Lord are they not Matter You must either then overthrow the Veneration and Worship of all these things or grant the Adoration of the Images of God and his Friends the Saints It is evident that by this Body and Blood of Christ he means the Eucharist and distinguishes it from the Natural Body for speaking of the Natural Body as of a Matter he adds As to the other Matter c. which shews he passes over to another kind of material things distinct from the Body hypostatically united to the Divinity It is likewise apparent he ranks this Body and Blood in the same order and degree with the wood of the Cross Mount Calvary the Holy Sepulchre the Letters of the Gospel and the Communion Table and attributes no more to all these things than one and the same Adoration an Adoration proportionable to that of Images WHEN he has occasion to discourse on the Adoration which ought to be given to the Natural Body he expresses himself after a different manner I adore say's he one God Father Son and Holy Ghost I give to him alone the Ibid. worship of Latria I worship one God one Divinity but I adore likewise the Trinity of Persons God the Father God the Son clothed with Humane Flesh and God the Holy Ghost which yet are no more than one God I worship not the Creature besides the Creator but I adore the Creator who hath made me and who without the loss of his Dignity or suffering any Division has descended to me to honour my Nature and make me partaker of the Divine Nature I do also together with my God and King adore th'enclosure of his Body if a man may so express himself tho not as a Vestment or fourth Person God forbid but as having been declared God and made without Conversion that which it hath been anointed Here the Humanity is adored in Person with an Adoration of Latria whereas the Mystical Body and Blood are only adored with a relative Adoration after the same manner as the Cross the Holy Sepulchre and Images If you say say's he in another place a little farther that we ought only to be joyned with God in Spirit and Understanding abolish then all corporeal things Tapers Incense Prayers uttered with an articulate voice nay even thâ— Divine Mysteries which consist of Matter to wit the Bread and Wine the Oyl of Unction the Sign of the Cross the Reed and Lance which pierced his Side to make Life issue out from thence Either the veneration of all these things must be abolished which cannot be done or not reject the Worship of Images What he called a little above the Body and Blood he here calls Bread and Wine but whether he designs them under the name of Body and Blood or whether he calls them Bread and Wine he attributes no more to them than a proportionable Adoration unto that which he pretends ought to be given Images and other material things he mentions that is to say a relative Adoration WE find in Photius a Passage like unto those of Stephen and Damascene in which he justifies after the same manner the relative Adoration given to Images by the example of that which is given to the Mysteries He compares these two Worships together and makes them of the same order and quality When we adore say's he the Image of Jesus Christ the Cross and the Pho. de Synod Sign of the Cross we do not pretend to terminate our Worship or Adoration in these things but direct it to him who by the unspeakable Riches of his Love became man and suffered a shameful death for us And thus do we adore the Temples Sepulchers and Relicks of Saints from whence do proceed those miraculous cures praising and glorifying God who has given them this Power and if there be any such like thing in our mystical and holy Sacraments we acknowledge and glorifie the Author and first Cause of it for the Gift and Grace which he has bestowed on us by their means AND this is what I had to say on this Point I leave now the Reader to judge whether my denyal that the Greeks do adore this Sacrament according to the manner of the Latins be the effect of an unparallel'd rashness as speaks Mr. Arnaud or whether it be not rather the effect of a Knowledge and Consideration more just and disinteressed than that of his I ground my negative on the express Testimonies of Sacranus John de Lasko Peter Scarga Anthony Caucus Francis Richard all Roman Catholicks and Ecclesiasticks who lived in those Places and are consequently unreproachable Witnesses in this particular who all of 'em expresly affirm the Greeks do not adore the Sacrament after Consecration and reproach them with it as a capital crime and brand them in this respect with the name of Hereticks I confirm this not only by the Silence of Travellers who exactly relate the Ceremonies of their Office without observing this essential particular but likewise from the proper Rituals of the Greeks and their refusal to practise the chief Ceremonies the Latins use to express their Adoration without substituting others equivalent to them I farther confirm it by express Passages taken out of other Greek Fathers who only attribute to the Eucharist a relative Adoration like unto that given to Images Temples Crosses and Relicks of Saints And yet Mr. Arnaud tells me that he is both ashamed and sorry for me and that my negative is the effect of a rashness beyond example and he grounds this fierce charge on voluntary Adorations and internal Venerations which no body ever saw but himself that is to say on Chimera's with which the necessity of maintaining his Thâ—sis right or wrong has furnish'd him Yet how greatly soever mens minds may be prejudic'd I doubt not but good men of his own Communion will be of another mind I hope at least they will not say I have been rash in affirming the Greeks adore not the Sacrament as do the Latins For were there any rashness in this assertion they must blame these Canons Archbishops and Jesuits and not me who only denied it after them I hope likewise the Proof I have made touching these same Greeks not believing Transubstantiation will not be esteemed inconsiderable my Consequence being grounded on Mr. Arnaud's own Principle Not only say's he the Doctrine of the real Presence is necessarily Book 10. chap. 9. annexed to the internal Adoration but also to some act of external respect For altho they may be separated by metaphysical Suppositions or extravagant Errors such as those of some Hereticks in these latter days yet is it impossible to separate them by the real Suppositions of Persons endued with common sence CHAP. VIII The Fourteenth Proof taken from that the Greeks when ever they argue touching the Azyme do carry on their Disputes upon this Principle That the Sacrament is still real Bread after its Consecration The Fifteenth from the little care they take to
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
has come to pass the Greeks of latter Ages have thus expressed themselves in relation to this part of their Belief we need only look back to the foregoing Ages for we shall there find Sentiments and Expressions on the same Subject if not wholly conformable to the Expressions of the Modern Greeks yet which come very near them and which have served for a Foundation to 'em as will appear by the following Passages WE may then here mark what the Fathers of the Council of Constantinople in the Eighth Century asserted As the Body of Jesus Christ is Holy In actis Concil Nic. 2 act 6. because 't is deified so likewise that which is his Body by Institution to wit his Holy Image is made Divine by a Sanctification of Grace For as by virtue of the Hypostatical Union our Saviour deified the Flesh he took on him by a Sanctification naturally proper to him so in like manner he will have the Bread in the Eucharist which is the real Image of his Flesh to become a Divine Body by the Descent of the Holy Spirit into it the Oblation being by means of the Priest transferred from a common State to a State of Holiness And therefore the natural Flesh of Jesus Christ endued with Soul and Understanding has been anointed by the Holy Spirit being united to the Divinity and so likewise his Image to wit the Divine Bread is filled with the Holy Spirit Who sees not in these words the Union and Composition of Bread with the Holy Spirit The Bread say they is made Divine by a Sanctification of Grace it becomes a Divine Body by the Descent of the Holy Spirit into it the Bread is filled with the Holy Spirit in like manner as the natural Flesh of our Lord has been sanctified deified and anointed with the Holy Spirit by virtue of the Hypostatical Union All this plainly favours the Composition of the Modern Greeks Now this Testimony is the more considerable in that the second Nicene Council having been held on purpose to overthrow whatsoever had been determined in that of Constantinople touching the Point of Images they censured the name of Image which their Adversaries had given the Eucharist but left untouched the other Clauses I now mentioned Which shews that these kind of Expressions were received by both Parties and that this was the common Doctrine of the whole Greek Church IN effect if we ascend higher we shall find that Saint Ephraim Bishop Apud Phol Bib. Cod. 229. of Antioch who lived about the Sixth Century thus expressed himself That the Body of Jesus Christ which the faithful receive does not leave its sensible Substance nor is seperated from the spiritual Grace Which does moreover favour the Duplicity or Composition of Bread with the Holy Spirit THEODORET who lived about the Fifth Century expresses himself Diog. al. 1. after the same manner Jesus Christ say's he has honoured the visible Symbols with the name of his Body and Blood not in changing their naturee but in joyning his Grace thereunto Chrysostom said the same thing in the Fourth Chrysost Hom. 44. in Joan. Century That the Bread becomes Heavenly Bread by means of the Holy Spirit 's coming down upon it THEOPHILUS of Alexandria in the same Century wrote That the Theophil Alex Ep. Pasch 1. Bibl. Patr. Tom. 3. Edit 4. Bread and Wine placed on the Lord's Table are inanimate things which are sanctified by Prayer and Descension of the Holy Ghost SAINT Irenaeus who lived in the Second Century spake to the same Irenae advers Hares lib. 4. cap. 34. purpose That the Eucharist consists of two things the one Earthly th' other Heavenly It is plain by the sequel of his Discourse that he means by these two things the Bread and sanctifying Grace of the Holy Spirit But it is also manifest that all these Passages have occasioned the Belief of the Composition THOMAS a Jesu tells us of an Errour wherewith almost all the Eastern Thom. Ã Jesu lib. de procur salute omn. gent. part 2. lib. 7. cap 7. Christians are infected which is That Jesus Christ soaked the Bread he was to give to Judas that he might thereby take away its Consecration I confess 't is a great absurdity to imagine the Consecration can be taken away by this means but 't is easie to perceive these ignorant People have fallen into this Errour by conceiving the Consecration under the Idea of a real impression made on the Substance of Bread for thereupon they have imagined this impression might be effaced in washing the Bread or soaking it AND thus far concerning the first part of my Proposition The second is That they believe the Bread and Wine keeping their proper nature are joyned to the Divinity Which is the same thing as the first only otherwise expressed They will then mutually assist and strengthen each other For this effect I shall produce the Testimony of Nicholas Methoniensis who lived in the Twelfth Century This Author in answering those that doubted whether the Eucharist was the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ because they saw neither Flesh nor Blood but Bread and Wine resolves the difficulty in this manner God say's he who knows all things and is perfectly good has wisely ordered this in respect of our weakness lest we should have in horror the Pledges of Eternal Life being not able to behold Flesh and Blood he has therefore appointed this to be done by things to which our nature is accustomed and has joyned to them his Divinity saying this is my Body this is my Blood MR. Arnaud pretends to make advantage of these Doubts which Nicholas Nicolaus Methon advers dubitantes c. Bibl. Patr. Craeco-Lat Tom. 2. Methoniensis treats of but we shall answer this Point in its due place It suffices at present that we behold this Author laying down on one hand the things to which our natures are accustomed that is to say Bread and Wine and on the other he assures us that the Divinity is joyned to them Which is exactly what I was to prove whence it follows that according to the Greeks the Bread and Wine remain in Union with the Divinity Mr. Arnaud who saw the force of this Passage has endeavoured to avoid it by a frivolous evasion God joyns say's he his Divinity to the Bread and Wine 'T is true but Lib 2 cap. 13. pag. 231. he has joyned it as the efficacious cause of the change of the Bread and Wine into the Body and Blood of Christ so often repeated by Nicholas Methoniensis but not as a means of Union between the Bread and Wine and Body of Jesus Christ He has joyned it to the Bread not to conserve it in the Substance of Bread but to transform it internally into his Body I say this is a frivolous evasion For according to this reckoning we must understand by the things familiar to our natures the Bread and Wine as the matter to
which the Divinity is joyned to change it But were this the sence of Nicholas Methoniensis what would this contribute to the clearing up the doubt proposed to him The Question is whether the Flesh and Blood would not appear if they were in the Sacrament and Nicholas Methoniensis answers that the Bread and Wine are the matter changed by the Divinity which effects this change This is certainly a very strange way of speaking to say he joyns his Divinity to them to signifie that he transubstantiates them We see few People thus express themselves But supposing this what relation has this to the Doubt he pretends to resolve If the Flesh of Christ were in the Sacrament say these Dubitants it would appear we should see it I answer say Nicholas Methoniensis according to Mr. Arnaud's Comment that the Bread and Wine are the matter which is changed and that the Almighty power of God changes them Can any Answer be more ridiculous This Author must certainly lost his Wits to make such a Reply They do not ask him what the matter is that is changed nor what the efficient cause of this change but why if it be use Body of Christ it does not appear to be Flesh but Bread Matter Cause efficacy contribute nothing to the solving of this Doubt This Gloss then of Mr. Arnaud's is absurd and if we suppose Nicholas Methoniensis spake sence it must be granted that his meaning is that the Bread and Wine remaining Bread and Wine are yet notwithstanding made the Body and Blood of Christ by reason of their Union to the Divinity and not otherwise Whence it follows that it must not be expected they should appear to be Flesh and Blood because they are not so in respect of their Matter or Substance but only by their Union to the Divinity which makes them in some sort to be the same thing with the Body and Blood THIS Opinion seems to be derived from Damascen whose expressions I desire I may have leave to mention altho we must use them also in another place For 't is certain that to judge aright of the Opinion of the Modern Greeks we must ascend so far Mr. Arnaud has himself observed that John Damascen is another Saint Thomas amongst the Greeks and has been ever the rule of their Doctrine touching the Eucharist Elsewhere he assures us That we need only read the Treatises of the Modern Greeks to find that they Lib. 2. cap. 6. pag. 155. Lib. 2. cap. 12. wholly conform themselves to the Sentiment and Expressions of this Father This then is a Principle with Mr. Arnaud so that to convince him touching the Belief of the Greeks there is a kind of necessity lying upon us to consult this Father OBSERVE here then what he say's in his Fourth Book of the Orthodox Faith The Bread and Wine are not the Figure of the Body and Blood of Damascen de Orthod fid lib. 4 cap. 14. Christ God forbid but they are the deified Body it self of Jesus Christ the Lord himself saying unto us this is not the Figure of my Body but my Body not the Figure of my Blood but my Blood He had said before to the Jews if ye eat not the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink his Blood you will have no life in you for my Flesh is Meat indeed and my Blood is Drink indeed And then again He that eateth me shall live Draw we near then with trembling with a pure Conscience a firm Faith and it will be unto us according to the constancy and firmness of our Faith Honour we it with a perfect purity of Body and Soul For it is double Approach we towards it with a fervent desire and placing our hands in manner of a Cross receive we the Body of him that was crucified for us Let us put it on our Eyes Lips and Forehead and take we thus the Divine Coal to the end our Devotion being inflamed thereby our sins may be consumed and our hearts inlightned and that by the participation of this Divine Fire we may our selves become inflamed and deified Esaias saw a Coal Now a Coal is not meer Wood but Wood in conjunction with Fire So the Bread of the Communion is not mere Bread being it is united to the Divinity Now a Body united to the Divinity is not one single nature but two one being that of the Body and th' other that of the Divinity annexed thereunto So that to take them together it is not one only nature but two THESE Words clearly shew that Damascen means that the Bread in the Eucharist which is the Body of Jesus Christ is double because 't is joyned to the Divinity that 't is not mere Bread but Bread united to the Divinity consisting of two natures one of Bread and th' other of the Divinity which is joyned to it in like manner as Esaias his live Coal was not meer Wood but Wood in conjunction with Fire Now this is what is exactly contained in my Proposition that the Bread and Wine keeping their proper nature are joyned to the Divinity according to the Greeks MR. Arnaud who saw the force of this Passage that he might get clear off it has bethought himself to say that the Duplicity which Damascen mentions must be understood as meant of Jesus Christ himself who consists of two Natures He rehearses the Passage in hand to these Words Duplex Lib. 7. cap. 4. pag. 654. est enim and then adds it is plain that hitherto these Words relate to Jesus Christ and his true and real Flesh and that 't is of him it is said Duplex est enim which is to say that he is composed of two Natures and a little farther It plainly appears that Saint John Damascen ' s Design is to exhort us to a double Ibid. purity of Soul and Body to honour the double Nature of Jesus Christ and to show that we receive in the Communion this double Nature So that these Words non est panis simplex sed unitus divinitati corpus autem unitum divinitati non est una natura sed duae una quidem corporis alter a conjunctae Divinitatis are the Exposition of what he said before that Jesus Christ was double And that which he shews us is that this double nature of Jesus Christ has been signified by the Coal which Esaias saw and that we receive this Divine Coal BUT all this is but an Errour and cunning Evasion of Mr. Arnaud who was not willing to consult the Greek Copy of Damascen for 't is true indeed these Latin Words Duplex est enim may refer to Jesus Christ or his Flesh because the Latin word Duplex is of all Genders so that being taken in the Masculine it relates to Christ himself and in the Feminine to his Flesh But had Mr. Arnaud been willing to consult the Greek Text he would have found no pretence for this evasion For there is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
〈◊〉 Now who knows not that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is of the Neuter Gender which by consequence can neither agree with Jesus Christ nor his Flesh but with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Body which the Vide Damascen de Orthodoxa Fide of Veronnes Impression 1531. and that of Basil Bread is and which we receive in the Communion of which he spake in the beginning of his Discourse He might have found also that these words Honour we him are in the Greek in the Neuter Gender 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which can only refer to the Body and not to Jesus Christ nor his Flesh MR. Arnaud methinks should take more care another time of what he writes and not give us so many of his It is clear it manifestly appears for there is nothing so clear as the contrary of what he say's Damascen speaking of the Bread of the Communion say's that 't is not a Figure but the deified Body of Jesus Christ he would have us honour this Body that is to say that Body which we receive in the Communion with a double purity of Body and Soul externally and internally because 't is double He shews what ought to be our inward disposition to wit a fervent desire he passes to our external Actions which are to hold our arms cross-wise and to hold the Communion we receive on our Eyes Lips and Forehead Afterwards to explain how this Body is double he compares it to the Coal Esaias saw which was not bare wood but wood and fire together Then applying immediately his comparison he adds Thus the Bread of the Communion is not mere Bread being it is united to the Divinity Now a Body united to the Divinity is not one single nature but two one of the Body and th' other of the Divinity which is joyned thereunto Who sees not then that this double Body of which he speaks and which he compared to Esaias Coal is the Bread of the Communion that it is double being Bread united to the Divinity and that the effect of this Union is not to change the nature of the Bread but to make a composition of two Natures Whence it manifestly follows that one of these Natures being the Divinity th' other is the nature of Bread It is then true as Mr. Arnaud has observed that these last words Sit panis communionis non est panis simplex sed unitus divinitati are the exposition of what he said before Duplex est enim for it is double But because duplex refers not to Jesus Christ but to the Body we receive in the Communion it is therefore likewise true that they expound what we must understand by this Body to wit the Bread united to the Divinity BUT I must puruse the other parts of my Proposition The Greeks believe That by the impression which the Bread and Wine receive from the Holy Spirit they are changed into the virtue of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ and made by this means this Body and Blood Which is apparent first from all those Passages of the Liturgies I mentioned in the Fifth Chapter of this Book the result whereof is that the Bread becomes the Body of Jesus Christ in asmuch as 't is made capable of sanctifying us and that this is exactly what the Priest prayes for in the words of Consecration Now what is this but the Bread's being made the Body of Jesus Christ in virtue SECONDLY This appears likewise by what we have seen from Simeon Thessaloniensis who tells us that the unconsecrated Particles being mixed with those that are consecrated and partaking of their Sanctification become in some sort the Body of Christ and are proper for the Communion of the Faithful For this necessarily supposes as I shewed in the Fifth Chapter of this Third Book that the consecrated Particle it self is the Body of Jesus Christ in asmuch as it receives this Sanctification THIRDLY This moreover appears by the Passages of Cabasilas which I alledged in the Sixth Chapter by which we see that he takes for the same thing to receive Sanctification and to receive the Body of Jesus Christ Which likewise necessarily supposes that the Bread becomes the Body of Christ only in Sanctification and virtue FOURTHLY Euthymius Zigabenius a Greek Monk that lived in the Euthym. Comment in Matthe cap. 64. Twelfth Century confirms the same thing We must not say's he consider the nature of things which are offered but their virtue For as the word deifies if it be lawful to use such an expression the Flesh to which it is united after a supernatural manner so it changes by an ineffable operation the Bread and Wine into his Body which is a Spiring of Life and into his precious Blood and into the virtue of both one and the other MR. Arnaud nibbles at this Passage Euthymius say's he say's that Jesus Lib. 24. cap. 12. pag. 216. Christ changes after an ineffable manner the Bread into his own Body This signifies say's Mr. Claude that he changes it not into his Body but into the virtue of his Body Euthymius say's that he changes the Wine into his Blood This signifies say's Mr Claude that he changes it not into his Blood but into the virtue of his Blood Euthymius adds that he changes them into the virtue of both one and the other in gratiam ipsorum This Addition has perplexed Mr. Claude and therefore he has thought good not to mention it But in adding it because 't is there in effect the whole expression of Euthymius expounded in the Calvinists sence will be that Jesus Christ changes the Bread into the virtue of his Body and the Wine into the virtue of his Blood and into the virtue of both one and the other Who ever heard of such a folly to joyn together the Metaphorical Term and the exposition of the Metaphorical Term as two distinct and separate things Do we say for example that the Stone is Jesus Christ and the Sign of Jesus Christ that the Ark was the Church and the Figure of the Church that the Paschal Lamb was Christ and the representation of Christ that Anger changes men into Beasts and into the fury of Beasts ALL this is but vain Rhetorick Euthymius say's We must not consider the nature of the things offered us but their virtue This is not the Language of a man that would say that the nature of Bread and Wine ceases to be and that we must consider the proper Substance of Jesus Christ under the Vail of Accidents This Expression on the contrary supposes that the nature of these things subsists altho we must not consider it but raise up our minds to the Consideration of the supernatural virtue they receive When then he adds that Jesus Christ changes the Bread and Wine into his own Body and Blood it is true that this signifies according to my Interpretation that he changes them into the virtue of his Body and Blood and not into their
Bishop and Metropolitan of Carie and contemporary with Photius according to Gretzer the Jesuites conjecture borrowed the same Comparison whereby to explain how the Bread is made the Body of Christ He introduces in one of his Dialogues a Saracen disputing Bibl. Patr. Tom. 2. Graeco-Lat with him on this Subject The Saracen Tell me Bishop why do ye Priests so impose on other Christians Of the same Flower you make two Loaves the one for common use and th' other you divide into several pieces distributing 'em to the People which you call the Body of Jesus Christ and perswade them it confers remission of sins Do ye deceive your selves or the People whose Guides you are The Christian We neither abuse our selves nor others The Saracen Prove me this then not by Scripture but by reason The Christian What do ye say Is not the Bread made the Body of Jesus Christ The Saracen I know not what to answer to that The Christian When your Mother first brought you forth into the World was you then as big as you are now The Saracen No I was born a little one and became bigger by means of Food God thus ordering it The Christian Has the Bread then been made your Body The Saracen Yes The Christian And how was this done The Saracen I know not the manner thereof The Christian The Bread descends into the Stomach and by the heat of the Liver the grossest parts separating themselves the rest are converted into Chyle the Liver attracting them to it and changing them into Blood and afterwards distributes 'em by means of the Veins to all the parts of the Body that they may be what they are bone to bones marrow to marrow sinew to sinews eye to eyes hair to hair nail to nails and thus by this means the Child grows and becomes a Man the Bread being converted in to his Body and the Drink into his Blood The Saracen I believe so The Christian Know then that our Mystery is made after the same manner the Priest places Bread and Wine on the Holy Table and praying the Holy Spirit descends thereon and the efficacy of its Divinity changes them into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ neither more nor less than the Liver changes the Food into the Body of a Man THEODORUS Graptus a Greek Monk who lived in the Ninth Century Apud Leonem Allat post diatribas de Simeon â—â—ia Collect 1. uses likewise the same Comparison We do not call say's he the Holy Mysteries an Image or Figure of the Body of Jesus Christ altho they be a Symbolical Representation thereof but the very deified Body of Jesus Christ he himself saying if ye eat not the Flesh of the Son of man and drink his Blood ye have no life in you And this is what he taught his Disciples when he said to 'em take and eat my Body not a Figure of my Body for thus did he form his Flesh of the Substance of the Virgin by the Holy Spirit Which may be explained likewise by things familiar to us for as the Bread Wine and Water do naturally change themselves into the Body and Blood of him that eats and drinks them So by the Prayers of the Priest and Descent of the Holy Spirit these things are supernaturally changed into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ And this is done by the Priest's Prayer and yet we understand not that this is two Bodies but one and the same Body NICEPHORUS the Patriarch of Constantinople and Contemporary Allat de perp Cons lib. 3. cap. 15. M. Arn. lib. 7 cap. 5 p. 662. with Theodorus Graptus say's the same thing in a Passage which Allatius and Mr. Arnaud after him has related If it be lawful say's he to explain these things by a humane Comparison as the Bread Wine and Water are naturally changed into the Body and Blood of those that eat and drink them and become not another Body so these Gifts by the Prayer of him that officiates and descent of the Holy Spirit are changed supernaturally into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ For this is what is contained in the Priest's Prayer and we understand not that this is two Bodies but one and the same Body THIS way of explaining the change of the Bread and Wine is not peculiar to these Authors alone whom I now alledged Damascen who according to Mr. Arnaud is to be esteemed as the common Oracle of the Greeks made use of it in his Fourth Book of the Orthodox Faith As in Baptism Damascen de fide Orthod lib. 4. cap. 14. say's he because men are wont to wash and anoint themselves God has added to the Oyl and Water the Grace of his Holy Spirit and made thereof the Laver of our Regeneration so in like manner because we are wont to eat Bread and drink Wine and Water he has joyned to these things his Divinity and made them his Body and Blood to the end that by things familiar to our nature he might raise us above nature This is really the Body united to the Divinity the Body born of the Virgin Not that the Body which ascended up on high descends from Heaven but because the Bread and Wine are changed into the Body and Blood of God If you ask how this comes to pass it will be sufficient to tell ye that 't is by means of the Holy Spirit and after the same manner as he became Flesh in the Virgin 's Womb. All that we know of it is this that the Word of God is true efficacious and Almighty and that the manner of this change is inconceiveable Yet we may say that as naturally the Bread we eat the Wine and Water we drink are changed into the Body and Blood of him that eates and drinks and yet become not another Body than that which he had before so after the same manner the Bread and Wine which are placed on the Altar are supernaturally changed into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ by Prayer and Descension of the Holy Spirit and these are not two Bodies but one and the same Body IT is probable that Damascen and the others aforementioned who use this Comparison have taken it out of the Catechism of Gregory of Nysse wherein we find almost the same Conceptions For he say's that as the Gregor Nyss in Orat. Catâ—chet Bread which Jesus Christ eat was changed into his Body and received thereby a divine virtue the same likewise comes to pass in the Eucharist For there it was the Grace of the Word that sanctified the Body which was nourished with Bread and was in some sort Bread and here after the same manner the Bread is sanctified by the Word of God and by Prayer not being in truth made the Body of the Word by Manducation but by being changed in an instant by the Word into the Body of Christ according to what he said himself this is my Body THIS Comparison does already
