews there can be drawn no Conclusion from their silence and that Mr. Arnaud may better employ his time than in collecting these kind of Proofs THE V. is taken from some expressions of a Catholick of Armenia Ibid. p. 460. who say's in the conference of Theorien that the Wine becomes by Consecration the Blood of Jesus Christ and that the Son of God is Sacrificed within the Church for the Salvation of the World But this Proof is too weak to confirm what Mr. Arnaud pretends For first we have already shewed him that this Catholick spake of his own head and not from his Church And moreover what he say's do's neither conclude the real Presence nor Transubstantiation The Wine becomes by its Consecration the Blood of Jesus Christ in representation and mystery according to the exposition which the Armenians themselves give to these ways of speaking as we have seen in the foregoing Chapter and the Son of God is Sacrificed in the Church in Commemortion inasmuch as the action of the Eucharist is a Mystery which represents his death Let Mr. Arnaud consult if he pleases the Marginal Note which is on the side of this last passage and he will find the solution of his Difficulty The Greek Text has 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Latin Mactatur intus Theorien Dial. adver Armen Dei filius pro totius mundi salute and the Marginal Note hoc est representatur in sacra caena mactatio Christi THE VI. Proof is taken from that during the Croisado's the Popes Ibid. pag. 462. held a lasting and strict Union with the Church of Armenia That the Catholick of Armenia yielded obedience to Pope Eugenius III. That this Union was confirmed under Innocent III. who sent a Crown to Leo King of Armenia and that as well this King as Gregory the Patriarch of Armenia sent an Ambassador to Innocent to acknowledge the Primacy of the Roman Church That there were Alliances made between the Latin Princes and those of Armenia That Pope Innocent excommunicated the King of Armenia at the request of the Templars and some time after gave him Absolution That this Union lasted during Gregory IX his time and Clement VI. BUT what is this but a telling of Stories and copying out of Raynadus at any rate If the proof which Mr. Arnaud pretends to draw from this Union be sufficient to conclude the Armenians were conformable to the Church of Rome in the Doctrines of the real Presence and Transubstantiation 't will be sufficient to conclude likewise that they were conformable to her in all the other Points concerning which we do not find the Popes ever troubled themselves to correct them or make the least inquiries about them They were satisfyed in the Kings and Patriachs of Armenia's acknowledging their Authority hoping by this means to introduce hereafter quietly amongst them the Religion and Ceremonies of the Latins and in the mean time made use of 'em in other occasions The Kings of Armenia on the other hand were very ready to give the Popes encouragement to believe they would reduce their Kingdoms to the obeysance of the Roman See and in the mean time procured the assistance and protection of the Latins whose power was then Formidable throughout the whole East But this did not hinder the Armenians from keeping still their Doctrines and Customs as appears by what we have seen in the preceeding Chapter of John XXII Benedict XII and Clement VI. The 79 Article of the information of Benedict expresly mentions That the Priests and Bishops of Armenia enjoyned a pennance during some years to those that had bin Baptized by the Latins and condemned them to undergo a 5 years pennance who had received from them the other Sacrament And the 86 Article That the Armenians say and hold that since the Council of Chalcedon the Roman Prelate has no more Authority over them which are under him then the Patriarch of the Nestorians over the Nestorians or the Greek Patriarch over the Greeks that the Pope knows his own power and the Armenians likewise theirs And the 99th Article that the Armenians persecute those amongst them who have been Baptised according to the form of the Latins and hold the Faith of the Roman Church and that they say the Roman Church Errs and that they Armenians keep the true and Catholick Faith And the 117 th Article That the Armenians keep not the true Faith which the Roman Church holds nor its Sacraments and Blasphemes against the Roman Church the Pope and his Cardinals saying they are Hereticks That the Catholick of Armenia minor say'd the Pope and Cardinals destroyed more Men every day than they had Hairs on their heads And altho they preach against Simony yet do they grant no favour without committing it that as to them Armenians they had all of 'um kept themselves undefiled in Armenia minor except the King and some Persons of Quality who held the Roman Faith 'T is then to no purpose for Mr. Arnaud to tell us that Innocent III. and the other Popes would not have held so strict a Union with the Armenian Church had they believed the Armenians were Berengarians seeing they did at the same time stir up all France against the Albingenses and caused 'um to be exterminated with Fire and Sword These excellent Reasons do not hinder but that the Armenians held still all their Opinions contrary to the Doctrines of the Roman Church under the Popedom of Benedict XII And II. that amongst those Opinions that which denys Transubstantiation and the real Presence is plainly remarked III. That altho the Kings and some Persons of Quality embraced the Roman Religion yet the Body of the Armenian Church kept to their Ancient Religion even to the blaspheming the Roman Church the Pope and his Cardinals according to the Terms of the Article which I now mention'd IV. In fine it will not be found that Innocent III. or any other Pope required of the Armenians any particular Renunciation of their Errors be they what they will It seems either these Popes supposed the Armenians had absolutely the same Faith as the Roman
Church or dissembled these Errors in hopes as I already say'd that in establishing their Authority in Armenia they might introduce amongst them the Religion of the Latins by means of their Emissaries which the Kings favoured and to whom some Bishops gave liberty to preach as appears by the 78 Article of the Information of Benedict The Catholick of Armenia minor say's this Article Consecrating Six Bishops has drawn from them a Publick Act in which they solemnly promise to suffer no longer their Youth to learn the Latin Tongue and to give no more liberty to the Latin Preachers who Preach the Faith of the Holy Roman Church in their Diocess or Province Moreover he obliges every Bishop he Consecrates to Anathematise the Armenians that desire to become true Catholicks and obey the Roman Church He forbids them to Preach that the Pope of Rome is the Head of the Eastern Church and calls himself Pope acting in this quality in the Eastern Countrys from the Sea to Tartaria AS to what Mr. Arnaud tells us concerning James de Vitry and Brocard's Ibid. p. 46â— 466. silence who impute not to the Armenians the denying of Transubstantiation we may answer him that their silence ought not to come in competition with the Testimony of so many Authors who expresly affirm they deny it Moreover Brocard speaks not of their Opinions and James de Vitry takes notice only of the Ceremonies and Rites which appertain to the external part of their Religion without mentioning any thing of their Doctrines But Mr. Arnaud who comes and offers us as a Demonstrative Proof of the Union of the Armenians with the Popes in the time of the Croisado's ought not to conceal what James de Vitry has written on this Subject altho the Armenians say's he promised obedience to the Soveraign Prelate Jacob a Vitriuco histor Orient cap. 79. and Roman Church when their King receiv'd the Kingdom from the Emperour Henry and the Regal Crown from the hands of the Arch-Bishop of Mayence yet would they not part with any of their Ancient Ceremonies or Customs And these were their Reunions with the Roman Church 'T IS true there was in those Times one of their Kings named Hayton who marvellously favoured the Latins and perhaps 't was he of whom Mr. Arnaud speaks who took on him at last the Habit of St. Francis But be it as it will this King did all he could to introduce the Roman Religion into Armenia but in vain Observe here the words of the Information of Benedict Art 116. A King of Armenia called Hayton assembled all the Doctours and Bishops of his Kingdom together with the Patriarch to unite 'um to the Roman Church and dispute with the Legat which the Roman Church had sent But the dispute being ended the King acknowledged the Truth was on the Romanists side and that the Armenians were in an Error and therefore ever since the Kings of Armenia minor have embrac'd the faith of the Roman Church Yet were not the Bishops Doctours and Princes satisfied with this and after the departure of the Legat a Doctor named Vartan wrote a Book against the Pope and his Legat and against the Roman Church in which he calls the Pope a Proud Pharaoh who with all his Subjects are drowned in the Sea of Heresy He says that Pharaoh ' s Embassadour meaning the Legat returned home with shame c. 