Resp p. 514. in Answer to D. Arnauld 's Objections touching Remigius that if the Bread were made the body of Christ in its Substance it would follow that our Lord would have so many Bodies as he is united i.e. in his Divinity to different Breads this he grants notwithstanding Remigius his arguing all these Breads but one and the same Body from the same Divinity replenishing them of which more below But the Bread not being made Christ's Body save only in Vertue and in Efficacy this consequence is null because this Vertue through the whole world is one and the same For this is indivisible and is all of it entire where-ever it is Thus he And that such are his Answers and Explications of these expressions of the Greeks as I have here represented You may see in his 2d Answer part 3. c. 2. 4. His last Answer l. 3. c. 9 10. l. 4. c. 7. l. 5. c. 7. l. 6. c. 10. and frequently elsewhere § 6 Where chiefly you may observe that how punctual soever the Expressions of the Greeks are concerning the presence of Christ's very Body yet he expounds them only of the Vertue exclusive to the Substance of Christ's Body And yet this person confesseth that the Greeks hold †l. 4. c. 7. That the Bread is made the proper Body of Christ opposed to figure by the way of Augmentation of his Natural Body so as our Nourishment is made our Body And yet elsewhere more fully †l. 6. c. 10. That upon the Consecration they held an Vnion of the Bread with the Divinity of our Lord and by the Divinity an Vnion to his natural Body and that they understood that by the means of this Vnion or of this Conjunction the Bread becomes the Body of Christ and is made the same Body with it I add as our nourishment by its union to the same Soul is made the same Body with ours Now then when we say that our nourishment upon such an operation passing upon it is or is changed into or is made our Body or Flesh did he candidly here interpret our meaning who should say that we affirm only that this nourishment is our Body or Flesh in Vertue or changed into the Vertue of it exclusively to its being also made the Substance of it So doth this person deal candidly for instance when Euthymius a Greek Author that held this opinion expresseth himself thus †Comment in Mat. c. 64. Quemad-modum Jesus Christus supernaturaliter assumptam carnem deificavit Etiam Haec the Bread and Wine ineffabiliter transmutat i. e. by his united Deity in ipsum vivificum Corpus in ipsum pretiosum sanguinem suum in gratiam ipsorum Which Grace he explains presently after by this Body strengthning us as Bread doth and this Blood exhilarating and encouraging us as Wine †See Psal 103.15 I say doth he deal ingenuously to expound the here by a C ' est a dire or id est Transmutat ineffâ—biliter in ipsum Corpus in ipsum Sanguinem id est in gratiam ipsorum Making the Body a Synonyma with its Vertue Such a Synonymon saith he as that of St. Paul in 1 Tim. 4.3 They who believe and know the Truth Or 1 Tim. 6.3 Wholesom words and Doctrine of Godliness But might he not have said more aptly such a Synonymon as that in Psalm 32. Verbo Domini Caeli firmati sunt omnis virtus eorum firmati sunt Caeli id est virtus eorum Or Psalm 147. Magnus Dominus magna virtus ejus Dominus id est virtus Domini But if the Greeks mean as he saith indeed they do That the Bread by Consecration is made our Lord's proper Body though not that Numerical one born of the Virgin yet another added to it by way of Augmentation and so in some sense made the same with it viz. so as our nourishment is with ours by the Union and inhabitation of our Lord's Divinity to and in them both and lastly that by its being thus made our Lords Body it hath also the vivificating vertue of his natural Body inherent in it then I say in plain dealing this Person expounding the Expressions of the Greeks ought to have confessed their maintaining the presence in the Eucharist of this Substance of Christ's Body as well as of its Vertue this Substance I say of which they affirm that it is the same with the other crucified so far as to be united to the same Divinity and in the same person of our Lord and from this to receive the same vivificating Vertue though indeed this new Substance from that crucified numerically distinct Nor consequently ought he to impose upon the Greeks as every where he doth their holding the Bread after Consecration to remain still so entirely Bread as it was before but only the matter of it so to remain as the matter of our Nourishment doth when yet that which was Bread is now truly our Flesh and no more Bread our Flesh not by I know not what Mystical Relation to it but by a most interior Reception and Incorporation into it and dispersion through that our Substance or Flesh which was existent before Nor lastly using the same integrity ought he to have said this new Substance to have been held by the Greeks augmentative of Christ's Natural Body or also to be the same with it as the Greeks always say it is by reason of a supernatural vertue of Christ's Natural Body communicated to it as he usually explains them for one thing may have the Vertue of another without being an augmentative part of it or contracting any Identity with it But that this new Substance is held by the Greeks an accruit to our Lord 's Natural Body and the same also with it from its Vnion to the Divinity and so its change into Christ's Flesh and so its partaking also the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Graces or Vertues of it which the Greeks speak of with much reason as well as of the substance because in these we are most concern'd Thus perhaps with much less labour might this ingenious Person have comprehended in his Answers and explications of the Greek's opinion more Truth and gained from his Readers more belief And for this I appeal to any other sober Person when he shall have considered M. Claude's concessions set down below § 9. and the necessary consequences of them § 10. But this Person well saw the great prejudice he should do to his Cause in explaining these Authors in such a manner which would have made a fair way at least toward a Total Transubstantiation and therefore judged it safest to hold fast to a vertual presence Now in this way he takes many of these Expressions seem so clearly to say the contrary to what he would have them as a proof can hardly be brought against such answers that will not have as little or perhaps less evidence in it than the thing that