our Sence he must say if it be so that the Bread contains the Virtue of Christ's Body why does it not appear Flesh to us For this Doubt does not arise from the Bread's being Flesh in Virtue on the contrary 't is that which dissipates the Doubt and makes it vanish It comes either from the general Proposition that the Bread is Flesh and not the Figure of Flesh or from this other Proposition that it is Flesh even as the Bread which Jesus Christ eat was changed into his Flesh but the Doubt resolves it self by this last Proposition that it is changed into the Virtue of Flesh and Blood SECONDLY It appears likewise from thence that Theophylact had not Transubstantiation in his Thoughts For if he had it in his Thoughts he must have solved the Difficulty in another manner He must have said that the appearance of Bread remains but that its Substance is changed into the Flesh of Christ and for this Reason does not appear Flesh but Bread But yet notwithstanding the Doubts would not have ceased as they do now for it might be demanded how this appearance of Bread subsisted alone without its natural Substance how our Sences could be deceived by an appearance of Bread which was not Bread and by a real substance of Flesh which appears not Flesh how this same Substance of the Flesh of Christ can be in Heaven and on Earth at the same time and several other such like Questions which are not to be found in Theophylact's Text. 3dly It appears likewise that Theophylact believed that if the Bread was Flesh otherwise than by an Impression of Virtue it must needs appear Flesh For in saying that 't is in Condescention to our Weakness that God changes it into the Virtue of his Flesh he leaves it to be concluded that otherwise our Infirmities would not be succoured and we must unavoidably behold Flesh in its natural Form MR. Arnaud not liking this change of Virtue which is found thus described in proper terms in Theophylact's Discourse endeavours to give three different Explications of them and leaves us at liberty to choose either of them First that by the virtue of Flesh we must understand the Reality the internal Essence of this Flesh The second that this is a way of speaking which is usual with the Greeks to say 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Force or Power of Flesh to signify Flesh full of Efficacy The third that when two things are joyned together in Truth and in the Mind of those to whom we speak it often happens These 2. that in expressing them we denote but one without excluding the other and with a design to make the other understood which we do not express by that which we do Which he afterwards explains in these Terms It is certain that the Consecrated Bread is changed into the Body of Christ It is certain likewise that it becomes full of its Virtue and Efficacy These two Truths are joyned and are the Consequences of each other And therefore it oft happens that Authors do joyntly express them as does Euthymius who tells us in express Terms That as Jesus Christ deified the Flesh he took by a supernatural Operation so he changes the Bread and Wine after an ineffable manner into his proper Body which is the Fountain of Life and into his proper Blood and into the Virtue of both one and the other But as these two changes are still joyned in Effect and the Fathers supposing they were joyned in the Spirit of the Faithful It sufficed them to express the one to make the other understood And thus they tell us a hundred times that the Bread is changed into the Body of Christ without expressing it is filled with its Virtue because one follows the other and Theophylact having told us several times that the Bread is changed into the Body of Christ tells us once that 't is changed into its Strength as the sequel of a Mystery which makes it conceived wholy entire because the Faith of the Faithful does not separate the virtue of Christs Body from the Body it self nor his Body from its Virtue it never having entred into their Minds that Christ's Body was in Heaven and that we have only in the Eucharist its Strength and Virtue whereas they believe that we have only this Strength and Virtue upon the account of its being really and truly present in our Mysteries And 't is by these Engines Mr. Arnaud pretends to draw Transubstantiation from the Passage of Theophylact. BUT in general all these three Explications appear to us to be forced and neither of 'em to be chosen There needs not this great stir to find Theophylact's real Meaning He means no more than what his Expressions plainly intimate to wit That the Bread and Wine are changed into the Virtue of the Flesh and Blood of Christ and he means nothing else Had he believed a change of Substance he would have said so as well as a Change of Virtue and so much the rather as I observed that the Difficulty which he proposed to resolve obliged him to explain himself clearly about it Why does not the Bread being Flesh appear to be so Because its Substance is only changed and its Accidents remain A Man that believed Transubstantiation must needs say thus THE first Explication especially can have no grounds because that when we speak of the Virtue of a thing to signify its Truth Reality and inward Essence It is only when the Question concerns this Truth or this Reality in respect of its Operation or Effects and Mr. Arnaud's Instances confirm what I say For when St. Paul said speaking of Hypocrites that they have a Form or Appearance of Godlyness 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but that they denied the Power 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he means they have only a false Appearance of it a vain Shadow but not the Reality of it which is seen by its Effects So when Hesychius say's that it is to receive the Communion ignorantly not to know the Virtue and Dignity of it and to be ignorant that 't is the Body and Blood of Christ according to Truth That this is to receive the Mystery and not know the Virtue of them he did not mean that the Mysteries were the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ in Substance but according to the spiritual Understanding which is what he calls the Truth of the Mystery it is the Body and Blood of Christ because what offers it self to our sight is only the Shadow and Vale of the Mystery but that the Divine Object represented by these sensible things is the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ Which is what he calls the Virtue of the Mystery because its whole Operation and Effects depend only on them As to what he alledges of Paschasius besides that he is an Author who affects Obscurity as is usual with Innovators and that there is a great deal of Injustice in
is not Flesh This Reasoning opposes the Expression of the Greeks that the Bread is the Body of Christ as also the Example which they gave of it to wit of the Bread which our Saviour eat but it does not disagree with the Exposition which they gave of it which is that it is the Body of Christ in Virtue on the contrary we have already observed that Theophylact uses this Exposition for the solving of the Objection contained in this Reasoning Which plainly shews that whilst this Proposition the Bread is the Body of Christ stands alone and unexplained it may give occasion to Ignorant People to form this Objection but as soon as 't is explained and shewed in what Sence the Greeks understand it the Doubt vanishes AND this will more plainly appear if we consider the Answer which Nicolaus Methoniensis made to those that doubted for it comes very near to that of Theophylact. God say's he respecting our Weakness lest we should conceive Horror at the Pledges of Eternal Life as being not able to indure the sight of Flesh and Blood does therefore deliver to us things familiar to our Nature and has joyned to them his Divinity saying this is my Body this is my Blood This Answer does in a manner explain in what Sence the Greeks believed the Bread was the Body of Christ to wit by its Union with the Divinity which does very well solve the Argument of the Doubters and bereaves it of its Strength For if it be the Body of Christ only by this means to wit by its Union with the Divinity there is no longer occasion to say it should appear Flesh IT is then clear that this whole Dispute of Nicolaus Methoniensis overthrows Transubstantiation as well as that of Theophylact. For as to those that doubted had they known the Greek Church taught that the Substance of Bread is changed into that of the Body they would have grounded their Objection not on the general Proposition that the Bread is the Body but on the particular one to wit that the Bread is changed into the Substance of the Body whence it more strongly and distinctly follows that it ought to appear Flesh after the Change And as to the Answer return'd them they must have been told that the Substance only is changed and that the Accidents of Bread remain to serve as a Vail to the Flesh of Christ This is what ought to be answered on the Hypothesis of Transubstantiation and not that the Bread is joyned to the Divinity This Answer would be absurd if we suppose Transubstantiation of the Difficulty would still remain Why the Bread becoming the Substance of our Lord 's proper Flesh it does not appear Flesh Yet Nicolaus Methoniensis will have these Objectors rest satified with his Answer and extends not their Doubts any farther CHAP. VIII The Profession of Faith which the Sarracens were caused to make in the twelveth Century considered several Passages out of Cabasilas Simeon Archbishop of Thessalonica Jeremias the Patriarch of Constantinople and several others Collected by Mr. Arnaud out of Greek Authors Examined VVE have already rehearsed the Profession of Faith which the Greeks of the twelveth Century caused the Sarracens to make that imbraced the Christian Religion to shew the Greeks kept themselves to the general Expressions of the Bread and Wines being the Body and Blood of Christ and how they are changed into this Body and Blood leaving to God the Knowledg of the manner thereof It is certain this is all can be concluded thence and yet Mr. Arnaud has not fail'd to draw this Profession of Faith to his Advantage But seeing he designed to make a Proof of it it seems to me he ought at least to rehearse truly the Terms of it and not alter them as he has done in his Version I believe say's the Convert and confess the Bread and Wine which Bibl. Patr. tom 2. Grec Lat. are mystically Sacrificed by the Christians and of which they partake in their Divine Sacraments This Clause thus expressed has not contented Mr. Arnaud and therefore he has not thought good to relate it in this Form altho it be so in the Greek and Latin Version I believe also say's the Sarracen that these things are in truth the Body and Blood of Christ being changed by his Divine Virtue intellectually and invisibly above all humane Understanding AS IS BEST KNOWN TO HIMSELF These are so far the true Expressions of the Profession Here follows Mr. Arnaud's Version I am perswaded Lib. 2. c. 15. p. 247. I believe I confess that the Bread and Wine mystically Consecrated by the Christians and of which they partake in the Celebration of the Holy Mysteries are in truth the Body and Blood of our Lord being changed by his Divine Virtue in a manner not to be perceived by our Eyes and discernible only to the Mind but surpassing all the Thoughts of Men and which is only comprehended by God alone and so I promise that I will partake of it with other faithful People as being in truth his Flesh and Blood By this means 1st He confounds two things which the Proselyte distinguishes The one is to Confess the Bread and Wine of which the Christians partake and the other to Confess that this Bread and Wine are in truth the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ These two Clauses being thus distinguished it is clear the first supposes that 't is Bread and Wine and this Mr. Arnaud would conceal by confounding them in one 2dly Instead of rendring 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Intellectually and Invisibly he has taken such a Circuit as changes the Sence In a manner say's he which our Eyes do not discover and which is discernable only to the Mind To hinder the Readers from observing that the Change in Question is Spiritual and Mystical not Sensible or Material for this is precisely what is meant by this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 3dly Instead of these Terms As he alone knows 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which gives us to understand that God only determinately knows what this Spiritual and Mystical Change is He has Translated In a manner Comprehended by God alone to accommodate this to the Doctrine of the Roman Church which expresly determines the Change of one Substance into another But not being able to disintangle herself from the Difficulties she finds in this Doctrine sends us to God AND yet with all these Alterations Mr. Arnaud can conclude nothing from this Profession of Faith unless it be that the Bread and Wine are in truth the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ and that they are changed by his Divine Virtue But this is not the Point we disputed on They are then changed in respect of their Substance It is this Consequence which we deny In Effect whether the Bread and Wine are the Body and Blood of Christ by a change of Virtue and by way of Augmentation as the Greeks explain it or otherwise it is certain that they
effect as Mr. Claude supposes it in every workman just as the workman says that when the light of the day fails him he had rather have the light of the Lamp than that of the Candle for this or that kind of work CHAP. III. A Defence of the second third and fourth Rank of persons against the Objections of Mr. Arnaud THE first rank of persons being defended against Mr. Arnaud's subtilties it now concerns us t' examin his Objections against the three others but to do it with greater brevity I shall not trouble my self with his useless words but as to matters of moment I shall not pass by any of ' em THE second rank is of those that proceeded so far as the question how this visible Bread this subject called Sacrament is the Body of Jesus Christ but finding an inconsistency in the terms their minds settled on the only difficulty without undertaking to solve it Mr. ARNAVD says That the Fathers have not known these kind of Lib. 6. ch 7. pag. 575. people he means they have not mention'd them in their Writings But supposing the Fathers never knew 'em does Mr. Arnaud believe the Fathers must needs know or expound all the several manners of taking things which were practis'd by all particular persons Had they nothing else to do but to make general inventories of mens fancies to find out and denote distinctly the strength or weakness of each individual person If he imagins 't is a sufficient reason to affirm there were not any persons in the ancient Church who finding great difficulty in this proposition that the Bread is the Body of Jesus Christ stuck here without undertaking to clear the point to say the Fathers have known none of this kind he must acknowledg at the same time that there were none likewise that took these words in this sense That the substance of Bread is chang'd into the substance of the Body of Jesus Christ For I maintain that the Fathers have not known any of these kind of people never spake of 'em never offer'd 'em as an example to doubters nor declared that this was the true sense of their expressions Neither can it be answer'd that if they have not mention'd 'em 't was because all the Faithful took them in this sense For Mr. Arnaud confesses himself 'T is probable Lib. 6. ch 1. pag. 529. that the belief of the Faithful has been ever clear and distinct on the subject of the Real Presence and that they have ever known whether what was given them was or was not the Body of Jesus Christ altho they knew not always so expresly and universally whether the Bread did or did not remain in the Sacrament Any man may see what means such an acknowledgment from Mr. Arnaud I repeat it here again that 't is possible the Faithful did not always so expresly and universally know whether the Bread remains or not in the Sacrament which is without doubt at this time a very considerable acknowledgment But not to extend it further than the terms will bear we may at least conclude thence that the Fathers ought to suppose there were persons who probably would not take these words The Bread is the Body of Jesus Christ in this sense The substance of the Bread is changed into the substance of the Body of Jesus Christ and hereupon may be askt why they have not observ'd the exactness and quickness of understanding in the one to deliver the rest from the ignorance wherein Mr. Arnaud acknowledges they may have been AGAIN who told Mr. Arnaud that the Fathers knew not at least in general there might be persons who met with difficulty in this question How the Bread can be the Body of Jesus Christ because of the inconsistency of the terms of Bread and Body This is the difficulty S. Austin proposes in express terms on behalf of persons newly Baptiz'd in a Sermon he preach'd to ' em How says he is the Bread his Body and the Wine his Blood Serm. ad iâ—s The same difficulty is proposed by Theophylact Let no body be troubled says Theophyl in Joan. 6. he that he must believe Bread to be Flesh This was the difficulty which the Fathers were willing to prevent or resolve by this great number of passages which explain in what sense we must understand the Bread to be the Body of Jesus Christ to wit because 't is the Symbol of it the sign or figure the Sacrament of it because there 's some kind of proportion between Bread and Body c. as I shew'd in my Answer to the Author of the Perpetuity Now what were all these explications for but to help those that were perplext with these ways of speaking The Bread is the Body of Jesus Christ the Bread is made the Body of Jesus Christ and who for want of such assistance might make thereof a rock of offence NEITHER need Mr. Arnaud make so many exclamations How Lib. 6. cap. 7. p. 575. should those people discern the Body of our Saviour who were not solicitous to know him and that the Eucharist bore its name What Devotion could they have for this mystery seeing Devotion supposes Instruction Altho they knew not how 't was meant the Bread was the Body yet did not this hinder 'em from having a respect for our Saviour's Body from having a real Devotion considering that our Lord was dead and risen for 'em unless according to Mr. Arnaud it be no real Devotion to meditate on the Death and Resurrection of Christ Neither did this hinder 'em from receiving with great respect the Bread and Wine as pledges and remembrances of our Lords Body and Blood For 't is not impossible for persons to know the Eucharist to be a remembrance of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ and that also the Bread and Wine are said to be the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ without knowing that the first of these expressions is the cause of the second which is to say that the Bread and Wine are said to be this Body and Blood because they are the memorials and pledges of it BVT says Mr. Arnaud This laziness which makes the character of this Page 576. second order would last their whole life and not only some little space of time That it would do so we never told Mr. Arnaud 't is his addition 'T was a lazyness in a matter of the greatest concernment I confess 't is very important to make a good use of the Sacrament which is what I suppose these persons did but when a man shall find difficulty in knowing how the Bread is the Body of Jesus Christ and knows not how to solve it we must not therefore despair of his salvation This says he again is a laziness from which a man may be freed by the least question offer'd to a Priest or Laick that is knowing by the instructions which the Pastors gave to those that were admitted to the Communion
the virtue of the Divine Word it is truly the Body and Blood of Christ yet not corporeally but spiritually That there is a great deal of difference between this Body in which Jesus Christ has suffered and that Body which is Consecrated in the Eucharist For the Body with which our Saviour has suffered was born of the Virgin has Blood Bones Skin Sinews and is indued with a reasonable Soul But his spiritual Body which we call the Eucharist is composed of several grains without Blood Bones Members and Soul and therefore we must not understand any thing of it corporeally but spiritually II. Mr. ARNAVD cannot hinder it from being true that the Ibidem people were instructed in this manner The heavenly food with which the Jews were nourished by the space of forty years and the Water which ran from the Rock represented the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ which we now every day offer in the Church They were the same things which we offer at this day not corporeally but spiritually We have already told you that our Saviour Christ before his Passion Consecrated Bread and Wine to be his Eucharist and said This is my Body and Blood He had not yet suffered and yet he changed by his invisible virtue this Bread into his own Body and this Wine into his own Blood in the same manner as he had already done in the Wilderness before he was incarnate when he changed the heavenly Manna into his Flesh and the Water which ran from the Rock into his own Blood He that eats my Flesh and drinks my Blood has Eternal Life He does not command us to eat that Body which he assum'd nor drink that Blood which he spilt for us but by this he means the holy Eucharist which is spiritually his Body and Blood which whosoever shall taste with a pure heart shall live eternally Vnder the ancient Law the Faithful offered to God several Sacrifices which signified the Body of Jesus Christ to come this Body I say which he offered to God his Father as a Sacrifice for our Sins But this Eucharist which we now Consecrate on Gods Altar is the Commemoration of the Body of Jesus Christ offered for us and Blood shed for us according as he himself has commanded saying Do this in remembrance of me III. Mr. ARNAVD must be remembred that Elfric Abbat of Serm. Elfrici apud Eund Voloc Malmâ—sbury and who was afterwards as 't is thought Arch-bishop of Canterbury and lived in the same time wrote That the Eucharist is not the Body of Jesus Christ corporally but spiritually not the Body in which Jesus Christ has suffered but the Body in which he spake the night before his Passion when he Consecrated the Bread and Wine and said of the Consecrated Bread This is my Body and of the Consecrated Wine This is my Blood which is shed for many for the remission of sins The Lord who before his Passion Consecrated the Eucharist and said the Bread was his Body and the Wine truly his Blood does himself every day Consecrate by the hands of the Priest the Bread into his Body and the Wine into his Blood by a spiritual mystery as we find it written This enlivening Bread is not in any sort the same Body in which our Lord suffered and the Consecrated Wine is not the Blood of our Lord which was shed as to the corporeal matter but it is as to the spiritual The Bread was his Body and the Wine his Blood as the Bread of Heaven which we call the Manna with which the people of God were nourished during forty years and the water which ran from the Rock in the Desart was his Blood as says the Apostle in one of his Epistles they ate of the same spiritual food and drank of the same spiritual drink The Apostle does not say corporally but spiritually For Jesus Christ was not then born nor his Blood spilt when the people ate of this food and drank of this Rock IV. Mr. ARNAVD cannot hinder Wulstin Bishop of Salisbury in Mss. in Colleg. S. Bened. Cant. his Sermon which he made to his Clergy from speaking in this manner This Sacrifice is not the Body of Jesus Christ wherein he suffered nor his Blood which was shed for us but it is made spiritually his Body and Blood as the Manna which fell from Heaven and the water which gushed out of the Rock according to the saying of S. Paul I will not have you Brethren to be ignorant that our Fathers have been all under a Cloud and pass'd the Sea and all of 'em baptiz'd by Moses in the Cloud and in the Sea and that they have all eaten the same spiritual food and drank the same spiritual drink for they drank out of the spiritual Rock which followed them Now this Rock was Christ and therefore the Psalmist says he gave them the Bread of Heaven Man has eaten the Angels food We likewise without doubt eat the Bread of Angels and drink of this Rock which signifies Christ every time we approach with Faith to the Sacrifice of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ V. Mr. ARNAVD must know that the people were publickly In eod Mss. Eccl. Vigorn taught That Jesus Christ brake the Bread to represent the fraction of his Body that he bless'd the Bread and brake it because it pleased him so to submit the human nature which he had taken to death that he has also added that he had in it a treasure of Divine immortality And because Bread strengthens the body and the Wine begets blood in the flesh therefore the Bread relates mystically to the Body and the Wine to the Blood VI. He must know that Heriger Abbot of Lobbs in the County of Sig de Script Eccles cap. 137. de Cest Abb. Lob. tom 6. Spicil p. 591. Liege publickly condemned Paschasus his Doctrin as new and contrary to the Faith of the Church Which we learn by Sigibert and the continuer of the Acts of the Abbots of Lobbs for both of 'em say That he produc'd against Rabbert a great many passages of the Fathers Writings touching the Body and Blood of our Lord. VIII Mr. ARNAVD himself confesses that John Scot who withdrew Book 9. ch 6. p. 909. into England about the end of the preceding Century made perhaps some Disciples of his Doctrin 'T is true he would have these Disciples to be secret But why secret John Scot kept not himself private Bertran and Raban were neither of 'em in private Those that disliked Paschasus his Novelties hid not themselves in the 9th Century Why then must the Disciples of John Scot lie secret in the 10th wherein were Homilies that were filled with Doctrins contrary to that of Paschasus publickly read Besides as I have already said there 's no likelihood that Odon Arch-bishop of Canterbury should think himself oblig'd to have recourse to such a famous miracle as is that related by William of Malmsbury to
that time in the Church neither ignorant nor prophane persons much less can it be concluded hence there were then but three sorts of persons the Paschasists the Bertramists and those that pass'd from one opinion to another 'T is sufficient says Mr. Arnaud to tell Page 916. Mr. Claude in a word that to act as he must suppose they have done they must not have been men but some other kind of Animals and such creatures as we never heard of To which I answer that if he will not allow 'em to be Men he shall make Satyrs or Centaurs of 'em if he will for as to my part I must suppose 'em to be what they are If he does not find the Paschasists had zeal enough for the Real Presence he ought to impart more to 'em if he can And if the Bertramists have not well discharged their duty we for our share must deplore their stupidity seeing we cannot help it But howsoever 't is certain there were Paschasists and that there were Bertramists and 't is likewise as certain that the Pastors carelessness and the People ignorance were both very great These are matters of fact against which 't is in vain to dispute All that can be rationally said is that the ignorance of the one and the carelessness of the others made 'em agree in the subject of the Real Presence I mean they disputed not about it because they wanted ability to do it as well as zeal and industry Mr. ARNAVD endeavours in vain to persuade us that the disorders Book 9. ch 9. page 957. of the 10th Century were no greater than those of the others and that the state of the Church in this world is to include in the same external Society both living and dead Members Stubble and Wheat 't is a necessary consesequence of this state that a man may reproach every Age with several disorders and that each time of the Church may be respected as having two different faces according as a man casts his eyes upon the good that credit it or the wicked that dishonour it WHAT he says is but too true and so 't is too true that the 10th Century has improved the former errors for besides that the common disorders have appeared in it in a different degree there were particular ones in it which the preceding Ages were not acquainted with Never was there such an ignorance before which the Council of Trosly then denoted The neglect of the Bishops and Priests was never so great as that Council Elfric Arch-bishop of Canterbury and William of Tyre describe it Covetousness never reigned so much amongst the Monks and Priests as Polydor Virgil testifies it did then Such an universal degeneracy as we find attributed by Authors to those times we never yet heard of There were never seen in the Church of Rome the like disorders as those that were observable throughout this whole Century Such a relaxation of Discipline in the Cathedral Churches the superintendency of which was committed to Children of 5 10 12 and 14 years was never before known Most Writers that have mention'd it are Historians that design'd not to pass censures or aggravate in general the degeneracy of men but to remark the particular characters of this Century which distinguish them from the rest And therefore they call it the unhappy Age an Age of lead the iron Age an obscure and dark Age an Age of darkness and ignorance a most wretched time wherein the just were not to be found and wherein truth had for saken the earth an Age in short wherein hapned a general decay of all virtues 'T IS in vain for Mr. Arnaud to say again 't was an Age of Zeal Fervour Book 9. ch 7. page 947. Conversions Reformations in Princes in Princesses in Bishops in Religious Persons and in the People For first 't is certain that in respect of those which Mr. Arnaud speaks of that their Zeal their Fervour their Conversions their Reformations such as they were had not that prevalency as to make 'em dispute amongst themselves of the Real Presence On one hand was taught as we have already observed That there 's a great difference between this Body in which Jesus Christ suffered and that which is Consecrated in the Eucharist that the one is born of the Virgin has Blood Bones Skin Nerves and is endued with a reasonable Soul but that the other which is his spiritual Body consists of several grains without Blood Bones Members and Soul That as in the Water of Baptism there are two things to be considered one that according to nature 't is corruptible water and the other according to the spiritual mystery this water has a salutary virtue so the Eucharist according to the natural understanding is a corporeal and corruptive creature and according to the spiritual virtue life is in it it gives immortality to the Faithful 'T was taught that the Bread and Wine are spiritually changed into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ as the Manna was changed into his Flesh and the water of the Rock into his Blood That the Bread is not in any wise the same Body in which our Saviour suffered nor the Wine the Blood which he shed for us but his Body and Blood spiritually In this Age were several passages of the Fathers collected and urged against Paschasus touching the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ On the other hand the Pastors were exhorted to come and learn in Paschasus his Book what they were as yet ignorant of Miracles were likewise wrought to confirm those that doubted of the Real Presence but we do not find they disputed about it one against another If the reason which I offer from the ignorance and negligence of the one and the other does not well relish with Mr. Arnaud let him give a better I 'll gladly receive it provided he denies not certain matters of fact against which no arguments must be offered THE Zeal Fervour Conversions and Reformations which he attributes to the 10th Century hinder not the truth of what we observed concerning the Religious living without Rule their Abbots being married and Lay-men the Bishops neglecting to instruct their Flocks and an infinite number of either Sex and all Ages being ignorant of the Creed and Lords Prayer and living and dying in this ignorance This is a matter of fact attested by Witnesses of that very Age. This does not hinder but the Roman Church was for this whole Century in a fearful disorder as speaks the Author of the Perpetuity and Baronius too when he tells us Our Saviour Bayon annal Eccles Tom 10. ad ann 612. Christ slept then in his Ship He slept and made as tho he saw not these things he let them alone he arose not to take vengeance and that which was worse there were no Disciples who by their shrieks should awake the Lord sleeping for they were all asleep themselves What think you were the Cardinals Priests and Deacons that