'T is to be observed that this Book of Dr. Vartan's altho full of passionate Invectives against the Pope and his Church yet was receiv'd in Armenia as if it had bin the Canons of the Apostles WHICH considered I see no reason to prize so much these feign'd Submissions which the Kings of Armenia have sometimes yielded to the Pope by their Embassadors as for instance such as was that of King Osinius paid to John XXII by a Bishop who in the name of the King and his Kingdom made such a profession of faith as they desired To make this a proof as Mr. Arnaud do's is either to be ignorant or dissemble the Genius of this Nation The Armenians in the exigency of their affairs made no scruple to send to the Pope Persons that promised him whatsoever he desired but as soon as ever the danger was over and they had obtain'd of the Latins what they desired they made a mock at their promises as Clement VI. reproaches them in his Letters to the King and Catholick of Armenia as we have already observed in the preceding Chapter WHICH has bin well observed by the Author of the Book called the Ambassage of Dr. Garcias de Sylva Figueroa The Religion say's he The Ambassage of Dr. Garcias de Sylva Figueroa Translated by Mr. de Vicqfort p. 193. of the Inhabitants of the new Zulpha who are Armenians by birth is the Christian together with the Opinions which the Pope suffers them to retain But to speak the truth there are very few that reverence or acknowledge the Pope almost all of 'um obstinately retaining their own ancient Religion For altho several of the Bishops and Priests of their Nation that have passed over into Europe moved thereunto by their extream poverty their expences in travelling and intollerable persecutions of the Turks during the continual Wars between them and the Persians have often offered to obey the Roman Church yet when this was to be concluded they have still fallen off and refused to acknowledg any other Authority than that of their Patriarch obstinately retaining their ancient Ceremonies and Liturgys This has bin the perpetual complaint of the Latins But Mr. Arnaud has imagined this a secret to us THERE is perhaps more heed to be given to what he alledges touching a certain Person named Gerlac who belonged to the Ambassador sent from the Emperour to Constantinople about an hundred years since This Gerlac relates in one of his Letters a Discourse he had in matters of Religion with the Patriarch of the Armenians at Constantinople and amongst other things he tells us They hold that the real Body of Jesus Christ is present in the Sacrament in its proper Substance He means the same as they of the Ausbourg Confession In caena Domini verum Substantiale Corpus Sanguinem Christi adesse dicunt sed videntur Transubstantiationem probare But upon the reading of this Letter it will soon appear that this Patriarch with whom he discoursed gave him his own private sentiments and not the Doctrines of the Armenian Religion For he tells him that he believed and confessed that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son contrary to what the Greeks hold Yet do's it appear from the constant testimony of Authors who treated of the Opinions of the Armenians that they hold the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone and are in this particular at accord with the Greeks against the Latins So say's Guy Carmes the information of Benedict XII Prateolus Breerewood and several others and therefore the first thing Eugenius
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
proved We may reply in general that there can be nothing of solidity or certainty concluded from either of these Churches whether we consider them since their separation or during their Reunion The Latins believed the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son and they added the filioque to the Symbol long before the Separation of Photius and yet the Churches continued United without disputing on these Articles as they did afterwards 'T is the same in reference to several other points and had not the interest as well of the Popes as of Photius bin concerned in this affair 't is likely both of 'um had continued a long time in the same state of communion together notwithstanding all these differences 'T is then a mere abuse to establish the Doctrine of the Latin Church by that of the Greek one or that of the Greek one by that of the Latin whatsoever Union there might have bin betwixt them He that would be certain of their sentiments must consider each of 'um apart and search for the belief of the Western Church in the West and that of the Eastern in the East Not but that I believe the Latins as well as the Greeks knew nothing of these admirable Doctrines of Transubstantiation or the Substantial Presence in the Ages now in question but because I cannot see how there can be reasonably drawn a Consequence from the one to the other And yet supposing the Consequence were good it cannot but be in my favour having shewed so clearly as I have done that the Greeks have not the same belief touching the Sacrament as the Roman Church has at this Day LET us lay aside for this time the Greeks seeing we have discoursed sufficiently on them and come we to the Latins themselves I will undertake Lib. 8. Ch. 1. pag 736. say's Mr. Arnaud positively to shew from Authors of these Centuries that the Body of the Latin Church has had no other Faith touching this Mystery than that of the real Presence and Transubstantiation I confess the undertaking is considerable and worth Mr. Arnaud's pains but we must see how he acquits himself therein For this purpose he has a long Chapter of preparatives whose title is supposing the real Presence and Transubstantiation were constantly and universally believed during the seventh eigth and ninth Century how men ought to speak of the Mystery of the Eucharist according to Reason and Nature and the ordinary way of their expressing themselves This Chapter is full of long discourses whose drift is to perswade us that provided we suppose the Latin Church firmly believed Transubstantiation there being then no dispute about this Article we shall not be offended at several expressions arsing from Sence which caused the Eucharist to be called Bread and Wine the Substance of Bread and Wine that it would be even contrary to Nature not to find in the Writings of these Ages any Traces of this Language of sense and that a too great care to avoid it would not at all agree with the state of those times Moreover all which can be expected is that the Writers of those times have explain'd themselves in terms which plainly and naturally denote the Faith of this Mystery and imprint the idea of it in the minds of all those which hear them litterally That the firm belief which they had of the Reality should only have hindred them from ever proposing any of the Opinions of the Sacramentaries That as to the doubts which arise from this Mystery they have not wholly dissembled them but endeavoured to satisfie 'um after a prudent manner in saying the Eucharist is truely and properly the Body of Jesus Christ That this expression explains and determines the simple expressions which affirm the Eucharist to be the Body of Jesus Christ That they abridged their words and left something to be supplyed by the minds of those they spake to That the Mystery of the Eucharist being composed of two parts th' one visible and th' other invisible th' one sensible and th' other intelligible that is to say of the outward vail which is the Sacrament and of the Body of Jesus Christ covered with this vail it may be considered in three manners The first is to respect it directly and the Body of Jesus Christ indirectly The second is to respect directly the Body of Jesus Christ and the Sacrament indirectly And the third is to consider equally the Sacrament and the Body of Jesus Christ That from these three ways of considering this Mystery there arise several different expressions for according to the first it may be call'd the Sacrament of the Body of Jesus Christ the Mystery of the Body of Jesus Christ the Figure of the Body and according to the second be said that the Body of Jesus Christ is contained in the Mystery in the Sacrament under the Figure of Bread and Wine and according to the third that the Eucharist is both the Reality and the Figure That 't is Natural for a mans mind to apply it self to one of these particulars without denying the other In fine that as this Mystery comprehends several Relations Customs Benefits and Senses which are ingraved and represented in the Symbols it must needs be very common with Authors of those times to apply themselves to the shewing the faithful these mysterious Significations without concerning themselves about the explanation of the essential part of the mystery seeing 't was known of all the World AND this is the sum of this confused heap of Arguments with which Mr. Arnaud has stuft the Second Chapter of his 8th Book 'T is evident he design'd by these Circuits propofed with such a prodigious Perplexity of Words to throw himself into a Labyrinth and draw insensibly his Readers after him For to what end is this heap of Suppositions Propositions Reflections Distinctions different Respects Ways of Expression c. with which this Chapter is crammed Is Transubstantiation so deep sunk into the 7th and following Centuries that we cannot get at it unless we pass thro as many Turnings and Windings as there were Porches and Doors in the Ancient Temple of Jerusalem before a man could come to the Sanctuary Methinks this alone is sufficient to prejudice ones Mind against Mr. Arnaud's Cause for had the Latin Church then believed the Conversion of the Substances would she not have clearly explain'd her self should we not have seen it appear in the Expressions of its Doctors without giving a mans self all this trouble to find it MOREOVER how can Mr. Arnaud desire a man before he judges of his Reasonings and the Expressions of Authors in question to suppose the Church then believed constantly and universally the real Presence and Transubstantiation altho she never had seen any Controversy to arise touching these Articles Is it fitting for those who are to decide a Question to prepossess themselves with Prejudices by Suppositions which do in themselves determine the Difference or which
