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
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
St. Andrews where they privately buried it MR. Arnaud will not fail to fay that Hottinger is a Minister and one of the most passionate and least sincere Writers he ever read But why must we rather believe Allatius than Hottinger The former of these has all the marks of a passionate man who is ever upon disguishing things whereas this last on the contrary let Mr. Arnaud say what he pleases has all the Characters of a faithful Writer relating things according to the best of his Knowledge The former of these is I confess more polite but th' other has more simplicity Allatius relates from his own head what he pleases Hottinger alledges his Witnesses and what likelihood is there Mr. Leger and Conopius whose Letter in its Original I have by me invented these Stories thus circumstanced as we find them if it were moreover true that the Greek Church respected Cyrillus as a Heretick and did her utmost endeavours to deliver her self from him It was on the contrary the Latins and their Disciples who so strenuously endeavoured to get rid of a Person whom they could neither gain by Promises nor Threatnings and that hindred them in their great Design of a Re-union It was in reference to them that Cyrillus added at the end of his Confession We plainly foresee this short Confession will be as a mark of contradiction to them who are pleased to calumniate and persecute us His Presentiment was not vain AND thus much touching Mr. Arnaud's first Objection As to the second which asserts the principal Articles of his Confession are contrary to the Sentiment of the Greeks I confess there are some of 'em wherein the Doctrine of the Gospel is more plainly asserted than in other Greek Books as the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Articles for instance which treat of our Justification by Faith in Christ of Free Will and Divine Grace but 't is certain they do not in the main contradict the Doctrine of the Greek Church and may be easily reconciled with the Answers of Jeremias to the Divines of Wittemberg The Fifteenth Article acknowledges but two Sacraments and Jeremias say's Mr. Arnaud openly professes to hold seven But I say the Lib. 4. cap. 5. pag. 387 Confes cap. 9. Greeks have no rule in this matter Metrophanus acknowledges three of Divine Institution to wit Baptism the Eucharist and Penance and as to the other four he affirms They are called Mysteries improperly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Jeremias acknowledges seven 't is true but he reckons properly but two to be of Divine Institution namely Baptism and the Lord's Supper and as to the five others he seems to acknowledge the Church has added them to the number of Sacraments Wherefore will Mr. Arnaud needs have Cyrillus who only speaks of the true Sacraments instituted by our Saviour and not of humane Ceremonies which are improperly called Mysteries because they have something that is mysterious in them as speaks Metrophanus to have contradicted the Doctrine of the Greeks Why seeing he opposes Jeremias to Cyrillus does he not sincerely relate the Sentiment of Jeremias Arcudius has dealt better in this respect than he for he acknowledges That Jeremias does Arcud lib. 2. cap. 2. not only teach that the Cream is a Sacrament of Tradition but that he passes the same Judgment on all the rest Baptism and the Lord's Supper excepted contrary to what he had asserted in the Seventh Chapter of his first Answer AS to the Eighteenth Article in which Cyrillus asserts That the Souls of the deceased are carried immediately into a State of Bliss or Misery Mr. Arnaud Ibid. lib. 3. cap. 6 pag. 388. say's he therein contradicts the general Opinion of the Greeks touching the State of Souls after death Hornbeck and Chytreus say's he And all that ever treated on the Opinions of the Greeks affirm they admit besides Paradise and Hell a certain dark and doleful place in which the Souls are purged after this life I answer the Greeks are not determinately positive touching the State of the Soul after death As to the Souls of the Faithful there are some who hold they will not enjoy the Beatifick Vision till after the last Judgment and in the mean time are in pleasant and delightful places places exempt from all kind of sorrows or else in dark and dismal shades where they continually ruminate on the sins they have committed and these hold there are three different ranks of deceased Persons namely the Unfaithful or Wicked the Faithful that dye in a State of Repentance and perfect Holyness and others who notwithstanding their Faith and true Piety yet have committed several sins for which they have not so truely repented as they ought Hell is designed for the first of these The second say they go into places of rest and refreshment and the last into those doleful places where they feel the want of God's favour and illumination BUT we must not imagine this to be the sense of the whole Greek Church for there are not a few that hold there are only two conditions of men after death namely that of the virtuous and wicked and two places to wit Heaven and Hell Syropulus relates in his History of the Council of Florence that the Greeks being urged by the Latins to express themselves Hist Concil Flor. Sect. 5. cap. 16. plainly touching the State of departed Souls Bessarion declared That the Souls of the Saints receive the Bliss prepared for them and those of sinners their punishments and that it only remains that each of these reassume their Bodies after which the Souls of the Just shall enter into a full enjoyment of Happiness with their Bodies and that sinners likewise with their Bodies c. shall suffer everlasting punishments We see here but two States after death We find in Allatius a passage of the Greeks which likewise asserts but two places We must know say's it that the Souls of the Just remain in certain places and Allat de lib. Eccl. disp 2. those of sinners in like manner separate from them Those rejoyce upon the account of the hope of Bliss These lament in expectation of their torments There is moreover a passage of Joseph Briennius which asserts That there are two Ibid. places designed for the entertainment of deceased Souls Heaven for the Saints and the Center of the Earth or Hell for sinners That the Saints are at liberty that they have all the World and especially the Garden of Eden for their abode That those who are condemned to Hell will not come out from their abode till the day of Judgment and that they cannot receive the least beam of light or relaxation For adds he the Saints will not enjoy eternal happiness nor sinners suffer their everlasting torments before the last Judgement But these last shall be shut up in the mean time in dark Prisons under the custody of cruel Devils Sigismond speaking of the Moscovits say's They believe not there is
his Disciples Here then adds he we have people who said in the time of Charles the Bald and who must say according to their Principles That the Body of Jesus Christ has all the external accidents which appear to our senses and that there was no difference between the Body of Jesus Christ born of the Virgin and the Sacrament So that here are persons against whom may be maintain'd in an Orthodox sense that the Sacrament of the Eucharist is not the Body of Jesus Christ born of the Virgin He afterwards endeavours to shew that Bertram's Book directly attacks only these persons TO solve this difficulty it must first be supposed as a thing already proved that those who have been since called by way of reproach Stercoranists cannot be those of whom Mr. Arnaud here speaks who according to him believing the Real Presence yet affirm'd that the Body of Jesus Christ had all the sensible accidents which appear in the Eucharist and that Mr. Arnaud could say nothing less to the purpose than what he has offered That this opinion was a necessary consequence of that of Amalarius that 't is from thence he concluded the Body of Jesus Christ issued out thro the pores applying to it these words Omne quod in os intrat in ventrem vadit insecessum emittitur We have already seen from the testimony of Tho. Waldensis that these Stercoranists were Panites which is to say that they conserved the substance of Bread in the Sacrament and said all of 'em that the Sacrament was natural Bread We have already seen that in effect the belief of the Real Presence is absolutely inconsistent with this opinion that the Sacrament passes into our nourishment that it is digested that one part of it is changed into our flesh and another part into Excrements SECONDLY we must observe that supposing 't were true the Stercoranists believ'd as Mr. Arnaud would have it that the sensible accidents really affect the Body of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist there could be nothing more absurd than to imagin they were those whom Raban and Bertram opposed For as to Raban it appears as well from the testimony of the anonymous Author as by that of Waldensis that he was himself a Stercoranist The same thing appears from the proper passages of Raban which I have already related Whereunto I shall add another taken out of his Penitential Touching what you have demanded of me whether the Eucharist Cap. 33. when it has been consum'd and pass'd into Excrements like other meats returns again to its first nature which it had before 't was Consecrated on the Altar This opinion is contrary to that of Pope Clement This Period which I have included in this Parenthesis has no coherence with the discourse of Raban and my conjecture is that it is a remark which some body put in the Margin and which has been afterwards forced out of the Margin into the Text. and several other Holy Fathers who say that the Body of our Lord does not go into the draught with other meats Such a question is superfluous seeing our Saviour says himself in the Gospel Whatsoever enters into the mouth descends into the stomach and is cast into the draught The Sacrament of the Body and Blood is made of visible and corporeal things but operates invisibly our sanctification and salvation of both Body and Soul What reason is there to say that what is digested in the stomach and passes into Excrements returns again to its first state seeing no body ever maintain'd that this happens I think we have clearly here the opinion of Raban on this subject and that now it cannot be any longer question'd whether he was a Stercoranist As to Bertram the passages which I related out of his Book do clearly shew that he was of the same sentiment What can be more unreasonable and worse contriv'd than this thought of Mr. Arnaud that Raban and Bertram have combated the opinion of the Stercoranists which is to say that they have fought against themselves and wrote Books against persons without knowing they were themselves of their party Mr. Arnaud could not say any thing more unlikely and therefore we see that great Wits who believe ' emselves able to overthrow every thing do oft-times overthrow themselves and fall into labyrinths whence they cannot get out IN the third place how little soever we consider this opinion mention'd by Mr. Arnaud and the manner in which he conceives it we shall find 't is impossible it should ever come into any bodies mind unless he were excessively extravagant Not to mention how difficult it is to state how the natural accidents of Bread do unloose themselves from their proper and natural substance to fasten on that of the Body of Jesus Christ nor how the same numerical substance can be above in Heaven indued with its own proper accidents and here below indued really with the accidents of Bread and Wine I shall only say that unless a man doats extremely he cannot imagin that the same numerical Body which is above exists on Earth in a corporeal and material manner as a subject ought to exist that has accidents really inherent and yet is there in the natural manner of a real substance of Bread For every substance that receives and really sustains the accidents of Bread must receive and sustain them in the manner of a true substance of Bread to accommodate it self to the nature of these accidents A substance which receives really the accidents of Bread must have all its parts in ordine ad se as the Schools speak made as the parts of real Bread to the end there may be some proportion between them and the accidents which it receives And is it not an extravagancy to say that the parts of the human body of Jesus Christ to wit his head his arms and other members do exist inwardly in ordine ad se in the manner of the parts of Bread as little crums Who ever saw any thing more hollow than this Philosophy a human Body really divisible really palpable really sensible of a divisibility a palpability and a sensibility which is proper to it and yet is not natural to it but borrowed of another subject This divisibility and this palpability of the Bread which reside really in the same substance of the Body of Jesus Christ made it capable of all the changes which the Bread suffers it was digested by the natural heat in the stomachs of the Communicants and one part was reduced into their proper substance animated with their soul living with their life and united to them personally What did they then believe did they imagin that this same Body of Jesus Christ was at the same time animated with two souls and living with two lives or to speak better with an hundred thousand souls and an hundred thousand lives to wit that of Jesus Christ and of those of all the Communicants of the world personally
of them how it has come to pass that the Church of Rome has altered the antient Doctrine they will answer their Salvation depends not on this Knowledg but that it must needs be it has made an Alteration seeing it believes at this day what it ought not to believe and which without doubt hath not bin believed heretofore as they judge out of Charity to the Antients Should they be urged to tell how this has hapned they will answer again this is not an account wherein their Salvation is concerned and that this Question ought to be proposed to those Persons who know it and in all this they will have Reason If this Treatise be offered to those of the second Rank that is to say to them who are learned and have had the Curiosity of informing themselves and to whom properly the second Question belongs they will likewise answer they have no need of this Method having already informed themselves by a natural and direct way which is of more value than all these Conjectures or if they have not done it they will do it being not so silly as to shut their Eyes and reject the Evidence of their Senses to betake themselves to a Method wherein there can be nothing but Confusion to be expected and these last will have Reason too BUT saith Mr. Arnaud we must suppose that the Proofs of the Treatise are evident for they cannot be supposed false till such time as they are examined You ought then to have begun here wherefore your Exceptions signify nothing I answer that these Suppositions are not juster than his Arguments For if these curious Persons whom I mentioned have already taken the Pains they ought whereby to ascertain themselves in the Proofs of Fact they will be prepared to judge that the Arguments of the Treatise are false and captious because that moral Impossibilities such as these are and in such a Subject as this cannot subsist against Proofs of Fact which are immediate certain and evident as ours are If they have not yet taken this Pains I say that without examining whether the Proofs of the Treatise be good or bad they will only mind the Method and by comparing it with that of Discussion if they are men of Reason they will prefer this last before the other because that 't is in effect most natural in it self and more certain in its Proofs WHAT shall we do then with the Treatise of the Perpetuity which has made such a Noise in the World Will it be of no use There are a crue of People in the World who are curious and idle both together who are willing to know the Opinions of former Ages on these famous Articles about which Europe is at this day divided but yet will be at no Pains for this because Labour is distasteful to them and they have other things to do It is then for such Persons as these this Treatise has bin written For it courteth them and presents it self to 'em whether at Ease or in Business it only desires them to spend two Hours on its Reading whereby to decide a Point of this Importance The Style of it is curious and enticing and its Expressions emphatical it winneth on the Mind and leads it insensibly where it pleases All this flatters mens Curiosity and Lazyness both together But if this sort of People loved their Salvation as we may suppose they ought we should then have but two or three things to say to them First that they beware of these short Methods which favour at the same time two Inclinations which seldom agree I mean Idleness and Curiosity For we cannot arrive at any certainty in these kind of Questions if we do not earnestly apply our selves to them for Labour and Knowledg do always go together and it commonly happens that they who thus promise us such great Knowledg without any trouble do cheat us two ways for they lead us into tedious Prolixities and dreadful Difficulties and at last having tired us they leave us as wise as we were at first AND this is exactly the case of the Treatise of the Perpetuity if we rightly consider it for it promises us immediately nothing but Perspicuity Facilities and Convictions it being made up of undenyable Truths Yet let a man take but the Pains to examine only his fixt Point which is his first Supposition on which the whole stress of his Book lies and he will find that 't is impossible to be certain in it I mean the Year one thousand fifty three wherein Berengarius was at first condemned and in which time the Author of the Treatise pretend's the universal Church was agreed in the Belief of Transubstantiation and the real Presence Now to be satisfied in this particular we should have an exact Knowledg of the eleventh Century to the end we may discern whether this Condemnation of Berengarius was the real Effect of the Churches Union or only that of a Party which was then the strongest at the Court of Rome We should know each particular matter of this great Affair that we may be able to judge whether humane Interest had no share in it whether those that were concerned in it did not act against their Consciences and whether the Procedings were just and regular We must examine the State of Princes Ecclesiasticks and People to be satisfied in this supposed Union We should have before us the Writings of Berengarius and others who held the same Opinions to understand their Arguments and Defences But all these things are impossible We have no other account of this History than what some interessed Writers have bin pleased to give us and in which there are Relations justly suspected to be false The secret Designs and Motives which then prevailed are out of our reach We know scarcely any thing more of the Persons who then made up the Church but that they were the greatest part of them buried in profound Ignorance The Writings of Berengarins and his Followers are lost for there has bin Care taken to extinguish the Remembrance of them In short this is an Abyss wherein we behold nothing whereby we may be able to affirm with any certainty that the whole Church was united in the Belief of Transubstantiation and the real Presence For a man to give Credit to any Relation of Berengarius's Adversaries who bragged that their Opinion was that of the whole World it would be to be over Credulous in any Affair of this Importance and so much the more because the contrary appeareth by substantial Proofs which should be examined before we rest satisfied in them SO that here we are already sufficiently perplexed in the first Particular and shall be no less in the others If we would be ascertained in the Proofs of the Treatise we should know perfectly the Tempers of the People their Condition and principal Circumstances in the Ages which preceded the eleventh Century We should know how the Body of the Ecclesiasticks was composed