the help of his Senses but his Reason he will turn it on every side and invent Distinctions which will signifie nothing as are the greatest part of them which have bin made on this Subject yet will he still keep firm to his Eye-sight and common Sense IT will be replied perhaps that unless we are extream Obstinate we cannot pretend our Proofs of Fact are of this kind which is to say that they have the certainty of our Senses for they are taken from the Testimony of the Fathers whose Faithfulness may be called in question by setting up this fantastical Hypothesis mentioned by Mr. Arnaud which is That all our Passages are false and invented by the Disciples of John Scot or else in saying that the Fathers are mistaken or some such like matter which may Lib. 1. Ch. 2. Pag. 1. make the Truth and Validity of these Proofs to be called in Question and moreover that our Passages are not so plain but they may well be questioned seeing there have bin great Volums written concerning them on both sides To which I answer in supposing two things which seem to me to be both undenyable by Mr. Arnaud we can pretend against him our Proofs of Fact have such a kind of Certitude as is that of our Senses MY first Supposition then shall be That the Writings of the Fathers are faithful Witnesses of the Belief of the Antient Church He cannot disagree with me in this Point for we have not receiv'd it but from them of the Church of Rome they produce it themselves and we use it only out of Condescension to them not having need as to our own particular of any thing but the Word of God to regulate our Faith in this Mystery of the Eucharist And when this Point should be questionable yet must then the Author of the Perpetuity put it out of Question by his refuting of it before he proposes to us his Arguments and not having done it we are at liberty to act against him on this Principle The other Supposition we must make is That we know very well what is the Church of Romes Belief touching the Eucharist and that we rightly apprehend it so that there is no danger of our Mistake in this matter and this is that which hath never yet bin disputed against us In effect we neither say nor imagine any thing on this Subject more than what we find in Books and hear discoursed on every Day which is that the whole Substance of Bread is really converted into the Substance of the Body of Jesus Christ and the whole Substance of Wine into the whole Substance of his Blood there not remaining any thing more of the Bread and Wine but their meer Accidents which are not sustained by any Subject and further that the Substance of our Saviour's Body is really present at the same time both in Heaven and Earth on all the Altars whereon this Mystery is celebrated that they which communicate eat and drink this Substance with the Mouths of their Bodies and that it ought to be Worshipped with the Adoration of Latria This is undenyable I say then on these Grounds we have reason to presume our Proofs of Fact are evident even to Sense it self For we read the several Passages of the Fathers which speak of the Eucharist our Eyes behold them and our Senses are Judges of them But there are not any of these Articles to be met with which do distinctly form the Belief of the Roman Church neither in express Terms nor in equivalent ones We are agreed in the Contents of these Articles and in what they mean we are likewise agreed of the Place where they were to be found in case the Antient Church had taught them We know likewise that it belongeth to our Eyes and common Sense to seek them and judge whether they are there or no for when a Church believes and teaches them she explains them distinctly enough to make them understood and we must not imagine they lie buried in far fetched Principles or couched in equivocal Terms which leave the Mind in Suspense or wrapt up in Riddles from whence they cannot be drawn but by hard Study If they are in them they ought to be plain according to the measure and Capacity of an ordinary and vulgar Understanding Yet when we seek them we cannot find 'em if they were set down in express Terms our Eyes would have discovered them had they bin in Equivalent ones or drawn thence by evident and necessary Consequences common Sense would have discovered them But after an exact and thorow Search our Eyes and common Sense tell us they are not to be found in any manner This altho a Negative Proof yet is it of greatest Evidence and Certainty After the same manner as when we would know whether a Person be at home we are agreed both touching the House and the Person that one might not be taken for the other and after an exact Search if a mans Eyes and Senses tell him that he is not there the proof of a Negative Fact hath all possible Force and Evidence Yet we are upon surer Terms for a man may easily hide himself in some corner of his House and steal away from the sight of those that seek him and therefore the Negative Proof serves only in this Respect to justifie we have made a full and thorow Search But if the Articles of the Romish Creed were established in the universal Consent of all Ages as is pretended it would not be sufficient they were hid in some one of the Fathers Writings they must near the matter have appeared in all of them whence it follows our Negative Proof is yet more certain by the Confirmation it receives from an Affirmative Proof which consisteth in that our Eyes and Senses find out many things directly Opposite to these Articles and these two Proofs joyned together do form one which appeareth to be so plain and intire that there needs nothing to be added to it And yet this is it which the Author of the Perpetuity doth pretend to strip us of by his Arguments But let him extend his Pretensions as far as he will I believe he will find few Persons approve of them and who will not judge that even then when our Eyes should have deceived us which is impossible after so diligent and careful a Search the only means to disabuse us would be to desire us to return to the using of them again and to convince us our Inquiry hath not bin sufficient we should at least have bin shewed what we our selves were not able to find For whilst nothing is offered us but Arguments they will do us no good we may be perhaps entangled with them if we know not how to answer them but they will never make us renounce the Evidence and Certainty which we believe to be contained in our Proofs of Fact WE are confirmed in this Belief when we consider the Nature of the Author
it to pass the Greeks have not all this while following their example used that of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to keep up this perfect Conformity with the Church of Rome which Mr. Arnaud has all along supposed How comes it to pass that when this Greek word has been known to 'em and even the Latins themselves have taught it them yet they would not admit of it and I pray what ill conveniencies could they apprehend thereby if they in effect believed the conversion of the Substances It cannot appear strange to us that there were heretofore Persons of sound Judgments who scrupled to admit the term of Hypostasis because that in effect ignorant people would take thence occasion to imagine there were several Divinities but there can be nothing like this alleadged in respect of Transubstantiation for there is no danger of giving this an excessive sence beyond what ought to be believed supposing we admit the Substantial conversion There is rather on the contrary a kind of necessity to make use of it because it expresses better than any other this kind of conversion and the Terms 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being general expressions are consequently defective and suffer a man to deny the change in question and fall into Heresie which is as much the Greeks interest as the Latins to prevent if it were so they had the same Sentiments in this Subject with them as Mr. Arnaud assures us they have He mightily bestirs himself with his Arguments or rather Declamations on that the Greeks have never quarrelled about this Doctrine and finds it strange supposing they were of a contrary belief to the Latins But let him then tell us wherefore they so obstinately refused to use the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Transubstantiation and would never express themselves on this Mystery in the same form as the Church of Rome for I find this far more strange supposing they hold in the main the same Doctrine with her It cannot be alledged that their ignorance has hind'red them from finding so proper a Term for it has been made to their hands or that they feared thereby to offend their Emperours seeing they were deeply engaged to favour the Church of Rome or feared thereby to incur a greater hatred from the Latins seeing they could not do 'em a greater pleasure HOW comes it then to pass they never used it but on the contrary when the Latins in these forc'd and interessed Unions I mentioned in the preceding Book have proposed to them the Article of the Eucharist under the Term of Transubstantiatur the Bread is transubstantiated they kept to their general expressions saying only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Bread is changed as I shall hereafter make appear Is not this an evident Testimony they would not adopt a Doctrine unknown to their Church and which they regarded as a Novelty THIS first Proof shall be upheld by a second of no less strength than the former Being taken from that the Greeks in the explicating of their belief on the Eucharist not only do not use the Term of Transubstantiation but whatsoever Terms they make use of they signifie not any thing which expresly bears the real conversion of the Substance Bread of and Wine into that of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ When Pope Gregory towards the end of the Eleventh Century was minded to shew what his belief was on this Subject he did not indeed use the Term of Transubstantiation because 't was not then found out but explained himself in such a manner as was sufficiently clear and intelligible The Bread and Wine say's he on the Altar are changed substantially Mr. Arnaud lib. 2. ch 8. p. 170. by virtue of the mystical and sacred Orison and words of our Redeemer into the true proper and lively Flesh and real proper and lively Blood of Jesus Christ our Lord and after the consecration 't is the true Body of Jesus Christ born of the Virgin Mary and the real Blood which ran down his side not only in a sign and by vertue of a Sacrament but by propriety of nature and reality of substance WHEN Innocent the Third would have this same belief known in the Council of Latran he clearly explain'd himself and made use even of the very Term of Transubstantiation In the Sacrament of the Altar saith he the Concil Lat. sub Innoc. 3. cap. 1. Body and Blood of Jesus Christ are really contained under the Species of Bread and Wine the Bread being transubstantiated into the Body and the Wine into the blood by the divine power In the same manner was it in the Council of Trent which expresly declared their belief and what they would have others believe likewise There is made say they by the consecration a conversion of the Sess 13. cap. 4. whole Substance of Bread into the Substance of the Body of our Lord Jesus Christ and of the whole Substance of the Wine into the Substance of his Blood which conversion is rightly and properly called Transubstantiation AND thus speak the Doctors of the Church of Rome and thus in effect they ought to express themselves for the forming the Idea of this Doctrine But 't is otherwise with the Greeks for besides what I said that they use not the Term of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but reject it it will not be found they use any expressions which come near them of the Church of Rome or mention any thing relating to a substantial conversion or presence of substance under the accidents of Bread and Wine or change of one substance into another which is what ought to be said to shew they believed Transubstantiation We see not any thing of this kind appear in the Cannons of their Councils Confessions of Faith or Liturgies Books of Devotions or any of their Writings whether published by their Modern or Ancient Divines and certainly 't is very strange these people should believe Transubstantiation and yet at the same time not so much as declare in express Terms this their belief For besides that these Terms are but few and easie to be found out there being nothing more easie to a man who believes the Substantial conversion than to say the Bread is substantially converted into the Body of Jesus Christ or the substance of Bread is really changed into the substance of Christ's Body in such a manner that the former substance remains no more Besides this I say they have in the Greek Language words which answer exactly the expressions of the Latins on this subject and upon this account they would be inexcusable expressing themselves as they do differently from the Church of Rome were their belief the same with hers YET is it evident that the expressions of the Greeks are no ways like those of the Latins and there needs only the comparing of the one with the other to discern the difference Compare for Example the confession of Gregory the Seventh with what Mr. Arnaud tells us concerning
Grains so we likewise altho several are made one and the same Body with Jesus Christ I believe there 's few expressions to be found amongst the Greeks in the Subject of the Eucharist which exceed these BUT besides what I now mentioned touching the Church we must likewise consider the manner after which the Greeks do express themselves concerning the Book of the New Testament or Volumn of the Gospels when the Deacon who carries it in his hand lifted up enters into the Church This entrance is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the small entrance designing to represent by this Ceremony the coming of the Son of God into the World They bow before this Book and speak of it as if it were our Saviour himself crying out altogether at the same time 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Come let us worship Christ and fall down before him Save us O Son of God Assoon as they begin to read the Bishop throws off his Mantle and Simon of Thessalonica giving an account of this action tells us 't is to give a publick testimony of his Servitude For say's he when our Lord himself appears speaking in his Gospel and is as it were present the Bishop dares not cover himself with his Mantle Isidorus de Pélusé used almost the same expressions before him when the true Shepherd himself appears say's he in the reading of the Holy Gospel the Bishop throws off his Mantle to signifie that the Lord himself the Prince of Pastors our God and Master is present I do not believe the Book is transubstantiated and yet they speak and behave themselves as if it was our Saviour himself which already shews us that the Stile of the Greeks is always very mysterious and that we have no reason to impute Substantial Conversions to them every time they make use of excessive Terms We may likewise see here another Example of what I say even in the very Bread of the Eucharist before its Consecration The Greeks have two Tables one which they call the Prothesis and th' other the great Altar They place on the former of these the Symbols and express by divers mystical actions part of the Oeconomy of the Son of God that is to say his Birth Life and Sufferings They solemnly carry them afterwards to the great Altar where they consecrate 'em so that before this 't is but simple Bread and Wine yet on which they represent the principal passages of the life of Christ and they say themselves that then the Bread and Wine are but a Type or Figure Yet do they speak concerning them almost after the same Germaâ—â—n Theor. manner before they are consecrated as after Germain the Patriarch of Constantinople calls them the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ he say's that the Saints and all the Just enter with him and that the Cherubins Angels and all the Host of immaterial Spirits march before him singing Hymns and accompanying the great King our Saviour Christ who comes to his Mystical Sacrifice and is carried by mortal hands Behold say's he the Angels that come with the Holy Gifts that is to say with the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ from Mount Calvary to the Sepulchre And in another place the Translation of Holy Things to wit of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ which come from the Prothesis and are carry'd to the great Altar with the Cherubick Hymn signifies the entrance of our Saviour Christ from Bethany into Jerusalem He say's moreover that our Saviour is carried in the Dish and shews himself in the Bread 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And as yet 't is no more than Bread and Wine un-consecrated ARCUDIUS observes some call this Bread the dead Body of Jesus Arcud lib de Euch. c. 20 21. Christ He say's farther that Gabriel de Philadelphia calls it the imperfect Body of Christ and proves the Symbols are called in this respect 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the holy divine and unutterable Mysteries which are the same names they give them after their Consecration WHEN they carry them from the Prothesis to the great Altar the Quire loudly sing that which they call the Cherubick Hymn in which are these words Let the King of Kings and Lord of Lords Jesus Christ our God draw near to be sacrific'd and given to the Faithful for Food At which time their Devotion is so excessive that Arcudius did not scruple to accuse the Arcud lib. 3. de Euch. Greeks in this respect of Idolatry Goar clears them of this crime yet say's himself that some bow others kneel and cast themselves prostrate on the ground Goar in Euch. notis in Miss Chrys as being to receive the King of the World invisibly accompani'd with his Holy Angels that all of 'em say their Prayers or recommend themselves to the Prayers of the Priests and that they usually speak to our Saviour Christ as if he was personally present praying to him in the words of the good Thief Lord Remember me when thou comest into thy Kingdom The Priests answer the Lord God be mindful of us all now and for ever THEY repeat these words without ceasing till he that carries the Symbols is ent'red the Sanctuary and then they cry out Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord. And yet so far there 's not any Consecration and much less a Conversion of Substance WHILST the Symbols are still on the Table they separate a Particle from the rest of the Bread in remembrance of our Saviour and call the remainder the Body of the Virgin Mary They afterwards lay another small piece on the right side of the first in honour of the Holy Virgin to the end they may say in effect say's Goar 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Queen is at thy right hand in a Vestment of Gold wrought with divers colours They set by another small piece in honour of St. John Baptist another in honour of the Apostles and several others for a remembrance of other Saints Goar tells us they separate Goar ibid. nine pieces after this manner besides those of our Saviour and the Blessed Virgin his Mother and that this is done to represent the whole Celestial Court They afterwards carry all these to the great Altar where the Consecration is performed but when they speak of these Particles they call one of 'em the Body of the Virgin Mary th' other the Body of St. John th' other the Body of St. Nicholas and after the same manner all the rest I know Goar denies they are thus called affirming the Greeks say only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Particle of the Virgin and not the Body of the Virgin I know likewise that Arcudius seems not to be agreed in this Point and perhaps the Latins have at length caus'd the Latinis'd Greeks to leave this way of speaking But Goar himself say's that some amongst the Latins have been so simple to imagine that the Greeks believe the real Presence of the Body of
Dispute and consider things without passion I am perswaded he would soon acknowledge that the sence he imputes to the Greeks has no resemblance with the Terms of their Liturgies nor other usual expressions As for example we would know how we must understand this Clause of their Liturgies Make this Bread the precious Body of thy Christ and that which is in this Cup the precious Blood of thy Christ changing them by the virtue of thy Holy Spirit Mr. Arnaud understands them as mentioning a change of Substance I say on the contrary these are general Terms to which we cannot give at farthest any more than a general sence and that if they must have a particular and determinate one we must understand them in the sence of a Mystical change and a change of Sanctification which consists in that the Bread is to us in the stead of the Natural Body of Jesus Christ that it makes deep impressions of him in our Souls that it spiritually communicates him to us and that 't is accompani'd with a quickning grace which sanctifies it and makes it to be in some sence one and the same thing with the Body of Jesus Christ and yet does not this hinder but that the Natural Substance of Bread remains Let us examine the Liturgies themselves to see which of these two sences are most agreeable thereunto WE shall find in that which goes under the name of St. Chrysostom and which is the most in use amongst the Greeks that immediately after the Priest has said Make this Bread to become the precious Body of thy Christ and that Euchar. Graecorum Jacobi Goar Bibl. patr Graecor Lat. Tom. 2. which is in the Chalice the precious Blood of thy Christ changing them by thy Holy Spirit he adds to the end they may purifie the Souls of those that receive them that is to say be made a proper means to purifie the Soul by the remission of its sins and communication of the Holy Spirit c. These words do sufficiently explain what kind of change we must understand by them namely a change of Sanctification and virtue for did they mean a change of Substance it should have been said changing them by thy Holy Spirit to the end they may be made the proper Substance of this Body and Blood or some such like expressions In the Liturgy which goes under the name of St. James we find almost the same thing Send say's it thy Holy Spirit upon us and these Holy Gifts lying Bibliot Patr. Graeco Lat. Tom. 2. here before thee to the end that he coming may sanctifie them by his holy good and glorious presence and make this Bread to become the Holy Body of thy Christ and this Chalice the precious Blood of thy Christ to the end it may have this effect to all them which shall receive it namely purifie their Souls from all manner of sin and make them abound in good works and obtain everlasting life And this methinks does sufficiently determine how the Bread is made the Body of Jesus Christ to wit in being sanctifi'd by the presence of his Spirit and procuring the remission of our sins and our Sanctification The Liturgy which bears the name of St. Marc has almost the same expressions Send on us and on these Loaves and Chalices thy Holy Spirit that he Ibid. may sanctifie and consecrate them even as God Almighty and make the Bread the Body and the Cup the Blood of the New Testament of our Lord God and Saviour Jesus Christ our Sovereign King to the end they may become to all those who shall participate of them a means of obtaining Faith Sobriety Health Temperance a regeneration of Soul and Body the participation of Felicity Eternal Life to the glory of thy great name A Person whose mind is not wholly prepossessed with prejudice cannot but perceive that this Clause to the end they may become c. is the explication of the foregoing words change them into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ and that it determines them to a change not of Substance but of Sanctification and Virtue This Truth is so evident that Arcudius has not scrupled to acknowledge that if this Clause be taken make this Bread the Body of thy Christ in an absolute sence Arcud lib. 3. cap. 33. that is to say that it be made the Body of Christ not in respect of us but simply in it self it will have no agreement nor coherence with these other words that follow to the end they may be made c. And he makes of this a Principle for the concluding that the Consecration is not performed by this Prayer but that 't is already perfected by the words this is my Body directly contrary to the Sentiment of the Greeks who affirm 't is made by the Prayer So that if we apply Arcudius's Observation to the true Opinion of the Greek Church to wit that the Consecration is performed by this Prayer we shall plainly perceive that their sence is That the Bread is made the Body of Jesus Christ in respect of us inasmuch as it sanctifies us and effects the remission of our sins AND with this agrees the Term of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to Sanctifie which the Greeks commonly make use of to express the Act of Consecration and that of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Sanctifications by which they express their Mysteries as appears by the Liturgies and those of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the holy Gifts the sanctified Gifts the holy Mysteries the quickning Mysteries the holy Bread which are common expressions amongst them All which favours the change of Sanctification ON the other hand we shall find in the Liturgy of St. Chrysostom that the name of Bread is given three times to the Sacrament after Consecration in the Pontificia four times and in the declaration of the presanctifi'd Bread it is so called seven times In the Liturgy of St. Basil the Priest makes this Prayer immediately after the Consecration Lord remember me Archi. Habert Apud Goar in Euchol a sinner and as to us who participate all of us of the same Bread and Cup grant we may live in Union and in the Communion of the same Holy Spirit Likewise what the Latins call Ciborium the Greeks call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is as much as to say a Bread Saver and 't is in it wherein they put that which they call the presanctifi'd Bread being the Communion for the sick I know what is wont to be said in reference to this namely that the Eucharist is called Bread upon the account of its Species that is to say of its Accidents which remain sustain'd by the Almighty Power of God without a Subject but the Greeks themselves should give us this explication for till then we may presume upon the favour of the natural signification of the Term which we not finding attended with the Gloss of the Latins it must therefore be granted not
substituted some others equivalent to them which were to the Greeks the same as those we speak of are to the Latins But Mr. Arnaud takes no notice of this He thinks it sufficient to tell me I am fal'n into a condition void of reason and common sence that I make extravagant and ridiculous Conclusions and that he is both ashamed and sorry for me that he laughs at my Arguments being such little Sophistries as are not fit to be offered by a judicious Person and that my audaciousness is beyond example in denying the Greeks adore the Eucharist These are his usual Civilities which yet shall not make me change my humour I hope he will be one day of a better mind and to that end I shall deal with him not only in a calm and gentle manner as it becomes a man of my Profession but offer up my Prayers unto Almighty God for him BUT before I finish this Chapter I am obliged to tell him he could not do his Cause a greater Injury than to cite as he has done on this Subject of the Adoration of the Eucharist a passage taken from Stephen Stylite who told the Emperour Copronymus That the Christians adore and kiss the Anti-Types of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ Either he has not examined this Passage or his prejudice has hind'red him from observing what is as clear as the day to wit that Stephen attributes no more to the Eucharist than an inferiour and relative Adoration such as is given to Images the Cross and consecrated Vessels whose matter is not adored And this appears throughout the whole sequel of his Discourse The Emperor accused him for being an Idolater in that he adored Images He answers that his Adoration related not to the matter of the Image but to the Original which the Image represented And to shew that this kind of Adoration is not Idolatry altho addressed to a thing made with hands and senseless he alledges the example of the Cross holy Garments and Vessels which are likewise adored and in fine that of the Eucharist Loe here his words which justifie what I say What crime do we commit when we represent by an Image the humane Vita S Stephani junioris apud Damascen Biblii shape of Jesus Christ who has been seen and whom we worship Is this to adore a Creature or do you think it may be truly said that we adore the Matter when we adore a Cross be it made of what stuff it will We adore the Holy Vestments and Sacred Vessels without incurring any censure for we are perswaded that by Prayer they are changed into Holy Things Will you banish likewise from the Church the Anti-Types of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ because they are the Image and true Figure of this Body and Blood We worship and kiss them and by partaking of them obtain Sanctification Either Mr. Arnaud's Friends have deceived him if he has quoted this Author only from their Relation or he has deceiv'd himself or which is worse he has design'd to deceive others when he produc'd this passage for 't is certain that hence arises a clear Demonstration that the Greeks do not adore the Eucharist with that supreme and absolute Adoration now in question and which terminates it self in that Substance we receive There needs little strength of reasoning to make this Conclusion and as little Meditation to comprehend it We need only observe that this man endeavours to defend from the imputation of Idolatry the Adoration given to Images by the example of the Adoration of the Eucharist and ranks in the same order the Adoration given to the Cross to the sacred Vestments to the Vessels of the Church to Images with that given to the Eucharist We need only take notice that he calls for this effect the Eucharist the Anti-Type Image and true Figure of the Body and Blood of Christ whence it follows he places the Adoration of the Eucharist in the rank of those which terminate not themselves in the Object which we have before us but which refer to the Original they represent wherein the Matter or that which is visible is not adored but where by means of a material Symbol a man raises up his mind to the Object whose Symbol he beholds In fine it needs only be observ'd that if the Greeks adored the Sacrament with an Adoration of Latria terminating it self in the Sacrament never man was more impertinent than he in endeavouring to excuse a relative Adoration by an absolute one never man betrayed more his Cause for besides the Extravagancy of his reasonings for which he may be justly reproach'd he may be likewise told he falls into a new Heresie and horrible Impiety making the Adoration of the Eucharist to be like that of the Cross and consecrated Vessels or that of Images whose visible Subject or Matter men do not adore Neither must Mr. Arnaud tell us he speaks only of the Adoration of the Accidents for Stephen expresly ranks this Adoration in the number of those amongst which the visible Matter is not worshipped and consequently means there is in the Eucharist a Substance which is not adored He say's they worship these Anti-Types and kiss them Now in the intention of the Communicants these acts of Adoration and kissing are not barely directed to the Accidents but to the whole Subject called the Eucharist He say's in short that in partaking of these Anti-Types we obtain Sanctification which appertains to the whole Eucharist and not the bare Accidents DAMASCENE who lived much about the same time as Stephen and stifly maintain'd the same Cause thus argues I worship not say's he the Orat. 1. d. Imag Matter but the Author of the Matter who has himself become Matter for my sake and exists in it to the end he may give me Salvation by it and as to the Matter by which Salvation is procured me I will ever worship it not as the Divinity God forbid for how can that be God which has been taken out of nothing altho it be true that the Body of God is God by means of the Union of the two Natures in Unity of Person for the Body is made without Conversion that which it hath been anointed and remains what it was by Nature to wit Living Flesh indued with a reasonable Soul and Understanding which has had a beginning and bin created AS TO THE OTHER MATTER by which Salvation has been obtain'd for us I honour and worship it as being full of the Divine Grace The blessed wood of the Cross is it not Matter The Holy and Venerable Mount Calvary is it not Matter The Rock of Life wherein was the Sepulcher of Jesus Christ and which was the Spring of our Resurrection was it not Matter Those black letters wherewith the Holy Gospels were written are they not Matter This Holy Table from whence we receive the Bread of Life is it not Matter In fine the Body and Blood of our