far as the salutiferous waters There the Tyrant was drowned in the Sea here the Devil is suffocated in the water of Salvation THOSE that considered the effect of the consecration of the Bread which makes it to be really and not by a simple imagination the mystery of our Lord's Body might they not say that 't is truly the Body of Jesus Christ the Body of Jesus Christ in truth not to insinuate it to be so in proper substance but to signifie its being the mystical Body of Jesus Christ is not a thing which has no other foundation than our own imagination but that which is grounded on the things themselves either because our Saviour Christ has thus ordained it in instituting his Holy Sacrament in the Church or forasmuch as the Eternal Father has ratifi'd this Institution or that the Holy Spirit really descends on the Bread to consecrate it An adopted Son considering his adoption was real and not illusory or conceited may rightly say that he is truly the Son of such a one and in this sense every faithful person may say with assurance he is truly the Son of God 'T is in this same sense that S. Basil tells us That if our flesh be worthy of God it becomes Basil in Ps 14. Theophyl in Joan. 10. Cyril Hieroscal myst 3. Hierom in Epist ad Gal. c. 4. truly his Tabernacle And Theophylact That the Jews were truly blind in respect of the Soul And Cyril of Jerusalem That we have been truly anointed by the Holy Spirit and that Jesus Christ is truly the Primitiae and we the mass or lump And S. Hierom That we be all truly one Bread in Jesus Christ For they would say not that these titles of Tabernacle and Blind this Unction these Primitioe this Mass and this Bread ought to be understood in a literal sense but that their metaphorical signification was grounded on the things themselves and may be found entirely true THOSE in fine who consider the opinion of the Greeks that the Bread is made the Body of Jesus Christ by an union with the natural body and by way of growth and augmentation may not they likewise say that 't is truly this body and yet not establish 't is the same numerical substance which our Saviour has in Heaven but to signifie that this substance here and that there are not two different Bodies but one and the same Body as we have already more than once explained in the same sense as the augmentations which are made to a House or Ground become truly this House or this ground or the Kings Conquests added to his Kingdom become truly his Kingdom by virtue of their union ALL which clearly shews that Mr. Arnaud has much misreckoned himself when he believed there were but two occasions wherein men used these terms of true and truly the one when they affirm the figure of the Original as when we say that our Saviour Christ is the true Melchisedec the true Son the true Vine and the other when we would prevent any kind Ch. 5. p. 780. of doubt or contest as when we say of a suspicious piece of Gold that 't is true Gold or a Pope that has an Anti-Pope for his rival that he is the true Pope This enumeration is defective and the conclusion which he pretends to draw hence is void and refuted by what I now offer'd The Fathers might say that the Bread of the Eucharist is truly the Body of Jesus Christ without intending the prevention of any doubt BUT supposing they designed to prevent a doubt can there arise no other from the subject of the Eucharist but what relates to Transubstantiation or the substantial Presence May not a man doubt of the truth of the Body of Jesus Christ considered in it self and in reference to the Incarnation All those ancient Hereticks Marcionites Manichees have not only doubted of it but boldly affirmed that 't was only a Phantasm The Eutychiens have affirm'd and do still affirm that this Body was swallowed up in the abyss of the Divinity Cannot a man doubt of the truth of Jesus Christ his words The Jews and Pagans do not only doubt of them their impudence proceeds so far as to make a mock at 'um and how many impious and prophane wretches are there amongst such as profess Christianity that mock at 'um in their hearts Cannot a man doubt of the efficacy and spiritual virtue of this Bread We have already observed from Palladius that this was precisely the doubt that possessed the mind of a Religious And how many weak persons are there who seeing only Bread and Wine cannot imagine we ought to attribute to them so great an efficacy There is nothing says Tertullian that more perplexes mens minds Tertul. de Baptismo Ch. 5. p. 783. than to see the simplicity of the Divine operations when they are celebrated and to hear the magnificent effects issuing from them THIS doubt says Mr. Arnaud must have two qualities For first As this expression has been generally received by all people this must therefore be a general doubt and must naurally arise in the minds of all men Secondly As no body ever made use of this expression but only on the subject of the Eucharist this must be a particular doubt belonging to the Eucharist and which cannot be extended to all the other Sacraments How excellent is Mr. Arnaud at engrossing of objects He has gathered here and there from several Authors that lived in sundry Churches and at divers times some thirty passages taken in a counter sense that speak differently one in one manner others in another in different significations and this he makes to be the language P. 774. of all people In another place he assures us this is the language of all Nations and all Ages A man cannot say an expression has been generally received by all people and in all ages unless he has run over the Authors of all Ages and shew'd that this expression was received by the greatest part amongst 'um for which purpose thirty passages gathered at random are not sufficient Moreover the expression in question should appear in all the passages and not one in some of 'em and another in others Besides the expression must be used every where in the same sense But we find no such thing here We have only about some thirty passages in one of which there 's the term of same in another that of proper or properly in another that of true or truly and they are used in different senses too as will appear from the particular examination we shall make of them How can this then be called an expression generally received by all people the language of all Nations and that of all ages For my part I call it an illusion BUT supposing the expression of true or truly to have been generally received by all people as Mr. Arnaud supposes it was why must it needs proceed from a general doubt that
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
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
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
manner in which the Bread might be the Body of Jesus Christ to wit in Figure aed Virtue In the mean time the doubt against which the Fathers have pretended to fortifie the Faithful is removed by the same Fathers by confirming and several times repeating that the Eucharist is the Body of Jesus Christ without the addition of an explication of Figure or Virtue Whence it follows that the doubt they would take away is not in any wise that which Mr. Claude attributes to three of his ranks For his doubt requires not proofs but illustrations that is to say the question is not to prove the Eucharist to be the Body of Jesus Christ but to explain in what sense this is true Now in all the passages of the Fathers wherein they mention a doubt they are only solicitous to prove that the Eucharist is the Body of Jesus Christ without any elucidation and they prove it by these words Hoc est corpus meum or by these Panis quem ego dabo caro mea est or by the divers examples of the Power of God the Creation of the world the Miracles of the Prophets and by that of the Incarnation I PRETEND not to examin here all the parts of this discourse 't will be sufficient to make some remarks which will clearly discover the impertinency of it First The division Mr. Arnaud makes of the doubts is insufficient for the subject we are upon for he should again subdivide into two the second kind of doubt and say that sometimes those that doubt in being ignorant of the causes or manner of the thing yet do nevertheless acknowledg the truth of the thing it self and hold it for certain altho they know not how it is Thus when a man doubts of the causes of the flux or reflux of the Sea he yet believes that this flux and reflux is true When Divines doubt of the manner after which God knows contingent matters this hinders 'em not from believing he knows them and when they doubt concerning the manner in which the three persons exist in one and the same essence this does not hinder them from believing that they do exist But sometimes the ignorance of the manner makes people doubt of the truth of the thing it self Thus Nestorius not being able to comprehend how the two Natures make but one Person in Jesus Christ doubted of this truth that there were in Jesus Christ two Natures and one Person and not only doubted of it but deny'd it Thus Pelagius because he could not understand how Grace operates inwardly on the hearts of the Faithful rejected this operation We may call this first doubt a doubt proceeding from mere ignorance and the second a doubt of incredulity Secondly Mr. Arnaud takes no notice that the doubt which arises from the inconsistency of these terms Bread and Body so far prevail'd in the minds of some as to make 'em doubt of the truth it self of these words How can this be said they seeing we see Bread and Wine and not Flesh and Blood Who will doubt Cyril Hieros Catech. myst 1. says Cyril of Jerusalem and say 't is not his Blood You will tell me perhaps says the Author of the Book De Initiatis I see quite another thing how will you persuade me I receive the Body of Jesus Christ And the same kind of doubt we have observ'd among the Greeks of the 11th Century in Theophylact Quomodo inquit caro non videtur and in the 12th in Nicolas Methoniensis for he entitles his Book Against those that doubt and say the Consecrated Bread and Wine are not the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ Perhaps says he you doubt and do not believe because you see not Flesh and Blood but Bread and Wine Thirdly Mr. Arnaud takes notice that when we have to do with these kind of doubters who will not acknowledg the truth of