Points which cannot be altered without passing over from Truth to Error or from Error to Truth If then it be true as I have already said and as the Author of the Perpetuity has not denyed that the Church has bin several times of contrary Opinions upon which account it is impossible but she has bin in Error and consequently she is not Infallible in this Infallibility of Grace and Priviledg attributed unto her The Author of the Perpetuity's Answer doth evidently suppose the actual reality of this Change it has then given me just Occasion to make this Objection I have made and Mr. Arnaud's Distinction comes too late IT is in vain he assures us that the Author of the Perpetuity never had the least thought of denying this Infallibility of Priviledg and Grace The Question here is not to know absolutely what that Author believed or not believed what he thought or did not think when this shall be questioned we shall always be ready to hear Mr. Arnaud's Relation of that matter but here it concerns us to enquire into the Consequences which may be drawn from his Terms and whether he hath given me a just occasion to make that Objection against him in my Preface It will not be sufficient to make Declarations on this Matter it must be shewed that the Consequence is not true Mr. Arnaud imagins he has sufficiently justified his Friend in asserting he made not use of the Infallibility of Priviledg because 't is a Priviledg to be proved and not supposed and the Calvinists denying it it is thence clear that to make an advantagious use of it it should have bin established before which is to say there ought to have bin an intire Treatise made of the Churches Infallibility before it could be made use of in this Dispute But saith he to conclude from thence he hath denyed it and doth not acknowledg it is one of the most rash Consequences as ever was drawn altho that Mr. Claude hath done this in the Preface of his Book AND this is Mr. Arnaud's true Character that he is never more fierce than when he is Gravelled or alleageth things wholly besides the Purpose We have not grounded our present Objection on the Author of the Perpetuity's not using the Infallibility of Priviledg for his Principle this is a wilful mistake For it has bin grounded on this that the terms of his Answers to the instances of a Change which I had affirmed do oppose this Infallibility which the Church of Rome pretends to and acknowledg no other but that of the People Now 't is to this he should apply himself and not continually entertain us with impertinent Digressions MOREOVER what signifies his telling us that the Infallibility of Priviledge is a Principle to be proved and not supposed and that the Reason disswading the Author of the Perpetuity from making use of it is because we deny it We no less deny the pretended popular Infallibility which is a Principle needs proving as much as the other He himself tells us in the beginning of his eighth Chapter that the Principle of insensible Alterations which is directly opposite to that of popular Infallibility is a necessary Foundation to the Calvinists whereon to build the greatest part of their Doctrines and that all this great Machine of the pretended Reformation consisting of so many different Opinions has almost need upon all Occasions of this Supposition That the contrary Opinion which it undertakes to overthrow has bin insensibly Introduced into the Church And thus does he speak when he would have us deny him his Principle but when he would have us grant it him he then holds another Language The Author of the Perpetuity Lib. 1. c. 7. sais he does not design to attribute to the People any other Infallibility than that which all the World allows them and which Mr. Claude doth himself grant Never any Person disposed more freely of other mens Thoughts then Mr. Arnaud We Deny we Confess according as he pleases he brings us on his Stage as often as he list making us say sometimes one thing and sometimes another and is not this to Dispute successfully But whether we Confess or Deny this his popular Infallibility it is all one to me for here the Question is not about this but to know whether the Author of the Perpetuity has not opposed the Infallibility attributed to the Pope and Councils this is the true State of the Controversy and Mr. Arnaud is at a loss how to defend himself from it WHAT signifies his telling us that there are an infinite number of things Lib. 1. C. 7. wherein not only the whole Church and all the People of the Universe but a particular number of People a Province a City a Borough a particular Person is Infallible that is to say wherein it cannot happen he should be deceived himself nor would deceive others Wherefore must we have the Gazetier brought in for an Instance of this who is Infallible when he tells us any considerable News such as is the Kings going into the low Countries the taking of Cities in Flanders the Canonization of St. Francis de Sales the Death of Pope Alexander the seventh and the Election of Clement the ninth If he relates this News only to advertize us he began his Book after the Kings Victories in the low Countries every man may believe as much as he thinks fitting for we know it is no hard matter to add a Period or two to the beginning of a Book altho 't is already far advanced but be it as it will I dare say that Mr. Arnaud's Victories will not be so certain as those of our Monarch If in effect he hath not mentioned this to us but to confirm by Examples his popular Infallibility I have reason to tell him that these Instances are besides the matter in hand for there must be a distinction made betwixt an Infallibility grounded on the Testimony of a single Person or a particular sort of People and that which is grounded on a whole Body of People I would call the first if you will an Infallibility of Testimony and the second an Infallibility of Perseverance in one and the same State There is a Difference betwen these two The first of these may be attributed to a People a Church a Province a City or a particular Person without the second I will grant likewise 't is impossible in certain Cases for the whole Body of a People to be mistaken in the News it relates tho to speak the truth even this happens not seldom there being nothing more usually false than popular News But tho I grant this is Impossible in some Cases yet this is far enough from acknowledging that a People governed by certain Persons may not insensibly without any Noise alter their Sentiments and pass over into an Opinion which they knew not before For to make such a kind of Change as this is there needs only the Concurrence of two
is famous amongst the Greeks and lived in the Eleventh Century expounding these words of Saint Peter Let your Conversation be honest among the Gentiles that whereas they speak ill of you as of evil doers they may glorifie God Saint Peter say's he speaks here of the false Accusations of the Heathens and if you would know the particulars thereof read what Ireneus Bishop of Lyons has written touching the Martyrs Sanctus and Blandina and you will be perfectly informed This in few words is an account thereof The Greeks having taken some Slaves belonging to the Christian Catecumenists used great violence towards them to make them confess the Christians Mysteries and the Slaves not knowing what to say to please those that so rudely handled them remembred they heard their Masters relate that the Holy Communion was the Body and Blood of Christ imagining that 't was In effect Flesh and Blood Whereupon they taking this as if the Christians were wont REALLY to eat and drink human Flesh and Blood made report hereof to all the other Greeks and by torments forced the Martyrs Sanctus and Blandina to confess it But Blandina afterwards very pertinently demanded of them how they could imagine People who out of Devotion did abstain from eating Flesh whose use was permitted them should do any such thing THIS passage may be considered in two respects either as being of St. Ireneus or Oecumenius I know very well there are several Learned men that believe Oecumenius was mistaken in relating this Story as if it came from Saint Ireneus and in effect we do not thus find it in the Letter of the Churches of Vienna and Lyons produced by Eusebius But in the second respect under which I now offer it we may certainly conclude that 't was the Sentiment of Oecumenius himself For how can we suppose he would call the belief of the Slaves and Heathenish Inquisitors a mistake That the Holy Communion did in effect consist of Flesh and Blood and that the Christians did really do this Wherefore would he reckon this Errour amongst the Slanders of the Heathens Wherefore should he introduce Blandina refuting this Imagination had he himself believed the Communion to be in effect and reality the Flesh and Blood of Christ in its proper Substance and had this been the real Sentiment of his Church How came it to pass he did not endeavour to mollifie and explain these Terms and show that Blandina was mistaken in denying the Eucharist to be in effect and reallity Flesh and Blood or that what she did in this case was only to conceal from the Heathens the Churches Belief in this particular or in fine that she only denied it in one sence to wit that it was visibly and sensibly Flesh and Blood How happened it he feared not lest the Greeks amongst whom he lived when he gave this account would not be scandaliz'd at it or the weak take hence occasion to call in question the truth of the Doctrines of Transubstantiation and the real Presence Yet does he not trouble himself in searching after mollifying Terms or Explanations and the manner in which he has laid this down does clearly shew us that he did not in any sort believe the Holy Communion to be really and in effect the Body and Blood of Christ nor imagin'd he affirm'd any thing contrary to the Doctrine of his Church or which might be taken in an ill sence CHAP. IX The Seventeenth Proof taken from the Dispute agitated amongst the Greeks in the Twelfth Century touching the Eucharist some of 'em affirming the Body of Jesus Christ to be incorruptible and others corruptible The Eighteenth from a Passage out of Zonarus a Greek Monk that lived in the Twelfth Century I Mention'd in my Answer to the Perpetuity a Dispute which arose amongst the Greeks in the Twelfth Century touching the Body of Jesus Christ which we receive in the Eucharist from whence I took occasion to prove the Greeks do not believe the Transubstantiation of the Latins Mr. Arnaud contents not himself with pretending my Proof is not good but will needs draw a contrary Conclusion from the same Principle I made use of It then lies upon me to examine in this Chapter two Passages the one of Nicetas Choniatus and th' other of Zonarus who both take notice of this Controversie and to know whether this difference do's suppose Transubstantiation or not I will begin with Nicetas who lays down the Question in these Terms The Question say's he was whether the Sacred Body of Jesus Christ which we Nicet Chon Annal. lib. 3. receive be incorruptible such as it has been since his Passion and Resurrection or corruptible as it was before his Passion Before we go any further we should consider whether 't is likely such a Question should be stated in a Church that believes Transubstantiation This is a Point easily decided if we consider that those that hold this Doctrine do not reckon the Body of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist to be either in a corruptible state such as it was before his Passion or an incorruptible one wherein it has been since his Resurrection They have invented a Third which holds the middle between the two others and which equally agrees with the two times before and after his Resurrection which is that they call the Sacramental State in which they will needs have this Body to lie hid under the Accidents of Bread being invisible and insensible in it self without Extension Action or Motion having all its Parts in one Point and existing after the manner of Spirits In this State according to them he has neither the incorruption he obtained by his Resurrection nor the Corruption he put on in coming into the World but is corruptible in respect of the Species which enclose him and incorruptible by reason of that Spirituality which Transubstantiation gives him How can Mr. Arnaud imagine that in this Principle of the Sacramental State there may be formed the Question whether he is incorruptible such as he has been since his Resurrection or corruptible as before his Passion How can he conceive that Persons who have his third State in view and are agreed amongst themselves can fall into a debate touching the two others For it cannot be supposed the ignorance of the Greeks has bin so great as not to let them see the inconsistency there is between their Question and the Doctrine of the Substantial Conversion as it is taught by the Latins No People can be so ignorant as not to know that a humane Body such as is that of our Saviour being under the Accidents of the Eucharistical Bread is neither the same that was on the Cross nor that which Thomas touched when it was risen and we must necessarily suppose that he has neither the corruptibility under which he was before his death nor the incorruptibility he received when he arose from the Sepulchre but another incorruptibility which comes to him from his existence
after the manner of a Spirit They could not be so ignorant as not to know that our Saviour celebrated his Sacrament before his death and that we celebrate it likewise since his Ascension into Heaven and that consequently according to the Hypothesis of Transubstantiation we cannot regulate the State of his Body in the Mystery neither by one nor th' other of these two times that is to say neither by the time which preceded his death nor that which followed his Resurrection but we must take a middle time which may agree both with the one and the other whence it plainly appears these People believed not Transubstantiation for had they believed it this difference had never arose among them and so much concerning the Question in general Let us see now in what manner the two Parties maintained their Opinions SOME say's Nicetas asserted that it was incorruptible because that the Participation of the Divine Mysteries is an acknowledgment and commemoration that our Lord died and rose again for us as teaches the great Divine Cyrillus so that whatsoever part we receive we receive intirely that which Thomas handled and that he is as it were eaten after his Resurrection according to these following words of Saint Chrysostom O wonderful he that sits at the right hand of the Father is found in the hands of sinners and in another place Jesus Christ is a fruit which budded in the Law ripened in the Prophets and was eaten after its Resurrection and he tells us afterwards this is no other Body than that which was too strong for death and which began our Life For as a little Leaven leavens the whole Lump according to the saying of the Apostle so likewise this Body which God has made immortal being in our Body changes and converts it wholly into it self some likewise alledged these words of Eutychius that great light of the Church we receive the Sacred Body of the Lord intirely and his precious Blood after the same manner although we receive but one part of it for it is divided indivisibly into all by reason of the mixture MR. Arnaud pretends this Party supposed Transubstantiation because say's he they asserted after St. Chrysostom that our Saviour was in Heaven Lib. 2. cap. 14. pag 242. and on Earth and after Eutychus that he was distributed wholly and intirely to all that is to say they taught the real Presence But I hope he will correct his that is to say when he has considered that the Design of these Disputants was only to shew in what respect Jesus Christ communicates himself to us in the Eucharist to wit not as being mortal and corruptible such as he was before his Passion but as being risen So that when they say we receive him whom Thomas handled him who sitteth at the right hand of the Father the same that vanquish'd death the Body which God made immortal they do not design thereby to signifie his Substance but only the State which followed his Resurrection as if they had said we do not so much receive that Body which the Souldiers misused as that which Thomas handled not so much in respect that it was on Earth but at the right hand of the Father not so much for that it has suffered death but vanquished it and that God has made it immortal which is to say in a word that we receive him as risen because that in this Quality he