be the same with that of the Church of Rome they would be so neglectful of it and disrespectful to it as they are I have already related in my Answer to the Perpetuity what Cardinal Humbert wrote from Constantinople touching their Custom of burying under Ground the remains of the Communion and letting fall the Crums thereof without troubling themselves about them When you break say's Humbert contr Nic. Bib. Patr. Tom. 4. Edit 4. he the Holy Bread or receive it you are not concerned at the Crums falling down on the Ground Neither are you more careful when you wipe the Dishes after an undecent manner with the Leaves of Palm-trees or Brushes made with Hogs-bristles Some among you gather up the Body of Christ with so great irreverence that you fill boxes with it and to prevent the scattering of the Crums press them down with your hands They eat likewise what is left of the Oblation after the same manner as common Bread and sometimes so much of it till they glut themselves with it and what they cannot eat they bury under Ground or throw it into Wells He in another place severely censures the Custom of the Greeks To bury say's he the Eucharist as some are said to do or put it in Bottles or scatter it about is certainly a great neglect and sign that such have Humbert contr Gâ—â—â— Calumn not the fear of God before their eyes For the Holy and Divine Mysteries are the Faith of Christians And in another place in answer to Cerularius who boasted that he would teach great and excellent things are these say's he those great and excellent things you speak of to place the Oblation on the Altar Ibid. in so great a quantity that neither the Ministers nor People can devour it but you must bury it or throw it into Wells made for that purpose THE Anonymous Author of the Treatise against the Greeks observes the same thing with Humbert At Easter say's he when the People receive the Bibl. Patr. Tom. 4 Edit 4. Communion they provide abundance of Bread and consecrate it all and because the heaps which are left cannot be kept they bury them THIS Custom of burying the Eucharist remains still amongst the Greeks for the Jesuit Richard relates that a poor Woman of the Isle of Saint Erinis had no sooner received the Holy Communion but she brought it up again by reason Relation of the Isle of St. Erin chap. 17. p. 2â—0 of the weakness of her stomach and that the Greek Priest who gave it her before he confessed her did not scruple to take up what she had vomited and bury it together with the Sacred Particles at the foot of his Altar for which fact he was blam'd by the other Papa's who would have him bury it on the Sea-shore judge then adds he how great is the ignorance of these Greek Priests and how great our Saviour's patience to bear this He undoubtedly saw all these disorders and indignities he was to suffer when he instituted this Divine Sacrament THE same Author say's likewise That their Priests following the Custom of the Jews let their Beards grow which are all over wet with the Lord's Blood Tract contr Bibl. Patr. Tom. 4. Arcud lib. 3. cap. 60. when they drink Arcudius reproaches them in the same manner The Greek Priests say's he receive the Eucharist very undecently for taking the consecrated Bead they grasp it close in their hands and so lift it up on their heads I suppose they do this as a sign of Honour and Veneration and having eaten the Eucharist and recited some Praises they lift up their hands to their heads and stroke them for it commonly happens that some Crums stick thereon As soon as they have drank the Blood they do not scruple to wipe their Beards with their hands or handkerchiefs as if they had drank common Wine and forasmuch as they let their Beards grow and never cut their Moustaches it frequently happens that drops of Blood fall from them on the Holy Vestments or Altar and not seldom on the Ground He farther adds That the Rubrick of their Liturgy deceives them and that these words should be corrected after the Priest has wiped his lips and the brims of the Sacred Chalices with the Veyl he has in his hands he calls the Deacon Sacranus speaking of the Russians say's likewise That they give the Communion to the People in nasty wooden Spoons and wipe off the Crums which stick thereon with a cloth letting them fall on the Ground THEY are far from being scrupulous and taking that care the Roman Church does to prevent the Eucharists being eaten by Vermin for the Rats may run away with great pieces of it and yet they not concerned thereat Manuel the Patriarch of Constantinople whom Binius ranks in the Seventh Century being askt by one of his Bishops what punishment he thought a Priest deserv'd who let a Mouse run away with the consecrated Bread coldly answered That those to whom these mischances happen are not to be blamed because these things are usual Multa enim ejusmodi saepe accidunt If the like Questions were offer'd to a Latin Bishop 't is not to be doubted but he would insist on the care that ought to be taken for the prevention of these inconveniencies and instead of slighting the matter and excusing the Priest as this Patriarch does by saying this often happens he would on the contrary invent all ways imaginable to prevent this from ever hap'ning LET Mr. Arnaud if he pleases reflect a little on all these things How is it possible these People would shew so little reverence and so great neglect to the Substance of the Sacrament did they believe it to be the proper Substance of their Saviour They eat thereof as common Bread till they have glutted themselves they bury it and cast it into Wells and when any Crums thereof fall to the Ground or stick on their hair they are not all concerned thereat They spill the consecrated Wine on their Beards on the Altar yea on the Ground and matter it not and their Liturgy enjoyns them to wipe their lips with their handkerchers when they have received the Communion to which we may add what I related in the foregoing Chapter that they let the Sacrament hang a whole year in a linnen bag on a nayl exposed to the mercy of worms according to the express testimony of Sacranus and the Archbishop of Gnesne Now what congruity has all this with the belief of Transubstantiation Mr. Arnaud may distinguish if he pleases between the necessary Consequences and those of congruity yet all his Philosophy falls short of perswading us that these practices are consistent with the belief that 't is no longer the Substance of Bread but the proper Substance of the Body and Blood of Christ I shall finish this Chapter with a passage taken out of Oecumenius which shall be my Seventeenth Proof This Author who
Church do teach that this Proposition the Bread is the Body of Jesus Christ cannot be admitted but in a Figurative Sence Every Proposition say's Occam in which the Body of Jesus Occham quod 4. quaest 35. Bell. lib. 1. d. Euchu cap 1. Christ is said to be Bread is impossible This Proposition say's Bellarmin that the Bread is the Body of Jesus Christ if it be not taken Figuratively and in this sence that the Bread signifies the Body of Jesus Christ is wholly absurd and impossible for the Bread cannot be the Body of Jesus Christ SUAREZ and Vasquez affirm the same thing and were not these three last Jesuits I might likewise say in my turn that here the Disciple is at variance with his Masters In the third place I affirm that in the Discourse of Zonarus the Term of the same relates not so much to that of Flesh as that of sacrific'd as Mr. Arnaud renders it and of buried to signifie not the Bread is this Flesh in propriety of Substance but that it is this dead and buried Flesh which shews how frivolous Mr. Arnaud's Proof is for this can neither be the same death nor burial it must then of necessity be another In fine 't is but observing never so little Zonarus Discourse and we shall find he distinguishes the Bread from the Body of Jesus Christ for he compares the one with the other saying that as the Flesh of Jesus Christ suffered death and was buried so the Bread is subject to corruption being chewed with the teeth eaten and sent down into the Stomach as in a Sepulchre and that as the Flesh of Christ overcame corruption so in like manner the Bread becomes incorruptible and passes into the Substance of the Soul which shews that his sence is that the Bread is the Flesh it self of Jesus Christ not Substantially but Mystically and consequently this pretended Evidence of Mr. Arnaud is no more than one of his Whimsies IN effect suppose that Zonarus believed Transubstantiation and that what he calls Bread is the proper Substance of Jesus Christ is it possible his extravagancy has lead him so far as to believe that this Flesh is at first corruptible and afterwards becomes incorruptible that it is cut and chewed with the Teeth and in fine reduced into the Substance of the Soul Mr. Arnaud say's 't is probable that Zonarus abuses the word corruption and extends this Ibid. pag â—44 Term to all the changes that happen to the Body of Jesus Christ not in it self but in respect of the Vayl which covers it But this evasion will not serve his turn for Zonarus say's that the Bread is subject to corruption as being the true Flesh of Jesus Christ Now 't is not in respect of its Accidents or Vayl that 't is the true Flesh of Jesus Christ according to the Hypothesis of Transubstantiation It is so by the change of Substance Not to take notice that to eat and chew Accidents with the teeth that is to say Figures and Colours stript from their Substance is a singular Fancy THIS Passage of Zonarus which I now examin'd puts me in mind of another of the same Authors who was a Grecian and famous amongst his own People and lived about the Twelfth Century which shall be my Eighteenth Proof The Passage is taken out of his Commentaries on the Cannons of the Apostles and Councils See here what he writes on the 32. Canon of the Sixth Council in Trullo The Divine Mysteries I mean the Bread and Wine do represent to us the Body and Blood of our Lord for in giving the Bread to his Disciples he said to them take eat this is my Body and in delivering the Cup he said drink ye all of it this is my Blood Seeing then the Lord in his Divine Passion after he had poured out his Blood caused to flow from his Side pierced with a Spear not only Blood but likewise Water the Church has therefore thought it necessary to mingle Water with the Wine in the Holy Mysteries THERE may be made two important Reflections on this Passage First he say's the Bread and Wine do represent to us the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ which cannot agree with the Doctrine of the Church of Rome unless forced by several Interpretations unknown to the Greeks as that by the Bread we must understand the Accidents or Appearances of Bread and by the word represent an inclusive Representation of the thing it self Secondly that grounding as he does this Representation of the words of Christ This is my Body this is my Blood it is clear that he has taken them himself in a sence of Representation and believed that 't was as much as if our Saviour had said This Bread represents my Body this Cup my Blood for otherwise he could not ground as he has done his Proposition that the Bread and Cup represent the Body and Blood of our Lord on this reason that our Saviour said This is my Body this is my Blood THIS Passage seeming to determine the Question in our favour it will not be amiss therefore to consider what may be opposed against it to avoid its force Zonarus makes use of the Term of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which may be sayd to be better rend'red not represent but present give communicate and that the sence of this Author is not that the Bread and Wine do represent to us the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ as Signs and Pictures represent their Original but that they present and communicate them to us in effect inasmuch as they contain the Substance of them and that 't is to confirm this Proposition he alledges the words of our Saviour This is my Body this is my Blood But this evasion will not serve turn if the sence and sequel of Zonarus his Discourse be never so little consider'd His Design was to confute the Armenians in shewing that there ought to be Water mingled with the Wine in the Chalice To prove this he asserts we must represent in the Mystery the Water and Blood which ran down the pierced Side of our Saviour when on the Cross and to confirm this Proposition he has recourse to this general Maxim that the Mysteries which is to say the Bread and Wine do represent the Body and Blood of our Lord. Which plainly shews then we must not translate the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 present or give for why say's he the Bread and Chalice give us the Body and Blood of Christ but because Jesus Christ has said This is my Body this is my Blood We must then put Water into the Cup because Blood and Water issued out from our Saviour's Side The Armenians have said on the contrary there must be none put in because the Lord only made mention of his Blood that 't is very uncertain whether the Mysteries give us this Water which ran down from our Lord's Side and that supposing they do give it us yet does it not hence
on the principal Point of the Conversion And yet notwithstanding all this if we will believe Mr. Arnaud my Proof is but a foolish and extravagant one He may say what he pleases but it seems to me by this that for the most part there is no agreeing with him under any other Terms than the renouncing of our Reason But to proceed I shall add to what I have already represented the Testimonies of some Modern Greeks who have given us exact descriptions of their Religion and yet not a tittle of Transubstantiation altho their design and occasions which set them on writing obliged them not to be silent on so important an Article I might begin with Jeremias the Patriarch of Constantinople for let a man read over never so many times his Answers to the Divines of Wittemberg yet cannot he find the least intimation of a substantial Conversion unless he suffers his mind to be corrupted by Mr. Arnaud's Declamations but it will be more proper to refer this examination to the following Book wherein the order and sequel of this Dispute will oblige us to mention it WE have Christopher Angelus his Letter given us by George Felavius a Lutheran Divine of Dantzic which Angelus was a Greek a man both pious and learned He greatly suffer'd amongst the Turks for his Religion and at length came into England to end there his Days in peace and quietness His Letter contains a large Account of the Customs of the Greeks touching the Eucharist wherein he is so far from asserting the substantial Conversion of the Latins that he expounds on the contrary these words of Body and Blood by them of Bread and Wine The Priest say's he carrying in his hands Status ritus Ecclesiae Graecae à Christoph Angel◠cap. 23. the Holy Things draws near to the People and stops at the door of the Sanctuary where at once he distributes to every one the Body and Blood of our Lord that is to say Bread and Wine mixed saying this Servant of God receives in the Name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost for the Remission of his Sins Amen WE have a Confession of Faith Compiled by Metrophanus Critopulus at Confession Cath. Apost in Orient Ecclesiae per Metrophanem Critopulum Helmstat in the Year 1625. He was not long after made Patriarch of Alexandria There is a whole Chapter in this Confession the Title whereof is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Lord's Supper In which having established the use of leavened Bread the Unity of this Bread to represent our Unity with Jesus Christ and one another he adds That the consecrated Bread is truly the Body of Christ and the Wine undoubtedly his Blood but the manner say's he of this change is unknown and unintelligible to us For the Understanding of these things is reserved for the Elect in Heaven to the end we may obtain the more favour from God by a Faith void of curiosity Those that seek after the reason of all things overthrow Reason and corrupt Knowledge according to the Observation of Theophrastus seeing then this Mystery is really the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ 't is therefore very pertinently called by Saint Ignatius a remedy against Mortality a Medicine that purifies us and an Antidote which preserves us from Death and makes us live in God by Jesus Christ HERE we find the Bread to be really the Body of Jesus Christ and that it suffers a change but we find not that the Substance of the one is really changed into that of another which is precisely the Transubstantiation of the Latins But on the contrary that the manner of this change is unknown to us whilst on Earth which is to say in a word he would have us indeed to believe a change for the Bread is not naturally the Body of Christ but will not suffer us to determine the manner of it which what is it but a plain rejecting of Transubstantiation seeing that it is it self the Determination of this manner It will be replied that they of the Church of Rome do likewise acknowledge Transubstantiation to be an unaccountable change that we must believe it without troubling our selves how 't is possible and Mr. Arnaud has not fail'd to produce in this sence the Passage of Metrophanus which I now mention'd according to his usual Custom which is to turn to his advantage even those things that are most against him But there is a great deal of difference between saying there is a change which makes the Bread become the Body of Christ altho we know not the manner thereof and affirming there is a substantial change which converts the Substance of Bread into that of the Body of Jesus Christ altho we know not how this comes to pass By the first we keep our selves in the general Idea of a change without descending to a particular determination By the second we determine what this change is to wit a change of one Substance into another In the first the expression is still retain'd which supposes the Bread remains to wit That the Bread is the Body of Christ but in the second this expression is willingly laid aside because it cannot be admitted but under the benefit of Figures and Distinctions The first is the Language of the Greeks the second that of the Latins BUT before we leave this Confession of Metrophanus it will not be amiss to make two reflexions thereon the one that when he establishes the necessity of the Communion in both kinds he grounds it on the necessity of partaking as well of the Body as Blood of Christ and alledges for this effect that saying in the sixth Chapter of Saint John If you eat not the Flesh of the Son Ibid. cap. 91. of Man and drink his Blood you will have no life in you Now this reason manifestly opposes the pretended concomitancy of the Latins and Transubstantiation it self for if there be made a conversion of the Bread into the proper Substance of the Body of Christ such as it is at present that is to say living and animate those that receive the Species of Bread do partake as well of the Blood as Body and it cannot be said there is any necessity of receiving the Cup by this reason that we must partake of the Blood without falling into a manifest contradiction which is likewise the reason wherefore in the Church of Rome it is believed to be sufficient to communicate of one kind THE second Consideration concerning Metrophanus is that this Author discoursing towards the end of his Chapter of the Sacrament which the Greeks reserve for the sick say's That they believe according to the Doctrine of the first Ibid. Oecumenical Council that the Mystery being reserved remains still a Holy Mystery and never loses the vertue it once received For as Wool say's he being once dyed keeps its colour so the Sanctification remains in these Mysteries ever indelible and as the remains which
these and yet teaches a Doctrine that is easie full of piety and free from contradiction She affirms then that the Bishop or Priest in the Divine Service holds the place of Christ making the Propitiation for the sins of the People and that by the Holy Invocation of God's Name and mention of the Divine Words of our Saviour the spiritual Grace descends that sanctifies the Bread and Wine and changes them not into the sensible but spiritual Body of Jesus Christ And as to those that assert the Substance of Bread and Wine is changed into the natural Flesh of Jesus Christ if they understand hereby a supernatural change after a spiritual manner those that do thus speak concur in their Opinion with the Eastern Church But seeing they will have this to be sensibly effected our Church does therein disagree with them altho they have recourse to another way of speaking in telling us of Accidents and Species and such like things which none of the Ancients ever thought of much less mention'd For the Fathers of the Eastern Church have been ever averse to Novelties and Contentions which tend to the ruine of Souls not only detesting those Doctrines which are heretical and divide the Church but which in disturbing its Peace eclipse its Glory The Superscription is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Jeremias Doctour of Divinity in the Eastern Church ALTHO we learn no new thing from the Testimony of this Author yet does it confirm and illustrate several matters First that the Sentiment of the Greeks touching the Eucharist is not in any thing the same with that of the Church of Rome but a middle way betwixt the Doctrine of the Latins and Protestants Secondly That although the Greeks do use the Term 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 change yet do they not understand thereby a real change of one Substance into another which the Latins have invented but a spiritual change wrought by the Grace of the Holy Spirit which sanctifies the Bread and Wine Thirdly That when 't is said the Substance of Bread and Wine is changed into the natural Flesh of Christ this must be understood in a spâ—ritual manner to be conformable to the Sentiment of the Eastern Church Fourthly That those of the Church of Rome understanding it as they do in a sensible manner the Greeks reject them and their Communion Fifthly To the end there may be no pretence left for cavilling on the Term of sensibly in saying the Roman Church understands not that the Body of Christ is visible and palpable in its natural form in the Sacrament he declares that he well knows she makes use of other expressions namely of Accidents and Species meaning that this is still to understand it sensibly to assert our Saviour's proper Substance is in this Mystery although covered with the Species and Accidents of Bread And that this is a Novelty the Greeks have ever rejected and of which the Ancients have not made the least mention If Mr. Arnaud likes this let him make the best use he can of it in the mean time we will pass on to another Proof MATTHEW Caryophilus titular Archbishop of Iconia a Latinised Greek and almost of the same stamp and temper as Arcudius and Leo Allatius has published a refutation of some Propositions taken out of a Catechism made by a Greek Gentleman whom he calls Zacharias Gerganus Allatius say's he was a Bishop But be he what he will Caryophilus uses him after a dreadful manner terming his Propositions Blasphemies and calling him Serpent Basilisk Wolf the Devil's Instrument worse than the Devil himself a Lutheran But 't is a usual thing with these Gentlemen to load mens Persons with Injuries when their Doctrines agree not with theirs They thus begin continue and end their Refutations It cannot then be taken ill if laying aside their Injuries I only affirm that Caryophilus very impertinently charges this Greek with his being a Lutheran for it is apparent from the Propositions he recites and what he say's in his Preface that he was a true Greek and maintain'd the Maxims of his Religion and Church and moreover a real lover of his Country He opposes amongst other things the addition of the filioque in the Symbol and attacks the Azuma of the Latins He affirms there is but one Holy Church which is the Catholick Apostolical and Eastern which does not well agree with the Title he has given him of a Lutheran and 't is plainly seen he has given it him only to make him suspected by his own Countrymen and hinder us from any advantage by his Testimony SO that the single Authority of Caryophilus being not sufficient to hinder us from considering this Author's Testimony notwithstanding his pretended Lutheranism I shall therefore produce here some of his Propositions which he himself has taken out of his Catechism The LXI is this Râ—futatio pfeudâ—-Christianae Catechesis editae à Zacharia Gergano Graeco Auctore Matthaeâ— Caryophil Romae 1631. Blasph 61. The Holy Communion consists of two Substances the one visible and th' other invisible the visible Substance is the Bread and Wine the invisible Substance is the Word of Christ This is my Body this is my Blood The Question in this Dispute being only Whether the Greeks believe Transubstantiation it will be therefore sufficient for me to show by this Testimony that the visible Substance of Bread and Wine remain so that I am not concerned to know in what sence this Author calls the Words of Christ the invisible Substance of the Sacrament Yet will I affirm his sence is clear enough for in respect of the Bread and Wine which are in effect Substances it is plain we must take the Term of Substance in its natural signification but in respect of the Words of Christ which in effect are not Substances it is likewise apparent we must understand this expression in a metaphorical sence seeing by it is meant no more but that the internal and mystical virtue of this Sacrament is contain'd in these words This is my Body because these words shew us we must not take these things as mere Bread and Wine but as the Body and Blood of Christ of which they are the Mystery Which is what he understands by this invisible Substance that is to say the force and efficacy of the Sacrament for had not our Saviour said of the Bread This is my Body it would be no more than Bread proper to nourish our Bodies whereas the Faith we have in these words shews us in it another spiritual Substance which nourishes our Souls THE LXV Proposition does no less oppose the substantial Conversion Ibid. Blas phem 65. for it contains these words That the Laity which communicate but of one only kind receive an imperfect Communion which is directly opposite to one of the necessary Consequences of Transubstantiation which is the Concomitancy And to prevent any cavilling touching the sence of this Proposition as if he would say only that this
this Deduction it will not be amiss to observe that the Bread and wine may be conceived to be changed into the Body and Blood of Christ two ways First by a real conversion of the whole Substance of Bread and Wine into the Substance of the Body and Blood I mean into the same numerical Substance as the Schools speak so that the Substance of Bread subsists no longer after the change which is what is held in the Roman Church Secondly by the addition of a new quality or form in the Bread and Wine so that their first Substance remaining they receive that which they had not before and by this reception become that which they were not In this first manner of conceiving the change the Substance of Bread and that of the Body are considered as two Terms or two different Subjects the first of which does not subsist but passes over into the other In the second the Bread is considered as a Subject that always subsists but which receiving into it that which it had not by this means becomes the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ after the same manner as the paper which receives the Characters and Seal of a Prince becomes the Princes Letter or Wax receiving the Impression of a Seal is made the Seal it self or Wool dyed in Scarlet becomes a scarlet colour or Wood receiving the impression of fire becomes fire it self or in fine as the nourishment we take receiving the form of our Flesh and being joyned thereunto becomes our Body By which it appears that to proceed faithfully and ingenuously in our Inquiries after the real Belief of the Greeks it must first be acknowledged that these expressions The Bread is changed into the Body of Jesus Christ the Bread is made the Body of Christ the Bread is the Body it self or the proper Body of Jesus Christ are in themselves general expressions and that they may be simply taken in this their generality or applied to several particular sences Now if Mr. Arnaud would have us take these expressions in the sence of Transubstantiation he must produce some solid and real passages out of Greek Authors by which it may appear that 't is in this sence they understood them and that they cannot admit of any other Which is no more than what he ought to have done but he has been far from undertaking it knowing it to be a thing absolutely impossible AS to my own part had I only intended to shew the insufficiency of Mr. Arnaud's Proofs I might content my self with alledging this generality for it alone is sufficient to hinder him from drawing any Conclusion But seeing I have taken upon me to shew in this Chapter what the real Sentiment of the Greek Church is I find my self obliged to bring not Arguments or Distinctions from my own Head but good and solid passages of the Greeks themselves which plainly demonstrate what kind of change they mean FOR this effect I shall reduce what they say concerning it to this Proposition They believe that by the Consecration there is made a kind of composition or mixture of Bread and Wine and Holy Spirit that these Symbols keeping their own proper nature are joyned to the Divinity and by the impression they receive from the Holy Ghost are changed for the Faithful only into the virtue of the Body and Blood of Christ being made by this means not a Figure but the proper and real Body of Jesus Christ and this by way of Augmentation of the same natural Body of Jesus Christ To which they apply the Comparisons I already mentioned concerning the nourishment which becomes our proper Body by Assimilation and Augmentation of the Wood which is put to the Fire of the Wool which receives the dye of Paper that is made the Princes Letter and Wax or other Matter which receives the Impression of the Seal This Proposition having several parts and each of them of great importance in this Question it is therefore necessary to establish them one after another distinctly and solidly FIRST They believe there is a composition or mixture made of the Bread with the Holy Spirit Metrophanus the Patriarch of Alexandria shews us that this is their Doctrine For observe here what he say's in his Confession of Faith of the Eastern Church in his Chapter of the Sacraments God say's he has communicated his Grace to the Elect not only after a spiritual manner Confes Eccles Or. cap. 5. but likewise by some sensible signs as most certain pledges of his promise For as we are composed of two parts so likewise the manner of communicating his Grace must be double to wit by a sensible matter and by the Holy Spirit seeing the Persons that receive these things are made up of a sensible Body and intelligent Soul Now these Pledges are that which we call the Mysteries to wit Baptism and the Holy Communion which consist of visible Matter and of the Holy Spirit These Words are so plain that they need no Comment He affirms there are two things in the Sacraments and particularly in the Eucharist to wit the sensible Matter and the Holy Spirit Now the sensible Matter in the Eucharist can be nothing else but the Bread and the Wine METROPHANUS affirms moreover the same thing in his Chapter touching the Lord's Supper wherein he say's that the Mystery never loses Ibid cap. 9. the Sanctification it has once received and that it is indelible It is here where he compares the Sanctification the Bread receives to Wool when 't is dyed in any colour which includes apparently this Idea of the Composition of Bread and the Holy Spirit almost after the same manner as Wool that is dyed is a composition or mixture of Wool and dye THIS Greek Patriarch has only followed in this the Doctrine of Jeremias the Patriarch of Constantinople in his Answer to the Divines of Wittemberg Consisting say's he as we do of two Parts that is to say of a Body and a Jerem. Rep. 1. ad Theologos Wittemb Soul our Saviour Christ has therefore given us these things doubly he means the Sacraments he himself consisting of two Natures being both God and Man He spiritually sanctifies our Souls by the Grace of his Spirit and sanctifies likewise our Bodies by sensible Matters namely with Oyl Water Bread and Wine and other things sanctified by the Holy Spirit and thus gives us a compleat Salvation He not only say's that the Sacraments in general are things that are double as he terms them consisting of things sensible and the Holy Spirit but say's this particularly of the Bread and Wine in the Eucharist WITH this agrees the expressions of the Greek Liturgies and those of the most famous Authors of this Church who call the Sacrament the Holy Bread the Consecrated Bread the Divine Bread the Gifts sanctified by the Holy Spirit for these Expressions do naturally denote that composition or duplicity aforementioned NOW if we would know how it