the thing it self because they are ignorant of the manner of it we usually take several ways to persuade them sometimes we confirm the thing it self without expounding to 'em the manner altho it be the ignorance of the manner which makes them doubt of the thing Thus our Saviour seeing the doubt of the Capernaits How can he give us his flesh to eat did not set about explaining the manner of this manducation to 'em but opposes 'em by a reiterated affirmation of what he had told ' em Verily verly says he if you eat not the Flesh of the Son of man and drink his Blood you will have no life in you c. Sometimes the explication of the thing and the manner of it are joyn'd together and thus our Saviour dealt with the doubt of Nicodemus How can a man be born when he is old can he enter again into his Mothers womb and be born Verily verily says our Saviour I say unto you unless a man be born of Water and of the Spirit he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God These words do at the same time both confirm and explain But when we have to do with doubters that are only ignorant of the manner without calling into question the truth of the thing then we usually explain only the manner without confirming any more the thing because this alone is sufficient to instruct them and 't is thus the Angel bespeaks the Virgin How said she can this be for I know not a man The Holy Spirit says he shall come upon thee and the virtue of the most high shall overshadow thee therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God TO apply these things to the present occasion I say the Fathers had to do with two sorts of Doubters the one who were only ignorant of the manner how the Bread is or is made the Body of Jesus Christ but yet who held the proposition to be true altho they knew not the sense of it and they are those that make up the third second and fourth ranks in my Answer to the Perpetuity others who went so far as to call in question the truth of the proposition under pretence they understood not the manner of it As to these last supposing the Fathers contented themselves with sometimes confirming their proposition by the words of Jesus Christ who is Truth it self it must not be thought strange the nature of the doubt led 'em to this yet is it true they have always added to the confirmation of the thing the explication of the manner as may be apparently justifi'd by several passages which we have elsewhere cited But when they had only to do with the first sort of Doubters then they contented themselves with explaining the manner without pressing the truth of the words Thus does S. Austin after he had proposed the doubt of those that were newly Baptiz'd How is the Bread his Body and the Wine his Blood make this answer My Brethren these things are called Sacraments because that which we
were elected by these Monsters seeing there 's nothing more natural than for every thing to produce its like Who doubts but they consented to all which they did who had chosen 'em but that they imitated 'em and trod in their footsteps but that they all desired our Saviour should sleep on and never rise to judg them nor awake to call 'em to account for their wicked deeds Luitprand produces a Letter of John the XIIth to the Council which the Emperor Otton assembled at Rome to depose him which shews us how admirable the Popes were for Learning in those days Joannes Episcopus servus servorum Dei omnibus Episcopis Nos audivimus dicere quod vos vultis alium Papam facere si hoc feceritis Excommunico vos de Deo omnipotenti ut non habeatis licentiam ullum ordinare missam celebrare The Councils answer is as elegant Est vestris in literis scriptum quod non Episcopum sed puerilem ineptiam scribere deceret excommunicastis enim omnes ut non habeamus licentiam canendi missam ordinandi Ecclesiasticas dispositiones si alâ—um Romanoe Sedi constitueremus Episcopum It a enim scriptum erat non habeatis licentiam ullum ordinare Nunc usque putavimus immo credimus duo negativa unum facere dedicativum nisi vestra autoritas priscorum sententias infirmaret autorum THE Zeal Fervour frequent Conversions and Reformations of those days could not hinder but that Symony was very frequent as I proved in my Answer to the Perpetuity by the testimonies of Luitprand and Glaber and by the very confession of the Author of the Perpetuity himself which might be further made to appear were it necessary Now judg I pray you what science and zeal there could be in a Church where the ministerial Office was upon sale to him that offered most And moreover the Arch-bishopricks and Bishopricks commonly bestowed on Children uncapable of discharging those great trusts which Baronius expresly asserts for having told Baron ad ann 925. us from the testimony of Frodoart that Heribert Earl of Guyenne and Süelphus Arch-bishop of Rhemes were agreed that after the death of Süelphus the Arch-bishoprick should come to Heribert's Son he says that Heribert to make quick work caused Süelphus to be poisoned and his Son to be chosen in his place who was not above five years old that the news of the Election being brought to the King he confirm'd it which was also done by Pope John the Xth. To which Baronius adds That this example was quickly followed by several Princes who promoted their own or relations Children to the Episcopal Seats as oft as they became vacant which says he was likewise done in Rome it self in those days Constantinople and other great Cities And would to God adds he this custom had went no farther than those days and that so detestable a wickedness against the Churches Canons were unknown to the following Ages Let Mr. Arnaud himself judg whether ignorance and carelesness are not the natural effects of such disorders WHEREUNTO we may add the Tumults and continual Wars with which the West was afflicted during this whole Century for 't is certain that from the beginning to the end of it all Europe resounded with the noise of them France was therein troubled by the League of Robert and the dreadful consequences hapning thereupon by the Wars against the Normans Danes and Germans and by those which hapned upon the rejection of Charles Duke of Lorrain and th' Election of Hugo Capet England was therein disturb'd by divers Civil Wars and the frequent Incursions of the Danes Scotch Irish and other people still professing Paganism Spain was also molested by the Moors Arabians and Saracens by the Invasions of the Normans and by the dreadful Divisions of the Christians GERMANY spent this Century in perpetual Confusions the Danes Sclavonians and Huns ravag'd all things by their irruptions which often hapned For Children to contrive the death of their Parents was ordinary and Great Persons to rise up against their lawful Princes which commonly ended in bloody Battels not to mention the cruel Wars which the Emperors had to maintain in Italy against the Factious and in Calabria against the Greeks and Saracens As to Italy she was throughout this whole Century in the most deplorable state imaginable on one hand by the Princes of Tuscany on the other by the Wars of the Italian Princes one against another and the Arms of the Emperors and neighboring Kings In short the confusions were then so general that there was scarcely a corner in Europe wherein a man that loves quiet could obtain it Now who is it but knows that times of War and Divisions are apt to introduce carelesness looseness and ignorance of the mysteries of Religion into the Church I CONFESS there were in this Age some endeavours after a Reformation bu besides that they were but mere essays that proved ineffectual I deny they were strong enough supposing they could have had a wished for success to stir men up to search into the Controversie of Christs Real Presence in the Sacrament The most considerable were those made in the Council of Trosly already mention'd by us and it will not be amiss to make some remarks on what was resolved therein Let us endeavour Concil Trost n Epilogâ— say these Fathers which were not above twelve by our own means and by the Priests under us to avoid as much as in us lies this terrible damnation which we have drawn down upon our selves and the people committed to our charge Let us instruct 'em both by our Doctrin and Example Let us behave our selves as the Ministers of Christ that our Office be not dishonored and it be said of us the Priests are without knowledg those to whom the Law is committed have not known me and lest we fall into the fault of Ely who corrected not the faults of his Sons First then let every Christian ground himself well in the Christian Religion which is the Catholick Faith without which a man cannot be called a Christian Let him believe in the Father Son and Holy Spirit one only true God three persons in unity of substance But yet know that the Son alone took on him our Flesh to save us and thus suffered Death rose again ascended up into Heaven and will come in the same Flesh to judg both quick and dead Let him believe in the Holy Ghost and that by him we have the remission of sins in our Baptism and that thro his Grace our sins are continually pardon'd by the penitence and ministery of the Priests Let him believe also a real and general Resurrection of the Flesh at the coming of Jesus Christ This is the true foundation of Faith which must be adorned by Good Works for as 't is impossible without Faith to please God so Faith cannot be persect if it shews not it self by Charity for if it be void of works it 's become