is the Principle of our Life It is clear that this was their drift whence there can be nothing concluded in reference to the Substance for when we receive the Body of Jesus Christ not in Substance but in Mystery yet do we receive it in respect of its being risen and receive him also intire and so that passage of Eutychus will not decide our difference THERE need other considerations for this AND first it must be remembred that those that will argue from the Hypothesis of Transubstantiation that the Body of Jesus Christ is incorruptible in the Eucharist must not attribute to it the incorruptibleness which comes to it from the State of his Glory for besides that it could not have it as I already said at the time of the first Supper seeing that our Saviour was not then glorifi'd it is moreover apparent that even at this day it is not in this State of Glory and Majesty which it has in Heaven They must then attribute to it this other incorruption which is the effect of its Sacramental State And 't is unto this that the Doctrine of the substantial Presence does naturally and necessarily drive them It is therein incorruptible because 't is indivisible and insensible after the manner of Spirits YET do not the Greeks mention one word tending to this sacramental incorruption they speak absolutely only concerning the incorruption which follows his Resurrection and Glorification which is an evident token they argued not from the Principle of Transubstantiation Secondly had these Greeks intended to propose our Saviour's Resurrection wherefore say they that the Mysteries are a commemoration of it as well as of his death for they might with greater strength and clearness of reason affirm that seeing 't is the proper Substance of the Body that is risen it can be no more either passible or corruptible as it was before the Resurrection How comes it then to pass they mention not a word of that which reason would suggest to them supposing they believed the Conversion of Substances YET Mr. Arnaud tells us their reasoning was good and that it overthrew the whole Foundation of those Hereticks which was that the Eucharist only represented Lib. 3. cap. 14. pag. 241. our Saviour Christ in a State of Death whence they concluded he was in it only in a State of Death in taking for their Principle that he was therein such as he is represented But Mr. Arnaud does not consider that besides it is not true that the Adversaries of these Greeks did take for their Principle that the Body was in it such as 't is therein represented in supposing it was really in it I say this would be moreover to impute to these Greeks not a reason but an overthrowing of all reason and common sence If we believe Mr. Arnaud their Adversaries must have reasoned in this manner Jesus Christ is in the Eucharist such as he is therein represented now he is therein represented in a State of Death he is then therein effectually dead Supposing they believed Transubstantiation were they not very imprudent to let slip this first Proposition which is altogether contrary to Transubstantiation in the sence Mr. Arnaud would have them hold it to apply themselves to the second which is undeniably evident For no body ever denied that our Saviour is represented in the Eucharist in a State of Death seeing this Sacrament is a commemoration of his Death But those that hold the Transubstantiation of the Bread into the living and glorifi'd Body of Jesus Christ may not grant that
he is really in it such as he is represented because he must be effectually dead being represented therein as dead which is punctually what the Adversaries of these Greeks would conclude They had been then very imprudent to pass by the first Proposition of their Adversaries Argument on which they might defend themselves and apply themselves to the second against which there could be nothing said For as I already observed it cannot be denied but that our Saviour is represented in the Eucharist in a State of Death But would they not likewise have been very impertinent to apply themselves to the second Proposition in asserting as they have done that our Saviour is represented in the Eucharist in a State of Death and Resurrection both together What is this but to conclude that he is then in it at the same time actually dead and actually risen by this Principle acknowledged by both Parties that he is really in it such as he is therein represented The Catholicks say's Mr. Arnaud overthrew the Foundation of the Hereticks by a Passage of Saint Cyril ' s in which this holy man affirms that the Eucharist is the Confession of Jesus Christ dead and risen for us Whence they rightly concluded that he was then in it in a State of Resurrection and consequently in an incorruptible State If this Conclusion be good as Mr. Arnaud say's it is this is so too he is then in it in a State of Death and consequently in a State of Corruption for Cyrillus does as well assert that 't is the Confession of Jesus Christ dead as risen whence it follows that according to these People our Saviour dies and rises again effectually in the Eucharist And thus do they argue according to Mr. Arnaud Our Savioâ—â— is in the Eucharist such as he is therein represented now he is represented therein not only in a State of Death but Resurrection He is then really in it not only dead but likewise risen again and consequently corruptible and incorruptible both together This would be the most sottish reasoning imaginable for after this manner they would as well argue for their Adversaries as themselves And yet this is the arguing which Mr. Arnaud so commends And into these absurdities and extravagancies does he lead those Persons he would have favourable to him YET he adds That 't is an easie matter to conclude that according to these Catholicks Jesus Christ was really present in the Eucharist but 't is a hard matter to divine by what means Mr. Claude has concluded he was not in it It is no such difficult matter to know this For if these People said not what common sence immediately dictated to them supposing they believed Transubstantiation but on the contrary that which even common sence would hinder them from saying it follows they had not this Hypothesis in their Minds Now this is what my Proof contains for it shews that what they said would be an extravagancy and likewise what they ought to say and have not said For they ought to say that our Saviour since his Resurrection can be no longer in a State of Death or passibility and consequently that being really in the Eucharist he cannot be therein corruptible and this they have not said BUT how say's Mr. Arnaud can Mr. Claude know what they have said or not said Will he pretend that all the reasonings of these Persons are contain'd in the short account this Historian gives us of this Debate But I do not pretend to this for I only say that if the Greeks whose Dispute is set down by Nicetas believed Transubstantiation he would have made them reason after another manner than they do he would have made them say what sence and reason do readily suggest to People that hold this Doctrine and not Impertinencies which could never enter into the mind of a man prepossessed with Transubstantiation BUT adds he these Greeks have expresly said what Mr. Claude blames them for not saying For have they not expressed this clearly in these Words Ibid. that whatsoever part we receive of the Eucharist we receive intirely Jesus Christ himself whom Thomas handled because we eat him after his Resurrection which they confirmed by divers Passages of the Fathers and amongst the rest by that of St. Chrysostom O wonderful He that sits at the right hand of the Father is found in the hands of sinners I answer that Mr. Arnaud comprehends not the force of an Objection but only when he pleases I do not deny but that these Greeks said That Jesus Christ is in the Eucharist as risen and that we receive him wholly and intire This is the State of their Question and they prove it by Passages taken out of the Fathers But I say that had they reasoned on the Hypothesis of the substantial Conversion they would have said that Jesus Christ since his Resurrection can be no longer either mortal or passible in himself that he exists on the Altar after the manner of a Spirit and is consequently incorruptible that the substantial Conversion cannot be made in the dead and inanimate Body of Jesus Christ forasmuch as this is a State which has ceased since so many Ages and that it would be blasphemy and horrid cruelty against the Majesty of the Son of God to make him die every day really and personally And this is what I said in plain Terms but Mr. Arnaud would not understand me I tell him therefore again that common sence led the Greeks to this had their belief been the same as the Latins Yet you cannot find this in what Nicetas makes them speak You read indeed that whatsoever part we receive we partake of him whom Thomas handled that is to say of Jesus Christ the word Same which Mr. Arnaud has added is of his own invention You find there that he is eaten after his Resurrection and instead of Mr. Arnaud's Because there is in the Greek a Diminutive Particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he is as it were eaten but you find not that Jesus Christ can be any more passible nor that he is in the Eucharist after the manner of a Spirit nor what a great outrage it would be to the Son of God to make him die and suffer personally again And yet this is what ought to be said according to sence and reason supposing they believed the real Presence and design'd to refute their Adversaries NICETAS continuing to relate as from the part of these Greeks the Passage of Euthychius adds these words It is as a Seal which imprints its form on the matters which receive it and which yet remain one after this Communication without being diminished or changed into those things which receive the Impression altho several in number Even as one voice alone uttered by a Person and cast forth into the Air remains wholly intire in him that utters it and yet is carried wholly intire in the Air to the ears of them which hear it without any of the
follow we must mingle Water with the Wine in the Cup the Wine alone being sufficient to be transubstantiated into the Blood and Water which accompanies the Blood We must then necessarily if we suppose Zonarus speaks sence understand the Term of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the sence of Representation and then his Discourse will appear rational The Mysteries represent the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ as they were upon the Cross Now in this State there issued from the pierced Side of Jesus Christ Blood and Water we must then express in the Mystery this Circumstance and to express it we must mingle Water with the Wine in the Sacred Chalice to the end that as the Wine represents the Blood so the Water may represent this Divine Water which gushed out together with â—e Blood from our Saviour's Side And this being thus cleared up it is hence evident that Zonarus understood these words of our Lord This is my Body this is my Blood in a sence of a Mystical Representation CHAP. X. The Nineteenth Proof that we do not find the Greeks do teach the Doctrines which necessarily follow that of Transubstantiation The Twentieth is the Testimony of sundry Modern Greeks that have written several Treatises touching their Religion The One and Twentieth from the Form of Abjuration which the Greeks are forc'd to make when they embrace the Religion of the Latins I Did affirm in my Answer to the Perpetuity that we donot find the Greeks do teach any of those Doctrines which necessarily follow the Belief of the change of Substances whence I concluded there was no likelyhood they were in this Point agreed with the Latins This Consequence has disturbed Mr. Arnaud and as he makes his own Dictates and those of Reason to be one and the same thing so he has not scrupled to affirm That Reason rejects this as a silly extravagancy But forasmuch as we have often experienced Lib. 10. cap. 8. pag. 59 that in matters of Reason Folly and Extravagancy it is no sure course absolutely to rely upon Mr. Arnaud's words therefore will we again lay aside the Authority of his Oracles and examine the thing as it is in it self FIRST The Greeks do not teach the Existence of the Accidents of Bread and Wine in the Eucharist without any Subject or Substance which sustains them Now this is so necessary a Consequence of Transubstantiation that those which believe this last cannot avoid the teaching and acknowledging of the other supposing they are indued with common sence In effect it would be to charge the Greeks with the greatest folly to suppose they imagin'd that the proper Substance of the Body of Jesus Christ even the very same Body which was born of the Virgin and is now in Heaven does really exist on the Altar being the same in all respects as the Bread of the Eucharist does appear to us to be that is to say white round divisible into little pieces c. and that the same things which as they speak did qualifie and affect the Bread before do qualifie and affect the same Body of Jesus Christ We must not charge the whole Greek Church with such an absurdity Whence it follows we must not attribute to her the belief of Transubstantiation for did she make profession of believing and teaching it she would teach likewise the existence of Accidents without a Subject these two Doctrines being so closely linked together that 't is impossible to separate them unless they fall upon this fancy that the Accidents of Bread do exist in the Body it self of Jesus Christ or this other namely that which appears in the Eucharist is not really the Accidents of Bread but false appearances and pure Phantasms which deceive our sences which is no less absurd nor less contrary to the Doctrine of the Greeks SECONDLY Neither do we find that they teach what the Latins call the Concomitancy which is to say that the Body and Blood are equally contained under each Species but we find on the contrary that they establish the necessity of communicating of both kinds and ground it on the necessity there is of receiving the Body and Blood of Christ as will appear in the Sequel of this Chapter which is directly opposite to this Concomitancy Yet is it not to be imagined but that those People who believe the Conversion of Substances do at the same time establish this other Doctrine For if we suppose as the Church of Rome does that we receive with the mouths of our Bodies this same Substance of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ which he had when on Earth and has still in Heaven it is not possible to separate in such a manner his Blood from his Body and his Body from his Blood as to reckon the Body to be contain'd in the only Species of Bread and the Blood in the only Species of the Wine seeing 't is true that this Separation cannot be conceived without breaking the Unity of the Life which is in Jesus Christ THIRDLY Neither do we find the Greeks have ever applied themselves to shew how 't is possible for our Lord's Body to exist in the Eucharist stript of its proper and natural Figure deprived of its dimensions impalpable indivisible without motion and action which is moreover another Consequence of Transubstantiation FOURTHLY We do not find the Greeks do in any sort trouble themselves touching the nourishment our Bodies receive when they partake of the Eucharist and yet is it certain that if we suppose they believed Transubstantiation 't is impossible for them to obtain any satisfaction touching this matter For should they deny this nourishment they may be convinced of it by experience and if it be referred to the proper Substance of Jesus Christ they plunge themselves into an Abyss of Absurdities and Impieties If it be said the Accidents nourish besides that common sence will not suffer us to say that Colours and Figures nourish they that affirm this do expose themselves to the derision of all the World who know our nourishment is made by the Addition of a new Substance to ours To affirm that God causes the Bread to reassume its first Substance or that he immediately creates another this is to make him work Miracles when we please and to be too free in our disposals of the Almighty Power of God And therefore the Latins have found themselves so perplexed that some of 'em have taken one side and some another Some have boldly denied this nourishment whatsoever experience there is of the contrary as Guitmond and Algerus others chosen rather to affirm the Accidents do nourish as Thomas Aquinas and Bellarmin Others have invented the return of the first Substance of Bread as Vasquez and others the Creation of a new Substance as Suarez and others Mr. Arnaud has chosen rather to affirm That we are nourished not with the Body of Lib. 2. cap 6. pag. 155. Jesus Christ but after another manner known only to
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
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