Substance But what he say's afterwards and into the virtue of both â—â—e and the other is not another distinct thing or different from what he had said being only the explication of it This Et is an explicative Particle which has the force of an as much as to say as if he said They are changed into the Body and Blood that is to say into the virtue of both one and the other Mr. Arnaud must not think to blind us by his who ever heard For there is nothing more common in Authors than the use of this Particle Et in a sence of explication which joyns not two several things but two several expressions which signifie one and the same thing and one of which is the explication of the other Thus Saint Paul say's That God created Meats to be received with Thankfulness by the 1 Tim. 4. 3. Faithful AND by those that know the Truth Again Peace be unto those that walk according to this Rule AND on the Israel of God All these Ets Gal. 6. 16. are put for that is to say's Thus. Cyrillus of Alexandria speaking of the effect of the Communion the least Eulogium say's he mixes or confounds in it Cyrill Alex. in Joan. 6. 57. Chrysost Hâ—m â— in Rom. self our whole Body AND fills it with its efficacy Saint Chrysostom and whereas we were men he has made us Angels and Children of God Saint Augustin he that could change Water into Wine is able to change Grass into Gold Aug. Sâ—rm 12. ex 40 Serm. AND make of Flesh an Angel All these ETS are explicatives and are put for that is to say's Mr. Arnaud need not contend about a thing so well known as this is I say then Euthymius having first said That we must not consider the nature of things which are placed on the Altar but their virtue and afterwards adding that Jesus Christ changes the Bread and Wine into his own Body and Blood AND into the virtue of both one and the other the first Proposition which respects only the vertue in supposing that the nature of Bread and Wine subsists leads us to the understanding of the second and makes us easily comprehend that 't is as much as if he had said that he changes them into his Body and Blood which is to say into the virtue both of the one and th' other For 't is of the virtue not the substance which his Discourse treats of Had Euthymius meant by his change into the Body and Blood a change of Substance what could move him to add that they are likewise changed into the virtue of both one and the other Besides that to speak properly it would not be true that the change was made into the virtue seeing it would terminate it self only in the Substance and that the virtue would be only as a sequel of the Substance and not as a Term of the change besides this I say wherefore should he speak of this change of virtue To inform us that the Substance is not alone but who doubts that the sanctifying virtue of the Body and Blood is every where where their Substance is and what need is there of informing the Readers of this FIFTHLY When Euthymius his expression were ambiguous yet would they be cleared up by those of other Greek Authors that better explain themselves and shew that the common Doctrine of this Church is that the Bread and Wine are the Body and Blood of Christ inasmuch as they are changed into their virtue THEOPHYLACT who lived in the Eleventh Century thus expresses Theophyl in Marc 14. himself Because the Bread and Wine are Food familiar to us and we are not able to endure Flesh and Blood to be set before us God therefore who is full of pitty accommodating himself to our weakness conserves the Species of Bread and Wine but changes them into the VIRTUE of his Flesh and Blood WE must observe he makes this answer to People that doubted whether the Bread was the Flesh of Jesus Christ because they saw no such thing as the latter of these When then he tells them that the Bread and Wine are changed into the virtue of the Flesh and Blood it is clear he means that the Bread and Wine are changed only in virtue whence it follows 't is not to be expected they should appear to be Flesh and Blood for otherwise he would not satisfie the difficulty he had proposed Were they changed into the real Substance of Flesh and Blood as well as into their virtue the doubt would still remain to wit that they must still appear Flesh and Blood The change of Virtue would not decide the Question We shall examine in their due order all the frivolous exceptions which Mr. Arnaud opposes against the evidence of this Passage and likewise hope to give a satisfactory account to whatsoever he alledges from this Author I must not now interrupt my Proof by a Digression which would carry me too far It is sufficient to shew that Theophylact expresly affirms that if the Bread and Wine appear not to be Flesh and Blood 't is because God changes them into the virtue of this Flesh and Blood VI. IF we ascend higher than the Eleventh Century we shall find the same belief and expressions amongst the Greeks of those times which will give us greater light into the belief of the Moderns Observe here how Ely Archbishop of Candia the Commentator on Gregory Nazianzen expresses himself Saint Gregory having called the Eucharist an external Sacrifice and an Antitype By this external Sacrifice say's Ely he means that which is celebrated Elias Cret Comment in Oratio Apol. Greg. Naz. with Bread and Wine which being placed on the Holy Table are really changed by the power of Almighty God into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ Were there no more said but this Mr. Arnaud would be sure to triumph but hear what follows For adds he to the end we might not be struck with horrour in seeing Flesh and Blood upon the Holy Table God condescending to our weakness indues the Elements set before us with an enlivening quality and changes them into the efficacy or operation of his Flesh This Author lived about the Eighth Century and was present at the Council of Nice VII WE have already seen in the Quotations of Nicetas Choniatus a Passage of Eutychus which asserts the same Doctrine as the rest This Author lived if I be not mistaken towards the end of the Sixth Century for I believe he is the same Eutychus against whom Gregory the Great being at Constantinople disputed touching the Resurrection But howsoever he say's Nicet Annal. lib. 3. according to the Relation we have from Nicetas That the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ being applied to the Antitypes by Consecration imprint on them Their proper Powers or proper virtues 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It was he from whom we had the comparison of the Seal which applied to
the Bread SIXTHLY These principal and essential differences produce others For it hence appears that altho they agree with the Latins in these general expressions which bear that the Bread is changed into the Body of Christ into his real Body into his own proper Body yet they differ from them in the sence of these expressions understanding them in a quite different manner For the Latins mean the Bread is changed into the Body by a real Transubstantiation which making the Substance of Bread cease becomes the proper substance of the Body of Jesus Christ the same in number which it was before The Greeks on the contrary mean that the Bread remaining Bread in its proper Substance is changed into the proper Body of Christ in asmuch as that 't is made an increase or augmentation by the impression it receives from its virtue So that when both one and the other say the Bread is the Body of Christ they in no sort agree in the sence of this Proposition the Latins understanding it in a divided sence as they term it which is to say that that which was before Bread is now no longer so but the Body of Jesus Christ the Greeks on the contrary that that which is still Bread is also this Body VII THE Latins following their Hypothesis are forced to admit the Existence of Accidents without a Subject the Greeks are not Whence it is they never mention this pretended Existence and we find no such thing in their Authors VIII THE Latins are obliged to give a reason for several natural Experiments which denote that the Substance of Bread remains and which seem incompatible with their Belief as that our Bodies are nourished with the Eucharist that it breeds Maggots in it c. in which they are extreamly puzled The Greeks are not so neither do we find the least hint thereof in their Books IX THE Latins cannot but admit the Existence of the same Body in several places at once The Greeks know not any thing of this neither are they concerned at it X. THE Latins are forced to make the Body of Christ exist in the Sacrament void of his natural proportion and properties The Greeks do not so and therefore we see them never troubled at these difficulties which follow the Doctrine of the Latins XI THE Latins by an unavoidable consequence of their Doctrine adore with a Sovereign Adoration the Eucharist which is according to them the proper Substance of our Lord 's natural Body separate from any other Substance The Greeks do not so as we observed in the seventh Chapter XII THE Latins believe the wicked receive the Body and Blood of Christ with the mouths of their bodies altho to their condemnation The Greeks hold that the Bread and Wine are made this Body and Blood only to the Faithful NOT to insist on several other differences which do not precisely relate to our Question as that the Greeks do all of 'em communicate of both kinds whereas the Latins give only to the People that of Bread that the Greeks hold the Consecration is performed by the Prayer of the Priest and the Latins on the contrary by these Words This is my Body that the Latins use Wafers or unleavened Bread whereas the Greeks abhorring the Azymes use only that which is leavened There are likewise several other differences which I shall not here repeat because the Reader may find them in what has been already said in the foregoing Chapters AND here have I represented as exactly as I could the Differences and Agreements of the two Churches If it be now demanded in what Points we agree with the Greeks this may be easily collected from what I have already said WE agree almost with them in all Points wherein they differ from the Latins 1. In that we do not believe the Conversion of Substances any more than they nor admit the substantial Presence of the Natural Body of Christ under the Species of Bread and Wine that we adore not the Sacrament nor acknowledge any of the Consequences of the Doctrine of Transubstantiation 2. We agree with the Greeks in that they conceive the change which is made in the Bread and Wine to be a change of virtue by the efficacy of the Holy Spirit God not destroying the Nature of Bread and Wine but adding his Grace to Nature 3. In that we do not believe any more than they that the wicked receive the Body of Jesus Christ 4. In that we believe with them that we ought to communicate of both kinds 5. In our holding the Consecration is performed by Prayer 6. In fine that we deliver the Sacrament in leavened Bread altho we hold the use of the Azyme an indifferent thing YET it must not be imagined we pretend there 's no difference in the Opinion of the Greeks and ours I do not believe any of our Doctors ever asserted such a thing Mr. Arnaud would make the World believe I maintained this and has triumphed thereupon in several places of his Book as if I supposed the Greeks were Berengarians or Calvinists But this is a groundless charge I only denied that the Greeks which are called Schismaticks believed Transubstantiation and the Adoration It belongs to him therefore to see whether he had reason to accuse me in this of rashness and inconceivable boldness or whether he himself rather was not guilty of this when he bragged of confounding Ministers with the number of his Proofs Perhaps he would have hit better on it had he said he had confounded his Readers But to let this pass I shall here truly denote the principal differences between the Doctrine of the Greeks and ours I. THE Greeks since the Eighth Century rejected the Terms of Type and Figure in reference to the Eucharist altho they use them of Symbol and Representation We admit equally both as the Fathers of the first six Ages ever did II. THEY seem willing to keep in some sort the literal sence of these Words This is my Body which we do not For we understand 'em in this sence this Bread is the Sacred Sign or the Sacrament of my Body or which is to the same effect the Bread signifies my Body They on the contrary taking the Term est in some sort according to the Letter will have the same Substance which is Bread to be also the Body of Jesus Christ and therefore they so often say that the Bread is not the Figure of the Body but the Body not the Figure of the Flesh but the Flesh it self because the Lord did not say this is the Figure of my Body but this is my Body Whereunto relates that saying of Theophilact we already cited which is we must not be troubled to believe Bread is Flesh III. 'T IS likewise to keep this pretended literal sence that they would have the Bread to be made one with the Body by its Union to the Divinity by the impression of the Holy Spirit and by a change of
cap 6. pag. 155. Eucharist broke our Fast because they believed the Oblation of the Sacrifice did not belong to the Fast and that they were permitted to eat after they had communicated is a mere Evasion which plainly denotes Mr. Arnaud's perplexity For the Greeks accuse the Latins not for their eating so soon after the Communion in Lent for this Accusation would be false and slanderous seeing they know the contrary But he accuses them in that they break their Fast by receiving the Eucharist Whence have you this Custom say's Nicetas to celebrate Nicetas Contra Lat. Bibl. Patr. Tom. 4. Edit the Oblation of the Paschal Mass every day even on the Holy days of fasting as well as on Saturday and Sunday What Doctors thus taught you Were they the Apostles No For the Apostles made a Canon to this effect that if any Bishop Priest Deacon Reader or Chanter that is in health fasts not on the Fridays and Saturdays in Lent he ought to be degraded Seeing then you celebrate Mass at nine of the Clock which is the hour in which the Sacrifice is to be offered how then keep you the Fast till three in the Afternoon breaking it as you do in the time of the Administration You do not at all observe it and therefore you are accursed It is plainly seen here the matter concerns the reception of the Eucharist and that he means it breaks the Fast for he say's they break it in tempore ministrationis Missae Where then has Mr. Arnaud found this Evasion that the Greeks say the Eucharist breaks the Fast only because they believe the Oblation of the Sacrifice does not belong to the Fast and that it was lawful to eat after the participation of the Communion This is say's he the conjecture of a very Learned man who has taken the pains to read over this Treatise Is Mr. Arnaud so tired with his Work and his time so mightily taken up that he cannot afford one half hour for the reading this Treatise himself for it requires no more These Anonymous Learned men do often deceive us with their Conjectures and when a Person makes a Book which he designs to render famous throughout all Europe in sending it to all the Courts in Christendom it is absolutely requisite not to trust all sorts of People He say's in his Epistle Dedicatory to the Pope that his Friends have laboured with him In the Twelfth Book he gives us a Dissertation of a Religious man of Saint Genevieve on John Scot's Case and that of Bertram Moreover he tells us he has desired some Persons to translate for him that Passage of Herbert's about which we have made such a noise here he gives us the conjecture of an Anonymous I am afraid some indiscreet Person or other will judge hereupon that Mr. Arnaud's whole Book is made up only of incoherent Fragments As for my part I do not thus judge but I wish Mr. Arnaud had rectified and digested himself what others have furnished him with and not been like the Sea in this particular which receiving into its Womb all the Waters of Rivers communicates only to them its bryniness HUMBERT never thought of giving any of these Sences to the Passage proposed to us out of Nicetas He never imagined that the Greeks believed the Communion breaks the Fast either because they were permitted to eat immediately after or because our Bodies receive the same impressions and the same strength by receiving of the Eucharist as by any other common Food But he only understood they taught that the Eucharist does really nourish us in the same manner as other Food which changes it self into our Substance and 't is thereupon that he grounded his charge of Stercoranism Do Mr. Arnaud and his Anonymouses know better now in Paris the true meaning of Nicetas than Humbert who lived in that time and was at Constantinople with this Religious Leo the Ninth having affirmed the latins have the same Faith as the Greeks Mr. Arnaud thereupon takes occasion to insult over me and tells me he will be judged by my self Whether 't is likely Lib. 2. cap. 50 pag 141. Leo that lived amongst the Greeks did not know better than I their Opinion who now come six hundred years after assuring the World upon my own bare word of the contrary without any Proof or Testimony And ten or twelve Pages further he would perswade us that Humbert who was Contemporary with Nicetas and in the same City with him did not well comprehend Nicetas his meaning and that himself Mr. Arnaud and Mr. his Anonymous understand it better than Humbert Whence comes this partiality BUT say's he Nicetas asserts Transubstantiation as fully as Humbert Lib. 2. cap. 6. pag. 1â—â— could do Which we must examine Those say's Nicetas who walk in the Light eat the Bread of Grace which is the Body of Christ and drink his immaculate Blood In the Bread say's he moreover that is to say in our Saviour's Body there are three living things which give life to those that eat worthily thereof to wit the Spirit the Water and Blood according to that saying there are three that bear witness and these three are in one He proves the Water and Blood are in our Saviours Body by the Water and Blood which gushed thence in his Crucifixion and as to the Spirit observe here what he say's The Holy and living Spirit remains in his inlivening Flesh and we eat this Flesh in the Bread which is changed by his Holy Spirit and made the Body of Jesus Christ We live in him by eating his living and deified Flesh Could Nicetas adds Mr. Arnaud more plainly shew his Opinion touching the Eucharist and more positively exclude Mr. Claude ' s vain Conjectures AND this is that which in the Style of Mr. Arnaud is precise and positive I answer that by the Bread of Grace Nicetas means the Bread of the New Testament in opposition to the Azyme of the Law and that his Sence is that this Bread is the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ which the Azyme cannot be which he proves 1. Because the Azyme is not Bread till it receives the perfection of Leaven 2. Because the Azyme is a dead thing having no inlivening virtue in it whereas the leavened Bread has Leaven which is to it as it were Life and Soul whence he concludes 't is proper to become the Mystery of the Body of Christ seeing there is in this Body three living things the Spirit the Water and Blood the Water and Blood because they run down from his pierced side and the Spirit because his Flesh was ever joyned to his Divinity Whence he inferrs 't is in the Bread and not in the Azyme we eat this Flesh and that the Bread being changed by the Holy Spirit and made Christ's Body we live in him by eating his living and deified Flesh And this is Nicetas his reasoning which I confess is a little odd but howsoever 't is
Silence signifies no more on either part but that both were quietly permitted to enjoy their own Opinions We must not imagine they pretended to approve by Virtue of this Union all the Doctrines of the Latins and there could be no more concluded thence at farthest than a simple Toleration as of other Points which were not discussed Now if humane Interest was so powerful over the Greeks as to make 'em abjure their own Opinions and embrace in appearance others can it be thought strange they should pass over in Silence an Article of that kind It seems on the contrary that Zeal for their Religion if they had any spark of it yet left should oblige 'em to restrain the Dispute to a few Points for they would lose as many of 'em as they proposed The necessity of their Affairs forced them to make a Sacrifice of 'em to the Latins so that all those they could smother by their Silence were as so many Points won because they were not lost MR Arnaud tells us that their politick Interests were not so prevalent over Lib. 4. c. 2. p. 337. 'em as to take away from 'em all kind of Liberty and carry them forth to the betraying of their own Judgments without resistance that on the contrary they managed their Pretensions and that the Question touching the Holy Spirit was discussed in this Council with as much exactness as ever any was in any Council That if they betrayed their Conscience it was thro humane Weakness having first rendred to their Opinions all the Testimonies which could be expected from weak Persons But what could be alledged to less purpose All this is true in respect of the Doctrines which they were forced to abandon to subscribe to contrary ones but this signifies nothing to others they mention not and which consequently they were not obliged to receive amongst which that of Transubstantiation was one and moreover this Resistance and Management he speaks of only appeared in the Doctrine of the Procession and not in other Points contained in the Decree for they passed them over without Examination and Discussion except that of Purgatory which was slightly regarded MR. Arnaud sets himself to show afterwards that the Latins did not suspect the Greeks held not Transubstantiation that they betrayed not their own Sentiments nor were wilfully ignorant of those of the Greeks We shall hereafter consider the Conduct of the Latins But make we first an end of examining that of the Greeks Does Mr. Claude say's he know what he say's when he makes such unreasonable Suppositions Does he consider into what absurdities he plunges himself Or will he pretend the Greeks agreed amongst themselves before they parted from Constantinople to conceal their Opinions on this Point from the Latins and carried on this Design so dexterously that amongst so many Greeks there were not one of them that discovered this Secret to the Latins There are certainly judicious Persons enough still in the World to determine which of us two seems to consider most what he say's I do not pretend that either the Greeks plotted together at Constantinople or that they carried it so closely at Florence but that the Latins might know if they would what was their Belief touching the Eucharist Their Books speak their Minds These Complots and Conspirations are Phantasms which appear to Mr. Arnaud in the heat of his Study I pretend no more than what is true to wit that the Greeks passed over in Silence several Articles on which they had not the same Sentiments as the Latins and I believe Transubstantiation was one of them If Mr. Arnaud pretends the contrary it lies upon him to produce his Reasons Let him tell us what Complot there could be between the Greeks and Latins in reference to their Silence in so many other Points which were not discussed Let him tell us at least why in the Acts of the Council and other Writings wherein is mentioned the Eucharist when the Latins say Transubstantiate the Greeks on the contrary say only Consecrate and Sanctify Wherefore in the Decretal of the Union whether we read it in Latin or Greek we find no mention there of the substantial Conversion Why the Article of the Sacrament was expressed in these general Terms Corpus Christi veraciter confici 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Was it Policy or Ignorance or Complot or Conspiration which made them reject the Terms of Gregory the VII The Bread and Wine are changed substantially into the true proper and living Flesh c. or those of Innocent the III. The Bread is transubstantiated into the Body and the Blood into the Wine For for to tell us that the Greeks meant by their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a true and real Transubstantiation because 't was thus the Latins understood their Confici is a frivolous Pretence which I have already refuted MR. Arnaud takes a great deal of Pains to prove the Latins could not be Ignorant of the Sentiment of the Greeks nor the Greeks of the Latins But to no purpose It signifies nothing to me whether they did or did not know one anothers Opinions We will suppose if he will they made this their particular Study but then what signifies this to our Question I am satisfi'd they were reunited without any formal Declaration of their Agreement in this Point for as it cannot be concluded from their Silence on other Points that there were no difference betwixt them so is it the same concerning Transubstantiation Mr. Arnaud reasons ill because he argues from this Principle that the Greeks disputed on all Particulars wherein they knew they differed from the Latins This is a false Principle as appears by the Instances I already produced It appears from the very Acts of that Council that the Emperor wearied with the Debate hastned to Expedients whereby to conclude the Union We have left say's he to his Greeks our Families in danger exposed to the Concil Flor. Sess 23. Fury of the Infidels Time slips away and we advance nothing let us lay aside these Disputes and betake our selves to some Medium And therefore we find Sess 25. the Greeks telling the Latins That they were not for Disputing because Disputes generally ingendred Trouble But they should indeavour to find out some other means of Union We have already told you say's the Emperor to Cardinal Julian that we are not for any more Disputes for Words are never wanting Sess 25. to you Your Dialect will never suffer you to acquiesce in any thing being ever ready at a Reply and to speak the last Let us I pray then lay aside these tedious Controversies and betake our selves to some other means for reuniting us BUT the Greeks assisted at the Service of the Latins and adored the Mass in the same manner as the Roman Church say's Andrew de St. Cruce I answer Lib. 4. c. 2. p. 343. they were present at the Service of the Latins not to show they approved their Doctrine
will affirm that the Sence of the Roman Church is not a literal Sence For the literal Sence of our Saviour's Words must retain two things First that 't is Bread and secondly that 't is the Body of Christ which Transubstantiation does not BUT say's Mr. Arnaud Baptism contains the Virtue of Christ's Blood and yet we do not say Baptism is not the Figure of it but the Blood it self of Christ Lib. 2. c. 9. p. 179. I answer that this is still to dispute against the Greeks and not against me For supposing it were more true than it is that the Water of Baptism is not mentioned like as the Greeks speak of the Bread in the Eucharist yet still these two things are certain First that they affirm the Bread to be the Body of Christ by this Impression of Virtue and secondly that 't is thus they Understand the Words This is my Body Ely de Crete having told us that God Comment in Orat. 1. Greg. Naz. changes the Oblations into the Efficacy of his Flesh Immediately adds and doubt not of the Truth of this seeing he himself plainly say's this is my Body this is my Blood It is apparent he grounds this change of the Bread into the Efficacy of Flesh on the express Words of our Saviour Whence it follows that 't is thus he understands them Cyrillus of Alexandria having likewise said in the same manner that God changes the Oblations into the Efficacy of his Cyrill apud Victor Ante MS. in Bibl. Reg. Flesh adds that we must not doubt of the Truth of this seeing he has said it which evidently shews that according to him these Words this is my Body signifies no more than that this has the Efficacy of my Body or is my Body in Efficacy Yet should we take upon us to reply in behalf of the Greeks to the Instance or Example Mr. Arnaud alledges touching Baptism We might tell him that the Reason why they express not themselves in the same manner in reference to the Water as they do to the Bread is because our Saviour never said of it this is my Blood as he said of the Bread this is my Body and that the Holy Scripture having differently explained it self touching Baptism and the Eucharist we must not think it strange if Divines have expressed themselves about them in a different manner He may be moreover answered that the same Oeconomy observed touching the Body and Blood of Christ is not observed in the Water of Baptism as it is observed in the Bread and Wine in the Eucharist and therefore it cannot be so well said that the Water becomes the Blood by this way of Growth and Augmentation as may be said of the Bread altho it receives the Impression of the Virtue of Blood AS to what Mr. Arnaud adds that the Ministers acknowledg these Words this is my Body must be either understood in a real or figurative Sence whence it follows according to him that Theophylact understood them in one or the other of these I say this Reasoning is false as well in its Principle as Consequence For the Ministers do not acknowledg either that we ought or can understand these Words in this Sence of Reality the Church of Rome gives them We all hold that this is an absurd and impossible Sence and that none but a figurative one can subsist But supposing the Ministers should say what he makes them why would he have us regulate thereby the Sence of Theophylact and other Greeks They have argued on their own Hypothesis and not on that of the Ministers Whether their Hypothesis be justifiable or not is not to be disputed with the Ministers for Mr. Arnaud was never yet told that the Greeks were agreed in all things with us It is sufficient that on one hand he be shewed in what manner the Greeks pretend the proper Sence of our Saviour's Words is observed and on the other that this manner whatsoever it be Good or Bad Justifiable or Unjustifiable Conformable or not Conformable to what the Ministers say is directly opposite to Transubstantiation for our only Question is Whether the Greeks believe Transubstantiation or not THIS is then a mere Illusion to explain Theophylact by what the Ministers say or not say and it is yet a greater to tell us as if it were a thing earnestly Disputed between him and us that Euthymius excludes the Key of Figure and does not take the Word EST in the Sence of Significat that 't is not likely we would borrow Euthymius his Words to instruct a Man in our Opinion and Lib. 2. c. 12. that we are not wont to say that Christ gave us not the Figure of his Body but his Body because he said this is my Body And thus do Men argue that impose on the World which Mr. Arnaud never fails of doing HAVING produced these Arguments which in my Mind have not proved very successful to him he offers us others drawn from the Doubts or Difficulties which the Greeks propose to themselves as arising from their Sentiment and which they endeavour to resolve in the best manner they can Theophylact say's he testifies there arises naturally a Doubt from what Faith teaches concerning this Mystery that the Bread is really the Flesh of Christ which difficulty Lib. 2. c. 9. p. 183. he expresses in these Words Quomodo inquit neque enim caro videtur How can this be For this Bread does not seem to me to be Flesh Whence he observes the natural Consequence of this Change must be that the Bread being Flesh must appear to be so and seeing it does not 't is astonishing Et quomodo inquit aliquis non apparet caro sed Panis Now say's he let a man take Aubertin's or Mr. Claude's Gloss to expound Theophylact and we shall find nothing can be more Extravagant For this is as much as to say according to them if it be true the Bread contains the Virtue of Christ's Body how comes it to pass that it does not appear to us to be Flesh Whence is it we see only Bread and not Flesh Is it not ridiculous to make People reason after so absurd a manner And why must this Bread containing only the Virtue of Christ's Body appear Flesh when it is not so Does it follow from the Breads partaking of a spiritual Quality of the Flesh of Christ either morally or physically that it must appear Flesh Would it not be on the contrary a dreadful Prodigy if the Flesh of Christ being only in Virtue in the Bread of the Eucharist should appear Flesh AND this is Mr. Arnaud's Reasoning set forth with its usual Sweetness that is to say of Extravagancies and Absurdities with which he charges both me and Mr. Aubertin I answer he is under a Mistake and such a kind of Mistake too wherein his Reputation is deeply concern'd for he takes for the Ground of Theophylact's Doubt that which is on the contrary the