from all these other changes is the very nature of this Doctrin He means of the Real Presence and Transubstantiation For it is clear that had it been new it must have extraordinarily surpriz'd all those that never heard of it which is to say the whole Church I confess that in effect the Doctrin of the Conversion of Substances in the Eucharist has something in it that is very surprizing and more offensive than whatsoever is done in other changes But Mr. Arnaud knows very well that this quality of offensive and surprizing in a Doctrin is not strong enough to produce actually of it self an opposition or a rejection on the contrary most people love in matters of Religion those things that are surprizing and wonderful of which we see examples in most Religions But howsoever the Teachers of the Real Presence provided against this inconveniency three ways the first was the making 'em a Buckler of the Almighty power of God The second the publishing of Miracles which really hapned about the Eucharist to wit visible apparitions of Flesh and Blood And the third the asserting 't was always the Faith and belief of the Church accommodating to their sense some passages of the Fathers ill taken and ill explained HITHERTO we have had whatsoever Mr. Arnaud has said that is considerable on the question of the possibility or impossibility of the change in his 6th and 9th Book Whatsoever is therein of moment we have considered and answer'd solidly and pertinently as Mr. Arnaud himself I hope will acknowledg I should have been very glad if he would have told us his opinion on a passage taken out of a Book called The new Heresie publickly maintain'd at Paris in the College of Clermont The Author of this Book therein discovers the order and means which he pretends his adversaries use to introduce Novelties insensibly into the Church and he instances for this purpose the Parable of the Tares that were sown in the night whilst men slept which took root and in time grew up which is very near the manner after which according to us the change was wrought touching the Eucharist This Author has well comprehended it as judging it far from being impossible but Mr. Arnaud thought meet to say nothing to this passage I should likewise been very glad that having treated as he has done with great earnestness of the Doctrin of the Greek and other Eastern Churches he had made reflection on several Doctrins and Practices which separate them from the Latins and in which there have hapned of necessity either amongst the one or the others insensible changes For example how came it to pass the Greeks lost the belief of Purgatory supposing this were a Doctrin of the first establishment of Christian Religion How came they to believe the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone and also that unleaven'd Bread in the administration of the Eucharist is an abomination and likewise that the Priests may as well as the Bishops administer Confirmation and again that the Church of Rome is not infallible in matters of Faith and that the Saints enjoy not the beatifical vision of God till the Resurrection and in short how came they to believe all the rest of those opinions which they hold contrary to those of the Latins There must of necessity have been a time wherein the Greeks and Latins were agreed in all these Articles whether we conceive that then neither of 'em held them which is to say that these Articles be not of Apostolical Tradition whether we suppose they held them in common since the first Preaching of Christianity which supposes that these Opinions were left 'em by the Apostles or whether we imagin that the Greeks as well as the Latins have ever held what they now hold at this day but that they supported mutually one another which supposes that both of 'em held these Opinions as needless ones and regarded the contrary opinions as tolerable ones Now in whatsoever sort we take it there have of necessity hapned insensible changes without dispute noise and opposition altho there may be the same objections brought against 'em and the same questions started which the Author of the Perpetuity and Mr. Arnaud have urged against the change in question SHOULD we suppose a time wherein neither the one nor the other held these Opinions how come they in fine to be imbued so generally with 'em and so contradictorily that a whole Church should hold the contrary of what the other believes Is there not in this double change at least as much reason to be astonish'd and surpriz'd as in that which has hapned according to us in respect of the Real Presence Have both the Latins and Greeks faln asleep without knowing any thing of the fire of Purgatory or Procession of the Holy Spirit or quality which the Eucharistical Bread ought to be of or th' administration of Confirmation or Beatifical Vision of the Saints nor th' Infallibility of the Church of Rome and have they all together at the same time awaken'd possess'd with contrary opinions on each of these points Whence had they their opinions Did not he who first taught them 'em advertise 'em that he Preached Novelties to 'em which they never heard of If he did tell 'em of this 't is strange he should be followed immediately by his whole Church and that such new Doctrins should be so immediately and zealously embraced If he did not tell 'em this 't is then very strange no body took notice of these Innovations that the Bishops and Priests did not oppose 'em and that of all that innumerable multitude of Religious persons not one of 'em has exclaimed against the Innovator Had the Innovator made use of some expressions of Scripture and of the Church to conceal the novelty of these Doctrins and to make people believe that that was the ancient Faith how can one conceive these terrible equivocations that expressions have been taken in one sense during a certain time generally by the whole Latin Church or generally by the whole Greek Church and that immediately in another they have been taken generally by the same Churches in another sense IF we suppose a time wherein both Greeks and Latins believed the same thing in respect of these points the same difficulties and the same questions return in respect of that of the two Churches which has changed Suppose for example that the Greeks and Latins both believed the Church of Rome is infallible that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son that one may use indifferently in the Eucharist unleavened Bread and that which is leaven'd and that the Bishop alone has the right of Confirmation how happens it the Greeks have pass'd into contrary Opinions without divisions amongst 'em till the Council of Florence Has this hapned all at a stroke Was this done insensibly and by succession of time If this has hapned all at once it must be granted this change is
with another conjecture from the manner in which he explains his sentiments on this subject of the Eucharist For he keeps as much as he can the Sacramental expressions endeavouring to accommodate them to his sense and proceeds sometimes so far that he seems to conserve the substance of Bread which appears by several passages which I remark'd in my answer to the Perpetuity and which is not necessary to repeat here Mr. Arnaud answers That the only conclusion which reason draws from hence is that these Sacramental Page 866. expressions do perfectly agree with the Faith of the Real Presence But if they do agree 't is by constraint and in doing violence to the nature and signification of the terms When Paschasus says for example In pane vino sine ulla decoloratione substancioe hoc mysterium interius vi potestate divina peragitur What violence must not be offered these terms to accommodate them to the change of the substance of Bread For to say that the substance of Bread loses not his colour is an expression which naturally includes this sense that the substance remains with its colour What violence must not be offered these other terms Caro Sanguis per Spiritum Sanctum consecratur alioqui mihi nec caro est nec sanguis est sed judicium quod percipio quia sine donante spiritu nullum male proesumentibus donum ex Deo proestatur What violence I say must not be offered them to accommodate 'em to the sense of Transubstantiation For naturally these terms signifie that 't is the Holy Spirit dwelling in the Faithful which makes the Bread and Wine be to 'em the Flesh and Blood of Jesus Christ for which reason the Wicked who have not the Holy Spirit do not receive this Flesh and Blood This language then of constraint shews that Paschasus strove still to conserve the common expressions altho that in effect they were contrary to him whence we may easily conclude that he was an Innovator A seventh proof may be taken from the testimonies of Bellarmin and Sirmond both Jesuits which I have already mention'd in my Answer to the Perpetuity The one says that Paschasus was the first Author that wrote seriously and at large of the truth of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist and the other assures us that he was the first that explain'd the true sentiment of the Catholick Church in such a manner that he has opened the way to others The first idea which these words present us with is that Paschasus was the first Author that proposed the Doctrin of the Real Presence clearly and in plain and precise terms for this is what is meant by the Serio of Bellarmin and especially the Explicuit of Sirmond And 't will signifie nothing to answer as Mr. Arnaud does that these passages mean only that Paschasus was the first who collected into one Book what lay scattered in Book 8 ch 10. page 867. several of the Fathers Writings according as Athanasius was the first who wrote expresly Treatises on the Trinity and S. Cyril the first who largely wrote of the Incarnation and Vnity of persons in our Lord and Saviour as S. Augustin is the first who has largely and seriously treated of Original Sin and that as Paschasus had good success in this labor and in effect well collected the true sentiments of the Fathers so he has been follow'd by all that came after him This answer is an illusion for 't is far from completely answering Sirmond's words Genuinum says he Ecclesioe Catholicoe sensum ita primus explicuit Invita pasch ut viam coeteris aperuit qui de eodem argumento multa postea scripsere He means not that Paschasus was the first who collected in one Book what lay here and there in the