that Protestants are not obliged to defend the Sentiment of the Greeks and that his business is to enquire what it is not how maintainable And saith elsewhere P 337. That both the Greeks and Latins are far departed from the Evangelical simplicity and the main and natural explication the Ancients have given to the Mystery of the Eucharist Here then 1. as to the later ages of the Church Protestants stand by themselves and the Reformation was made as Calvin confessed it †Epist P. Melancthoni a toto mundo 2. After such a Confession M. Claude seems not to deal sincerely in that with force enough he draws so frequently in both his Replies the sayings of the Greek writers of later times to the Protestant sense and puts his Adversary to the trouble of confuting him And from the many absurdities that he pretends would follow upon the Greek Opinion taken according to their plain expressions saith these intend only * a Presence of Christ's Body in the Eucharist as to its Vertue and Efficacy opposite to its Reality and Substance and * an Vnion of the Bread there to the Divinity only so far as the Divinity to bestow on it the Salvifical Virtue or Efficacy of Christ's Body and * a conjunction of the Bread there to Christ's natural Body born of the Blessed Virgin but to it as in Heaven not here to it as a Mystery may be said to be an Appendix or Accessary to the thing of which it is a Mystery But all this is the Protestant Opinion 3. Again seems not to deal sincerely in that whilst he affirms the modern Greeks to retain the former Doctrine of their Church as high as Damascen and the 2d Council of Nice ‖ l. 3. c. 13. p. 315. and again †l. 3. c. 13. p. 326. l. 4. c. 9 p. 488. Damascen not to have been the first that had such thoughts viz. of an Augmentation of Christs Body in the Eucharist by the Sanctified Elements as it was augmented when he here on earth by his nourishment but to have borrowed them from some Ancient Greek Fathers naming Greg. Nyssen Orat. Catechet c. 37. See this Father's words below § 321. n. 14. and Anastasius Sinait who explained their Doctrine by the same comparison as Damascen and the Greeks following him did yet doth not freely declare both these the Ancient Greeks as well as the later either to differ from or to agree with the Protestant Opinion § 4 4. Having said this That however the Greek Opinion varies from the Protestants it concerns him not Next he declares That what ever the Greeks may be proved to have held concerning some transmutation of the Bread and Wine into Christ's Body and Blood or concerning a Real or Corporal presence and their understanding Hoc est Corpus meum in a literal sense neither doth this concern his cause who undertakes only to maintain that these Churches assert not Transubstantiation at least assert it not so as to make it a positive Article of their Faith His words upon D. Arnauld's resenting it That whereas he contented himself â—nly to shew that the Real presence was received by the Oriental Schismatical Churches M. Claude diverted the Controversie to Transubstantiation His words I say are these * l. c. 1. p. 157. In the Dispute concerning the Greeks our business is only about Transubstantiation and not at all about Real presence For it was to this only and Adoration that I formerly limited my self in my last Answer But then as if this might do him some prejudice he as it were cautiously addeth Yet I would have none draw a Consequence from hence that I acknowledge a Real presence established in the Greek Church But here to make his words true he adds again in that sense as the Roman Church understands it And what sense is that surely by the way of Transubstantiation And so you see he pares his words till they say no more than just what he said before That he acknowledgeth no Real presence viz. by way of Transubstantiation established in the Greek Church And this is to say only that he acknowledgeth them not to hold Transubstantiation Next concerning the Greek their receiving or opposing Transubstantiation he hath one Hold more Ibid. It is not saith he our business to know whether the Greeks formally reject Transubstantiation Or whether they have made It an Article of Controversie between them and the Latins but only whether they comprehend it amongst their points of Faith or no Our Dispute is only concerning this matter One would think that he had been chaced very much and driven up to the wall that to preserve himself safe he makes so many outworks and contracts the Subject of his Disputation within so narrow a Compass But doth he not here for the Greek Church also thus decline and tacitly as it were yield up that to the Catholicks which they have always professed to be the main Controversie with Protestants on this Subject viz. The Real and Corporal presence of our Lord and the perpetuity of the Christian Faith as well East as West in the constant Belief of this for all the later times of the Church Catholick which consent found in the later