than Adventures are dealt out in Romances that builds Castles in the Ayr and makes all Men in the World Senceless provided they speak and think according to my Desires and Pretensions that prefers the smallest Reasons before the strongest and clearest Proofs and proposes all this in a confident insulting manner giving myself those Applauses which I would willingly receive from others and treating my Adversaries with Contempt and Disdain And here is the Tempest which has followed my Sun-shine my happy Days But I am sorry Mr. Arnaud should be thus angry upon no occasion Howsoever we will Examine the Passages he has offered THE first is a Passage taken out of Anastatius Sinaite wherein a Monk argues against Hereticks who asserted Christ's Body was incorruptible before his Resurrection To prove that it was Corruptible he takes it for granted by his Adversaries That the Eucharist is really the true Body and Blood of Christ Anast Sin 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not mere Bread such as is sold in the Market nor a Figure such as was the Sacrifice of the paschal Lamb amongst the Jews To this Principle he adds another which is That the Eucharist is corruptible as Experience shews us and from these two Propositions he concludes That the Body of Christ was Corruptible before his Resurrection Every Man sees this Reasoning is grounded on this Supposition That the Eucharist is the Body of Christ such as it was before his Resurrection that is to say in the same State Now it is likewise manifest that this Supposition is wholy inconsistent with the Doctrine of Transubstantiation and that of the substantial Presence For besides that 't is both foolish and impious to imagine that our Lord's Body which is risen out of its State of Humiliation descends into it again and exists still Mortal Corruptible and Passible as it was heretofore This is moreover directly contrary to his Sacramental State wherein we must necessarily suppose it if we would have it to be in the Eucharist in proper Substance For it is not to be imagined that a Body which exists after the manner of a Spirit impalpable and indivisible which can be neither seen nor touched should be at the same time Mortal Corruptible and Passible as our Saviour's Body was before his Resurrection These two States are inconsistent with each other whence it follows that whatsoever otherwise the Sence of this Author might be he held neither Transubstantiation nor the Reality which the Church of Rome holds YET if we believe Mr. Arnaud he is a Witness for him For as soon as ever he finds in any Passage that the Eucharist is not a Figure but the true Body of Christ he requires no more for the making of a Proof altho he sees otherwise several things absolutely contrary to him One of the usual Artifices with which he imposes on his Readers is that when he offers any Passage importing what I now mentioned or something like it he sets himself to shew not that 't is the Romane Transubstantiation therein contained but that 't is not our Doctrine And thus has he done in that Passage of Anastasius's Can any Man say's he that has but the least spark of Sence and believes the Ibid. p. 625. Eucharist to be only a Figure of Christ's Body and not the real Body of Christ Express this his Opinion by these Terms The Eucharist is not the Figure but really the true Body of Christ Can any Calvinist in the World refuse to acknowledg this Discourse overthrows his Doctrine And I say can there be any Man that has but the least dram of Sence that believes the Body of Christ exists in the Eucharist after the manner of a Spirit and is therein in a Sacramental State and yet expresses this his Belief in saying the Eucharist is subject to Corruption and concluding from thence that the Body of Christ was then Corruptible before his Resurrection Is there ever a one of Mr. Arnaud's Friends that can contain himself from believing this Discourse overthrows his Doctrine When I speak in this manner I keep to the State of our Question and deceive no body But when Mr. Arnaud speaks as he does he wanders from the Point in hand and deludes his Readers WHATSOEVER Anastasius his Doctrine may be 't is certain 't is not that of the Church of Rome which cannot consist with the Principle on which Anastasius argues He expresses himself say's Mr. Arnaud a little crabbedly towards the end of his Discourse in making use of weak Arguments not only here but in almost all parts of his whole Discourse But if Mr. Arnaud be forced to confess that this man's Expressions are of hard digestion when applyed to the Hypothesis of Rome Why may not I as well say they are so being applyed to our Hypothesis and consequently they must not be urged against us If Anastasius could not carefully consider the Consequence he drew himself how could he foresee that which Mr. Arnaud would one Day draw from his Discourse If it be usual with Anastasius to argue weakly why may it not also be usual with him to Discourse with little foresight Why must Advantage be taken from some of his Expressions against us and we withheld from taking any against Mr. Arnaud from the whole Sequel of his Discourse and Coherence of his Thoughts which a Man more minds than his Terms or manner of expressing himself MR. Arnaud endeavours but all in vain to molify Anastasius's Sence in saying That he concludes the Body of Christ was corruptible before his Passion Ibid. p. â—3â— seeing he suffers still in the Eucharist an apparent Corruption by the sensible Corruption of the Species which are the Symbol of the State wherein he was before his Death This Arguing adds he is very weak and roughly Expressed but 't is no unusual thing for this Author to Reason weakly and it would be but a bad Consequence to conclude that an Argument is not his because 't is weak It is sufficient that it be not extravagant in the highest Degree as is that which Aubertin attributes to him ANASTASIUS his Argument according to Mr. Arnaud must be put in this Form The Body of Christ before his Resurrection was such as is in the Eucharist the Symbol of the State wherein he was before his Death But this Symbol is corruptible Therefore the Body of Christ was then Corruptible This Argument is like that which Mr. Aubertin imputes to him according to Mr. Arnaud That which happens to the Figure of Christ's Body P. 629. happened to his Body before his Passion Now it happens to the Bread which is the Figure of it to be subject to Corruption The Body then of Jesus Christ was Corruptible before his Passion Take the Word Figure from this Argument insert that of Symbol which Mr. Arnaud has used in his and the two Arguments are the same Yet he will have his to be good and Mr. Aubertin's ridiculously Extravagant BUT it
more impertinent than Anastasius his Argument if what Mr. Arnaud imputes to him be true He concludes that the Body of Christ was corruptible before his Resurrection that is to say whilst he was in the World because it is corruptible in the Eucharist Now to the end his State in the Eucharist may be of Consequence to that wherein he was before his Resurrection It follows that when he was in the World he was in it under the Sensible Accidents of Bread intirely such as he is in the Eucharist Which is to say that when he Talked Walked and Conversed he did all these things under the form of Bread For unless this be so there can be no Consequence drawn from one to the other Anastasius could not have denyed that the incorruptible Body of Christ could not take on it a corruptible Form seeing he knew that this Body is now incorruptible in Heaven and that yet according to the Hypothesis which Mr. Arnaud attributes to him it becomes every Day corruptible in the Eucharist which cannot be but by changing its Form It must needs be then that Anastasius supposed the Body of Christ was in the World in the same Form 't is now in the Sacrament for supposing it changes its Form I understand not the Conclusion The Heretick Gaynite might still alledg that as it does not follow this Body is corruptible in Heaven altho it be so in the Eucharist neither does it follow that it was corruptible during the time he was on Earth and that 't is the Form he takes upon him in the Sacrament that renders him corruptible And thus Anastasius his Argument concludes nothing unless we suppose Christ's Body had absolutely the same Form when he was conversant on Earth that it has now in the Sacrament Now this Supposition being the greatest Degree of Folly there being no Man of Sence that will own it we may easily then perceive what Judgment to make of Anastasius as Mr. Arnaud handles him BUT 't is certain by what I now said that Anastasius believed neither Transubstantiation nor the real Presence for had he believed it he would never have reasoned as he does nor supposed as he has done a Principle altogether inconsistent with the Romane Doctrine BUT what is then this Author's Sence I answer that when he say's the Eucharist is not common Bread such as is sold in the Market His meaning is manifest to wit that it is consecrated Bread when he adds That it is not a Figure as that of the He-goat which the Jews offered It is clear he does not absolutely reject the Figure but in the Sence of a legal Figure which represented Christ only obscurely and imperfectly whereas the Eucharist is a Mystery which clearly and perfectly represents the whole Oeconomy of Christ's Incarnation and Mr. Arnaud himself acknowledges That altho the Greeks deny the Eucharist to be the Figure of Christ's Body yet do they affirm it Ibid. p. 630. is a Representation of the Mysteries of his Life and that the same Authors which teach the one teach the other So that so far there is nothing in Anastasius's Discourse but what is easy When he adds That it is the real Body of Jesus Christ He means that it is the Mystery of his Natural Body which not only is so perfect a Representation of it that one may say it is the true Body and not a Figure but which even has received the supernatural Form thereof or if you will the Character of it which is its Virtue in the same Sence that we say of Wax which has received the Impression of the King's Seal that it is his real Seal If we find any roughness in this Expression we must remember Mr. Arnaud finds the same in the Sequel of his Discourse and that we have shewed that what he calls Roughness is meer Absurdity Whence it follows that it is more reasonable to suffer that which is only a bare Roughness and Offensiveness in the Terms and which moreover does well agree with Anastasius his Reasoning than that wherein common Sence is not to be found We must likewise remember the Exposition which the Greeks themselves do give to these kind of Expressions that the Eucharist is the true Body the Body it self the proper Body of Christ to wit inasmuch as it is an Augmentation thereof which makes not another Body but is the same as we have already shewed in the foregoing Book We must know in fine that the Eutychiens against whom Anastasius Disputes were wont to attribute to Christ in their Discourses when urged no other than a phantastical and imaginary Body and not a real humane Body which obliged Anastasius to say that the Eucharist is the real Body of Christ that is to say the Mystery not of a chimerical but real Body THIS being thus cleared up the Sence of Anastasius his Argument lyes open before us He means that seeing the Bread is a Mystery in which is expressed the whole Oeconomy of Christ's Incarnation being as it is corruptible it must necessarily be concluded that the Body of Christ was in like manner corruptible before his Resurrection because the Bread was the Mystery of the Body before its Resurrection and that the same Oeconomy which was observed touching the natural Body whil'st it was in the World is observed in the Bread Let but Anastasius his Discourse be compared with that of Zonaras which I related in the ninth Chapter of the foregoing Book and Damascen's in the short Homily which I likewise mentioned in the Chapter touching the Belief of the Greeks and with what I said in the eighth Chapter of this Book for the explaining Cabasilas his Sence and there will appear no difficulty in it AS to that other Passage of Anastasius which Mr. Arnaud proposed wherein this Author disputes against an Heretick called Timotheus who affirmed Ibid. p. 634. the Nature of Christ after the Incarnation to be the only Divinity We must make the same Judgment of it as the former For as to what he say's That the Divinity cannot be Detained Chewed Divided Changed Cut c. as is the Eucharist and that we must according to this Hereticks Doctrine deny the Eucharist to be in truth Christ's visible terrestial and created Body and Blood He means that the Accidents which happen to the Eucharist being in no wise agreeable to the Divinity of Christ who is not subject to Change and Alteration but only to his Body we must therefore say the Bread does not pass through the same Oeconomy under which our Saviour passed whence it follows that it could not be said as it is that the Bread was in truth the Body and Blood of Christ being said to be so only upon the account of the Unity and Identity of this Oeconomy Had he believed Transubstantiation how could he miss telling his Adversary 't is not to be imagined the Substance of Bread is really changed into the very Substance of the Divinity and
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
Image of the Body of Christ and the Eucharist is the proper Body of Christ altho they understood a Propriety by an Impression of Virtue I confess there is not between these two States of Image and proper Body in the Sence wherein those of Nice understood them a real Inconsistancy But we must likewise acknowledg that there is an apparent one especially when 't is made to consist only in the Terms as I believe these Greeks have made it If Mr. Arnaud will have them make it to consist in the same thing besides that this Difference will be of small Importance as to the Main I need only offer him what himself has told us concerning Anastasius and others who denyed the Eucharist was a Figure That Lib. 7. c. 2. p. 630. these were not two inconsistent Principles nor two contrary Expressions in the Language of those Times to say that the Eucharist is not the Figure of Christ's Body and yet a Representation of the Mysteries of his Life and that the same Authors that teach the one teach us likewise the other I need only tell him that in the same Place wherein they earnestly deny the Eucharist to be an Image they acknowledg it is a Symbol and that Damascen himself who will not suffer it to be called an Image or Type yet assures us that the same Oeconomy which was observed in Christ's natural Body is observed in the Bread which establisheth a true Resemblance at bottom I need only offer him the Exposition Bessarion makes of Damascen's Words By the Figure say's he he means a Bessarion de de Sacram. Eucharist Shadow which is no more than a Figure barely signifying another Subject yet without having any Substance for acting MR. Arnaud answering this Passage of Bessarion which I offered against the Author of the Perpetuity say's That Bessarion had reason to say St. John Damascen in denying the Eucharist to be a Figure means a bare Figure without C. 6. p. 680. Efficacy Not that he pretends an efficacious Figure is not a Figure but he supposes to say the Eucharist is the Sign of Jesus Christ and not his Body is asmuch as to say it is a bare Figure without Virtue and Efficacy because the Quality of a Figure does not include any Virtue and that it would have no other which could give it this Virtue So that according to Bessarion 't is certain that Damascen in denying the Eucharist to be a Figure of Jesus Christ means by the Word Figure a Shadow and a Figure without Efficacy because that in effect if the Eucharist be a bare Figure it would be a Figure without Efficacy and there would be no place of Scripture which could prove this Efficacy as we will shew elsewhere This Proposition then is true in one Sence if the Eucharist were but a Figure it would be but an empty Figure But this is not true in any Sence seeing if the Figure were an Efficacious Figure it would not be a Figure HE means it is impossible to attribute any Virtue to the Eucharist if it be not acknowledged the Body of Christ in Substance But 1st This Principle is false in it self and the contrary may be proved by an Instance from Scripture which St. Paul calls The Power of God to Salvation Rom. 1. And by the Example of Baptism which is accompanied with the Virtue of Christ's Blood and which according to the Scripture is the Laver of our Regeneration In effect to apply to us the supernatural Virtue of the Body of Christ it is not necessary that the Substance of this Body be locally in the Eucharist it is sufficient that his Spirit be in it and operates therein 2ly It is false there is no Passage of Scripture whereby to prove this Efficacy That which our Saviour himself say's Do this in Remembrance of me and what St. Paul adds That as often as we eat of this Bread and drink of this Cup we shew forth the Lord's Death till he comes this I say includes the Communication of his Virtue For Christ and his Death are not Objects of a mere historical Consideration It is the same with this Divine Saviour as with the Sun which it is impossible to behold without being inlightned by it and cheared with its Rays If we behold him say's one of the Prophets we are inlightned by him To declare his Death as we ought is without doubt an Action inseparable from the feeling of his Efficacy and that Man who deny's this Truth knows little of Christ 3ly Neither is it true that Damascen opposes those that deny the Eucharist to be the Body of Christ in Substance and say it is only so in Virtue neither is it true Bessarion imputes to him this Reasoning Were not the Eucharist the proper Substance of Christ's Body it would be no more than a mere Figure without Virtue and Efficacy This is one of Mr. Arnaud's Circuits which has no Grounds either in the Passage of Damascen nor in that of Bessarion Bessarion indeed would have Damascen to believe Transubstantiation and the substantial Presence for being a Cardinal in the Roman Church 't is no marvel he maintained not the contrary but he does not say Damascen argued as Mr. Arnaud supposes 4ly Mr. Arnaud does himself furnish us wherewithal to dissipate all his Subtilties touching the Council of Nice for we need only apply to the Council of Nice what he say's concerning Damascen in making these Fathers argue after this manner To say the Eucharist is an Image of Christ is the same as to say 't is no more than a bare Image without any Efficacy because the Quality of an Image includes not any Virtue and the Eucharist cannot have elsewhere this Virtue there being no place of Scripture which attributes it to it nor from whence it can be concluded Now the Iconoclastes affirm the Eucharist to be an Image They say then that 't is a bare Image without Virtue and Efficacy and consequently they contradict themselves when they afterwards call it the Body of Jesus Christ for if it be a mere Image it cannot be Virtually this Body This Reasoning attributed to the Fathers of Nice would be better grounded than that which he Imputes to Damascen because it does not appear Damascen Disputes against Persons that Expounded the Words of Christ This is my Body in this Sence This is the Figure of my Body whereas it appears that the Iconoclastes had Expounded them in this Sence This is the Image of my Body whence it follows they might been told better than they have been by Damascen that having no other Passage of Scripture whereby to prove it was the Body of Christ in Virtue it was no more according to them than a mere Image without any Efficacy AS to what Mr. Arnaud say's That altho Paschasius his Adversaries Expounded C. 6. p. 683. these Words The Body of Jesus Christ the Virtue of Jesus Christ yet did they not say it was the