Writings of the Fathers but that he first explain'd the true sense of the Catholick Church Before him according to Sirmond this true sentiment which is to say the Doctrin of the Real Presence for this is what he means was a confused and hidden matter Paschasus was the first who brought it to light and he did it in such manner that he opened the way to all that came after him Till his time this way lay hid he found it first entred into it and by his example moved others to do the same Now this is the honestest confession imaginable that Paschasus was the first Author of this Doctrin for in fine this explication of the true sentiment of the Church and this way are nothing else but the Real Presence and he was the first discoverer of it There cannot be any thing said like this of S. Athanasius in respect of the Trinity nor of S. Cyril in respect of the Incarnation nor of S. Augustin in respect of Original Sin It may be indeed said that they have treated more amply of these matters than what was done before that they have more firmly grounded them by disengaging them from the objections of Hereticks but it can never be said they were the first that explain'd the true sentiment of the Catholick Church for it was explain'd and distinctly known before them The Church worship'd before Athanasius his time three distinct persons in the Godhead acknowledged two Natures and one only person in Jesus Christ before S. Cyril's time and S. Austin's and also believ'd that all the Children of Adam came into the world infected with his corruption THESE are the seven proofs of Paschasus his Innovation which Mr. Arnaud has cited from me and which he has endeavoured to answer But besides these there are also some others which he has past over in silence and of which 't will not be amiss to put him in mind I draw then an eighth from the testimony of Berenger which makes Paschasus precisely as we do the Author of the Opinion which asserts the real conversion of the substances of Bread and Wine Sententia says he imo vecordia vulgi Paschasi Apud Lanfranc lib. de Corp. Sang. Dom. atque Lanfranci minime superesse in altari post consecrationem substantiam panis vini The opinion or rather folly of the Vulgar of Paschasus and Lanfranc that the substance of Bread and Wine remains not after the Consecration Lanfrac who cites these words says a little after that when the Letters of Berenger were read at Rome 't was known that he exalted John Scot and condemned Paschasus intellecto quod Joannem Scotum extolleres Paschasium damnares This moreover appears by Berenger's Letter to Richard injustissime damnatum Scotum Joannem injustissime nihilo minus assertum Paschasium in Concilio Vercellensi And his Letter to Ascelin You are Tom. 2. Spic in not advitam Lanfran ad Luc. D' Actery says he of a contrary opinion to all the laws of Nature contrary to the Gospel contrary to the sentiment of the Apostle if you are of Paschasus his opinion in what he ALONE has fancied or forged in
is one it be also joyn'd to the Body of Christ and that it be but one only Body in truth WE find this same opinion in another Book of Divine Offices which Rupert lib. 2. de Divin Off. cap. 2. some attribute to Rupert and others to Walramus This Body which is taken from the Altar and that which is taken from the Virgin are not said to be nor indeed are two Bodies because one and the same Word is on high in the Flesh and here below in the Bread IT is likewise very likely that in the 11th Century during the greatest heats of the Dispute of Lanfranc against Berenger there were several adversaries of Berenger who followed this Opinion Which may be manifestly collected from an argument which Lanfranc attributes to the Berengarians in these terms If the Bread be changed into the true Flesh of Jesus Christ Lanfran de Corp. Sang. Dom. either the Bread must be carried to Heaven to be changed there into the Flesh of Christ or the Flesh of Jesus Christ must descend on the Earth to the end that the Bread may be changed into it Now neither of these is done This Argument necessarily supposes that the Berengarians did set themselves against persons who thought the Bread was changed into the Body of Jesus Christ by way of union and conjunction or as speaks Damascen by way of addition as the food is changed into our body On this Hypothesis they had some reason to say that either the Body which is above must come down here below or that the Bread which is here below must be carried above for it does not seem immediately that the conjunction can be well made otherwise But they could not have the least reason or likelihood of reason to form this objection against the Doctrin of Transubstantiation in the manner wherein the Church of Rome understands it For if the substance of Bread be converted into the same numerical substance of the Body of Jesus Christ which is in Heaven the distance or proximity of this Bread and of this Body make not this conversion either more easie or more difficult Tho the Bread here below be carried up into Heaven tho the Body of Jesus Christ which is above in Heaven descends here below on Earth this contributes nothing to the making of the one to be converted into the other For the conversion of one substance into another speaks quite another thing than a kind of local motion as is that of ascending or descending It is then evident that the opinion which the Berengarians opposed was that the Bread is made the Body of Jesus Christ by way of union WE may moreover justifie the same thing by a passage of Ascelinus one of Berenger's adversaries for observe here in what manner he explains his sentiment in his Letter to Berenger himself Neque vero mirari vel diffidere In notis d' Acheri in vitam Lanfr debemus Deum facere posse ut hoc quod in Altari consecratur virtute Spiritus Sancti ministerio Sacerdotis uniatur corpori illi quod ex Maria Virgine redemptor noster assumpsit quippe utrumque substantia corporea utrumque visibile si reminiscimur nos ipsos ex corporea incorporea ex mortali immortali substantia esse compactos si denique firmiter credimus divinam humanamque naturam convenisse personam 'T is neither a matter of admiration nor of doubt for God to make that which is consecrated on the Altar by virtue of the Holy Spirit and ministry of the Priest to be VNITED TO THIS BODY which our Redeemer took of the Virgin Both one and the other being a corporeal substance both one and the other visible if we consider that we our selves are composed of a corporeal substance and of another that is incorporeal of a mortal substance and of another that is incorporeal of a mortal substance and of another that is incorporeal and if in fine we firmly believe that the two natures the Divine and Humane are joyn'd together in unity of person IT is necessary to relate these passages to shew the Readers how greatly Mr. Arnaud deceives them when he would persuade 'em that this opinion of the conjunction of the Bread with the Body of Jesus Christ by means of the same Divinity which fills them is a chimera of the Ministers invention It appears on the contrary that 't is a sentiment which has been in effect held by divers Authors in the Latin Church not to mention here that 't is the Doctrin of Damascen and the Greeks which have followed him And this is the first conclusion which can be drawn hence but from hence also follow several other most important matters For first by this we see that the sentiment of Paschasus was not that of the Church of his time as some would persuade us seeing those very Authors which Mr. Arnaud alledges in his favour and who seem to come the nearest to Paschasus his expressions are at bottom and in effect infinitely distant from his Doctrin Secondly Hence it appears there was nothing regular in the Latin Church touching Transubstantiation neither in the 11th nor 12th Century seeing considerable Authors then publickly explain'd their belief concerning the Eucharist in a manner which suffers the Bread and Wine to subsist in their first substance In the third place from hence is apparent how little certainty and confidence a rational man can put in the principle of the Author of the Perpetuity and Mr. Arnaud who suppose it as a thing certain that in the time when Berenger was first condemned that is to say in the year 1053. the whole Latin Church was united in the Faith of the Real Presence and Transubstantiation seeing the contrary may be justifi'd as well by the argument which Lanfranc relates of the Berengarians as by the passage of Ascelinus In fine it may be seen here how frivolous and vain Mr. Arnaud's negative arguments be who would prove that the Greeks believ'd in the 11th Century Transubstantiation because they did not take Berengarius his part nor disputed on this Article against the Latins For if Transubstantiation was not then determin'd in the Latin Church if one might therein make a free profession to believe the union of the Bread with the Body of Jesus Christ by means of the Divinity as appears from the example of Ascelinus Berenger's great Adversary what reason could the Greeks have to dispute and make oppositions IT signifies nothing for Mr. Arnaud to raise objections against the sentiments of these Authors whom I last mention'd and to say that if the habitation Book 8. ch 7. p. 828. of the Divinity in the Body of Jesus Christ remaining in Heaven and in the Bread remaining on Earth and conserving its nature and the application of this Bread to serve for an instrument to communicate the graces merited by the Body of Jesus Christ rendred the Bread the Body of Jesus Christ the