times is the truest proof from which we may collect also the true sense of the former And from this Corporal presence once established whether a Transubstantiation be or be not necessarily follows also the lawfulness of a Soveraign Adoration which renders the Dispute concerning one of the two Points he contesteth needless and decideth it against him since an Adoration of the Mysteries practised among the Greeks he is content to allow but not Soveraign Now Real presence makes it out a Soveraign one § 5 5. His way thus far made and his cause pretended not to be concerned in that the Greeks have a different Sentiment of the Eucharist from Protestants Nor that they take Hoc est Corpus meum as also the Latins in a literal sense and hold a Real presence Nor that they do not reject the Roman Transubstantiation Or make any Controversie with the Latins about it And so all Authorities save those that press Transubstantiation being removed from giving him any trouble Next For the Greeks asserting a Transubstantiation the alledging such Testimonies as these which follow and frequently occur in their Authors will not be admitted by him as good or to the purpose That by the Consecration the Bread is changed and converted into the very the proper the True or in veritate in reipsa Body of Christ which Body also is the same with that born of the Blessed Virgin and that suffered on the Cross That the Eucharist is not a Figure or Image only of this Body but the very Body of our Lord united to his Divinity as the Body born of the Blessed Virgin was Neither are these now two but one Unum corpus unus Sanguis cum eo quod sumpsit in utero Virginis
quod dedit Apostolis And Calix quem Sacerdos sacrificat non est alius nisi ipse quem Dominus Apostolis tradidit That the Bread that is offered in the Mysteries is the very same Flesh of Jesus Christ that was Sacrificed at the time of his Passion and buried in the Sepulchre and which St. Thomas handled and which is at the Right Hand of the Father That after the Consecration Though it appears Bread yet in verity it is the Body of Christ Or Licet Panis nobis vìdeatur revera Caro est Or Non manet Panis sed pro Pane factum est Corpus Christi I say such expressions as these very usual in the Greeks are not current with him for proving a Substantial change of the Bread Or That the Substance of it after Consecration doth not still remain so entire as before For as for Ipsum propium verum c. he can produce places in the Fathers where they are applied to a Metaphor where the Poor the Faithful the Church are said to be Ipsum or Verum Corpus Christi The Bread is changed into the Body of Christ i. e. he saith not in Substance but in Vertue The Eucharist is not a Figure or Image of this Body i. e. without all Vertue or Efficacy but the very Body it self i. e. in being such an Image or Figure as retains the Supernatural Vertue of it But still I say This Supernatural Vertue is not the Body And if the Greek's arguing from our Lord 's Dixit Hoc est Corpus meum be good viz. That whatever is not our Lord's Body the Eucharist is not it It holds as well against Virtus if taken exclusively to Substance for such Substance is Body here or else why not Imago a Body as against Imago or Figura as well against Imago cum Efficacia as sine c. For Non dixit Hoc est Virtus or continens virtutem Corporis â—ei but Hoc est Corpus meum And this being urged by his Adversary the best answer that I see M. Claude makes to it †l. 4. c. 7. is That the Protestants are no engagers for the verity of the Greek's Opinions i. e. He imposeth such a sense on the Greeks as makes a Contradiction in their Opinion or arguing and then leaves them to make it good Again Though it appears Bread it is truly Flesh i. e. saith he The Greeks hold it indeed still Bread in Substance and not Flesh at all But they mean here that though it appears or seems yet it is not simple Bread but it is truly Flesh in as much as it now hath the true Vertue of Christs Flesh making them say It is in truth that which yet they hold it is not save only in Vertue or Efficacy And again that it only appears that which yet they hold that in Substance and in truth it is And to render this his Exposition more current in †Part 3. c. 2. his 2d Answer he saith We must not press too much such manner of expressions as these licet appareat Panis tamen in veritate Corpus Christi est lest we make the Fathers speak many absurdities And so urgeth a place in St. Chrysostom where the Father saith That we are not to think of our selves that we are upon the Earth because we see the Earth under our feet for we are translated into Heaven and placed among the Angels Where saith he the Father denies not absolutely that we are upon Earth and so he thinks himself as safely guarded here against the Panis apparet by this as before against the Eucharist being pretended to be Ipsum Corpus Christi in a literal or a proper sense by his shewing that the poor were said to be ipsum or Verum Corpus Christi too Such Evidences therefore rejected by M. Claude he requires for the verifying of Transubstantiation that we produce a Testimony such as this That the Bread is Transubstantiated or the Substance of Bread is changed into the Substance of Christs Body So that according to him The Bread but not a Substance is said by them to be changed into Christ's Body but not into a Substance And by the same reason we may say That our Lord's Nourishment when he lived here on Earth being changed into our Lord's Body proves not that it was changed into the Substance of his Body But suppose then the Expression running as he would have it That the Bread is changed into the Substance of Christs Body and that though it seems