should see that the Sence I attributed to the Fathers of Constantinople and which he is pleased to call a metaphysical Speculation of Mr. Claude is in effect a Doctrine commonly received in the Greek Church I drew Advantage from the Council's saying that our Saviour chose a Matter which does not represent any humane Shape lest Idolatry should be thereby Introduced And pretended that in whatsoever sort these Words were Understood they were Inconsistent with the Belief of the real Presence Mr. Arnaud Answers that this Passage is capable of three Sences The First That Lib. 7. c. 7. p. 700. 701. God would not let the Eucharist have a humane Shape lest it should be adored The 2d That he would not suffer the Eucharist to have a humane Form lest Men should commit Idolatry in Adoring it under this humane Figure altho it be no Idolatry to Worship it under the Figure of Bread The 3d. That he would not let the Eucharist have a humane Form lest the due Worship which would be given it under this humane Figure should carry Men forth to Adore Images of Wood and Stone which being not our Saviour as the Eucharist is could not be Worshiped without Idolatry The first adds he of these Sences is that which the Calvinists give to the Words of the Iconoclastes The 2. Is a ridiculous Sence and that which never any Person yet Imagined The 3d. Is the Sence which the Catholicks give them Hereupon Mr. Claude to establish his first Sence Declames at large against the 2d which is not a Sence but an absurd Imagination which he has form'd HAD Mr. Arnaud sincerely related all that I said on this Subject and not maim'd my Discourse and produced but some part thereof disjoynted from the rest that he might turn it into a wrong Sence It would have been easily perceived that I offered these two last Sences and shewed that both of 'em were Inconsistent with the Supposition of the substantial Presence That I afterwards established the true Sence of these Words in supposing the Eucharist to be an Image really distinct from our Lord's Body I neither attributed to the Author of the Perpetuity nor to any body else any Sence I only proposed the two which might be given to these Words upon supposal of the real Presence and shewed that neither of them were justifiable I am not at all troubled at Mr. Arnaud's calling the Second an absurd Imagination I hold it to be so as well as he and as such I have refuted it But the Last is no less absurd than the Second For the due Worship which would be given to the Eucharist if it had a humane Shape would not induce Men to the Worshipping of Images of Wood and Stone The Difference would be apparent for the Eucharist would be the Body of Christ the Image of Wood not so The Adoration of the Eucharist would not be then grounded on the humane Shape or Figure but on the substantial Presence of Christ's Body Moreover what can be more Ridiculous than the Opinion which Mr. Arnaud Imputes to these People which is that our Saviour would have proposed his Body really in the Eucharist clothed with another humane Figure than his own natural Form Otherwise say's he it would not be an Image but our Saviour himself without any Vail It is true but this should make him comprehend that they understood the Eucharist was not the proper Substance of this Body but an Image which is of another Substance than its Original For a Man cannot be guilty of a greater Absurdity than to imagine our Saviour's Body is really in the Eucharist in a humane Shape not his own but a borrowed one These kind of Imaginations reside not in the Minds of reasonable People But supposing this was their Sence how could they say that our Saviour would not take upon him any other humane Shape than his own to prevent Idolatry Might not their Adversaries tell them on the contrary that this very Consideration ought to prevail on us the more to make Images For the Original of our Saviour's Body in whatsoever State it is takes Men off from Images but it would carry them further off from them if it had a humane Figure whatsoever it were for this is what our Eyes seek in Images and if they found this Figure joyned with the Original they need not search it elsewhere I confess that the Original Speaking Moving it self and Acting under its own proper Figure would better produce this Effect but this does not hinder but that it may produce it likewise having a simple borrowed Figure without Speech and Action seeing that also Images have neither Speech nor Action and that the Figure they have is no less a borrowed Figure than that which the Eucharist would have It is certain that this sensual Devotion which seeks after Representations and visible Lineaments would be more satisfied in beholding a humane Shape whatsoever it were applyed on the Original it self than to behold one represented on Cloth or the Walls of a House It must then be acknowledged that the true Sence of this Council supposes the Eucharist to be an Image really distinct from the Body of Christ and that our Saviour has chosen for this a Matter or a Substance which has not a humane Figure lest this Resemblance should carry Men forth to render to the Image that which is only due to the Original and to make others like it of other matters to Adore them Whosoever shall compare my Exposition with that of Mr. Arnaud will soon acknowledg that mine is Natural Free and according to good Sence whereas his is Forced and Violent and imputes to Persons such a kind of Arguing as is absurd and groundless BUT say's Mr. Arnaud the Iconoclastes Adored the Eucharist with a sovereign C. 7. p. 702. Adoration For Stephen the Younger said to Constantin Copronymus Do not you design likewise to cast out of the Church the Antitypes of the Body and Blood of Christ seeing they contain the true Image of them and we Adore and Kiss them and are Sanctified by receiving them Stephen proves the Worship of Images by a Principle common to the Iconoclastes Now according to them all Worship rendred to Images is a real Adoration and is due to God only and consequently they gave to the Eucharist a Worship which they supposed due only to God BUT could not Mr. Arnaud foresee that we may argue exactly contrary and say Stephen proves the relative Adoration of Images by that of the Eucharist Neither of them then gave the Eucharist any other than a relative Adoration and consequently they neither of them believed that it was the Body of Christ in proper Substance But say's he the Iconoclastes acknowledged but one only Adoration which is that which is due to God alone and consequently Ibid. they gave the Eucharist a Worship which they supposed due only to God There cannot be a weaker Argument Stephen does not
quod sicut bestiae in morte expirant sic moriuntur ita Homines sicut bestiae cum semel morte fuerunt nunquam resurgent ita nec homines The Opinions held only in one Armenia are likewise denoted exactly in these Words In majori Armenia In minori Armenia or Catholicon majoris Armeniae Catholicon minoris Armeniae The common Opinions are expressed in these Terms Armeni dicunt Armeni tenent And altho in the Article which respects the real Presence and Transubstantiation we find these words Et hoc specialiter aliqui magistri Armenorum dixerunt videlicet quod non erat ibi Corpus Christi verum Sanguis sed exemplar similitudo ejus yet is this same sentiment imputed generally to all the Armenians for the Article begins thus Item quod Armeni non dicunt quod post verba consecrationis Panis Vini sit facta Transubstantiatio Panis Vini in verum Corpus Christi Sanguinem And towards the end of the same Article there is Quod etiam Armeni illud quod ponitur in eorum Canone Missae per quem panis Benedictus efficitur verum Corpus Christi exponunt quia efficitur ibi vera similitudo exemplar Corporis Sanguinis Christi Unde Damascenus propter hoc reprehendens eos dixit quod ducenti tunc anni erant quod Armeni perdiderunt omnia Sacramenta c. It is then clear that this information attributes this Opinion not to some particular Persons but to the whole Body of the Armenians seeing that on one hand this Article bears the Character of Errors common to the Armenians and on the other there is applyed to 'em what Damascene say'd of 'um so long before that they had lost all the Sacraments Let Mr. Arnaud bestir himself as fiercely as he pleases he cannot hinder us from perceiving that if this Article related only to Particular Persons witnesses of the Fourteenth Century that depose what it contains would never have sought in the eight Century that is to say Six Hundred Years before the Authority of Damascen to confirm what they deposed and even to confirm it by a passage which respects the Church of the Armenians in general and which accuses it for having no true Sacrament MR. Arnaud observes afterwards that in this same Article there is accused another Armenian Doctor named Narces for saying when the Priest C. 9. P. 48. pronounces these Words Hoc est Corpus meum the Body of Jesus Christ is then in a state of Death and when he adds perquem the Body of Jesus Christ is then alive It is true says he the information adds that this Doctor do's not express whether he speaks of the true Body of Jesus Christ or of the Figure But the difference of these two states of Life and Death being to be found in a figure which does not change sufficiently shews that he spake of the true Body of Jesus Christ If these two states of Life and Death cannot be found in a figure much less in the true Body of Jesus Christ which is no more Subject to Death nor the Necessity of rising again Is Mr. Arnaud so greatly prejudic'd that he cannot perceive the sence of this Doctor is that the Eucharist is a mystery which expresses the whole oeconomy of Jesus Christ especially his Death and Resurrection according to the common Doctrine of the Greeks from which in this respect the Greeks do not vary IN the Seventyeth Error says he moreover the same Armenians are Ibid charged with believing that when any one receives the Eucharist the Body of Jesus Christ Descends into his Body and is converted therein as other aliments which is a contrary Heresie to that of Berengarius But as Berengarius would not have scrupled to call the Bread which is the Sacrament of the Body of Jesus Christ the Body of Jesus Christ so neither would he have scrupled to express himself in the same manner as this Article makes the Armenians do That the Body of Jesus Christ that is to say the Bread which is the figure of it Descends into our Bodies and is changed into our Bodies So that this contrariety which Mr. Arnaud imagins has no Ground But there is a real Opposition between this Discourse of the Armenians that the Body of Jesus Christ is Changed into our Bodies as other food and the Opinion of Transubstantiation for how can it be conceived that the proper substance of the Body of Jesus Christ which is in Heaven should be changed into our Bodies that an incorruptible substance should be digested and changed that a substance which exists after the manner of Spirits should nourish us and become food to us It appears then from this very thing that by the Body of Jesus Christ the Armenians mean only the Sacrament or Mystery of this Body which in respect of its substance is real Bread NEITHER is it to any purpose to Remark as Mr. Arnaud do's Ibid. that those to whom was attributed the believing the Eucharist to be only the figure of Christs Body were not wont to call the Eucharist the Body of Jesus Christ and yet commonly the Armenians do thus call it as appears by their Liturgies For 't is evident the sence of this Article is not that absolutely the Armenians rejected this expression seeing it immediately afterwards attributes it to them but that it was not usual amongst them especially since they saw the Latins abused it and therefore they chose rather to use those of Host Sacrifice and Communion IT is also to no purpose to say the Liturgy of the Armenians is contrary Ibid. to this Opinion seeing it contained the Bread is made the real Body of Jesus Christ for they expounded it in this sence that the Bread is made the true resemblance or the representation of the Body of Jesus Christ This explication says Mr. Arnaud is so absurd and ridiculous that it could not be very common it being impossible the generality should entertain it But does Mr. Arnaud believe that Transubstantiation being fully and truly explained as it is in it self and consequences and dependencies can be more easily entertain'd by a People than this sence which the Armenians give to the terms of their Liturgy AS to what he adds that it is say'd in the Seventyeth Article that Ibid. according to the Armenians the Eucharist do's not effect the remission of Sins nor confer Grace and that this is contrary to the Words of the Liturgy of the Armenians of Leopolis and a passage of the Catholick of Armenia in the conference of Theorien which say's they Sacrifice in the Church the son of God for the Salvation of the whole World All that Mr. Arnaud can conclude hence is That the Armenians residing in Armenia do not well agree in this point with those of Leopolis in Poland and that the Catholick which conferred with Theorien was of no great consideration amongst them but it cannot hence follow
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
at least must byass a mans Judgment towards those things which are afterwards offered If I for my share desired a man to suppose a Church which never heard any mention of the Substantial Presence nor Conversion of Substances that never believed these Doctrines and were ignorant of all the Subtilties of the Schools on that point my request would be more reasonable than that of Mr. Arnaud's for till we are shew'd Transubstantiation has bin receiv'd in a Church we may suppose this Church in a state of Nature in this respect Now we know 't is contrary to Nature to believe it I know Mr. Arnaud would not fail to tell me we must not thus fill mens Minds with Prejudices but leave 'um at liberty to judge of things alledged on both sides This Supposition then which Mr. Arnaud would have us make is captious far from being sincere and tending to surprize mens minds by making 'um take a part beforehand without any ground or reason that being thus prejudic'd they may see what is not and not see what is For it is certain according to these two different Suppositions the one that a Church believed Transubstantiation but never disputed about it Th' other that a Church did not believe Transubstantiation nor ever heard it a man shall differently judge of the same Expressions Upon one of these Prejudices a man will say here 's one of these defective Expressions mention'd by Mr. Arnaud which leaves something to be supplyed by the Hearer and on the other a man will say here 's an Expression which comprehends the whole Faith of the Mystery In effect hence proceed the different Judgments which the Catholicks and Protestants make on several Passages of the ancient Fathers the one believe they see Transubstantiation in 'um because they read the Passages with this Prejudice that the ancient Church held it and the places considered in this respect confirm them in the thoughts which they have already entertain'd the others do not find it in 'um because they consider the same Passages with this contrary Prejudice that the ancient Church did not believe it and these Passages considered in this regard make no Impression upon them On the other hand there are Passages which appear very considerable for the Protestants against the Conversion of Substances and which yet appear but weak and inconsiderable to the Roman Catholicks TO deal fairly in a matter of this Importance it seems to me a man ought to compare these two Prejudices one with the other and examine solidly which of the two is most just and reasonable For this effect we must consider the Church either as a Society of men or as a Society of Christians In the first respect it will be the greatest Absurdity imaginable to attribute to it the belief of Transubstantiation If she held it it would be in the second respect I would say inasmuch as she is a Christian Society that has such Articles of Divine Faith and particular Sentiments touching Religion which Nature do's not give Now in this quality a man cannot reasonably prejudicate that the Church of the 7th and following Centuries believed the Substantial Presence and Transubstantiation but by one of these two motives either because he sees these Doctrines contain'd in the first and fundamental Rule of Christian Religion which is the Word of God or sees 'um already established in the preceding Centuries If then Mr. Arnaud would establish his Supposition he must begin by Inquiries into the Scriptures and Tradition of the first Six Centuries and shew therein the Doctrines in question which done he should descend to the Seventh and Eighth Ages and make his Discussion on this Principle that the Church at that time was in Possession of believing the real Presence and Transubstantiation But he do's neither the one nor the other of these things He begins his Discussion from the Seventh Century and would have his Reader Judge beforehand from thence that the Church at that time held the Doctrines now in dispute This is a plain Deviation and Illusion For till such time as the contrary appears to us we must always predetermine on Natures side Now the order of Nature is neither to believe the Substantial Presence nor the Conversion of the Substance of Bread so that unless the establishment of these Doctrines in the Church appears elsewhere we cannot but suppose the Church in what time and place soever we consider it in a State purely Natural in this respect WEE can never reasonably predetermine without some considerable motive contrary to that common Light which regulates the judgments of men nor contrary to Universal Notions and general Customs Now 't is certain that these three things oppose the Doctrines in question For our Senses give in their Testimony against them and Reason carry us rather away from 'um than to ' um Universal Notions give us quite different idea's than those which these Doctrines constrain us to have and the common Custom is to judge of sensible things according to their Natural Characters WEE ought never to prejudicate without exceeding great reason against an example I mean against the usual manner of proceeding acting thinking or speaking in such like matters as is this in question Now the Example of all People and especially of Christians shews they conceive the Mysteries or Sacraments without imagining any Conversion of Substance in 'um that they give to signs the names of the things which they represent to distinguish Mysteries from Miracles properly so called not to offer Miracles wrought on sensible things and which are yet not only imperceptible to the Senses but also contrary to their Deposition WHEN the Question concerns a particular Doctrine which goes to the making up of a part of the Body of a Religion a man ought never to prejudicate lightly against that which we call the Analogy that is to say the Relation Coherence and just Proportion which ought to be Naturally between the Doctrines Maxims and Customs of the same Religion For 't is with Religion as with the several Parts of a Building or Aedifices of the same City or Members of the same Body or if you will as with Children of the same Family They are known by one another because they all do in some sort resemble each other now if we consider the Christian Religion in the State wherein it was in the Seventh and Eighth Centuries we shall find it full of Explications and Mystical Expressions for this is the true Character of the Divinity of those Days We shall find perpetual Discourses of that Spiritual Communion which we have with Jesus Christ and immediate Manducation of his flesh as an Act of the Soul and of a thing that belongs only to the Faithful We shall not find they considered any more than two States in our Saviour Christ to wit that of his Abasement and that of his Exaltation without ever mentioning this third State call'd Sacramental WE shall not find 'um applying to