1. 7 Mr. Arnaud leaves the method of the Author of the Perpetuity and his pretension 1. 26 Mr. Arnaud produces nothing that is formal on the Greeks part of Transubstantiation 1. 118 Mr. Arnaud cites the testimony of Latinis'd Greeks 1. 263 Mr. Arnaud quotes doubtful Authors 1. 263 Mr. Arnaud produces the testimonies of false Greeks Scholars of the Seminary at Rome 1. 265 Mr. Arnaud is oblig'd to prove his Thesis touching the Greeks by positive Arguments whereas we may prove ours by negative ones 1. 277 Mr. Arnaud contradicts himself 1. 315 Mr. Arnaud opposes himself and treats himself as ridiculous 1. 317 Mr. Arnaud overthrows the argument which those of the Church of Rome draw from these words My Flesh is meat indeed 2. 77 Mr. Arnaud does himself overthrow with one blow the greatest part of his Book 2 ibid. Mr. Arnaud's discourse favours the Sociniens 2. 114 Mr. Arnaud's Defences weak against my complaints 2. 260 Mr. Arnaud's personal complaints and accusations unjust 2. 264 Mr. Arnaud and the Author of the Perpetuity's expressions disadvantagious to Christian Religion in general 2. 268 Mr. Arnaud and his friends suspected to be of intelligence with us 2. ibid. Mr. Arnaud's negative Arguments taken single overthrow one another 1. 293 Articles whereon the Greeks and Latins disagree and yet do not dispute thereon 1. 279 Mr. Aubertin's Book the first occasion of this dispute 1. 10 Mr. Aubertin's Book whereof it consists 1. 12 Mr. Aubertin's Book has been indirectly assaulted 1. 13 B. BRead of the Eucharist considered by the Greeks in two times or on the Prothesis or on the Altar 1. 216 Bread is changed into the Body of Jesus Christ according to the Greeks 1. 216 Bread in what manner chang'd God only knows say the Greeks 1. ibid. Bread change thereof into the Body of Jesus Christ may be understood in two manners 1. 217 Bread and Wine are joyn'd to the Divinity according to the Greeks 1. 220 Bread is made the Body of Jesus Christ by way of augmentation according to the Greeks 1. 227 C. CAsaubon a man of an unsettled mind and of no great judgment 1. 93 Centuriators of Magdebourg are not witnesses to be alledged in this Controversie 1. 38 Centuries all of 'em must be traced in beginning from the Apostles in a search of Tradition 2. 100 Century 10. mixt with two Doctrins to wit that of Paschasus and that of Bertram 2. 175 Century 10. very ignorant 2. 178 Century 10. very confused 2. 180 Change hapned touching the point of the Adoration of Images 2. 192 Changes insensible hapned either amongst the Greeks or amongst the Latins 2. 195 Christians of the East very ignorant 1. 67 Christians of S. John very ignorant 1. ibid. Church is call'd the Body of Jesus Christ the Real Body c. 2. 74 Commerce frequent between the Greeks and the Latins since the 11th Century 1. 27 Council of Constantinople taught the Eucharist was a substance of Bread 1. 347 Council of Nice II. unjustly arrogated the Title of Vniversal 1. 356 Council of Nice II. in what sense denied the Bread was an Image 1. 340 Council of Nice II. in what sense meant the Bread was properly the Body of Jesus Christ 1. 339 Council of Constantinople why it called the Eucharist an Image that was not deceitful 1. 352 Council of Constantinople in what sense it said our Saviour Christ chose in the Eucharist a matter which had not any tracts of humane likeness lest Idolatry should be introduced c 1. 353 Council of Rome under Nicolas II. did not formally establish Transubstantiation 1. 245 Council of Florence held on politick respects by both sides 1. 297 Council of Florence in which the Greeks would no more dispute 1. 300 Council of Florence in which the Greeks assist against their wills 1. ibid. Council of Florence in which the re-union was made in general terms 1. 127 Concomitance not taught by the Greeks 1. 186 Conjunction of Bread with the Body of Jesus Christ taught by some in the 9th Century 2. 233 Constantin Monomaq Greek Emperor favours the Pope against Cerularius 1. 180 Coptics extreme ignorant 1. 68 Coptics superstitious 1. 71 Coptics do not hold Transubstantiation nor the Real Presence 2. 54 Custom of Communicating under both kinds that of giving the Communion to little Children and that of Fasting till the Evening have been changed 2. 190 Croisado's for the Holy Land in the 11th and 12th Centuries 1. 74 Cyril Patriarch of Constantinople had the Latins and the false Greeks for his enemies 1. 206 Cyril ever beloved by his Church 1. 207 Cyril's Confession not contrary to the Faith of the Greek Church 1. 208 D. DEceased according to the Greeks receive the same as the Living in the Eucharist 1. 151 Decisions of Councils prescribe not against truth Preface Decisions of Councils are considerable when conformable to Scripture ibid. Deoduin Bishop of Liege imputes to Berenger 1. 245 Differences and Agreement between the Latins and the Greeks on the point of the Eucharist 1. 233 Differences and Agreements between the Greeks and us on the same point 1. 236 Difference between the difficulties in the common mysteries of Christianity and those in Transubstantiation 1. 188 Difficulties of Transubstantiation fall naturally in the mind 1. 189 Difference between not believing the Real Presence and believing the Real Absence 2. 128 Difference between the example of an Angel appearing under the form of a Man and the Body of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist under the form of Bread 2. 148 Doctrin of the Latin Church in the eighth Century 2. 89 E. EMissaries of the Romish Seminary sent into Greece to receive Orders there from Schismatick Bishops 1 205 Emissaries make use of Schools to insinuate the Roman Religion 1. 99 Emissaries o'respread the East since the 11th Century 1. 90 Emperors Greek have laboured to introduce the Latin Religion into Greece 1. 81 Enthusiasms made in favour of Mr. Arnaud's Book 1. 47. 61 Emissaries sent expresly to establish the honor of the Sacrament 1. 79 Eucharist necessary to little Children according to S. Austin and the whole ancient Church 1. 58 Eucharist breaks the Fast according to the Greeks 1. 253 Eucharist buried by the Greeks or thrown into Wells and thrown on the ground 1. 172 Emissaries prevail by Money 1. 98 Emissaries gain the Bishops 1. 97 Eutychiens say our Saviour was man only in appearance 2. 16 Et is oft explicative and taken for that is to say 1. 224 Ethiopians believe neither Transubstantiation nor the Real Presence 2. 54 Expressions general capable of several particular senses 1. 119 Expressions of the Greeks on other Subjects are like to those on the Eucharist 1. 129 Eucharist according to the Greeks consists of Bread and Holy Spirit 1. 218. F. FAther 's according to Father Nouet are a Forest Preface Fathers must not be the Rule of our Faith 1. 10 Fathers against Transubstantiation 1. 40 Fathers have wrote several things
Bread which remain after Consecration THE difficulties which the Socinians object against the Trinity and other Doctrines mentioned by Mr. Arnaud are for the most part false Consequences which these Hereticks draw from these Doctrines It is no wonder if almost all Christians be ignorant of these Consequences They do not spring up naturally For 't is passion and blindness that produces them For I call blindness those false Lights which cause these Hereticks to behold that which is not But that which Mr. Arnaud calls the difficulties of Transubstantiation are real Consequences of this Doctrine and acknowledged to be such by them of the Church of Rome Let him say as long as he will these are Philosophical Consequences I affirm they are not so Philosophical as to hinder them from being very natural appearing to be so even to the light of common sence It is most natural for a man that believes the Substance of Bread ceases to be to think on the Accidents which remain It is very natural for him that believes the Body of Jesus Christ and his Blood to be substantially therein to imagine that where the Body or Flesh is there must the Blood be also which is called in one word the concomitancy It is most natural for him that believes that 't is not the Substance of Bread that nourishes to consider what should cause this nourishment It is very natural for a man that believes the Body of our Lord to be a real humane Body to inquire how this Body can be stript of the proprieties of its Nature It is natural when we see Worms which ingender in the Eucharist to inquire whence they take their matter It is likewise certain that Philosophy is not properly any more concerned in these Consequences than barely to defend them and not to illustrate them And yet when they should not appear in themselves to the eyes of the Greeks and we suppose the whole Body of this Church to be in such a prodigious stupidity that for so many Ages since they have discovered nothing of themselves touching these things which would be in my mind one of the boldest suppositions imaginable yet it must be acknowledged they have seen them in the Doctrine and common belief of the Latins who have filled their Religion with them since Beringarius his time NEITHER is it true that 't was mens Disputations which occasion'd all these Questions on the Subject of the Eucharist or discover'd these Consequences we speak of Mr. Arnaud would fain perswade us to it but we know the contrary and that 't is the very Doctrine it self of Transubstantiation which has produced them For they take their birth from what our eyes see and hands touch and experiences which cannot but be acknowledged In effect they are to be found more amongst the Schoolmen than Controvertists more amongst Authors of the Church of Rome than Protestants THERE is so great absurdity in saying the Greeks are ignorant of the Consequences of the Doctrine of Transubstantiation supposing they believed it that Mr. Arnaud seems to be ashamed to maintain it to the end Ibid. pag. 62. He turns himself on another side and tells us that 't is the docility of the Faith of the Greeks which will not permit them to behold these difficulties But this is very absurdly answered again For were it thus the Greeks themselves would at least tell us something of it I mean they would tell us themselves in some sort that they know well all these Consequences and are not so stupid but that they see such and such Questions which arise from the Conversion of the Substances but that