the Substance of Bread Yet in truth it is the Substance of Christ's Body or Flesh are we ever a whit now the abler to silence him Or will not his answers still fit as well as before viz. That though it seems yet it is not the simple or naked Substance of Bread That it is in truth also the Substance of Christ's Body i. e. containing in it the whole Vertue or if I may so say the Substance of this Substance For so it may be shewed sometimes that Substance is used for Vertue He Grants †l. 3. c. 10. p. 263. the Greeks cannot think Christs Flesh or Body to be the Subject of those accidents which are perceived by our Senses to remain in the Eucharist and then the Greeks also to say Videtur Panis Vinum in veritate Corpus Christi Sanguis est and yet will not yield that they hold the Existence of these Appearances or Accidents in the Eucharist without a Subject He grants the Greeks to hold our Lord's Body that is distributed in the Eucharist to be invisible impartible impassible and then affirms them though it is not so to say that no other Substance is this Body than the Bread and yet not to hold the accidents only of the Bread to be passible partible c. The Greeks say that the Body of our Lord which is consecrated and offered in many places at once and at many times successively yet in all these is but one and the same Body and that though it is in all these places broken divided and eaten by many Communicants yet it is received by each of them not in a piece of it but whole and entire and after this remains still perfect unconsum'd alive immortal And yet he saith †l. 3. c. 13. the Greeks do not hold or affirm Idem Corpus in pluribus locis do not maintain a Concomitancy of our Lord's Flesh and Blood nor the existence of his Body in the Eucharist after a non-natural manner And that the same Greeks do hold the Substance of that which is offered and distributed in one place as to one person to be really and numerically diverse from that offered or distributed in another But that their meaning only is that the Vertue of this Body is in all places one and the same and to all persons whole and entire and must he not say also that this Vertue is incorrupted and alive I yield saith he †2
designs upon the matter of the Differences between the two Communions Catholick and Protestant which they pretend to accommodate and reconcile So he Censures Casaubon out of Spondanus †Levitatem animi Vacillantem eum perpetuo tenuisse cum his illis placere cuperet nulli satisfecisset Where indeed whose judgment ought sooner to be credited than theirs who appear more indifferent between the two contending parties So To Archbishop Lanfrank's words to Berengarius Interroga Graecos Armenios seu cujus libet Nationis quoscunque homines uno ore hanc fidem i. e. Transubstantiationis se testabuntur hahere cited by Dr. Arnauld He answers ‖ p. 361. That Pre-occupation renders his Testimony nothing worth Urge the Socinians because the Fathers oppose so manifestly their own opinions therefore more apt to speak the truth of them in their opposing also those of other Protestants and particularly in their differing from them in this point of the Eucharist He tells us they are not creditable in their Testimony because so much interested to decry the Doctrine of the Fathers in their own regard and thus they imagine Protestants will have less countenance to press them with an Authority that themselves cannot stand to Urge the Centurists confessing Transubstantiation found in some of the Fathers and in magnifying their new-begun Reformation more free plainly to acknowledge those they thought errours of former times He ‖ l. 1. c. 5. denies them fit witnesses in this Controversie because themselves holding a Real Presence they had rather admit a Transubstantiation in the Fathers than a Presence only Mystical And suppose such excuses should fail him yet how easie is it to find some other whereby a person may be represented never to stand in an exact indifferency as to whatever Subject of his Discourse With such personal exceptions M. Claude frequently seeks to relieve his Cause where nothing else will do it Whereas indeed such a common Veracity is to be supposed amongst men especially as to these matters of Fact that where a multitude though of a party concern'd concur in their Testimony they cannot reasonably be rejected on such an account either that their being deceiv'd or purpose to deceive and to relate a lie is possible or that what they say can be shewed a thing well-pleasing and agreeable to their own inclinations For as it is true that ones own interest if as to his own particular very considerable renders a Testimony less credible So on the other side almost no Testimony would be valid and current if it is to be decried where can be shewed some favour or engagement of affection to the thing which the person witnesseth and cannot be manifested an equal poise to all parties and so for Example in the Narration of another Country's Religion often made by all Parties none here can be believed save in what he testifies of them against his own Such things therefore are to be decided according to the multitude and paucity and the Reputation of the Witnesses rather than their only some way general interest and the Credibility of such things is to be left to the equal Reader 's Judgment § 8 But 7ly Should all that is said touching the later Greek's from the eleventh or the eighth to the present age their holding Transubstantiation be undeniably made good and all the Testimonies concerning it exactly true Yet he saith ‖ l. 2. c. 1. It will not follow that a change of the Church's former Faith in this Point is impossible or hath not actually happened and consequently