Change of Virtue signifies a Change of Substance by three Explications of which he gives us the Choice MOREOVER I know not why he should tell us that the Faith of the Lib. 2. c. 9. p. 288. Eaithful never separates the Virtue of Christ's Body from the Body itself nor his Body from its Virtue For if he means this generally as his Expressions intimate he should remember what he said just before That Baptism contains the Virtue of Christ's Blood in the same manner the Ministers imagine this Virtue to be Ibid. p. 179. contained in the Eucharist He should have observed that in his Chapter on Nicholas Methoniensis he positively asserts that the Virtue of Christ's Body is Lib. 2. c. 13. p. 223. communicated to the Water of Baptism and the Oyl of Confirmation It seems to me here 's a manifest Contradiction for if the Faithful do not separate the Virtue of Christ's Body from the Body it self that is to say according as he understands it from the Substance of his Body How does the Water of Baptism and the Oyl of Confirmation contain the Virtue of this Body seeing 't is out of Doubt that they contain not the Substance of them But whence has he learned such a profound kind of Doctrine that the Faith of the Faithful does not separate the Virtue of Christ's Body from the Body it self Does not this Virtue accompany the Word of God which St. Paul calls the Power of God to Salvation and in which notwithstanding there is not to be imagined a Presence of the Substance of Christ's Body Does he not know that the Fathers teach We eat our Saviour's Flesh as well in the hearing of the Word as in the Participation of Baptism which can only be understood of the Virtue separated from the Substance If Mr. Arnaud say's that he understands this as meant only of the Eucharist besides that his Terms are general and in manner of a Principle which he afterwards applies to the Eucharist besides this I say this does not at all resolve the Question seeing our Debate is Whether the Virtue of the Body is in the Eucharist together with the Substance or whether it be in it alone and without the Substance Wherefore must not the Faithful who acknowledg in other Particulars this Virtue without the Substance acknowledg the same thing in the Eucharist AND this is what I had to say to the Passage of Theophylact and which may likewise serve for an Illustration to what Mr. Arnaud alledges out of Nicholas Methoniensis This Author wrote a Treatise which is inserted in the Bibl. Patr. Tom. 2. Greco Lat. Bibliotheca Patrum under this Title 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Against those that doubt and say the Consecrated Bread and Wine are not the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ MR. Arnaud say's he finds the Ministers very much perplexed touching this Doubt But this is only an imaginary Difficulty For what Perplexity is Lib. 2. c. 13. p. 223. there in it These People doubted whether the Bread and Wine were the Body and Blood of Christ But did they doubt that the Bread and Wine were the Signs or Representations of the Body and Blood of Christ No this was not the Cause of their Doubt Did they doubt that 't was the Body of Christ in Virtue Should we take their Doubt in this Sence 't would not be such a strange Matter as Mr. Arnaud makes it He may declame if he pleases Why could not they believe Christ might morally communicate to the Bread the Virtue of his Body Is it a harder matter to communicate to the Ibid. Bread the Virtue of Christ's Body than to communicate it to the Water of Baptism and the Oyl of Confirmation This is but a Flourish for Palladius tells us that a Monk doubted of this very thing having had no Respect to Mr. Arnaud's Remonstrances He doubted touching the Gifts and said how can the Pallad Hist cap. 73. Gifts sanctify me St. Ambrose in his Treatise de Initiatis combats the same Doubts touching the Virtue of Baptism Is this then this great Mystery which Eye hath not seen nor Ear heard nor yet hath entred into the Heart of Man to conceive I see the same Water which I see every Day is this that which must cleanse me Mr. Arnaud must not imagine it is so easy a matter for weak and prophane Persons to believe a supernatural Virtue to be communicated to the Bread and Wine We have already seen that Cyrillus of Alexandria and Ely de Creté having told us that God changes the Bread into the Virtue of his Body add that we must not doubt of it seeing Christ himself say's it which shows that this is as much a Subject of Doubt as any thing else BUT there is no necessity of expounding in this Sence the Doubt of those of whom Nicholas Methoniensis speaks His Expressions must not be altered They doubted whether the Bread and Wine were the Body and Blood of Christ and this Doubt arose from the general and usual Expressions of the Greeks who positively affirm it What can be concluded hence The Greeks then understand these general Expressions in a Sence of Transubstantiation or real Presence I deny it and that with Reason for this does not follow But it will be replied these Doubters at least believed their Church took them in this Sence and 't is likely this was the Occasion of their Doubt Which I also deny for if these were their Thoughts why did they not tell us so Why could not they say they doubted of the Truth of this Doctrine that the Bread and Wine are changed into the Substance of the Body and Blood of Christ To what purpose so many Words This Proposition the Bread is the Body of Jesus Christ offended them and which way soever they turn'd it it could not seem to them capable of a rational Sence Whether this Doubt arose thro want of a thro-Consideration or whether in effect they had examined the matter or had considered the Proposition either confusedly in it self or in the Exposition the Greeks gave of it is more than we know for Nicolas Methoniensis say's nothing of it and we cannot inform our selves elsewhere This is a matter of Fact on which every Man may make his Conjectures but yet this Principle must remain undenyable that their Doubt arose from this Proposition the Bread is the Body of Jesus Christ and not from this other the Bread is Transubstantiated into the Body of Jesus Christ LET Mr. Arnaud shew us if he pleases how it happens that between these two Doubts which Theophylact and Nicolas Methoniensis propose there arises never a one touching the substantial Conversion for supposing the Greeks believed it it could not be but some must doubt and say how is the Substance of Bread changed into that of the Body of Christ even as they say'd how is Bread Flesh How is Bread the Body The Languages which
Lib. 2. c. 13. p. 223. according to Mr. Arnaud are not so barren but they can furnish us with Expressions to say I doubt whether the Bread contains the Virtue of Christ's Body I doubt whether it is the Figure of the Body of Christ Can they not likewise supply them with proper Terms who would say I doubt whether the Substance of Bread is changed into the Substance of Christ's Body THERE is nothing then in the Doubt of these People which Nicholas Methoniensis handles which can favour Mr. Arnaud's Cause Neither is there any thing in his Answer which will do him any Kindness Nicolaus Methoniensis says that the Bread is changed into the Body of Christ That this Mystical Sacrifice takes its Original from our Lord himself That we must not despise what has been taught us by this Divine Mouth which cannot lye That 't was he himself told us this is my Body this is my Blood and if you eat not the Flesh of the Son of Man nor drink his Blood you have no Life in you That we must not charge him with want of Power seeing he is Almighty That his Body was born of a Virgin above the course of Nature and above the Thoughts and Apprehensions of Men. Mr. Arnaud is so well satisfied with these Expressions that he cries out in a Transport of Joy that they are just natural and befitting Ibid. p. 226. a Bishop to Utter that believes Transubstantiation and Refutes those that do not But what is there in all this which does not agree with the Sentiment of the Greeks being such as I have represented it in the thirteenth Chapter of the foregoing Book The Bread is changed into the Body of Christ by the Impression of his supernatural Virtue and is made this Body by way of Augmentation This is an Effect of his almighty Power which acts above the Course of Nature But it does not follow that this is a Transubstantiation Had Nicolaus Methoniensis meant a Change of Substance why could he not say so the Tongues which Mr. Arnaud has so inriched when the Virtue of the Body was in Question must they immediately become so poor again when the Question concerns that of Substance Could not they furnish this Bishop with proper Terms to say that the Substance of Bread is changed into that of the Body Which is what he ought to find in Nicholas his Expressions to bear him out in his Exultations But Mr. Arnaud can find matter of Triumph when he pleases NICOLAUS Methoniensis continuing his Discourse adds perhaps you doubt of this Mystery and do not Believe it because you do not see Flesh and Blood He means according to Mr. Claude say's Mr. Arnaud perhaps you do not believe P. 226. the Bread and Wine contain the Virtue of Christ's Body and Blood because you do not see Flesh and Blood as if there must appear Flesh and Blood that we may believe the Bread and Wine contain the Virtue of them These Peoples Reasoning adds he would consist according to Mr. Claude in a very pleasant Argument if the Bread and Wine Contain'd the Virtue of Christ's Body there would appear Flesh and Blood in the Eucharist but there does not appear Flesh and Blood Therefore they do not contain the Virtue thereof He enhaunceth this Remark by an Example taken from my Book which contains say's he morally my Virtue so that it may be demanded why my Person does not appear in all the Chambers wherein my Book is read THIS Discourse is so full of Error that I can scarce believe it is Mr. Arnaud's own 1st Supposing we do attribute to these Dubitants the Argument he has formed he cannot call it a pleasant and ridiculous Argument as he has done without contradicting himself and deriding his own Maxim which he laid down in his Chapter touching Theophylact That the Faith of the Faithful P. 188. doth never separate the Virtue of Christ's Body from the Body it self nor his Body from his Virtue and that it never entred into their Thoughts the Body of Christ was in Heaven and that we receive only in the Eucharist its Strength and Virtue whereas they believe we receive only this Strength and Virtue from its being really and truly present in our Mysteries Supposing that Nicolaus Methoniensis his Doubters reasoned on the Principle of Mr. Arnaud's Believers their Argument would contain nothing but what is natural and reasonable For if the Virtue of Christ's Body be only in the Eucharist upon the account of his Body being really and truly Present in it it naturally follows there must appear Flesh therein seeing the Virtue thereof cannot but be accompanied by this Flesh according to Mr. Arnaud and his Faithful This Reasoning must be wholly grounded on two Propositions the one that wheresoever the Body of Christ is substantially present there must appear Flesh this is a natural Consequence th' other that the Virtue of this Body is only in the Eucharist because the Body it self is substantially in it this is Mr. Arnaud's Faith If this Reasoning be Pleasant and Ridiculous it cannot be so upon the account of the first Proposition for as I said it is self Evident It must be so then by reason of the second that is to say upon the Account of Mr. Arnaud's Faith Is it not strange Mr. Arnaud should forget himself so soon as ever he has leap'd out of one Chapter into another and ridicule himself I confess it may happen that a Man altho otherwise considerative may fall into Contradiction for there are few Persons but what are lyable to Mistakes But it is strange a Man should combat and fall foul on himself because that when we are earnestly intent on any Subject the Ideas thereof return and Attention furnishes us with that Matter which offered not it self at first But that such a man of Parts as Mr. Arnaud should Contradict and Confute himself and Scoff at his own Assertions in the same Book at three Chapters Distance is in my Mind a little amazing II. BUT moreover 't is certain Mr. Arnaud has been plainly mistaken in the Arguing which he attributes according to us to Nicolaus Methoniensis his Dubitants For we never told him their Doubt was grounded on the Bread's being the Body of Christ in Virtue Perhaps say's Nicolaus Methoniensis Ye doubt of this Mystery and do not believe it because ye do not see Flesh and Blood in it Their Doubt was grounded on the general Proposition of the Greeks That the Bread and Wine were the Body and Blood of Christ Nicolas say's perhaps this Proposition appeared to them incredible because they did not see Flesh and Blood in the Eucharist We should know whether these Doubters acknowledged this was in effect the real Cause of their Doubt but supposing it were all that can be concluded thence is that they would Reason in this sort If the Bread be the Body of Christ it must appear Flesh But it does not therefore it
are so truly and not falsly So thâ—s Profession of Faith then means no more than this that we must believe the Bread and Wine are not vainly and imaginarily the Body and Blood of our Lord but really and truly altho God only knows how they are changed or what kind of Change happens to them Now this supposes on one hand that they are still Bread and Wine and on the other that we must not proceed so far as to a change of Substance MR. Arnaud then advertises the World to no purpose That these kind of Writings are design'd to represent the General Publick and Universal Sentiments of the Church and not the Particular Sentiment of Authors That they contain an P. 246. Exact Precise and Plain way of Speaking without Figure or Metaphor their End being only to give an Exact and True Account of Points of Faith It is easy to turn these Remarks against himself For seeing these kind of Writings speak Precisely and Exactly he ought to shew us Distinctly and Exactly the Conversion of Substances contained in them And seeing it is not to be found in them and yet this Profession of Faith represents the General Publick and Universal Sentiment of the Greek Church It follows that this Publick General and Universal Sentiment is not Transubstantiation TO little Purpose likewise does he add That the Church would not have the P. 247. Converted Sarracens believe that the Bread and Wine were not truly the Body and Blood of Christ but only his Figure indued with their Virtue This is not the Point the Question is to know whether they were taught the Conversion of Substances which is what he ought to show but this he will be never able to do For for to teach that the Bread and Wine are really the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ which is what is precisely contain'd in this Profession of Faith is not as as I have already said the teaching the Conversion of Substances Moreover I never told him the modern Greeks asserted the Eucharist to be a Figure And as to the Change of Virtue we do not prove it it is true by this Profession of Faith but we prove it by other Testimonies which are so plain and expressive that Mr. Arnaud can give no solid Answer to them THERE only remain now of all those pretended Proofs of Mr. Arnaud some Passages out of Cabasilas Bishop of Thessalonica Simeon Bishop also of Thessalonica Jeremias the Patriarch of Constantinople and some other Greek Authors They all say near upon the same thing which is That the Bread and Wine are the Body and Blood of Christ This very Body and Blood That they are changed into this Body and Blood But Mr. Arnaud must disabuse himself once for all touching the Thoughts he has that from these kind of Expressions may be concluded the Doctrine of the Conversion of Substances For so far are we from granting this Conclusion to be good that we pretend we have Reason to draw a contrary Consequence In effect 1st There is nothing more usual in Authors than to say That the Poor are Jesus Christ even Christ himself that the Church is the Body of Jesus Christ the very Body of Jesus Christ that we are changed into Jesus Christ changed into his Body transformed into him changed into his Flesh and such like ways of speaking Examples of which are infinite It is then a great Abuse to pretend these Terms are to be understood in a Sence of Identity and substantial Conversion as they term it For as I said elsewhere these Expressions being lyable to be Expounded in divers particular Sences and seeing they may be taken in a general and indistinct one there can be no Reason for the taking them in the Sence which Mr. Arnaud gives them II. THE Conversion of the Substances of Bread and Wine into those of the Body and Blood of Christ does of it self form so precise and distinct a Sence that when Authors would assert it they explain it in clear and distinct Terms which answer the distinct determinate Conception they have of it Whence it follows that if the Greek Authors had on this Subject the same Belief as the Roman Church they would explain themselves so clearly that there would be no need of running to the Baron of Spartaris nor Paysius Ligaridius nor yet to the six Syrian Priests to make us understand it FOR whilst he produces no other kind of Passages but such as these we shall have still Reason to conclude from hence that the Greeks do not believe Transubstantiation because if they did believe it they would without doubt speak otherwise of it III. BUT supposing these Reasons Invalid we have shewed when we treated of the real Belief of the Greeks in what Sence they understand these Expressions In effect if we compare the Doctrine of the Greeks with that of the Latins and throly comprehend what they hold in common and wherein they differ we shall easily perceive Mr. Arnaud's Sophism for whatsoever he alledges from Greek Authors respects this Equivocal part of their Hypothesis which he believed to be like that of the Latins altho at bottom 't is not so but he has studiously avoided the relating any thing concerning this other Part by which the two Hypothesis's distinguish themselves and vary from one another The Greeks and Latins agree in these general Expressions The Bread is made the Body of Jesus Christ The Bread is changed into the Body of Christ it becomes the very Body the proper Body the real Body of Christ They are not two Bodies but one Body So far you see they hold the same Language BUT go farther ask them whether the nature of Bread ceases to be The Latins answer there remains nothing of its Substance nor Matter nor inward Form but only the Accidents The Greeks on the contrary say That the Bread is joyned to the Divinity that from this Union results one composed of two Natures that there is made a Composition of Bread and the Holy Spirit Ask the Latins how the Bread is made the Body of Jesus Christ They Answer by the Conversion of its whole Substance into the Substance which this Body had before the Conversion The Greeks on the contrary say the Bread becomes an Augmentation of the natural Body of our Lord and is made by this means his Body Ask them what Change the Bread receives the Latins say it is a real Transubstantiation that is to say the change of one Substance into another The Greeks on the contrary answer that it is a Sanctification which the Bread receives and that it is changed into the Supernatural Virtue of Christ's Body Ask the Latins how the Bread becomes the real Body the very Body the proper Body of our Lord born of the Virgin Mary They answer 't is because in effect the same numerical Substance without any Difference The Greeks on the contrary say that 't is because an Augmentation makes not another Body
that he must of necessity either deny what the whole Church believes to wit the Conversion of the Substance of Bread or fall into this other Absurdity of maintaining that this Conversion is made in the Divine Nature Common Sence leads him to this and yet we find no such thing in all his Discourse AFTER Anastasius comes Germain the Patriarch of Constantinople Mr. Aubertin has placed him according to the common Opinion in the eighth Century but in effect there is more likelyhood according to Allatius his Conjecture that he lived in the twelveth and the Reflections Mr. Arnaud makes on this Subject seem to me just enough to be followed till we have greater Certainty But howsoever this Author say's no more than That the Bread is changed into the Body of Christ and that it is his Body To which we have Lib. 7. c. 3. so often already answered that it will be needless to say any more Mr. Arnaud sets to Phylosophising on some Passages which Mr. Aubertin alledged in his Favour but this is an Illusion for when what Mr. Aubertin alledges concerning Germane to show that 't is contrary to Transubstantiation should not be Conclusive 't would not thence follow he believed it nor Taught it if this does not appear elsewhere from good Proofs and Mr. Arnaud is obliged to produce such without supposing it is sufficient he Refutes Mr. Aubertin's Consequences For Refuting is not Proving GERMAIN sufficiently shews us towards the end of his Treatise in what Sence he understood the Bread to be the Body of Christ Moses say's Germ. Theor. rer Eccles sub finem he sprinkling the People with the Blood of Goats and Heifers said This is the Blood of the Covenant But our Saviour Christ has given his own proper Body and shed his own Blood and given us the Cup of the new Testament saying This is my Body which was broken for you this is my Blood shed for the Remission of your Sins As often then as ye eat this Bread and drink of this Cup ye declare my Death and Resurrection Thus believing then we eat the Bread and drink of the Cup as of the Flesh of God declaring thereby the Death and Resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ. We have already observed in the foregoing Book that the Greeks do often use this Expression As the Flesh As the Body to mollify and abate in some sort their usual way of speaking which is that the Bread is the Body of Christ and to signify that the Bread is to us instead of this Body It appears from the sequel of Germain's Discourse his Sence is that for the better applying our Minds to the Death and Resurrection of our Lord we eat the Bread and drink of the Cup in the stead of his Body and Blood AS to John Damascen the Author of the Perpetuity having alledged him as a Witness of the Doctrine of the ancient Church I said He ought not Answer to the 2d Treatise of the Perpet c. 2. to produce the Testimony of a Person whom we except against and that with good Cause seeing he was one of the first that left the common Road of the Churches Expressions and betook himself to affected and singular ones which are at as great distance from the Roman Church as the reformed one Now this Exception is so just in respect of the Question concerning the Sentiment of the ancient Church that excepting Mr. Arnaud I do not believe there is any Man how little Conversant soever in the Writings of the Fathers but grants it For all the Ancient Fathers term the Eucharist a Figure or Representation of our Lord's Body and Damascen not only deny's that it is one but also that the Fathers thus termed it after Consecration He is one of the first that brought into Credit the Comparison of Food which changes it self into our Bodies whereby to explain the Change which happens to the Bread in as much as it is made an Augmentation of the Body of Christ that of the Blessed Virgin which the Holy Spirit overshadowed and that of Wood united to the Fire His Expressions being compared with those of the Ancients are wholly extraordinary He tells us that the Sacramental Bread and the Body born of the Virgin are but one and the same Body because the Bread is an Augmentation of the Body and that the same Oeconomy has been observed in both I suppose Damascen was not the first that had these kind of Conceptions seeing we have met with something like this in Anastasius his Discourse and if I mistake not some Trace of this in Gregory de Nysses his Catechism but howsoever it must be acknowledged I had reason to call these Conceptions Affected and Singular in respect of the usual Expressions of the Fathers and to say they vary as much from the Doctrine of the Romane Church as ours YET to hear only Mr. Arnaud a Man would imagine that Damascen clearly taught Transubstantiation To prove it he alledges these same Passages of his fourth Book touching the true Orthodox Faith wich has been a thousand times canvass'd by Controvertists and which conclude nothing Damascen say's That God makes the Bread the Body of Christ and the Wine his Blood that it is an effect of his Almighty Power which has created all things that seeing the Lord took his Body from the pure and immaculate Blood of the Virgin we must not doubt but he can change the Bread into his Body and the Wine into his Blood that if we demand how this Change happens he answers that this is wrought by the Holy Spirit that the Word of God is True and Almighty but that the manner is Incomprehensible But yet it may be rationally say'd that as the Bread and Wine wherewith a Man is nourished are changed into his Body so that they become another Body than that which they were before so the Bread and Wine mixt with Water are changed into the Body and Blood of Christ in awonderful manner by Prayer and Descent of the Holy Spirit and that they are not two different Bodies but one and the same Body HAD not Damascen expressed himself as he has done it would be to no purpose for us to tell Mr. Arnaud the Change he speaks of is not Transubstantiation seeing his Sence is that the Bread becomes a growth of our Lord's Body and is made by this means one with this Body that this is the effect he attributes to the Holy Spirit and Almighty Power of God acting above Nature and not that of a real Conversion of the Substance of Bread into the same Substance which the Body had before Mr. Arnaud would not fail to term this Extravagancy and Dotage But seeing we say no more in this matter than what is grounded on Damascen's own Words as it appears by what we related when we treated on the real Belief of the Greeks This Illustration will be sufficient without proceeding any farther to make Insignificant this long
only prove the relative Adoration of Images by the Example of that which is given the Eucharist but likewise by the Example of that which is given to the Cross Sacred Vestments and Vessels If Mr. Arnaud's Consequence be good we must say likewise that the Iconoclastes rendred to all these things a Worship which they acknowledged to be only due to God alone which is not easy to believe It must then be necessarily acknowledged either that the Iconoclastes rejected not absolutely the distinction of the two Adorations the one Absolute and the other Relative or that they acknowledged not the Honour given to the Cross Sacred Vestments and the Eucharist was a real Adoration and there is a greater likelyhood in the last than in the other So that Stephen proves well the relative Adoration of Images by the relative Adoration of the Eucharist and other sacred things but this is not by a Principle common to the Iconoclastes and their Adversaries but only by external Ceremonies which were common to them both and which were variously expounded by both Parties CHAP. XI Several Circumstances relating to the second Council of Nice Examined HAVING thus cleared the Sence of the Council of Nice it 's scarce worth our Enquiry whether this Council was called and held in a regular manner and whether its Conduct was so sincere that there could be no Fault found with it I grant it was assembled in the Year 787. ten Years after Stephen Stylytus's Death if we refer our selves to the anonymous Author who wrote the Life of this Stephen and do thereby acknowledg that according to the best Chronology it cannot be said That after Epiphanus had censured in the Council of Nice the Terms of Figure and Image Stephen Stylite notwithstanding said will you cast out of the Church the Figures of the Body and Blood of Christ Altho Mr. Blondel whom every body knows was very skilful in these Matters of Chronology computed Stephen's Death to have hapned ten Years after this Council of Nice was held Howsoever Mr. Arnaud knows very well that the Bill Epiphanus read was not written before this Council was held that it could not be seen by Stephen and that the Clause therein touching the Rejection of the Term of Image in reference to the Eucharist was not taken out of Damascen's Writings who was Stephen's Contemporary and a Patron of Images as well as he Whence it follows that altho the Writing which was read in the Council condemned the Use of this Term yet Stephen who was engaged in the same Affair as the Author of this Writing made use of it which shews that this Doctrine that the Eucharist is not an Image or Figure was neither the Doctrine of the whole Greeks Chruch nor even that of the whole opposite Party to the Council of Constantinople Now this is the Substance of what I had to say and to which Mr. Arnaud was bound to make reply IN effect it has not been Stephen only who made use of the Term of Figure and believed it to be not Inconsistent with the Doctrine of the Greek Church in reference to the Eucharist Balsamon who lived in the twelfth Century did the same likewise The thirty second Canon say's he of the Council called in Trullo Injoyns the unbloody Sacrifice be made with Bread and Wine mingled with Water because the Bread is the Figure of Christ's Body and the Wine the Figure of his Blood Andrew of Créte as Goar Reports scrupled not to say That our Saviour is Immolated in the Symbols which are the Figures of him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And Nicetas Pectoratus writing against the Latins in the eleventh Century likewise said You eat the Azyme of the Jews as a Figure of our Lords true and living Flesh And again If as you say the Apostles received an Azyme from our Lord and delivered it to you as a Figure of our Lord's Body to be the Mystery of the new Testament c. BUT to return to the Council of Nice it is granted 't was Tarasus who before he accepted of the See of Constantinople obtained a Promise from the Empress Iréne that there should be a Council called but this does not hinder but it may be said That he was not setled in this See till he had obtained from Iréne the Convocation of this Synod But whether it was at his Request or not that Iréne did it it little matters for it is still certain they were agreed in it and this Condition on which he is said to accept of that See shews only that he was far engaged to maintain the Cause of Images and already became a Party Mr. Arnaud cannot deny that Tarasus had already declared himself in the Letter he wrote to Pope Adrian Neither can he any more deny the Pope answered him he would not consent to his Election to the Patriarchate unless he Re-established the Worship of Images All this is expresly contained in Adrian's Letters and thence may justly be concluded that this Person was not at his own Liberty when he presided in this Council and could at farthest be considered only as the Head of a Party which was at that time the strongest as being upheld by the Empress Iréne and her chief Minister Stauracius Now this by good right makes void whatsoever Tarasus did afterwards MR. Arnaud cannot deny but that the two Monks Thomas and John whom the Council ever called The Vicars or Representatives of the Apostolical Sees in the East were sent by some Hermit of Palestine and not by the Patriarchs of Antioch Alexandria and Jerusalem nor by the Consent of the Patriarchal or other Churches Whence it appears this Council could not rightly call it self Universal nor be preferred above that of Constantinople altho so esteemed by the Author of the Perpetuity who tells us as a considerable Matter that all the Patriarchs were there present IT was say's Mr. Arnaud a mere Favour of the Council towards them to Lib. 7. c. 3. p. 715. give them the Place of the Patriarchs If it were a mere Favour of the Council then the Presence of these Men ought not to be made a Ground for the calling this an oecumenical Council and by this means to give it the greater Authority The Author then of the Perpetuity had no reason so loudly to proclame that all the Patriarchs were present at it For it is Absurd to pretend the Patriarchs assisted at it under Pretence there was given by mere Favour the Place of Patriarchs to two Religious who had neither Order nor Mission from these Patriarchs Yet this Favour adds Mr. Arnaud was Ibid. granted on good Grounds seeing no Persons could better supply this Place than those that were competent Witnesses of their Sentiments and were the Bearers of their Synodical Letters But to keep in a Council the Rank of Patriarchs it is not sufficient for Persons to be Witnesses of their Sentiments nor Carryers of their Synodical Letters which the Patriarchs