they behold them as an Abyss which cannot be fathomed or to use Mr. Arnaud's Eloquent Expression That they stifle and Ibid. drown all humane thoughts in the absolute certainty of the Word of God and infallible Authority of his Church They would give some reason for their silence and endeavour to hinder its being interpreted in an ill sence They would instruct their People in the same Modesty and Docility and observe that their Conduct in this particular was more discreet than that of the Latins And this is what the Greeks would do did they believe Transubstantiation after this gentle and quiet manner Mr. Arnaud attributes to them Yet do they not so much as mention these Consequences or difficulties they take no notice of their own silence in this respect But Mr. Arnaud speaks for them without any call or order from them He tells us his Conceptions and those of Ernulphus an English Bishop of the Twelfth Century but not a word of the Greeks The Greeks are in such an absolute silence on this Subject that this silence cannot come from any other cause than the nature of their Doctrines which not having the Consequences of Transubstantiation do no ways oblige them to take notice of these same Consequences AND thus far I think my Argument may pass for good in the Opinion of those People that understand reason Yet Mr. Arnaud will have this to be Ibid. pag. 59. meer Folly and Extravagancy And to shew it to be so he tells us That reason it self shews us we must not disown certain and undoubted Truths under pretence they appear contrary amongst themselves on weak conjectures but the certainty of these Truths should make us conclude touching the falsity of these Reasonings and pretended Contrarieties It is adds he as certain a Truth as any thing of this kind can be that the Greeks and other Eastern Churches do believe the real Presence and Transubstantiation and there is nothing but may be called in question upon the same grounds if we may doubt of the consent of all the Churches with the Church of Rome in this Doctrine This is another Truth that the Greeks take little notice of the Philosophicl Consequences Whence he concludes that these two Truths being equally certain they cannot be contrary and that they shew us the falsity of Mr. Claude's Consequence IT must be acknowledged that never man had less trouble to answer an Adversary than Mr. Arnaud I prove to him the Greeks do not believe Transubstantiation because they make no mention of its Consequences nor difficulties He denies my Consequence because the Greeks do believe Transubstantiation and that two Truths cannot be contradictory It costs little to make such kind of Answers and it costs no more to tell him that if it were a certain Truth as he affirms it is that the Greeks believed the conversion of Substances he would have no need to trouble himself to answer my Arguments For the Question being decided there would be nothing remaining upon this account betwixt us I believe I established the Negative which I defend a thousand times more solidly than he has proved his Affirmative but if I pretended to elude his Arguments by saying I deny the Consequence because the Greeks do not believe Transubstantiation I should be an impertinent Disputer It seems to me I should
avoid the Dangers that threaten us but on the contrary we shall be the better approved of by those that understand the nature of Affairs And again You must not affright the People by telling 'em we design to proceed any farther in this Reconciliation than we ought and as if we intended to change our ancient Customs and Ceremonies for those of the Latins and make the same Confession of Faith as they do Which Discourse does manifestly shew us three things First that there is a great deal of Difference between being silent in the Doctrine of the Latins not Disputing and Charging them with Error nay proceeding so far as a Union with them and the Imbracing of their Doctrines let Mr. Arnaud say what he pleases For Michael desires but the first of these and protests he intends not thereby to proceed to the other The second thing that appears from the Discourse of this Emperor is that the Principle on which I ground my Answer and by which I pretend to overthrow Mr. Arnaud's Argument is not a Proposition forged in my own Brain from the necessity of my Dispute but a Principle not only well known by the Greeks but approved and practised in an Occasion far more important than that now in question betwixt us For 't is far less important to lay aside one of the Doctrines of a Church and not Dispute on it than to be united with her and yet 't is certain the Greek Church consented to this Reunion in hope she should keep her Religion Intire and not receive any of the Doctrines of the Latins In fine I gather from Michael's Discourse and the Effect it had on the Minds of his Clergy that the only care the Greeks took was to keep their own Religion being willing to be silent and Imbrace the Union provided they were not forced to Imbrace the Religion of the Latins If it be replied that this was indeed the Disposition of Michael Paleologus but not that of his Church I answer that Michael engaged 'em to consent to the Reunion upon this Regard that each of the Churches should keep its own Opinions and not contend and charge one another with Error Now People are not wont to be prevailed on by Principles which they do not acknowledg to be good and therefore plausible Pretences and fair Colours are made use to win them Whence it follows that the Greeks were far from imagining 't was the same thing not to dispute against the Latins on an Article and to receive and own it with them Whence it likewise follows that if this Reason or Hope which Michael proposed to them was sufficient to make them do a thing in which they feared he would deceive them as indeed he did a matter which was contrary to their Duty and Conscience and against which they had moreover the greatest Aversion it might likewise be sufficient to withhold and hinder them from doing another thing to which they did not believe they were obliged and from which they might refrain without the least Violence to their Inclinations THIS Reflection will be strengthened by considering after what sort Veccus the Patriarch justified himself when he became a great stickler in the Union which he endeavoured to promote as much as in him lay I never Hottinger ex Allat in Orth. Grec Pag. 65. design'd say's he by any thing I either thought said or did to disparage any of the Ceremonies or Doctrines of the Greeks but only to establish the Peace of the Church If any Person in imbracing this Peace has despised our Rites and Ceremonies and preferred the Doctrines and Ceremonies of the Roman Church before them let him be excluded the Kingdom of Heaven and have his Portion with the Traytor Judas and his Companions who Cracified our Saviour We see here this Patriarch supposes a great deal of Difference between the not Condemning the Latins and letting them alone with their Doctrines Nay so far is he from granting Mr. Arnaud's Consequence that he makes this a Principle whereby to justify himself to the Greeks which is a Sign that this Proposition agreed with the Genius of that Nation For People are not wont to justify themselves by Maxims odious and publickly abhorred if Michael Paleologus Veccus or the Greeks in general have displeased Mr. Arnaud by this their Deportment they are excusable For in those Days the World was not acquainted with the Secrets of his Reasoning The Rules of his Logick were not then published They may henceforward become a Rule to Posterity but he must not expect they should be more priviledged than the Edicts of Princes which have no retroactive Virtue V. TO convince Mr. Arnaud that the Greeks are averse to Controversies I need only represent to him what Anthony Eparkus of Corcyra wrote to Philip Melancthon For having told him how careful the Turks are to establish their Religion every where and to extend the Limits of their Empire It Turco Grec 1 8. Pag. 545. would be very absur'd adds he for us to Dispute of sublime Matters in the Condition we are in It behoves us to watch and apply our selves diligently to the avoiding the Danger threatning us lest we lose our Possessions here on Earth whilst we idly and over curiously inquire into the things of Heaven 'T is certain the Greeks do not care to concern themselves overmuch about the things of the next Life Their Thoughts being wholly taken up with their worldly Interest this being the Key that opens and shuts their Mouths POSSEVIN the Jesuit distinguishes the Greeks into three Ranks the first of People who are very Ignorant The second of those that having some Biblioth selert de rat ag cum Grec lib. 5. cap. 24. Experience and beholding on one hand the Majesty of the Roman Church and on the other the Misery of the Greek one the Pomp of the Sacrament of the Latins and the Neglect wherewith the Greeks treat theirs conclude that the Roman Church is better beloved by God almighty than the Greek one The third is of those who having some knowledg of the World are yet transported by an habitual Hatred against the Latins altho their Bishops and most prudent Persons amongst them are of another Temper and not knowing for the most part what they say or would have they Compare the Greek and Roman Church together their Ceremonies with ours and prefer their Priests to our Latin Priests supposing them not so vicious as ours Yet they dare not affirm we are in an Error or that what we believe or practise touching the Sacrament is unwarrantable But they affirm as to themselves that they are in the right Way and do not doubt of Salvation in their own Religion Observe these two things first that the Greek Bishops and prudentest Persons in their Church are averse to Controversies And secondly that those that are not content themselves with maintaining their own Doctrines without condemning those of the Latins VI. BUT it will be