that all M. Arnauld 's long dispute about it is vain and unprofitable I add and then so his Replies But here since the true sense and meaning of Antiquity on what side this stands is the thing chiefly questioned and debated between the Roman Church and Protestants unless he will throw off this too and retreat only to sense of Scripture I suppose to wise men it will seem little less than the loss of the Protestant cause and too great a prejudice to it to be so slightly yielded up if that not the Roman only but the whole visible Catholick Church besides themselves from the eleventh to the present age doth defend a Corporal Presence and a literal sense of Hoc est Corpus meum or also Transubstantiation and so consequently doth concur and Vote against them touching the sense of former Antiquity for this each side in their present Doctrine and Practice pretend to follow And I can hardly think M. Claude would seem to spend so great a part of his Book to defend a Post the loss of which he thought no way harm'd him Again thus it is manifest that in an Oecumenical Council if now assembled the Protestants would remain the Party Condemned § 9 8. After all these Defences wherewith he seems sufficiently guarded He proceeds l. 3. c. 13. thus to declare the true opinion of the Modern Greeks on this Subject which I will give you in his own words p. 310. They believe saith he That by the Sanctification or Consecration is made a Composition of the Bread and Wine and of the Holy Ghost That these Symboles keeping their own Nature are joined to the Divinity and That by the impression of the Holy Ghost they are changed for the Faithful alone the Body of our Lord being supposed either to be not present at all or to cease to be so in the particles of the Symbole received by the unworthy into the vertue of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ being by this means made not a Figure but the proper and true Body of Jesus Christ and this by the way of Augmentation of the same natural Body of Jesus Christ To which they apply the comparison of the nourishment which is made our own Body by Assimilation and Augmentation Again p. 237. more briefly The Doctrine of the Greek Church is That the substance of Bread conserving its proper Being is added to the Natural Body of Jesus Christ that it is rendred like unto it That it augments and by this means becomes the same Body with it By this also he saith p. 334. and see the same in his 4th l. c. 7. the Greeks would observe in some sort the literal sense of the words Hoc est Corpus meum which saith He we do not we understand them in this sense This Bread is the sacred sign or Sacrament of my Body Or which comes to the same pass The Bread signifies my Body They on the contrary taking the word is in some sort according to the letter would have that the same subject which is the Bread is also the Body of Christ. From preserving this pretended literal sense it is also That they would have it That the Bread is made one with the Body by its Vnion to the Divinity by the Impression of the Holy Ghost and by a change of vertue Or as he hath it in his 6th l. c. 10. That there is an Vnion of
the Bread to the Divinity of our Lord and by the Divinity to his natural Body by means of which Vnion or Conjunction the Bread becomes the Body of Christ and made the same Body with it with his natural Body Again for preserving the literal sense That they bring the comparison of Nourishment made One with our Body and that they have invented this way of Augmentation of the natural Body of Christ It seems also That the Modern Greeks understand some real or Physical impression of the Holy Ghost and of the vivificating vertue of Jesus Christ upon the Bread with some kind of inherence i. e. of the vertue Although I will not saith he ascertain positively that this is the General Belief of their Church though the expressions seem to sway on this side But however it be this is not our opinion We believe that the Grace of the Holy Ghost and vertue of Christs Body accompanies the lawful use of the Sacrament and that we partake the Body of Jesus Christ by Faith as much or more really than if we received it in the mouth of our Body But we do not understand there this Real impression or inherence i. e. of the Supernatural Vertue of the Body of Christ ‖ See p. 338. viz. that born of the Virgin of the Greeks Whence it is that our Expressions are not so high as theirs And this Opinion of theirs he makes to be as ancient as ‖ l. 3. c. 13. p. 315. Damascen This Opinion of the Modern Greeks saith he seems to be taken from Damascen some of whose expressions I think fit to produce For it is certain that to make a good Judgment of the Opinion of the Modern Greeks we must ascend as high as him And M. Arnauld himself hath observed That John Damascen is as it were the S. Thomas of the Greeks Thus He. § 10 But lest he should seem to fasten such a gross Opinion upon the Greek Church as they will not own nor others easily believe they maintain for he confesseth that it hath something in it that appears little reasonable and especially as to the Augmentation of Christ's natural Body to be assez bizarre ‖ p. 336. and lest he should make it liable to so many odious absurdities as that a Transubstantiation which he endeavours to avoid may seem much the more plausible and eligible of the two perhaps I say for these considerations he undertakes to qualifie and render a credible and likely sense to it on this manner In saying 1. That they hold indeed an Vnion of the Divinity to the Bread and that in an higher manner than to any other Sacred Sign or Ceremony but yet not Hypostatical 2. That they hold the Bread changed into an augmentative