Judgment and you 'l clear the Difficulty His Testimony is that the Moscovites believe the Bread and Wine are changed into the Body and Blood of Christ which he has denoted by these Terms which is to say that they believe the bread to be changed into the Body of Jesus Christ and the Wine into his Blood His private Judgment is that this may be termed the belief of Transubstantiation which he signifies by these following words They hold Transubstantiation SO that the whole of this Testimony amounts to no more than the change of the Bread into the Body and the Wine into the Blood and his saying that they believe Transubstantiation has no other grounds than his own persawsion that this is in effect a conversion of Substance He does not attribute this to them but under the favour of his that is to say They hold Transubstantiation says he that is to say the Bread is changed into the Body of Christ and the Wine into his Blood THIS that is to say explains what he means and punctually determines what the Moscovites hold If to change and transubstantiate are one and the same thing his Proposition must be received in its full extent if they are not the Change belongs to the Moscovites the Transubstantier to the private sence of M. Olearius We then respectfully receive his Testimony without the least question of his sincerity but as to his particular Judgement we hope he will be so equitable as to lay no necessity upon us to receive it For should we judge otherwise then he has done he will have no just cause to be angry Neither had he any reason to be offended Answer to the Perp. Part 3. C. 8. at the Answer I made the Author of the Perpetuity That 't is very likely he was mistaken by false conjectures and that having heard of the change of Bread he imagined this was the change of Substance which is the same thing I say now The distinction which I make between his Testimony and his Judgment is grounded on his own proper Terms and the liberty which I pretend to have of rejecting the one and receiving the other is no more than what common Justice will allow me I can therefore see no reason for his stuffing his Letter with rough and passionate expressions which agree not well with the Character he bears and which I suppose he has learned of the barbarous People he has so long conversed with Why would he have us believe the change of Bread into the Body is the Transubstantiation of the Latins seeing we find on the contrary that this is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Greeks of which expression we have so often already manifested the sence The Moscovites follow the Greek Religion we grant the Greeks say the Bread is changed the Moscovites affirm the same the Question is only whether to change is the same as to transubstantiate Now I have plainly displayed the difference betwixt these two Terms in reference to the Greeks we must then conclude the same in respect of the Moscovites It appears from M. Olearius his own Relation what we are to conclude touching his exactness For in the same place where he tells us the Moscovites believe Transubstantiation he adds that the rest of the consecrated Bread serves for Panis Benedictus Now this would be a great impiety to make this the proper Substance of the body of Christ but even in this he is mistaken for what serves amongst these People for Panis Benedictus is only the Remains of the Bread from whence is taken the great Particle which is afterwards consecrated and called the Body of Jesus Christ and not the Remains of the consecrated Bread BUT to oppose against the private Judgment of M. Olearius something yet more precise I need only here relate what the Author of the Relation of the three Ambassages of M. Carlile wrote on this Subject 'T is the Testimony of an Honorable Person who lived a considerable time in those parts and since M. Olearius who wanted neither Judgment Sincerity nor Curiosity to inform himself and us touching the belief of these people in reference to Transubstantiation without the least regard to the Dispute between Mr. Arnaud and my self as having no other design then that of Relat. of the Ambas of M. Carlile discovering the Truth Moreover says he I could not find by 'em what Olearius mentions namely that they hold Transubstantiation and there are three Reasons inducing me to believe thty are not of this Opinion For first when we discourse with them touching the Consequences of this Doctrine they testifie their dislike of it and to maintain it fly not to the Almighty power of God as the Roman Catholicks do 2. 'T is more then probable that if they believed Transubstantiation they would respect this Mystery more than they do and it would be very strange that in so superstitious a Religion as theirs is they should be behind hand in Zeal and Devotion especially in a particular wherein it ought chiefly to appear as we see it does amongst those of the Church of Rome In fine had they that Opinion which Olearius attributes to them they must have it from the Greeks from whom they have received their Doctrines But we do not find the Greeks were of this Opiwion Let Mr. Arnaud then himself judge whether he may reasonably expect to prevail by means of Mr. Olearius his Explication WE come now to the Testimony of Paysius Ligaridius but having already considered it in the foregoing Book we shall trouble our selves no farther with him 'T is not to be doubted but the same thing may be done in Muscovia as in Greece that is to say there may be persons brought in and settl'd there who finish'd their Studies in some of the Seminaries erected for this purpose 'T is certain whosoever shall address himself to these Persons who are not only bred up in the Church of Rome and sworn to observe it's Confession of Faith but sent on purpose to communicate it to others prevailing by means of their Ignorance whether soever they be whether in Muscovia or Greece their Testimony shall not be wanting But every body knows the Value of them Let us pass on then to the Moscovite Priest that accompanied not long since the great Dukes Ambassador to his Majesty of France who after Dinner as 't is say'd at the Arch-Bishop of Sens was desired to declare what the Moscovites held concerning the Eucharist There may be several considerable Reflexions made on this Relation but not to enter into particulars I say the Testimony of this Person is not sufficiently Authentick to decide our Question We have already seen by Mr. Olearius his Relation that the Moscovit Priests are so ignorant in general that there is scarcely any amongst them can give an account of their faith or knows the Religion professed in other Countries These are two Characters that do not well agree with the use
which Mr. Arnaud would make of this Priest For to determine whether Transubstantiation be an Article of the Moscovite Religion it ought to be known on one hand what it is the Latins call Transubstantiation what they say and believe of it and on the other what the Moscovite Religion asserts touching the Eucharist 'T is no hard matter to make an ignorant Priest that speaks of a change of Bread into the Body of Christ believe thaâ— he acknowledges a Transubstantiation But not to wander from the point in hand there is all the likelyhood in the World that that which passed at the Arch-Bishop of Sens is a meer Illusion To judge of it we need only attentively consider the Expressions of the Relation which Lib 12. P. 75. Mr. Arnaud has produced After Dinner they withdrew into the Arch-Bishops Chamber where we began to Discourse them touching the different Customs of their Church touching their Patriarchs Communion with the other Grcek Patriarchs concerning Fastings Caelibacy Prayer their Liturgy c. But in fine the Arch-Bishop desirous to come to the main Point of which he was most desirous to be informed prayed the Interpreter to tell him word for word what he was going to demand having laid this strict charge on the Interpreter he desired them to tell him their Opinion concerning the Sacrament of the Eucharist The Moscovite Priest answers without the least haesitation which a little surprized us for he had hither to stood as it were upon his Guard as if he had feared the engaging too far in some point of Controversie lest he might thereby endanger his Reputation That it was the real Body and Blood of Christ and that after the Priest had uttered these words of our Saviour this is my Body the Bread is changed into the Body of Christ and having said the same in respect of the Cup the Wine is changed into his Blood When the Interpreter had said this the Arch-Bishop bad him tell him exactly word for word what the Priest had told him The Interpreter told the Moscovite Priest what the Prelate desired whereupon he repeated the same words the second time by the Interpreter And for as much as he expressed that the Bread and Wine were transubstantiated into the Body and Blood of Christ he was asked whether the Moscovite Priest used a word which in his Language had the force of that of Transubstantiated in ours He replyed yes and repeated the Moscovite word which signifies this in looking on the Priest and Secretary who both of them made Signs that this word was proper in their tongue and signified a change of Substance THE result of this Discourse is 1. That the Priest said 't was the real Body and Blood of Christ and that the Bread was changed into the Body of Jesus Christ and the Wine into his Blood 2. That he repeated only the same words the second time 3. That the Interpreter added that the Bread and Wine are transubstantiated 4. That it was the Interpreter that profest the Moscovite word had the force of that of Transubstantiation 5. That for a farther Confirmation touching the force of the Word he required the Priest's and Secretary's consent by a bare look without speaking to them 6. That the Priest and Secretary answered him by a sign without speaking 7. That this sign signified this word was proper in their Tongue and signified a change of Substance IT is to be observed that this Interpreter was a Monk not of the Moscovite Religion but the Roman and of the order of Jacobins and that he explained in French what the Moscovites said in his Language and in Moscovit what M. the Arch-Bishop of Sens said in French for the Moscovites understood no more the French than the French the Moscovit Upon this remark which is beyond controul for 't is a matter of Fact well known throughout all Paris I desire Mr. Arnaud to tell me why this Interpreter having returned the Answer of the Moscovite Priest which he twice repeated in the same Terms without any Alteration when he had I say given it in these words the Bread is changed into the Body of Jesus Christ and the Wine into his Blood wherefore did he add that the Bread and Wine were transubstantiated Wherefore when he was asked whether the Priest used a Word which in his Tongue had the force of Transubstantiation did he demand by a bare look the consent of the Priest and Secretary to the Yes which he answered seeing the Priest and Secretary who understood not French neither understood the Transubstantiated which he added nor the Question put to the Interpreter nor the Yes he answered Do they in Muscovia speak by sings or were they agreed before hand that this look should signifie transubstantiated How could the Priest and Secretary answer to that which they did not understand why by signs and why must this sign which answered a very obscure Question signifie Transubstantiation Certainly we are but sorry people here in the West in comparison of these Moscovites that can treat of one of the most important Articles of Religion by signs and nodds without knowing the point in question had Mr. Arnaud and I learnt this Secret our Dispute would not be so tedious Now if this be not delusory I know not any thing that I can call by that name 'T IS certain the Moscovites profess to follow the Greek Religion although they have in some sort altered it Which I told the Author of the Perpetuity and this I did not assert upon light grounds although Mr. Arnaud is pleased to say I did seeing I said no more than what he himself acknowledges This is a common Principle to us both 't is true we draw hence different consequences but as matters are now stated and cleared any man may easily judge which of us two has best grounded his Sentiment I said likewise that Lasicius affirms the Armenians although they deny Transubstantiation yet do reverence the Sacrament more religiously than the Russians whence I drew this Conclusion that 't was not likely the Answer to the P. 3. C. 8. latter of these who are more cold in their Devotion should extend their Belief farther than the others and that the others should have more respect for a Substance of Bread than these should have for what they esteemed the proper Substance of the Son of God I know not what could oblige Mr. Lib. 5. C. 4. P. 448s Arnaud to say That it is scarcely to be imagined how many Disguisements and Falsities there are in this Argument I designed no more by all this than the drawing of a just Consequence from a True Principle 'T is certain that Lasicius say's two things the one that the Armenians of Leopolis deny the Bread and Wine lose their Nature In Sacramento Eucharistae elementa Naturas suas amittere negant These are his words the other Joan. Lazic Relig. Arm. that they reverence the Sarcament more religiously than
own accord to forsake it than to be forced to it by a considerable number of Authoritys I confess this acknowledgment of Mr. Arnauds is praise-worthy but this confident Assertion of the Author of the Perpetuity is not so for altho a retractation is a vertuous effect yet methinks a man ought to be sparing in this particular But to go on with our Proofs THE Second shall be taken from the Testimony of Pope John 22. The Historian Raynaldus relates that in his time not only the Armenians which dwelt in Cilicia and Armenia embraced the Doctrines of the Roman Church but those also that were driven out by the Saracens and were withdrawn into Chersonnesus Taurique submitted themselves to the Bishop of Capha who was a Latin That he received them in the name of the Roman Church That the Pope thereupon congratulated them and shewed them that in the Divine Mysteries the substance of Bread and Wine were changed into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ and that there ought to be mingled some Water with the Wine before it be consecrated He afterwards produces this Popes Letter to the Arch-Bishop and Armenian Priests which were in the Diocess of Capha We have receiv'd says Pope John great satisfaction in Understanding how the Almighty Creator displaying his virtue in you has enlightned your minds with the Knowledge of his saving Grace and in that you have vowed to keep the Catholick faith which the Holy Roman Church truly holds which she faithfully Teaches and Preaches and that you have promised Obedience to the Roman Prelate and his Church in the presence of our Reverend Brother Jerome Bishop of Capha And therefore we earnestly desire that holding the saving Doctrines of this Church you likewise observe its Ceremonies especially in what relates to the most excellent of the Sacraments which is the ineffable Sacrament of the Altar For altho all the other Sacraments confer sanctifying Grace yet in this is contained intirely Jesus Christ Sacramentally under the species of Bread and Wine which remain the Bread being Transubstantiated into the Body of Jesus Christ and the Wine into his Blood Then he tells them they must mingle water with the wine in the Chalice because this mixture is a Commemoration of our Lords Death and of the Blood and Water which gushed out from his side 'T is evident that this Pope applyes himself only to these two Articles because the Armenians held neither of them and that in reference to them it was a new Doctrine and Ceremony in which they had need to be instructed For to what purpose should Transubstantiation be recommended to them if they before held it for a fundamental point of their Ancient Religion Why must all the other points of Controversy between the two Churches be laid aside as that of the Procession of the Holy Spirit the two Natures of our Saviour Christ Purgatory Confirmation and several others to stick wholly to Transubstantiation and the mixture of Water The thing declares it self MR. Arnaud who is of all men in the World the most ready at proofs makes one of this The Pope says he so little distrusted the Armenians believed not Transubstantiation that altho he proposes it to them expresly yet he Lib. 5. Ch. 6. p. 469. does it only occasionally and by way of principle to assert the Wine ought to be mixt with Water And this last particular is that to which he particularly applys himself and which is the Capital or Summary of his Letter whereas had he had the least thought that the Armenians believed not Transubstantiation he would without doubt have set about proving it and that with more care and earnestness than he does the mixture of Water in the Chalice MR. Arnaud must pardon me if I tell him 't is not true that the Pope does only occasionally mention Transubstantiation and by way of principle to establish the mixture of Water Raynaldus who relates this affair gives a better account of it than he ipsos instruxit says he ut in divinis mysteriis substantia panis et vini integris speciebus cum Christi corpore et sanguine commutaretur et vino consecrando aqua modica affundenda esset I believe I do not do ill in opposing against Mr. Arnaud's Illusion a truth attested by an Historian that faithfully relates the matter without the least regard to our dispute Moreover what can be more unreasonable than to say as Mr. Arnaud do's that the Pope proposes Transubstantiation only occasionally and by way of Principle to establish thereby the putting of Water into the Cup What Relation is there between these two things it do's not follow from the believing of Transubstantiation that Water must be put in the Chalice nor that those which do not do it oppose this Doctrine These are two distinct points which have their Proofs apart without any Coherence or mutual dependence and there cannot be perhaps any thing imputed to a Pope less beseeming the Dignity and Infallibility of the Head of the Church than to make him argue after this manner The Bread and Wine are Transubstantiated therefore you must put Water into the Chalice Mr. Arnaud ought to be more careful of the Honour of this Prelate and observe that Transubstantiation and the mixture of Water are not in his Discourse a kind of Principle and Conclusion this would be Ridiculous but a Doctrine and Practice which the Pope recommends to the Armenians to the end they may be henceforward conformable to the Roman Church in the subject of the Sacrament of the Altar and thus Raynaldus understood it who has been more sincere in this than Mr. Arnaud As to that minute observation that the Pope do's more insist on the mixture of Water than on Transubstantiation it is not worthconsidering for this proceeds not from the cause Mr. Arnaud imagins but only from the Popes declaring to the Armenians the mystical significations of this mixture which required some Discourse and which Raynaldus has well observed whodistinguishesthesethree particulars in the Popes Letter Transubstantiation the Mixture of Water and the mystical significations Ipsos instruxit ut indivinis mysteriis substantia panis vini integris speciebus cum Christi corpore sanguine commutaretur vino consecrando aqua modica affun denda esset acdivina ea re adumbratra mysteria aperuit that is to say he taught 'em the Doctrine of Transubstantiation the mixture of Water and shewed them the mysteries represented by this mixture MY third Proof is taken from the information which Benedict XII Successor to John the XXII caused to be made touching the Errours of the Armenians not at Rome as Mr. Arnaud has asserted through a mistake of which inadvertency were I guilty how severe would he be upon me but at Avignon where he kept his seat and whence his Bull is dated The 67 Article Raynauld ad Ann. 1341. is exprest in these Terms The Armenians do not say that after the words
of Consecration the Bread and Wine are Transubstantiated into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ Born of the Virgin who suffered and rose again But they hold that this Sacrament is a representation a resemblance or a figure of the true Body and Blood of our Lord. And this some of the Armenian Doctors have particularly asserted to wit that the real Body and Blood of Jesus Christ are not in the Eucharist but that it is a representation and a resemblance of them They say likewise that when our Saviour instituted this Sacrament he did not Transubstantiate the Bread and Wine into his Body but only instituted a representation or a resemblance of his Body and Blood and therefore they do not call the Sacrament of the Altar the Body and Blood of our Lord but the Host the Sacrifice or the Communion One of their Doctors called Darces has written that when the Priest says these words this is my Body then the Body of Jesus Christ is Dead but when he adds by which Holy Spirit c. then the Body of Jesus Christ is alive yet has he not expressed whether it be the true Body or the resemblance of it The Armenians likewise say we must expound that which is say'd in the Cannon of their Mass by which Holy Spirit the Bread is made the real Body of Jesus Christ in this sence that by the real Body of Jesus Christ we must understand the real resemblance or representation of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ And therefore Damascen censuring them for this says that the Armenians have this Two Hundred years abolished all the Sacraments and that their Sacraments were not given them by the Apostles nor Greek or Latin Church but that they had taken them up according to their own Fancy MR Arnaud who in looking over his Raynaldus has met with this clear Testimony yet 〈◊〉 has not been perplexed with it for his invention never fails of finding out ways to shift the force of the most plain and positive truths and to turn them to his own advantage He tells us that after an exact search into the cause which might move Guy Carmes to impute this Error to the Armenians he at length found it in this information which Pope Benedict the XII ordered to be drawn up He adds that if this Original has been known to the Ministers yet they have found greater advantage in standing by the Testimony C 9. 348. 485. of Guy Carmes then in ascending up to this Source BUT all this Discourse is but a meer Amusement For when Mr. Arnauds conjecture should be right it would not thence follow Guy Carmes his Testimony were void and the Ministers had no right to alledge him nor that the Information aforementioned do's impute to the Armenians those Doctrines which they have not There is great likelyhood that Guy Carmes made not this information his rule for besides that he say's nothing of it he reckons up but Thirty Errours of the Armenians whereas the information computes 'em to be about One Hundred and Seventeen But supposing it were so all that can be concluded thence is that in the Fourteenth Century the truth of the things contained in this act was not questioned but past for such certainties that the Writers of those times scrupled not to make them the Subject of their Books And this is all the use which can be made of Mr. Arnaud's Remark BUT howsoever what can be said against an act so Authentick as that of Benedict's which was not grounded on uncertain Reports but on the Testimonies of several Persons worthy of credit Armenians or Latins who had been in Armenia and whom the Pope would hear himself that he might be ascertain'd of the Truth TO know of what weight or Authority this piece is we need but read what the Pope wrote on this Subject to the Catholick or Patriarch of Armenia Raynald Ibid. We have long since says he been informed by several Persons of good credit that in both the Armenia's there are held several detestable and abominable Errors and that they are maintained contrary to the Catholick Faith which the Holy Roman Church holds and teaches which is the Mother and Mistress of all the Faithful And altho at first we were unwilling to credit these reports yet were at length forced to yield to the certain Testimony of Persons who tell us they perfectly understand the state of those Countries Yet before we gave full credit we thought our selves Obliged to make exact search of the Truth by way of judiciary and solemn information both by hearing several witnesses who likewise told us they knew the state of these Countrys and taking in Writing these their Depositions and by means of Books which we are informed the Armenians do commonly use wherein are plainly taught these Errors He says the same in his Letter to the King of Armenia and in his information 't is expresly said that the Pope caused these Witnesses to appear personally before him and gave Raâ—nald Ibid. them an Oath to speak the truth of what they knew concerning the Doctrines of the Armenians that these Witnesses were not only Latins that had been in Armenia but Armenians themselves and that the Books produced were written in the Armenian tongue and some of those were such as were in use in both the Armenia ' s I think here are as many formalities as can be desired and all these circumstances will not suffer a man to call in question the truth of those matters of fact which are contained in this act YET will not Mr. Arnaud agree herein He says that in this monstrous heap of Errors there are several senceless extravagant and Socinian Opinions Lib. 5. C. 9. P. 4â—4 That therein Original Sin the Immortality of the Soul the Vision of God the Existence of Hell and almost all the points of Religion are denyed That therein are also contrary Errors so that 't is plain this is not the Religion of a People or Nation but rather a Rapsody of Opinions of several Sects and Nations I confess there are in these Articles several absurd Opinions and some that differ little from Socinianism but this hinders not but they may be the Opinions of a particular People The Pope expresly distinguishes in his Bull three sorts of Errors contained in his information some that are held in both one and the other Armenia others which are held only in one Armenia and the third which are only held and taught by some particular Persons And this distinction is exactly observed in the Articles themselves in which the Particular Opinions are Described in these terms quidam or aliqui tenent as in Article CVI. Quidam Catholicon Armenorum dixit scripsit quod in generali Resurrectione omnes homines consurgent cum Corporibus suis sed tamen in Corporibus eorum non erit Sexuum discretio And in the CVIII Article Aliqui magni Homines Armeni Laici dixerunt
fall who separate from the Raynaldus ibid Numer 18. Church of Rome That innovators howsoever have no reason to glory in the Antiquity of their Heresies nor bragg for the seducing of the weak that the Armenians and other Eastern People have the same sentiments with them For altho they hold some of these Errors yet do they not admit them all but differ from the Armenians in very considerable matters That the Divine justice is rather to be admired which has permitted the Armenians infected with these Errors to fall under the power of the Barbarians This is not a proper place to Answer Raynaldus in 't is sufficient he acknowledges the Armenians did in effect hold all these Doctrines which are attributed to them in the act of Benedict in the instructions of Clement and consequently that they deny'd Transubstantiation and the real Presence WE may then reckon as a IV Proof the testimony of Raynaldus together with that of Pope Clement's and the Catholick of Armenia's The 5th shall be taken from Pope Eugenius IV. who in the instructions he gave to the Armenians in the Council of Florence forgot not the Article of Transubstantiation the form says he of this Sacrament consists in our Saviours words by which he compleated this Sacrament The Priest speaking in the Eugen. ad Calcem Concil Flore◠Person of our Saviour Christ do's the same For by the virtue of these words the substance of Bread is changed into his Body and the substance of Wine into his Blood so that Jesus Christ is intirely contain'd under the species of Bread and Wine and is intire under each part whether of the Consecrated Host or Consecrated Wine even when the species are separate Mr. Arnaud say's 't is not usual to propose Capital Points of Controversie in this manner That they are not tackt to the Tail of other Articles nor are so lightly passed over but considered established and strengthened But Mr. Arnaud forgets how the Pope established and strengthened the addition of the Filioque to the Symbol which he injoyn'd them to receive altho a controverted Point How did he confirm the Article of the two Natures in Jesus Christ but by giving them the definition of the Council of Chalcedon and the Letter of Pope Leo Upon what Reasons did he ground the Article of the Remission of Original sin in Baptism when the Armenians were guilty in this Point of a Capital Error as appears by the information of Benedict XII What Proofs did he bring to shew 'em that the Consecration of the Eucharist is made by the words of our Saviour when the Armenians believ'd the contrary as we may see in the same information These kind of Remarks which are usual with Mr. Arnaud have neither light nor Solidity in them Eugenius is excusable let Mr. Arnaud say what he will he thought it no wise necessary to insert common Places in his Decretal nor to be so scrupulous in observing Heads or Tails like such as view the Dragon in the Firmament He design'd only to give the Armenians the form of Doctrine which they ought henceforward to hold in reference to the Points wherein he believed they erred according to the report of the Bishop of Pamiez in the Passage I have related Now the Article of Transubstantiation being expresly mention'd therein 't is a sign the Armenians did not believe it CHAP. IV. Testimony of several other Authors that affirm the Armenians deny Transubstantiation and the real Presence THE Sixth Proof which I bring to confirm the Truth of the Proposition I defend is taken out of Authors of the Roman Communion who have bin so far from questioning Guy Carmes's Testimony that they have on the contrary followed and confirmed it by their suffrages We may reckon in this number Thomas Waldensis a famous Author of the fifteenth Century and a zealous Defender of Transubstantiation who writing against Wicliff calls the Armenians Nepotes Berengarii Berengarius his Children or Disciples I mention 'em says he to the end we may have a care of ' em And therefore also Guy Carmes speaking of them says that the Twenty Second of their Errors is that after the Consecration Thom. Vald. Tom. 2. Cap 30. the Body of Jesus Christ is not really under the species of Bread and Wine but only in Representation and Figure That Jesus Christ did not really Transubstantiate the Bread and Wine into his Body and Blood but only in Resemblance and Figure PRATEOLUS a Dr. of Divinity that lived about an Hundred Prateolus Elench haeret pag. 63. in Armen art 12. years since testifies the same thing They deny says he speaking of the Armenians the true Body of Jesus Christ to be contain'd really in the Sacrament of the Eucharist under the Species of Bread and Wine BZOVIUS an Historian of our time and a continuer of Baronius has Bzoviusad an 1318. Num 16. not scrupled to follow Prateolus in this Point He observes as well as he for the Twelv'th of their Heresies That the true Body of Jesus Christ is not under the species of Bread and Wine in the Eucharist IODOCUS Coccius a Cannon of Juliers in that confused heap of Coccius Thes Cathol tom 2. pag. 601. Collections he has made of passages out of the Fathers touching controverted Points follows Guy Carmes and relying on his Testimony assures us That the Armenians deny the Eucharist to be the real Body and Blood of Christ affirming it to be only a sign thereof THOMAS à Jesu who has made strict inquiry into the Opinions of the Schismatical Eastern Churches has thought as well as others he Thomas à Jesu Lib. 7. part 1. C. 17. ought not to deviate from the sentiment of Guy Carmes nor that any man has Reason to doubt of the Truth of his Testimony He relates and approves it and says That the Armenians deny the true Body of Jesus Christ to be really contained in the Sacrament of the Eucharist under the species of Bread and Wine Dr. Avily Tom. 1. of Ancient and Modern Heresies p. 349. DR Avily in his computation of Heresies both Modern and Ancient has likewise follow'd Guy Carmes and assured us from his Testimony That the Armenians teach Christ's Body is not really under the Bread nor his Blood under the Wine HOW comes it that these Authors who appear otherwise so zealous for the Interests of the Roman Church have not found out this pretended mistake of Guy Carmes Why should they suffer themselves to be so grosly imposed on or to speak better whence has Mr. Arnaud this extraordinary Revelation how comes he to be better informed than other People WE shall in the following Chapter search into the Grounds of his Opinion and the Proofs he brings only mentioning here several Protestants whose Testimony is the less to be suspected in asmuch as what they wrote was not all design'd for our controversie We have already seen in the Discourse about the Moscovites that