difficulties of this Mystery and therefore 't is no marvel that the Fathers never took notice of ' em Reflection WE have already refuted this opposition and it only remains that we observe here again Mr. Arnaud's illusion who to answer the proof drawn from the Consequences which he calls Philosophical ones such as are the existence of accidents without a subject the existence of a body in divers places at once the concomitance c. which were unknown to the ancient Church as well as to the Schismatical Churches supposes first that these Churches do firmly believe Transubstantiation and concludes afterwards that our proof musâ— needs be invalid seeing here are the Greeks Armenians and Copticks c. who make no mention of these difficulties So that by this means there are no Arguments which Mr. Arnaud cannot easily answer WE have likewise refuted particularly what he offers touching the adoration of the Eucharist in his 9th Chapter And as to what he alledges in the 10th touching the impossibility of the change which we maintain we will treat thereof in this following Book BOOK VI. Concerning the Change which has hapned in the Doctrin of the Latin Church in respect of the Eucharist That this Change was not impossible and that it has effectually hapned CHAP. I. The state of the Question touching the distinct knowledg of the Presence or Real Absence DESIGNING particularly to treat in this 6th and last Book of the Change which has hapned according to us in the Latin Church I could not better begin it than by the question Whether men ever had a distinct knowledg of the Presence or Real Absence This distinct knowledg being one of the principal means which the Author of the Perpetuity has made use of to shew that the change which we suppose is impossible it is necessary then to consider it first 'T is likewise for this reason that I reserved the discussion of Mr. Arnaud's 6th Book for this place for having treated of the Author of the Perpetuity's method I believed 't was necessary to discuss without interruption whatsoever concerned the Greeks and other Eastern Christians to examin at the same time the state of the Latins in the 7th and 8th Centuries and afterwards pass on to the Consequences which Mr. Arnaud draws from the pretended consent of all Churches in the Doctrines of Transubstantiation Which done due order requiring us to proceed to the question of the change which hapned in the 9th 10th and 11th Centuries and this other Question of the distinct knowledg which Mr. Arnaud handles in his 6th Book being a dependance of that of the change or to speak better a preamble to it I believed this was the most fitting place to examin it BUT before we enter into this matter it is necessary to state the question clearly and for this effect I shall propose some remarks which will plainly discover wherein consists the point of our difference First I grant Mr. Arnaud that the Author of the Perpetuity has not offer'd his Argument drawn from the distinct knowledg but only in respect of the Real Presence and not in reference to Transubstantiation But Mr. Arnaud likewise must grant that this proof does not fully answer the design which the Author of the Perpetuity proposed to himself at the entrance of his Treatise To make Perp. Faith pag. 14. us confess from the evidence of truth it self that the Belief of the Roman Church touching the Mystery of the Eucharist is the same with that of all antiquity For the Roman Church does not simply stop at the Real Presence she believes likewise Transubstantiation Now in this respect that Author's proof concludes nothing Yet seeing he himself has restrained his Argument only to the Real Presence it will not be just to give it a greater extent in this respect IN the second place it must be granted that the question here concerns nor persons that have no knowledg of Christianity and consequently perhaps never heard of the Eucharist nor Body of Jesus Christ The point in hand concerns persons that made open profession to be Christians who Communicated and knew that our Saviour Christ is in Heaven so that they had some kind of notion as well of the Eucharist as of the Body of Jesus Christ So far Mr. Arnaud and I agree well enough BUT our difference begins from the complaint I make against the Author of the Perpetuity in that he would establish the state of this question in an illusory manner It concerns us says he to know whether the faithful Refutation Part. 2. Ch. 2. could remain for the space of a thousand years in the Church without forming a distinct and determinate notion whether what they saw was or was not the true Body of Jesus Christ Mr. Arnaud maintains this state of the question Lib. 6. cap. 3. and I affirm 't is wholly captious and that the question does not at all concern this matter Which we shall illustrate by a third remark I say then the question is properly to know whether during a thousand years the people that were in the Church ever formed a distinct and determinate notion whether what they saw was or was not the Body of Jesus Christ in proper substance without ever ceasing during all this time to have this same notion thus distinct and determinate The Author of the Perpetuity and Mr. Arnaud are obliged to prove the affirmative because in their respect 't is a necessary proposition which they offer in form of a Principle wirhout which their Argument touching the impossibility of the change concludes nothing I must defend the negative but this negative consists not in affirming that during a thousand years the faithful could remain without forming this distinct and determinate notion here in question it consists in affirming only that during a certain time comprehended within the extent of these thousand years the people have not formed this distinct notion These Gentlemens affirmation must be general for the thousand years and if there be wanting but one or less than one Age their supposition will be ineffectual seeing 't is only by this they can prove that the change we dispute about was impossible during these thousand years But as to my own part 't is sufficient I affirm their supposition to be false during a certain time wherein the change will be made It will do these Gentlemen no harm perhaps who scoff at that Philosophy which they call School-boys Exercise to consult it sometimes for it will teach them to distinguish between a contrary opposition and a contradictory one Two contrary propositions may be both of 'em false and are never very proper to form a just state of a question between rational persons who dispute to find a Verity and not to discover two falsities For example these two propositions Men are lyars Men are always lyars are opposite by an opposition called contrary They are both false and cannot form a just question To form
it there must be made this contradictory opposition Men are not always lyars men are sometimes lyars or men are always lyars men are not always lyars they are sometimes true That man will justly render himself ridiculous who having offer'd this proposition That during a thousand years men always spake the truth and attempting to maintain it shall afterwards give an exchange and say the question is Whether men could remain a thousand years without speaking any truth He may be well told this is impertinently stated and that this is not the point in hand but only to know whether they always said the truth during a thousand years without ceasing ever to speak it or whether they have been sometimes lyars This instance alone exactly discovers the Author of the Perpetuity's illusion who having offer'd this proposition That the faithful ever had a distinct knowledg whether the Eucharist was or was not the Body of Jesus Christ that is to say the proper substance of the Body of Jesus Christ for 't is thus he understands it has afterwards proposed the state of the question in these terms It concerns us to know whether the faithful could remain a thousand years in the Church without forming a distinct and determinate notionâ— whether that which they saw was or was not the true Body of Jesus Christ We have just cause to tell him that this is not the point but whether they always were in a condition to form this distinct notion or whether sometimes they were not Mr. ARNAVD endeavours in vain to excuse the Author of the Perpetuity that he only established this state of the question on the very terms of my answer For supposing it were true that the terms of my Answer furnished him with an occasion or pretence for this yet must he not thus establish it to the prejudice of the publick interests which require a man to proceed right on in a Dispute to find the truth and not to amuse ones self in deceitful and fruitless contests and prove things which will signifie nothing Now this is what the Author of the Perpetuity has done and Mr. Arnaud likewise by means of this false state of the question as will appear if we consider that when they have proved most strongly and solidly and in the most convincing manner imaginable That the faithful could not remain a thousand years in the Church without forming a distinct and determinate notion whether that which they saw was or was not the true Body of Jesus Christ which is a proposition contradictorily opposite to that which they express in their state of the question they will do nothing in order to the clearing up of our difference We dispute whether the change which the Protestants suppose be possible or not Now to prove that 't is impossible by the Argument of the distinct knowledge it signifies nothing to shew that the faithful could not remain a thousand years in the Church without forming this distinct notion now in question For they might remain only a hundred years in it fifty years thirty years without forming it this is sufficient to invalidate their proof and give way to the change which we pretend To shew it is impossible that a man has entred into a house it is not enough to prove that the door of this house could not remain open for ten years together it must be shew'd that it was always kept shut For if it has been left open only one day the proof concludes nothing It is then evident that these Gentlemen beat the air and that whatsoever they built on their state of the question is only an amusement to deceive silly people Whence it follows that persons of sense may justly complain of them in that they have made my words be they what they will a pretence whereby to entertain the world with fruitless discourses BUT moreover 't is certain that the Author of the Perpetuity has perverted my words and sense 'T is true that in the fifth Observation of my first Answer I established this general Principle That error and truth have equally two degrees the one of a confused knowledg and th' other of a distinct one and that 't is hard to discover any difference betwixt them whilst they are in this first degree of confused knowledg unless a man comes to the other termed a distinct knowledg that the ideas are so like one another that a man cannot easily discern them It is true that from this Principle I generally concluded That before an Error becomes famous by its being opposed the greatest part of the Church content themselves with holding the truth in this indistinct degree I now mention'd and so it is easie for a new Error to insinuate and settle it self in mens minds under the title of an illustration of the ancient truth It is moreover true that in applying this Principle I added these terms To apply this to the matter which we treat of I say that before Transubstantiation came into the world every one believed our Saviour to be present in the Sacrament and that his Body and Blood are really therein received by the faithful Communicant and that the Bread and Wine are the signs and memorials of his Death and Passion on the Cross this was the Faith of the whole Earth but I shall not be mistaken when I say there were few that extended their thoughts so far as to observe exactly the difference of the two Opinions which do at this day separate the Reformists and Romanists there were also some who knew the truth only in general When then error came in thereupon and building ill on a foundation declared we must understand our Saviour is present in the Eucharist stubstantially and locally that his Body and Blood are received in it by the mouth of our bodies and that the sign of his Body is his Body it self this was without doubt in effect an extraordinary novelty and of which there was never heard any mention but yet I do not find it strange that several people were deceived by it and took this not for a novelty but as an illustration of the common Faith So far extends my fifth Observation BUT he ought not to stop here to raise a state of a question he ought to see likewise what I add immediately after in the sixth Observation Had the Author of the Perpetuity and Mr. Arnaud consulted it they would have acknowledged that I gave therein a formal explication and as it were a limitation to this general Principle which I laid down that this does not wholly take place in enlightned Ages wherein there are eminent Pastors for knowledg that take care to instruct clearly their Flocks in the truths of Faith For then their good instructions hinder the growth of Error and render people capable of knowing and rejecting it But it is wholly applicable to the Ages of darkness wherein Ignorance and Superstition have corrupted the Church Which I express in these words Which
admits the invisible one It would have been well if the Author of the Perpetuity had not used in this Dispute these equivocal terms of the Real Presence and real Absence which give way to sophisms as will appear in what follows but seeing he has used them it is at least necessary to distinguish them as I have now done LET us see then upon these illustrations what are the pretensions on either side The Author of the Perpetuity maintains that these Christians must have a distinct knowledg either of the Presence or Real Absence that is to say they must have known distinctly whether that which they receiv'd in the Communion was or was not the Body of Jesus Christ in substance for thus he understands it there being no medium says he I affirm on the contrary that they had not for the most part of 'em any distinct knowledg either of the invisible Real Presence or the Real invisible Absence and that they were not come as then to this distinct question Whether the Body of Jesus Christ was invisibly present by its proper substance and after the manner of a Spirit in the Eucharist or not SO far it seems that the method and state of this Dispute is clear for 't is likely by the Real Presence the Author of the Perpetuity means not the visible Presence of which we do not dispute and which the Church of Rome it self rejects but the invisible Presence of which we dispute and which the Roman Church holds so that we need only propose the proofs of both parties for the Readers edification But Mr. Arnaud who can make clouds when he has occasion for 'em has so greatly obscured this matter by distinctions and crafty pretences that we must still spend more time to clear the difficulties he has cast in our way TO believe says he the Real Absence is to believe that the Eucharist is not Lib. 6. cap. 2. the Body of Jesus Christ or that the Body of Jesus Christ is not really present in the Eucharist Now a man may distinctly believe or know that one thing is not another or that 't is not in another in three different manners The first by an express and formal reflection but general when a man generally denies one thing to be another or affirms that 't is absent but without specifying any particular manner Thus in denying the King to be at Paris we say he is not there in any real manner altho we specifie not any one The second by a distinct reflection on all the different manners of being a thing or being really present in a place Which is as if a man should say that the King is not at Paris neither visibly nor invisibly and 't is in this manner the Sacramentaries deny the presence of Christ's Body in the Eucharist And the third without any reflection and by a simple view of the nature of things which does so comprehend the exclusion of whatsoever belongeth not to their being that the mind knows as well what they are not as if it had made an hundred positive judgments on ' em Applying afterwards this distinction he assures us first That the Author of the Perpetuity never pretended to prove that if the Faithful believed not the Real Presence they then believed the Real Absence in the second manner which is to say that they positively excluded by a formal reflection all the several kinds of presence 2. That the greatest part of his Arguments conclude that if the Faithful believed not the Real Presence they would have