part of Christ's natural Body but it remaining still entire Bread as before and altered only in a Supernatural Vertue added to it 3. Hold it to be joined to Christ's Body and augmenting it but so as to be not individually the same but numerically distinct from it as also those new parts we receive by nourishment are distinct from all the former parts of our Body 4. To be joined to this natural Body of Christ not locally or to it as present in the Eucharist but as in Heaven How this As saith he a Mystery may be said to be an Appendix or Accessory to the thing of which it is a Mystery And to these four Qualifications this Author seems necessitated because otherwise Adoration and Transubstantiation in some part though not a total Existence of the Accidents without a Subject The same Body at once in many places and several other Consequents thus appearing also in the Greek's Opinion would have given too much countenance to the Roman § 11 Where you may observe that there are three things wherein his explaining of this Opinion he imputes to the Greeks to render it more remote from the Latins falls short of that which according to the Comparison and the expressions they use he is justly obliged to maintain 1. The first That the Vnion of the Divinity to the Consecrated Bread is Hypostatical or Personal For such an Union had our Lord's Divinity to the Nourishment to which this is compared received by him and added to his natural Body born of the Blessed Virgin ‖ See M. Claude 2d Answ part 2. c. 2. p. 249. And no less Union than this will serve to make the Eucharistical Bread one and the same with it a thing constantly affirmed by the Greeks at least as to the Suppositum or to make both these the Body of the same Person The difference of the Vnion saith M. Claude ‖ l. 6. c. 10. p. 867. is discerned by the difference of the effect it produceth in the things Now what thing more is requisite to stile it an Union Hypostatical Hypostasis and Subsistentia or Persona with the Greeks importing the same thing than this effect that it renders this Body to which it unites it self and that Body born of the Blessed Virgin the same Body of one Person and this Union gives to this new Body the self-same vivificating vertue Physically inherent as it doth to the other Natural And then such an Hypostatical Union if granted will infer the same Dignity of this breaden body with the other the same Ceremonies of Honour and Adoration due Things which this Person is unwilling to hear of and that would ruine his Cause § 12 The 2d That there is a Substantial change of the Bread i. e. of the substantial form of Bread at least in that this Bread is truly made the Flesh and Blood and animated with the humane soul of our Lord as well as united to his Divinity For so the Nourishment received by our Lord on Earth and added to his Body born of the Virgin remained not still Bread but was truly changed into his Flesh and so also is ours And the Expressions of the Greeks are sutable and cannot without an unjust force and straining be otherwise explicated To instance in one or two Such is that of Theophilact in Matt. 26. Non enim dixit Haec est figura sed Hoc est Corpus meum Ineffabili enim operatione transformatur etiamsi nobis videatur Panis quoniam infirmi sumus abhorremus crudas carnes comedere maxime hominis carnem ideo Panis quidem apparet sed revera Caro est And in Marc. 14. Et quomodo inquis Caro non videtur Sanguinem propositum carnem videntes non ferremus sed abhorremus Idcirco misericors Deus nostrae infirmitati condescendens speciem quidem Panis Vini servat in virtutem autem carnis sanguinis transelementat Where if Theophylact had meant by Caro vere est Caro tantum in virtute est he would never have given this reason in his comment on Matt. Panis apparet quod vere est Caro quoniam infirmi sumus abhorremus crudas carnes but rather would have removed
thing with that of the Latins Substantia Panis mutatur in Carnem licet remaneant adhus accidentia Panis quae sub sensum cadunt And hence when upon an unusual expression happening in the Council at Constantinople under Constantinus Copronymus that the only Image adorable was the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Corporis Christi in the Holy Sacrament the Real and corporal presence from a jealousie though causless as this Council explained it self that this expression might vary or derogate something from it began now to be more particularly insisted upon and explicated a curious Question arose among the Greeks as well as Latins Whether upon the Bread being thus changed and becoming our Lord's Body the Body of our Lord were digestible and corruptible which caused to some affirming it the imputation of Stercoranism But such odious name surely these could never have incurred no more than now Protestants do had they held at least as the opposite party understood them only a vivificating vertue of our Lords Body to reside in the Bread and not the very Substance of his Body to be present instead of it according to the then common Opinion This of the 2d thing wherein M. Claude's explication is deficient the change the Greeks held of the Bread into the Substance of our Lord's Body at least so far as our Nourishment is into the Substance of ours the principal reason of their using this similitude Yet wherein M. Claude deserts it though in some other things more advantagious to him as in the matter of the nourishment still remaining and that numerically distinct from the Body nourished he presseth it too far Now this 2d thing the Bread in the Eucharist its receiving such a change as our Nourishment once granted will be at least an half-Transubstantiation of it the Substantial Form of Bread