rejected it in the first manner and by a general reflection which denies the thing without considering the different species 3. That altho a man may draw this consequence from several of his Arguments yet 't is sufficient for his design to shew that these Faithful would have rejected the Real Presence in the third manner that is to say without reflection and by a distinct knowledg of certain verities which include it according to the ordinary manner of conceiving things WE must then examin these three manners and see in what sense the Author of the Perpetuity is obliged to maintain that if the Christians of whom we speak believed not the Real Presence they then believed the Real Absence THE first is chimerical and impossible For 't is not possible for a man naturally to consider the Real Presence of the Body of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist to reject it without conceiving at the same time in particular some kind or manner of presence Either these persons to whom Mr. Arnaud attributes his first manner of believing the Real Absence knew the invisible Presence or did not know it Supposing they knew it what necessity was there of making them reject it in general without specifying it in particular Why not say they rejected it in making a formal reflection on it If they knew it not as it seems Mr. Arnaud supposes it is not at least possible but they had formally in their minds the particular idea of the corporeal and visible Presence For as soon as ever we conceive a humane Body to be substantially present in a place the first notion that offers it self naturally to the mind is that of the ordinary and corporeal Presence It is possible we may conceive a humane body without thinking of the place wherein it is we every day make such kind of abstractions as these yet 't is not possible according to nature for a man to conceive it to be present by its proper substance in a place without conceiving at the same time the idea of its corporeal Presence Nature furnishing us with no other idea of the substantial Presence than that it cannot be but this idea will shew it self to the mind as soon as ever we imagin a body in a place To be present in a place and that corporeally are naturally one and the same idea in respect of a humane body The Philosophy of later Ages has made two ideas of this whether with reason or not I do not now dispute but howsoever nature makes but one of it and whilst we do not distinguish them nor know the secret of making two ideas of them the one general and th' other particular we shall never make this abstraction for nature puts not men upon making it Now we speak here of persons that think according to nature and suppose they never heard the least mention of invisible and incorporeal Presence it is not then possible but they must immediately form the idea of the visible or corporeal Presence in the same manner as 't is not possible for a man naturally to conceive the Sun to be present over our Hemisphere but he must conceive the idea of his visible and ordinary Presence It is then certain that a man considered in the state of nature void of the fancies of this new Philosophy cannot believe the Real Absence of Christ's Body in the Sacrament without thinking on the corporeal Presence In this
Saviour did not scruple to say This is my Body when he gave the sign of his Body that he made Bread his Body in saying This is my Body that is to say the figure of my Body that we must distinguish between the Bread of our Lord and the Bread which is the Lord himself that the consecrated Bread is honored with the name of our Lords Body altho the nature of Bread remains that the nature or substance of Bread ceases not to be and that that which we celebrate is the image or resemblance of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ who knew that the humanity of Jesus Christ is local absent from Heaven when on the Earth and left the Earth when it ascended up into Heaven that to eat the Flesh of Jesus Christ is to believe in him that this locution is figurative and must not be taken according to the letter signifying we must communicate of our Lords Passion and call to remembrance that his Flesh has been Crucified for us 'T IS such kind of persons as these who are well instructed in the sense of the Fathers that are to be consulted to find the natural sense of these other expressions which Mr. Arnaud alledges in his favour What likelihood is there that with these preparatives which they receiv'd daily from their Pastors they should stick at these expressions they heard 'em use That the Bread is the Body of Jesus Christ that 't is made the Body of Jesus Christ changed into the Body of Jesus Christ that the Body of Jesus Christ enters into us that we are refresh'd with his Blood and nourish'd with his Flesh and other expressions of this nature what likelihood is there they should hesitate at 'em or see any other sense in 'em than the Sacramental or figurative one Now these are the persons whereof my fifth rank consists whom I supposed to have a knowledg of the truth more distinct and clear than the others and a mind better fitted to understand the stile and ordinary expressions of the Church Let the same instructions the same expositions be given now to the people which the Fathers gave them let neither Transubstantiation nor the Real Presence nor the conversion of the substance of Bread into the very substance of Christs Body nor the Body of Jesus Christ concealed under the vail of accidents without a subject nor th'existence of these accidents without a subject nor the real existence of the Body of Jesus Christ in several places nor his double Presence that is to say his visible and invisible one nor his Sacramental state after the manner of a Spirit be mention'd let 'em not be enjoyn'd t' adore the Sacrament of the Eucharist with that Sovereign adoration which is due to Jesus Christ alone and in a word let all things be suppress'd which we find the Fathers did not speak or do and let the impressions and prejudications which these novelties have introduc'd into mens minds be lost let the same instructions and expositions I say be given to the people now which the Fathers gave them and then let 'em be told as long as you will that the Bread is the Body of Jesus Christ that 't is chang'd into the Body of Jesus Christ for I am persuaded and believe every reasonable man will be so too that the people will never conceive from these expressions either Transubstantiation or Consubstantiation but understand 'em without difficulty in a Sacramental sense Where Where 's then this great noise which the Real Presence made knocking as the Author of the Perpetuity words it millions of times at the gate of the hearts of all the Faithful Is not this clatter a mere dream and has Mr. Arnaud any reason to reproach me with the deafness of my ears BUT 't will perhaps be question'd whether persons of mean capacity whom we do not suppose to have this knowledg of the style and sense of the Church did not receive by these words th' impression of the Real Presence I answer we shall do 'em no wrong by supposing they did not understand them You have commanded us to believe said they in S. Austin Serm. ad inf explain to us then how the Bread is the Body of Jesus Christ to the end we may understand it They did not understand it then before the explication In effect the greatest part of the Fathers words taken literally are void of any natural sense Philosophy must give 'em one for how can we understand naturally that the Bread is the Body of Jesus Christ according to a literal sense or chang'd into the Body of Jesus Christ seeing we behold it still to be Bread I confess there are some of these expressions which are apt to offer to ignorant people the idea of a Real Presence but not of the real invisible and incorporeal Presence touching which we contend but on the contrary the idea of a corporeal Presence for a mans mind especially that of an ignorant man does not imagin th' existence of a human invisible insensible and impalpable Body I moreover say that this idea of the corporeal Presence would be immediately rejected as false by the most stupid and ignorant from the testimony of their own senses which they could not but consult supposing at least they knew Christ's Body was a human one But supposing they did not 't is likely their simplicity would lead them to believe that the natural Body of Jesus Christ was really upon Earth in the form of Bread such as they saw in the Eucharist and this is what S. Austin says little Children would do were they earnestly and gravely told 'tis the Body of Jesus Christ AS to the passages of S. Hilary and Gregory of Nysse which Mr. Arnaud alledges as offering the idea of the Real Presence I confess the first is able to surprize th' ignorant and make 'em conceive a corporeal Presence seeing it has these words that Jesus Christ is in us in reality of nature and not by a simple consent of will and then again that Jesus Christ dwells in us naturally which literally signifies that our Lords Flesh exists in us in such an ordinary and corporeal manner as the flesh of animals exists in us when we eat 'em which was the sense wherein the Capernaits took the words of Jesus Christ Mr. Arnaud himself seems to have acknowledg'd this seeing he believ'd himself oblig'd to add in his Translation a corrective that mollifies or explains this term naturally Naturally says he that is to say really But this that is to say really ought not to be written in Italick as if 't were S. Hilary's own explication and if the fault be the Printer's and not Mr. Arnaud's he should at least have set it in the Errata because it causes two illusions at a time on one hand it makes a man believe S. Hilary taught the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in us in proper terms seeing he says that he remains in us naturally that is
has taken my pretended Machin of Retrenchment is this The question concerns not all those in the Answer to the second Treatise Part. 3. ch 6. West who profess themselves Christians but only one party that have grown prevalent and endeavoured to get the Pulpits to themselves thereby to become Rulers over the whole Church Whereupon he cries out Did ever any Book 9. ch 3. p. 890. body affirm that the common people of the 11th Century held not the Real Presence and had only a confused knowledg of this Mystery But Mr. Arnaud does not mind what he writes We speak of the first fifty years of the 10th Century and he comes and alledges to us the common people of the 11th Century 'T is sufficient we tell him says the Author of the Perpetuity that Refut part 3. ch 6. this change cannot be attributed to the first fifty years of this Century to wit of the 10th seeing 't is incredible that the Faithful of the whole Earth having been instructed in the distinct belief of the Real Absence should have embraced an Opinion quite contrary in condemning their first sentiments and without this change 's having made any noise These are the very words I recited and on which having said that the question concerned not a change begun and finished in the 10th Century but the progress of a change begun eighty two years before the 10th Century and finished by the Popes towards the end of the 11th I added that our Debate was not about all those in the West that professed themselves Christians but only about one party that strengthned themselves and endeavour'd to become masters of the Pulpit that they might afterwards be masters of the whole Church It evidently appears the question was about the first fifty years of the 10th Century And thereupon Mr. Arnaud tells us by way of exclamation Is there any one that affirms the common people of the 11th Century held not the Real Presence and had only a confus'd knowledg of this Mystery No Berenger himself acknowledges the contrary in calling this Doctrin the Opinion of the people sententia vulgi and in maintaining the Church was perished It must be acknowledg'd there 's a strange disorder in this kind of disputing I will grant that the common people of the 11th Century held the opinion of the Real Presence thro the labours of Paschasus his Disciples but it does not follow 't was the same in the first fifty years of the 10th for when a new Doctrin disperses it self in a Church an hundred and fifty years make great alterations in it When we speak of the time in which Paschasus wrote his Book of the Body and Blood of Christ 't is not likely we suppose the people to be in the same state they were in two hundred years after the opinion of the Real Presence had made considerable progresses Neither will we suppose 'em to be in the same state the first fifty years of the 10th Century for when we speak of a change which was made in the space of near three hundred years common sense will shew there was more or less of it according to the diversity of the time It is then reasonable on my hypothesis to consider in the beginning of the 10th Century those that held the Real Presence only as a party that strengthened themselves and endeavour'd to make ' emselves most considerable in the Church but 't is in no sort reasonable t' oppose against this the common people of the 11th Century seeing that in eighty or an hundred years the face of things might be easily changed 'T IS moreover less reasonable to ofter us the discourses of Lanfranc Book 9. ch 3. pag. 890. who bragg'd that in his time all the Christians in the world believed they receiv'd in this Sacrament the true Flesh and Blood of Jesus Christ born of the Virgin For supposing what Lanfranc says were true the sence he gave to these words the true Flesh and the true Blood of Jesus Christ understanding them in a sense of Transubstantiation was false as we have sufficiently shew'd Has any body charged this testimony to be false says Mr. Arnaud No there 's no one but Mr. Claude who does it six hundred years after without any ground But does Mr. Arnaud know all that Berenger answer'd and those that adher'd to him And supposing they were ignorant of the true belief of the other Churches separate from the Latin does it hence follow that in effect they believed Transubstantiation and that the proofs I have given of the contrary be not good DOES Reason adds he shew that in this point the Faith of the Pastors Ibid was not that of the People No it proves the quite contrary it being incredible that Ministers who are persuaded of the truth of the Real Presence should not take care t' instruct them in it whom they exhorted to receive the Communion to whom they ought to judg this belief to be absolutely necessary to make them avoid the unworthy Communions Mr. Arnaud fights with his own shadow We never told him that those who believe the Real Presence did not endeavour t' insinuate it into the peoples minds according as they were more or less prejudiced or zealous in the propagation of this belief and more or less qualifi'd to teach it and more or less again according to the circumstances of times occasions persons But how does this hinder me from saying that during the first fifty years of the 10th Century it was not all them that made profession of Christianity in the West but a party that strengthened themselves and endeavour'd to render themselves the most considerable IS this says Mr. Arnaud again a sufficient reason to shew that the people were not persuaded of the Real Presence because some Historians who tell us that Berenger troubled the Church by a new Heresie do at the same time likewise inform us that he perverted several persons with his novelties But we did not offer this alone as a sufficient reason to persuade him the people did not believe the Real Presence in the beginning of the 10th Century I confess that upon this alone one may justly say either that those who follow'd Berenger follow'd him in leaving their first Belief and embracing a new Opinion or that they follow'd him because he Preach'd only what they believ'd before or that they adher'd to him because they were further instructed in a mystery of which they had but small knowledg or little certainty So far every man is at liberty to take that part which he shall judg the most reasonable but should I say there were several that follow'd him upon the account of their knowing what he taught was the ancient Doctrin I shall say nothing but what 's very probable having shew'd as I have done in my answer to the Perpetuity that Bertran's Doctrin was publickly taught in the 10th Century for it follows hence probably enough that this Doctrin