being gone the former Qualities of Bread gone viz. from their any longer inherence in the Bread So that the Substance not of Bread but of Flesh is also under the former Accidents of the Bread The name also gone with the thing it being in truth now no more to be called Bread but the Flesh of our Lord. And so when the Bread is said by S. Damascen to be united to the Divinity it must be understood so as that in the Union it becomes another thing though still it remains a diverse thing from the Divinity Hence also the pretence of the Bread its being made our Lord's Body only in Vertue not in Substance gone and all M. Claude's quest after this word Vertue in the Greek Authors useless and his Descants upon it unsound of which enough hath been said already § 6. § 13 The 3d. If we may prosecute their similitude of nourishment to its utmost extent That there is a local Union of the Bread and Body of our Lord not by way of Accumulation and Addition or of Continuation only as a Leg and an Arm are joined in the same Body but by way of an interior reception one into the other and the most intimate commixtion and confusion of them as to the least natural parts that are divinble and capable of digestion one within the other So as the least part of one cannot be severed from the other or communicated without the other and as to any actual separation of them a thing not fecible they may be said to be numerically the same which comes also the nearest to a total transition even of its matter also into another Substance though as to this total Conversion we must permit the operation of Gods Omnipotency out of his infinite kindness to us in the Holy Eucharist to stand singular and unparallel'd by any work of Nature All these three therefore the Author in dealing ingenuously with the Greeks Comparison and their Expressions as it seems to me ought to have allowed But this probably he much dreaded as seeing he might as well nay in some respects better have admitted a total Transubstantiation of Matter as well as Form which would have avoided those many prejudices and indignities which an Impanation labours under But yet thus the Sentiment of the Greeks supposing no total Conversion is advanced far beyond not only M. Claude's and the Calvinists vertual presence but also the Lutherans Consubstantiation For whereas these hold only Bread and Christs natural Body joined in the Eucharist so that the Body and the Bread are two several things still this Opinion holds the one changed into the other so as that as Jeremy the Patriarch of Constantinople replied upon the Lutherans in his second Answer ‖ c. 4. and as Damascen also said long before ‖ De Fid. Orthod l. 4. c. 14. Non duo jam sunt i. e. as the Lutherans said Panis and Corpus Christi joined sed unum idem i. e. Corpus Christi only The Bread made his natural Flesh animated with his Soul Hypostatically united to his Divinity in fine the same with his Body as much at least as our Nourishment interiorly received and digested is with ours § 14 Thus far the Greeks usual Simile carries us But their Common Doctrine farther even to a total Transubstantiation as I think will appear from what follows 1. For 1st They hold that the same Numerical Body of our Lord 1. that was born of the Virgin and Crucified is exhibited to us in the Eucharist Present not by his descending from Heaven but by the Conversion of the Consecrated Elements into the self-same Body and by the multiplication of its local Existence in more places than before 1. Which appears 1st From this That the Identity of the Body Consecrated and that Crucified quoad suppositum or as both united to and filled with the same Divinity which well consists with a Real Substantial Numerical diversity between themselves is not sufficient that the one of them therefore may be denominated of the other or this said to be that nor yet sufficient that all the same things may be said of them both Some general things indeed may be predicated of them wherein both agree but their Properties individual as local presence Motion any particular Qualities or applications of them cannot Yet which Individual properties are usually applied by the Greeks to the Body Crucified and to that distributed in the Eucharist as one and the same Any Individual Properties of the one or the other I grant may always be truly denominated of our Lord's Body in general as we will But cannot be truly said of both or either of these the Consecrated and the Crucified as we please if these not numerically the same So we cannot say That ones Soul is his Body or a Leg an Arm or the one in the same place or motion or every way affected as the other is because that both are parts of one and the same Person or Body and both animated with one and the same Soul And for a Grecian Priest to tell his Communicants that he delivers them the same Body that was
sub sensum cadentium as Samenas ‖ In Mat. 26. Non Panis sed Corpus Domini sacrificatur and Si Panis manens ‖ Dialog cum Saraceno sacrificatus fuisset Panis esset Sacrificium non Agni Dei as Cabasilas Liturg. expositio c. 32. must all be understood of an entire change of the Bread as well its Matter as Form § 16 3ly They hold this Body that is present and distributed in the Eucharist to remain quoties frangitur totum integrum in unoquoque frusto And Omnibus distributum minime diminutum Frangitur Agnus Dei non comminuitur semper comeditur non consumitur saith their Liturgy ‖ Missa Chrysostom Not a several piece or part of our Lord's Body received in the several Particles but all Nor those receiving more of this Body that receive more of the Symbole In infinite places offered only the same Sacrifice viz. that one which was offered on the Cross to several Communicants distributed the self same Body and It to each entire A Tenent flowing from the former Its incorruptibility and by all the same persons maintained For what is so is no more capable of being parted or divided c. Now these things cannot sute to our Lord's Body if the matter of Bread be said still to remain and to make up an augmentative part of our Lord 's natural Body but this numerically and really distinct from it For so in several places will be offered Sacrifices but these really different from one another as also from that of the Cross Nor will the Communicants receive our Lord's Body entire but each apart and this part numerically differing from that Corpus quod traditum est which Communion of a parcel was a thing objected to the Stercoranists and those who held our Lord's Body corruptible See M. Claude's Concessions concerning this 2d Answer part 3. c. 2. and so his retreat to a Virtual presence to verifie these expressions of the Greeks of this Body every where the same and received by every one entire § 17 As for some speeches used by the Greeks in making application of their Similitudes none of which can exactly fit so high a Mystery that seem not to accord so well with a Total Transubstantiation The Bread said by them to be assumed by or united to the Divinity of our Lord The Bread and his Body by the Divinity to be made One An Augmentation of Christs Body to be made by the Bread consecrated as here on Earth by his Nourishment c. I see no Reason why this Person should not be contented with the former Explications given of them Such as 1. both free these Authors from contradicting themselves and 2. do render the sense of the Fathers unanimous and the Christian Doctrine to run all in one common Stream viz. the Real Presence and Exhibition in the Eucharist of that numerical Body that suffered for us on the Cross 3. and whereby also may be avoided those many gross absurdities concerning new Contracts and Unions and new Bodys of our Lord which being so unworthy these high Mysteries and very injurious to our Lord's Incarnation are all avoided by a total Transubstantiation See if you please these absurdities mentioned by Bellarmine De Euchar. l. 3. c. 13. 15. and by Suarez De Sacrament Disp 49. § 3. The Divinity of our Lord then may be said to assume or unite it self unto the Bread or to make the Bread one with his Body not by a meer joining it to Himself or to his Body whilst it remains still Bread but by this first converting and changing of it by his Divine Omnipotency into his Body and then his uniting Hypostatically his Divinity to it And his Body may be said in some sort to receive daily an Augmentation from these iterated Consecrations of Bread to be made his Body in as much as there is a daily multiplication of his Body as to its local Existence in more places than before according to the frequency of Communions whilst his Body in Heaven doth not descend but keeps its constant former residence there § 18 Thus Greeks and Latins former and latter times will be at some accord Whereas this Author to maintain a variance between the two Churches seems necessitated to fasten on the Greeks an Opinion which being taken in its just extent Transubstantiation seems much the more eligible and which he is forced many times also to pare and qualifie so that it may have some Conformity to the Doctrine of Protestants and keep a greater distance from the Roman as offers extreme violence to the natural sense of their words For Example He allows * an Union of the Divinity to our Lord's Body in the Eucharist as the Greeks say But no such Union Hypostatical * Christ's body in the Eucharist the same with that born of the Blessed Virgin as they say but in such a sense as mean-while to remain really essentially numerically diverse from it * The Bread the same body with that born of the Virgin but It not changed into Christs Flesh but remaining still Bread * Bread still not only for the matter as it was in our Lord's or is in our nourishment but for the same Substantial Form and Qualities still inhering in it as before * The Bread made the very and true body as they say But virtually only in having infused into it and inherent in it the vivificating virtue of Christs natural Body Where the Protestants leave the Greeks to stand by themselves allowing this Vertue communicated to the Believer only not to the Symboles * The Eucharistical body conjoined as our nourishment is to ours to Christs natural body as they say but the one only in Heaven the other on Earth * Our Lord's Body in the Eucharist by the same Divinity inhabiting in both made one and the same with that born of the Virgin as they say but Mystically and Sacramentally only For the same Divinity replenishing both doth not therefore render them really the same one with another * The same body thus with that but no Sovereign Adoration due or by the Greeks given to this as to that * This the same Body with that and this also as indivisible received entire by every Communicant as the Greeks say but this Body entire in vertue only not in Substance * The same Body of our Lord in all places where this Sacrament is celebrated but only in the former sense i. e. the vertue and the efficacy of it the same If such be their sense the Reader cannot but think the Greeks very unfortunate in their Expressions or if not their sense this person presuming he should meet with very credulous Readers This from n. 11. of the 8th Observation M. Claude's explication of the true Opinion of the Modern Greeks and the necessary consequents of it § 19 9ly After this He confesseth That it doth not appear that the Greeks have made any Opposition to the Roman Church about