inconsistent with Transubstantiation 1. 40 Fathers in what manner they explain themselves when they design the nature of the Sacrament 2. 92 Feast of God rejected by the Greeks 1. 165 Formulary of the re-union between the Latins and the Greeks different in Greek from the Latin 1. 249 G. GEorgiens very ignorant 1. 68 Greeks very ignorant 1. 64 Greeks Bishops leave their Flocks to the Emissaries for Money 1. 98 Greeks superstitious 1. 72 Greeks much degenerated in their manners 1. 63 Greeks entreat the assistance of the Latins 1. 74. seq Greeks have always flattered the Popes with the hope of their re-union 1. 81 Greeks of two sorts the one united to the Roman Church the others not united 1. 109. seq Greeks re-united out of this Dispute 1. 110 Greeks Schismaticks of two sorts the one more rigid the others less 1. 87 Greeks do not believe the Real Presence of the Latins 1. 112. 234 Greeks reject the term of Transubstantiation 1. 114 Greek Apostat cenjured for putting into his Catechism the word Transubstantiation 1. 115 Greeks must use the term of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if they believe the substantial conversion 1. 115. seq Greeks in their re-union have changed the terms of the Latins 1. 224 seq Greeks of the Council of Florence held not Transubstantiation 1. 127 Greeks Proselytes of the Latins express themselves differently when converted 1. 128 Greeks only receive the seven first Councils 1. 122 Greeks say our Saviour is present in the Book of the Gospel 1. 131 Greeks speak of the Bread and Wine before the Consecration in the same manner as aster 1. 131 Greeks prostrate themselves to the Bread and Wine before they be consecrated 1. 132 Greeks make several Particles 132 Greeks call the Particles of the Body of the Virgin the Body of S. Nicolas c. 1. 131 Greeks joyn the small particles with the great ones 1. 131 Greeks say that these Particles participate of our Lord's Body and Blood 1 136 Greeks only establish a spiritual Communion with Jesus Christ 1. 148 Greeks disputing on the Azyms suppose the Eucharist to be real Bread 1. 169 Greeks neglect the substance of the Sacrament 1. 172 Greeks teach not the necessary consequences of Transubstantiation nor the Real Presence 1. 185 Greeks do not believe there 's made any impression of the physical form of the Body of Jesus Christ on the Bread 1. 231 Greeks prostrate themselves before the Book of the Gospel 1. 158 Greeks explain these words This is my Body in a sense of virtue 1. 307 Greeks reject the Apochrypha 1. 280 Greeks have nothing determinate amongst 'em touching the state of Souls after death 1. 209 Greeks in their re-union at Florence and elsewhere with the Latins never pretended to receive their Doctrin 1. 287 Greeks little solicitous about affairs of Religion 1. 287 Greek Bishops love not disputes 1. 287 Greeks contented with maintaining their Doctrins without condemning those of the Latins 1. 287 I. JAcobits believe that Jesus Christ was man only in appearance 2. 17 Jacobits believe not Transubstantiation nor the Real Presence 2. 54 Jacobits reject Auricular Confession 1. 282 John le Fevre a fabulous Author 2. 9 John the Parisian maintain'd in the 14th Century that Transubstantiation was not an Article of Faith 1. 288 Jesus Christ alone not the Priest gives in the Communion his Body and his Blood 1. 148 Jesus Christ preached his Gospel to the damned according to the Greeks 1. 280 Infallibility of the Roman Church is a thing of which the ordinary sort of people cannot assure themselves 1. 29 Infallibility of the Roman Church overthrown by the Author of the Perpetuity 1. 53 Infallibility popular is a Principle to be proved 1. 54 Infallibility double 1. 55 Invocation of Saints rejected by the Greeks in one sense 1. 203 Judgment of the Faculty of Paris on the affair of John the Parisian 1. 289 K. KNowledg distinct is taken in two senses 2. 168 Knowledg distinct and popular knowledg are not the same 2. 170 Knowledg distinct and knowledg popular are not the same 2. ibid. L. LAnguage double of Mr. Arnaud on the subject of the Eucharist refuted 1. 347. seq Latins establish Latin Bishops in Palestin and drive out the Greek ones 1. 75 Latins constrain the Greeks to embrace their Religion 1. 77 Latins fill Greece with Inquisitors 1. 78 Latins have done all they could to introduce Transubstantiation amongst the Eastern people 1. 106 Latins in the re-union at the Florentin Council leave their usual expressions 127 Latins greatly perplexed touching the nourishment which our bodies receive in the Eucharist 1. 187 Latins cause their Greek Proselytes to profess the Doctrin of Transubstantiation 1. ibid. Latins have never disputed with the Greeks about their general expressions 1. 290 Latins dreaded by the Greeks 1. 285 Legats Excommunicate the Patriarch of Constantinople 1. 82 Liturgies Greek denote the Bread to be made the Body of Jesus Christ in sanctification 1. 140 Liturgies Greek commonly term the Eucharist Bread 1. 141 Liturgies Greek direct Prayers to our Saviour in Heaven after the Consecration of the Bread 1. 142 Liturgies contain not one clause which denotes the substantial Presence 1. 142 M. MAronits believe neither Transubstantiation nor the Real Presence before their union to the Church of Rome 2. 52 Maronits very ignorant 1. 69 Manuel Comnenus Greek Emperor favours the Latins 1. 83 Matter subsists in the Eucharist after Consecration 2. 90 Method lawful whereby to examin the Controversie of the Eucharist Pref. Methods of Father Maimbourg and Nouet compared ibid. Method of Mr. Arnaud yields new advantages ibid. Method of the Perpetuity four considerations thereon 1. 5 Method of Controversie ought to be grounded on Principles either granted by both sides or well proved ones 1. 9 Method of prescription of the Author of the Perpetuity fruitless 1. 26 Method of the Perpetuity reduces us after many disputes to begin again 1. 52 Michael Paripanacius Greek Emperor favours the Roman Church 1. 82 Paleologus earnestly labours for a re-union 1. 84 Moscovits very ignorant 1. 69 Moscovits have no Preachers 2. 2 Moscovits very superstitious 2. ibid. Moscovits differ in many things from the Greeks 2. 3 N. NEstorians very ignorant 1 69 Nestorians believe not Transubstantiation c. 2. 50 Nestorians use not Auricular Confession nor confirmation 1. 282 Nisetas Pectoratus forced to burn his Book which he wrote against the Latins 1. 82 O. ORiental parts o'respread with Monks and Emissaries since the 11th Century 1. 90 Odeâ—born a Lutheran was deceived touching the Adoration which the Greeks give the Sacrament 1. 163 Oriental people say that our Saviour dipt the Bread which he gave to Judas to take off its Consecration 2. 52 Oriental people hold that the substance of the Eucharist disperses it self immediately over all the parts of our body 2. 52 Oriental people say we must read This is the Sacrament of my Body 2. 53 P. PAisius
sense But to lay aside the Apostles and the first six Centuries to begin this enquiry after the simple and natural impression which these words have made in mens minds by the 7th and 8th following ones 'T is as if a man should go out of Paris to learn the news of France in the furthermost parts of that Kingdom But 't will be reply'd these Centuries were not prepossessed by our Disputes I grant it But they may have had other prejudices which have disturbed this simple and natural impression which we seek What likelihood is there of finding it pure according as we desire it in Greece since the fancies of Damascen have been in vogue whom the Greeks esteem as another S. Thomas according to Mr. Arnaud but whom Mr. Arnaud durst not follow himself no more than we whether Damascen believed the assumption of the Bread or only the union of it to the Body of Christ in the manner I have proved and explained How can it be expected to be found pure amongst the Copticks Armenians Jacobites Nestorians Egyptians since these people have fallen into ignorance gross Errors and Superstitions wherein they still remain A man that is acquainted with the History of the Emissaries sent from the Latins into all these Countries since the 11th Century till this time without intermission may not he justly suspect that the Emissaries have troubled the purity of this Impression Howsoever it cannot be denied but it was more pure in the six first Ages than in the following ones and consequently that we ought not to begin our inquiries since that time The third Reflection Mr. ARNAVD unjustly accuses the Ministers for embroiling the sense of these words This is my Body But we may with greater reason charge the Scholasticks and Controvertists of the Roman Church with it who have made I know not how many glosses and formed I know not how many opinions on the word This. We know what Ambrose Catarin has written of it Let the Reader consider says he the labour and anguish which Ambros Catâ—â—r Tract de verb. quibus conficitur c. almost all Writers have undergone when we demand of 'em the signification of this Pronoun This for they write such a multitude of things and those so contrary to one another that they are enough to make a man at his wits end that too closely considers ' em The Ministers give these words a sense very plain and natural which neither depends on obscure and abstracted Principles nor metaphysical notions If they argue either to establish their sense or shew that these words can suffer no other their arguings lie in observations which are clear and intelligible as for instance the word this cannot signifie any thing else but this Bread and that the whole proposition must be taken as if our Saviour had said this Bread is my Body and to make this proposition intelligible we must necessarily give it a figurative sense for one and the same subject cannot be literally both Bread and Body I grant we must not Philosophise on these words Lazarus come forth Neither is there ever a one of us that sets himself to Philosophise on 'em we understand simply by Lazarus a person whom our Saviour raised from the dead in the very moment he called him as God made light at that very instant wherein he said Let there be light The difficulties which Mr. Arnaud finds in our Saviours expressions are affected difficulties But those which arise from the sense of Transubstantiation attributed to our Saviour's words are real ones not by abstracted and metaphysical arguments but because never man said this is such a thing to signifie that the substance of the thing which he held was imperceptibly changed into the substance of another humane language will not suffer it The fourth Reflection Mr. ARNAVD in vain opposes the sense of Philosophers and Doctors to that of simple persons and such as are not capable of any deep reasoning to find out the true natural impression which our Saviours words make on the minds of men without study and reflection This natural impression since a thousand years to judg thereof only by History is a thing absolutely unknown and undiscernable to us for two reasons the first that the simple are not guided by the most natural impression they are led by that which their Doctors and Philosophers give them for we know very well that in matters of Religion the people usually believe what their guides teach 'em and not what their first sense dictates to ' em The other reason is that whatsoever we can know of the belief of Churches since a thousand years depends on the Writings which are come to our hands Now these Books were wrote by Doctors and Philosophers who may have given us their Speculations and those of the same opinion with them what they have learn'd in the Schools or what they themselves have imagin'd rather than the simple and natural impression of people The fifth Reflection 'T IS ill reasoning to say that the sense which seems to have prevail'd since the 7th Century be it what it will for I examine not at present what that is must necessarily be the true sense of our Saviour under pretence that he was not ignorant of the manner in which they would take his words in this Century and in the following ones The mysteries of his prescience and those of his providence touching the errors wherein he suffers men to fall are unknown to us Neither is it permitted us to pry into them He has suffered men to understand in the three first Centuries what is said in the Revelations touching his reign of a thousand years in the sense of a terrestial Kingdom He has permitted men in the 4th and 5th Centuries to understand commonly these words If ye eat not the Flesh of the Son of man nor drink his Blood ye will have no life in you of the necessity there is of receiving the Eucharist to be saved The ways of God are beyond our reach and we must never judg of the true sense of his word by the opinions which are prevalent amongst men Second Consequence Mr. ARNAVD's second Consequence is That the consent of all the Book 10. Ch. 2. Churches in the Doctrine of the Real Presence during the eleven last Ages being proved determines the sense of the words of the Fathers of the six first Ages His Arguments are the same which the Author of the perpetuity already offer'd That 'T is against nature sense and reason to suppose the same expressions were used for six hundred years space in a certain sense by all the Christian Churches and that in all the other ensuing Centuries they have been used in another sense without any bodies perceiving this equivocation That 't is contrary to nature to suppose all the masters of one opinion and all the Disciples to be of another and yet still to suppose they followed the sentiments of their Masters The first
Reflection THE Author of the Perpetuity will have the state of the Latin Church in the 11th Century when the contests of Berengarius hapned to determine that of the whole Church since the Apostles time Here Mr. Arnaud pretends that the Churches consent since the 7th Century determines the sense of the Fathers of the six first We have likewise seen in the 7th Chapter of his Book that he asserts that to judg rightly of the expressions of the Fathers of the 7th and 8th Centuries we must suppose they constantly and universally believed Transubstantiation and the Real Presence and that this supposition must determine the sense of their words What can we think of all these circuits but that they are illusions which plainly enough shew that these Gentlemen find but small satisfaction in their inquiries into the first six ages Were Transubstantiation and the Real Presence apparently taught in them what occasion would they have of making them enter by machins and mount up to them from the later Ages It is then certain that these ways of reasoning these suppositions and arguments from the bottom to the top are so far from persuading us what Mr. Arnaud desires that on the contrary they do but more confirm us in our opinion which is that these Doctrines were unknown to the ancient Church The second Reflection 'T IS consonant to reason to imagin that in the last Ages the question whether the Eucharist be the substance it self of our Saviour's Body or not having been agitated with great heat those who held the affirmative have abused the general expressions of the ancient Fathers and endeavoured to turn them to their sense This is a thing that happens every day in the smallest contests in which every one desires to set off his sentiments and confirm them by passages taken out of the Fathers to shelter himself thereby from the reproach of innovation It is likewise easie to imagine that those who but slightly apply themselves to the study of Theological Points are soon cheated by false appearances We see but too many examples of this It is in short easie to conceive that Disciples may deviate from the Doctrine and sense of their Masters under divers pretences The Divisions of Christians in points of Religion have almost all of 'em hapned in this manner the Disciples were not content to keep pace with their Masters but have went beyond 'em and often overrhrown their real sentiments under pretence of explaining and illustrating what they said with less perspicuity When Scholars are become Masters they no longer look upon themselves as Scholars but Doctors and in this quality 't is no hard matter to comprehend they may have new notions which they endeavour to establish on the testimony of those that preeeded them and for this effect take their words in a contrary sense The people easily receive what their Doctors teach 'em and as to the Doctors there needs no great number of them in an ignorant age to introduce a novelty One single person may sometimes impose on a whole assembly and engage them into his opinions which afterwards shall pass for the true Doctrine of the Church The third Consequence Mr. ARNAVD's third proposition is conceived in these terms Lib. 10. cap. 3. That all the several instances of expressions produced by Aubertin to shew that a man may take in a metaphorical sense the passages by which the Catholicks establish the Real Presence and Transubstantiation are in no wise alike To establish this proposition he says there are two ways by which we may know whether the expressions which appear at first alike are in effect different The first is to mark precisely by reasoning the difference of these expressions and to shew they are not alike The second is to discern them by opinion by a simple view of the mind and by an impression which makes it self felt altho it cannot be expressed Applying afterwards this remark to his subject he says that the expressions of the Fathers touching the Eucharist having been taken in the ten last Centuries in a sense of Transubstantiation and reality and the others having never been taken but in a metaphorical sense there must of necessity be a great difference between them seeing they have made such different impressions and that opinion has so well distinguished them This is the summary of his third Chapter The first Reflection WE are agreed concerning this manner of discerning the expressions and the things themselves by opinion as well as by an exact remark of the differences which distinguish them But if Mr. Arnaud will make a maxim of this which may serve as a principle to draw thence certain conclusions he must suppose that this sentiment or opinion can never be corrupted by false prejudices nor ever be deceived by establishing imaginary differences where there are no real ones I grant that in the last Ages the expressions of the Fathers have been taken in a sense of Transubstantiation whereas never any man understood those which we say are alike but in a metaphorical sense this is a sign they were regarded in those Ages as different expressions but it does not follow that they be different in effect unless it be said that the sentiment of those Centuries is infallible It is no hard matter to believe that men may judg rightly in respect of one thing and at the same time fall into error in respect of another whatsoever conformity there may be between them A man may be sometimes mistaken by confounding as if they were alike such expressions as are not so and then again take for different expressions such as be alike As we never pretended that the men of these later ages are mistaken in all things so Mr. Arnaud must not pretend they are right in every thing The second Reflection THE method which Mr. Arnaud proposes for the discerning the different expressions of the Fathers from those which are alike is deceitful For if we must for this end rather follow the way of sentiment than that of reason 't will be then at least just to consult the sentiment of those Ages wherein the Fathers lived and that of persons to whom they spake and not the sentiment of later Ages which might perhaps have been disturb'd by new notions Let Mr. Arnaud then shew us if he pleases that in the first six Ages the expressions of the Fathers touching the Eucharist were taken in a sense of reality and Transubstantiation and the others which we produce as being alike in a metaphorical sense and we will see what use we must make of his Rule But to seek this difference of impression or sentiment in Ages wherein we believe this Doctrine was changed will be an apparent deceiving of our selves seeing 't is not possible but what he calls the sentiment or impression has been altered by the change of Doctrine The fourth Consequence THESE three first consequences are attended by a fourth which is Book 10.