that these People hold so monstrous an Opinion whence comes it that both Ancient and Modern Authors make no mention of it never examined the Consequences of such a Conversion have vehemently argued against the conversion of the Humane Nature into the Divine to shew that 't is impossible and not mentioned a word of this conversion of Bread into the Divinity How happens it the Emissaries never discovered to the World so important a secret never disputed against them on this point nor the Popes ever made them abjure such an absurd Opinion in the reunions made between these People and the Church of Rome Whence comes it the Greeks who have bin mixtwith them since so many ages never reproached 'um with this kind of Transubstantiation about which there may be great Volumes written Mr. Arnaud who is so ready at arguing from the silence of all these People Authors Travellers Emissaries Popes Greeks c. ought to inform us of the reason why not one of 'um has mentioned a word of this pretended change of Bread into the nature of the Divinity ALL this I think should oblige Mr. Arnaud to suspend a while his judgment touching Mr. Picquet's Letter which say's that all the Levantine Christians who are Hereticks and consequently such as have entred into a Confederacy against the Roman Church yet hold as an Article of Faith the real Presence of Jesus Christ and Transubstantiation of the Bread and Wine into the Body and Blood of our Lord. He ought at least to desire him The Contents of this Letter are thus elated by Mr. Arnaud in his 12 Book to consult what they mean in saying there is but one Nature in Jesus Christ and that the Divine one and yet the Substance of Bread to be really changed into the Substance of Christ's Body BUT this ought to oblige him likewise not to draw so lightly his Consequences from several Passages of the Liturgies which are attributed to these People wherein the Eucharist is called the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ and said to be truely this Body and this Blood For besides that these Expressions import not Transubstantiation as I have often proved and shall farther prove in what follows 't is to be considered that we have no certainty that these pieces are real or faithfully Translated seeing that in those few Passages which Mr. Arnaud produces there may be observed a Remarkable difference The Liturgy which is in the Biblictheca Patrum under the Title of Canon generalis Aethiopum mentions that the People say after the Priest has Consecrated Amen Amen Amen credimus confidimus laudamus te Deus noster hoc verè Corpus tuum est We believe it We trust in thee and praise thee O Lord our God this is really thy Body but Athanasius Kircher otherwise relates these words Amen Amen Amen credimus confidimus laudamus te Mr. Arnaud Lib. 5. C. 13. p. 518. O Domine Deus noster hoc est in veritate credimus caro tua We believe thee we trust in thee we praise thee O our God this we believe is thy Flesh in truth In one place the People are made to say they believe that 't is truely the Body of Jesus Christ and here that they believe 't is the Body of Jesus Christ in truth Now there is a difference between these two Propositions for in one the Adverb truely refers to the Body and in th' other to the Faith of the People This alteration is not so inconsiderable but that we may see by this Example that those who have given us this Liturgy which is in the Bibliotheca Patrum have not scrupled to accommodate their Translation as much as in them lay to the sence of the Roman Church and to wrest for this effect the Terms of the Original I never say'd this whole Piece was absolutely fictitious as Mr. Arnaud wou'd make the World believe But only that that passage which speaks of the Elevation of the Host is Answer to the Perp. part 2. C. 8. Lib 5. C. 13. p. 516. a mere Forgery and this we have proved by the Testimony of Alvarez and Zaga Zabo one of which positively denies the Ethiopians elevate the Sacrament and th' other declares they do not expose it 'T is to no purpose for Mr. Arnaud to endeavour to justify this alteration in saying perhaps there be different Ceremonies in Ethiopia that they elevate the Sacrament in some places and not in others that they elevate it in a manner so little Remarkable that it has given Occasion to Alvarez and Zaga Zabo in comparing it with the elevation of the Roman Church to say they elevated it not at all that is they do not elevate it so high as to make it be seen as is usual amongst the Latins 'T is plainly seen these are mere Subterfuges and vain Conjectures Had Alvarez and Zaga thus meant they would have so explain'd themselves and distinguished the Places or the manner of the Elevation whereas they speak absolutely Mr. Arnand do's not know more than these two Authors and were he to correct or expound them he ought at least to offer something that might justify his Correction or Exposition We may confirm the Testimony of Alvarez and Zaga Zabo by that of Montconies a Traveller into those parts who describing the Mass of the Copticks who as every Body knows are of the same Religion and observe the same Ceremonies as the Abyssins say's expresly that they use no Elevation IT is then certain that this Liturgy such as it is in the Bibliotheca Patrum is an altered Piece and therefore 't is inserted in it without any mention whence 't was taken or who Translated it as I already observed in my answer to the Perpetuity Yet forasmuch as the Almighty taketh the crafty in their own Nets there are several things left untouch'd which do not well agree with the Doctrine of Transubstantiation such as for Instance is this Prayer which the Priest makes after the Consecration commemorating say's he thy Death and Resurrection we offer thee this Bread and Missa sive Canon univers Aethiop Bibl. patr tom 6. Cup and give thee thanks inasmuch as that by this Sacrifice thou hast made us worthy to appear in thy Presence and exercise this office of Priesthood before thee Wee most earnestly beseech thee O Lord to send thy Holy Spirit on this Bread and Cup which are the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour for ever Did they understand the Bread and Wine were the Body and Blood of the Son of God in proper Substance would they say to him himself that they offer to him the Bread and Cup in Commemoration of his Death and Resurrection and would it not likewise be impious to desire him to send on this Bread and Cup his Holy Spirit 'T is not to Jesus Christ himself that the Latins do offer his Body and Blood those that believe the Roman reality do not
the two Languages both of Sense and of Faith but that of Faith do's not contradict that of Sense on the contrary Faith receives the Language of Sense without Explication and Figure For whosoever say's the Eucharist is Bread and Wine which our Eyes likewise shew us means 't is real Bread and Wine in Substance for this our Eyes shew us in a most proper and litteral sense If St. Augustin and Bede find some Appearance of contrariety between the Language of Sense which bears 't is Bread and that of Faith which will have this Bread to be the Body of Jesus Christ the difficulty lyes not in the Testimony of Sense as if we need call its truth in question but in the Body of Jesus Christ which being Flesh assumed of the Virgin which suffered the Death of the Cross and was exalted up into Heaven that Bread should be say'd to be this Body This thought may arise say's St. Augustin and Bede after him in the mind of some Persons we know whence our Lord Jesus Christ has taken his Flesh to wit of the Virgin Mary we know he was suckled in his Infancy educated grew up in years suffered the Persecution of the Jews was nayl'd to the Cross put to Death Buried rose the third Day and Ascended into Heaven when he pleased whence he is to Descend to judge both the living and dead and that he is now sat down at the right hand of the Father How then is the Bread his Body and the Cup his Blood They do not say how shall we not believe what our Senses assure us Shall we doubt of the truth of their Testimony On the contrary they suppose this Testimony to be certain and ground the difficulty on the Body of Jesus Christ which cannot be Bread The Explication of the difficulty and the reconciliation of the two Propositions are not built on the Error of the senses nor the Interpretation which ought be given to their Language in saying the Eucharist is called Bread because it appears to be so or because 't was Bread before its Consecration But from the Nature of the Sacraments wherein there are two Ideas both of 'um true the one of our Senses and the other of our Understanding My Brethren say they these things are called Sacraments because we see therein one thing and understand another That which we see has a Corporeal Species that which we understand has a Spiritual Fruit. As if they had say'd as to what concerns our Eye-sight 't is really Bread and Wine but in respect of our Understanding 't is the Body of Jesus Christ So that if there must be any thing figurative in either of the two Propositions it must be in the Language of Faith and not in that of Sense which bears neither Difficulty nor Exposition ALL that we can expect from them say's Mr. Arnaud that is to say from Authors of the seventh and eighth Century is that when they speak of this Mystery according to Faith and Truth they should explain themselves Book 8. Ch. 2. p. 739. according to those Terms which plainly and naturally express it and which imprint the Idea of it in all those which hear them litterally That which may be expected from Persons believing and teaching the Conversion of the Substance of Bread whether it has bin disputed on or no is that they declare it in precise and formal Terms Which I have already shew'd on the Subject of the Greeks by this reason that the Doctrine of the Conversion of Substances determins the general Sence of these Expressions the Bread is made the Body of Jesus Christ the Bread is changed into the Body of Jesus Christ that it gives them a particular Sense and forms of it self a distinct and precise Idea whence it follows that when the question is about teaching of it and a man has directly this Intention he cannot but express it in clear and plain Terms which answer the Idea he has of it and makes thence the same to spring up in the Minds of the Hearers It cannot be denyed but this Conversion and Substantial Presence are of themselves very difficult to be conceived and hard to be believed because all the lights of Nature are contrary to 'um and there is nothing convictive in Holy Scripture to establish ' um How then can a man conceive that a Church which holds 'um or designs to Preach 'um to its People do's not explain it self about 'um at least in precise and formal Expressions Reason forces us to say she ought to endeavor to establish them by the strongest Proofs she was able for supposing the Schools had never disputed concerning 'um and no Person had ever declared against 'um yet Nature itself which is common to all men do's sufficiently enough oppose them to oblige the Church he speaks of to defend them from their Attacks and fortify them against their Oppositions But granting Mr. Arnaud the Authors of the seventh and eighth Centuries were in this respect extremely negligent who can imagine they really intended to teach the Substance of Bread was really converted into the Substance of the Body of Jesus Christ when they express themselves only by general and ambiguous Terms which need so many Commentaries and Supplements BUT say's Mr. Arnaud we have reason to believe that being Men and indued with Humane Inclinations they had that also of abridging their Ch. 2. p. 742. Words and leaving something to be supplyed by them to whom they spake I know several People of a contrary Humour and yet are men as appears by other Humours they have But this Proposition has no other foundation but Mr. Arnaud's Imagination He offers it without any Proof and I may reject it without farther examining it Yet let me tell him that in the Explication of Mysteries of Religion Men are not wont to use these half Sentences unless when they treat of a Point indirectly and occasionally and not when they expresly and designedly fall upon the explaining of what we must know and believe What strange kind of ways then had they in those Times to express themselves only in half Sentences when they design'd to explain the Mystery of the Eucharist This Custom lasted a great while seeing it was so for near two hundred years and who told Mr. Arnaud the Ministers were not now and then tempted to assert things clearly and speak what they thought or at least that the People were not wearyed with continual supplying what was wanting in the Expressions of their Ministers or in fine that none of these Customs were lost Mr. Arnaud complains we make use of Raillery sometimes to refute him but why do's he not then tell us things less ridiculous For to speak soberly to undertake to prove Transubstantiation and the real Presence by the silence of him that teaches on one side and by the Suppliment of him that hearkens on the other is not very rational Yet to this pass may be reduced his manner
Testimony of Honorius D' Autun who attributes it to Bernoldus or Bertoldus Honor. August de Script Eccl. Joan. Morin Exercit. 9. de Diacon cap. 1. pag. 169. col 2. s 5. a Priest of Constance that lived in the time of Henry IV. which was towards the end of the 11th Century This Bernoldus is he that continued the Chronicle of Hermannus Contractus to the Year 1100. and wrote several Tracts in defence of Pope Gregory VII which shews us that his Book cannot be alledged in this Dispute So likewise Morin acknowledges 't was written after the Year 1000. And Menard who will not have Bernoldus to be the Author yet grants he was the Corrector of it and that he put in and Menard Praef. in lib. Sacram. Gregor out what he thought good to make it more according to the relish of the Church in his time Neither shall I insist upon the Liturgy published by Illyricus being a very uncertain piece either as to its antiquity or purity as Menard has observed BUT not to enter into this discussion it suffices me to say that the name of the Body of Jesus Christ attributed to the Eucharist does no wise conclude what Mr. Arnaud pretends which is that 't is the Body of Jesus Christ in proper substance Does he think we have forgot so many illustrations which the Fathers even those of the 7th and 8th Century have given us Isid hisp Orig. lib. 6. cap. 19. De Officii Eccl. lib. 1. cap. 18. Beda Comment in Marc. 14. in Luc. 22. Id. in cap. 6. ad Rom. touching this way of speaking as for instance what S. Isidor says That by the command of Christ himself we call Body and Blood that which being the Fruits of the Earth are sanctified and become a Sacrament And elsewhere The Bread is called the Body of Jesus Christ because it strengthens the Body and that the Wine refers to the Blood of Jesus Christ because it makes the Blood in the Veins Bede holds the same language The Bread and Wine do mystically represent the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ because the Bread strengthens the Body and the Wine produces Blood in the Flesh The same Author on the 6th of the Romans teaches after S. Augustin That if the Sacraments had no resemblance with the things of which they be Sacraments they would not be Sacraments that 't is by reason of this resemblance we give them the names of those very things which they signifie and that as the Sacrament of the Body of Jesus Christ is the Body of Jesus Christ and the Sacarment of his Blood his Blood so the Sacrament of Faith is Faith One of these passages is a thousand times more considerable and decisive of our Question than whatsoever Mr. Arnaud can produce from the Liturgies because these passages are formal explications of these other expressions which attribute to the Eucharist the name of the Body of Jesus Christ and any man of sence will never be prevail'd on by this confused heap of Citations wherein the name of the Body of Jesus Christ or of the Body of our Lord is given to the Sacrament as soon as he shall hear Isidor Bede or some other famous Author of those Ages in question who explains to him these ways of speaking We must rather believe those Authors when they expound themselves than Mr. Arnaud who heats himself to little purpose and would prepossess the world with his own notions and fancies MOREOVER Can Mr. Arnaud imagine the world takes no notice of so many other expressions so frequent in the Liturgies and Authors of these same Centuries mentioned by us which call the Eucharist the Sacrament of the Body of Jesus Christ the mystery of our Lords Body the Sacrament of his Incarnation the Sacrament of his Humanity the mystery of his Humiliation the Sacrament of his Passion the image of his Sacrifice which the Church Celebrates in remembrance of his Sufferings It is certain that these passages wherein we find these expressions are as so many Commentaries that help us to a right understanding of the others whence Mr. Arnaud would draw advantage because 't is very ordinary and natural to give to a Sacrament which is a sign a memorial and an image the name of the thing which it represents according to the observation of S. Isidor himself We are wont says he to give to Images the names of those things which they Isidor Com. in lib. 1 Reg. cap. 20. represent Thus are Pictures called by the name of the things themselves and we stick not to attribute to them the proper name As for instance We say this is Cicero that Salust that Achilles this Hector this the River Simois this Rome altho these are only the Effigies or Pictures of them The Cherubins are heavenly powers and yet these Figures which God commanded to be made on the Ark of the Testament to represent such great things were not otherwise called than Cherubins If a man sees in a dream a person he does not say I saw the Image of Augustin but I saw Augustin altho Augustin in this moment knows nothing of this Vision and Pharaoh said he saw ears of Corn and Kine and not the images of these things 'T IS easie to comprehend the meaning of the terms of Sacrament and Bela hom estiu de temp Dom. 13. Dom. 17. Dom. 24. alibi passim id Expos Alleg. in Cantic Cantic cap. 3. de tab lib. 2. cap. 3. Aug. in Psal 3. Mystery of the Body of Jesus Christ for they signifie that the Bread and Wine are signs or figures that represent the Body and Blood which Jesus Christ assumed for our sakes abasing himself so far as to be our Brother and suffering the Death of the Cross to Redeem us Thus must we understand the title which Bede gives very often to the Sacrament calling it the mystery or the Sacrament of our Lords Incarnation for he means 't is an action wherein by mystical Symbols men represent his Incarnation We cannot give another sense to that which he calls several times the Sacrament or mystery of his Passion for his passion is only therein figured or represented We must then understand by the Sacrament or the mystery of his Body the figure or representation of his Body And in effect what S. Austin said on the third Psalm That Jesus Christ gave to his Disciples the Figure of his Body Isidor expresses in this sort That Jesus Christ gave to Isidor in lib 2. Rog. cap. 3. Bed quest in 2 Reg in Ps 3. his Disciples the mystery of his Body And Bede in two places of his works expresses himself in the same manner as S. Austin that he gave the figure of his Body which shews they took these terms the Mystery of the Body the Sacrament of the Body the Figure of the Body for one and the same thing Now these expressions give us easily to understand what
Christ is truly the gate and house of Refuge that he is truly the Rock and the Fire that he is truly Bread truly a Shepherd truly an Altar that his Incarnation is truly a flame that he which imitates the works of Abraham is truly the Son of Abraham that the knowledg of God is truly a fountain that he that meditates on the Law of God is truly a tree planted by the waters side that Jesus Christ is properly and truly the light that he is Noah in truth TO hinder us from making advantage of these examples Mr Arnaud says That when of two things the one stands for a figurative truth and the p. 780. other serves only for a figure men commonly use the word true and proper when even the term to which 't is joyned is metaphorical Thus adds he We say the Christians be the true Israelites that Jesus Christ is the true Melchisedec that the Church is the true Spouse of Jesus Christ that Jesus Christ is the true Sun the true light the true Vine because that the carnal Israelites were but the figure in respect of the Christians that Melchisedec was the figure of Jesus Christ that the visible Sun is only the image of the invisible Sun which is Jesus Christ that the terrestial Vines represent to us the coelestial one that humane Marriages are the figure of the union of Jesus Christ with the Church And the reason of these expressions is moreover the same as that of others For 't is clear the thing figured contains more truly the quality denoted by the figure which has it only in representation Let a man but read says he moreover the other examples and he 'l find that 't is always the figure which is affirm'd of the thing figured and that the word verè which is thereunto added signifies that this thing figurated does really contain the quality which the figure possesses only in representation and therefore it is that these expressions cannot be changed 'T is said that Jesus Christ is truly a stone that he is truly a door truly the light the true Noah But we do not say the stones the doors the light c. are truly Jesus Christ We say the Apostles are the true Israelites but we do not say the Israelites are truly Apostles 'T is said that a good man is truly a Tree planted by the Rivers side but not that a Tree planted by the River side is a good man We may say then according to this sense that Jesus Christ is truly Bread truly Wine because he possesses by way of exeellency the qualities figured by the Bread and Wine but we cannot say in this sense that the Bread and Wine of the Eucharist are truly the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ because the Bread and Wine do not stand here for a thing figured nor the Body of Jesus Christ for a figure THE first reflection to be made on this discourse is that he refutes and overthrows the Argument which the Doctors of the Roman Church do commonly draw from our Saviours words in the 6th of S. John My flesh is truly meat and my blood is truly drink For if the term of truly may be applied to the thing figured to signifie that it contains by way of excellency the qualities of the figure the meat and drink standing for a figure and the Flesh and Blood of Jesus Christ standing for the thing figured there 's no longer any reason to conclude from these words that the Flesh and Blood of Jesus Christ are meat and drink properly in a literal sense than there would be to conclude from thence that Jesus Christ is literally a Door and a Sun Noah and Melchisedec that a good man is really a Tree and that the Christians are literally Israelites under pretence there 's used in 'um the term of truly When then we shall be offered this expression of our Saviour My flesh is truly meat and my blood is truly drink we need only desire that Mr. Arnaud may be the judg of this difference for what he now said decides clearly the question in our favour IN the second place supposing what he offers were absolutely true yet the consequence which we draw from these examples would for all that be good and solid for 't is sufficient for us to shew that the terms of true and truly comprehend not always a reality of substance and that very often they only signifie a reality of virtue or quality Now this is what apears clearly by these examples 'T is said of Jesus Christ that he is truly a Sun a Stone a Door because the qualities of the Sun of a Stone and a Door are in Jesus Christ and that he has in our respect the vittue of all these things Mr. Arnaud confesses it why may we not then as well say that the Bread of the Eucharist is truly the Body of Jesus Christ by supposing that this Bread hath the virtue and efficacy of it I grant it cannot be said of a figure that 't is truly the original this cannot be unless when we consider it as a meer figure under the respect of a representation only but what hinders us from applying this term to a thing which has all the virtue of another and which will make us feel all the effects of it whether it be otherwise the figure of it or not The Gospel does not contain the substance of the Body of Jesus Christ but only its virtue and yet Etherius and Beatus assert that 't is truly the Body of Jesus Christ What is this Ether Beat. lib. 1. Bread say they which we every day pray for which is ours and which yet we do not receive unless we ask it 'T is truly the Body know ye 't is he himself that is our daily bread Ask it receive it eat it every day Read we the holy Scriptures and we shall find therein this Bread I believe that the Gospel the Scriptures the Doctrine of Jesus Christ are the Body of Jesus Christ For when our Lord says He that eateth not my Flesh nor drinketh my Blood c. Altho these words may be understood spiritually and mystically yet the daily bread which we ask corporally and which is TRULY the Body of Jesus Christ and his Blood is the word of the Scriptures the Divine Doctrine and when we read it we eat the Flesh of Jesus Christ and drink his Blood The Author of the Commentary on the Psalms attributed to S. Jerom has so little believed that the term of truly applyed to the Eucharist when 't is said that 't is truly the Body of Jesus Christ ought to be understood of a truth of substance that he has not scrupled comparing the Eucharist with the words of the Gospel to affirm that its words are more truly this Body I believe says he that the Gospel is the Body of Com. in Psal 147. Jesus Christ his holy Scriptures I say and his Doctrine And
when he says he that eateth not my Flesh nor driuketh my Blood altho this may be understood of the mystery yet the Scriptures the Divine Doctrine is MORE TRULY the Body of Jesus Christ THIS term of truly applies it self not only to a thing which hath the virtue of another and which communicates it to us spiritually such as is the word of the Gospel in respect of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ it applies it self likewise to a thing which is not another but only by imputation Chrysostom speaking of a poor body and calling him a man corrects Chrysost hom 11. in Rom. immediately his expression as if it were not just A man says he or to speak better Jesus Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which his interpreter Brixius has thus rendred Hominem autem seu verius dicam Christum ipsum In effect this correction 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 denotes the sence of Chrysostom is that a poor body is more truly Jesus Christ than a man and yet it cannot be said he is truly Jesus Christ in verity of substance He is only so by imputation inasmuch as Christ our Saviour accepts whatsoever is done to the poor as done to himself S. Hierom in his Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians uses the same term of truly on the subject of the Church altho it be not the Body of Jesus Christ but mystically and morally The Church says he is taken in two respects either for that which has neither spot nor wrinkle and which is TRVLY the Body of Jesus Christ or that which is assembled in the name of Christ without the fulness or perfection of vertues which Claud Bishop of Auxerrus or rather of Turin who was an Author of the 8th Century has inserted word for word in his exposition of the same Epistle The Church says he which has neither spot nor Com. in Gal. c. 1. Beda expl allâ—gor in Tobiam wrinkle and which is TRVLY the Body of Jesus Christ The same expression may be met with in Bede As our Lord says he is the Head of his Church and the Church is TRVLY his Body so the Devil is the head of all the wicked and the wicked are his body and members IN all these examples I now alledged concerning the Gospel the Poor and the Church Mr. Arnaud cannot say that Jesus Christ or his Body stand for a figure nor that these things stand for figured truths For the Body of Jesus Christ is not the figure of the Gospel nor our Saviour the figure of a poor man and the Church to speak properly is not the truth figured by the Body of our Lord. Yet do the Fathers assure us that this Gospel and this Church are truly the Body of Jesus Christ and the Poor are truly Jesus Christ Whence it follows there 's nothing more vain than Mr. Arnauds remark That we cannot say the Bread and Wine of the Eucharist are truly the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ because the Bread and Wine stand not for a thing figured nor the Body of Jesus Christ for a figure On this Maxim the Fathers could not say the Church is truly the Body of Jesus Christ and the Gospel truly this Body nor that the Poor are truly the Lord himself and yet they have said it as well as that the Eucharist is truly the Body Granting Mr. Arnaud one cannot say a figure as a figure is really the thing it self which it represents he can hence conclude no more but this that what the Fathers have said of the Bread of the Eucharist viz. that it is truly the Body of Jesus Christ they did not say this in respect of the Bread being a figure but this does not hinder 'um from saying it on other accounts either inasmuch as that the Bread is accompanied with the whole virtue of the Body or inasmuch as it communicates this virtue spiritually to our souls THERE are so many several respects wherein we may say the Sacrament is the true Body or truly the Body of Jesus Christ without any regard to its substance that 't is matter of real wonder to me Mr. Arnaud should so vehemently urge those terms and pretend 'um to be such a great argument For example those that consider the Heresie of the Marcionites and Manichees who denied our Saviour Christ assumed a true Body and allowed only a phantasm might not they say of the Eucharist that 't is our Lords true Body to signifie it to be the mystery of a true Body and not the mystery of a false and imaginary one such as these Hereticks attributed to him in the same sense as a Roman Catholick who has regard to the false Idea which the Jews form to themselves of a temporal Messias may well say of a Crucifix or another image of our Saviour that this is the true Messias who was to come into the world in opposition to the fantastical Messias of the Unbelievers THOSE that respect the truth of the words of our Saviour who called the Bread his Body might not they likewise say 't is truly his Body not to determine the sense of these words but to establish only the certainty of them and represent 'um true beyond all question in the same sense in reference to prophane persons who scoff at the words of S. Paul who tells us that we are buried with Christ in Baptism and made one and the same plant with him through the conformity of his Death and Resurrection I would not scruple to say that Baptism is truby our death our Burial and Resurrection with Jesus Christ to signifie only that the words of the Apostle are very true being rightly understood SUCH as consider the figures and legal shadows which represented the Body of Christ very imperfectly which gave only a confused and obscure Idea of it and communicated only faintly the virtue of it might not they say in comparing them with our Eucharist that this here is the true Body of Jesus Christ to signifie that it gives us a true lively distinct and perfect Idea of it that it fully communicates it to the hearts of the faithful and makes it fell all the virtues of it in the same sense as Cyril of Jerusalem comparing the ancient figures with our Baptism did not stick to call this here the truth in opposition to the figure Pass we says he from Cyril Hieros Catech. myst 1. old things to new and from the figure to the TRVTH There Moses was sent from God into Egypt here Jesus Christ who was sent from the Father is come into the world There Moses was sent to deliver the people from the oppression of Egypt here Jesus Christ was sent to deliver us from the bondage of sin There the Blood of a Lamb stopt the destroying Angel here the Blood of Jesus Christ the Lamb without spot or wrinkle protects us against the Devils There the tyrant pursued the people to the Red Sea here the Devil pursues us as
himself and howsoever he uses it that we may well say he loses both his time and his pains WOULD we really know what has been the sentiment of the ancients the way to be informed is not to take passages in a counter sense and captiously heapt up one upon another but to apply our selves to the testimony of the Ancients themselveâ— produced sincerely and faithfully some of which are these TERTULLIAN Those of Capernaum having found our Saviours Tertull. de resur car c. 37. discourse hard and insupportable as if he design'd to give them TRVLY his Flesh to eat To manifest to 'em the means he uses for the procuring us salvation were spiritual he tells them 't is the Spirit that quickens ORIGEN There is in the New Testament a letter which kills him that Origen hom 7. in Levit. does not understand spiritually the meaning of it For if we take these words in a literal sense if you eat not my Flesh and drink not my Blood THIS LETTER KILLS S. ATHANASIUS The words of our Saviour Christ were not carnal Athanas in illud si quis dixerit c. but spiritual For to how few persons would his Body have been sufficient and how could he be the food of the whole world Therefore he mentions his Ascension into Heaven to take them off from all carnal thoughts and to shew them he gave his Flesh as meat from above heavenly food a spiritual nourishment EUSEBIUS of Cesarea Our Saviour taught his Disciples that they must understand SPIRITVALLY what he told them concerning his Flesh Euseb lib. 3. de Theol. Eccles cap. 12. and Blood Think not says he to 'em that I speak of this Flesh which I now have on as if ye were to eat it nor imagin that I enjoyn you to drink this sensible and corporeal Blood know that the words I speak to you are spirit and life THE Author of an imperfect Book on S. Matthew under the name of Author oper imperf in Mat. hom 11. S. Chrysostom If it be a dangerous thing to transfer to common uses the sacred Vessels wherein THE TRUE BODY OF JESUS CHRIST is not contained but the MYSTERY of his Body how much more the vessels of our body which God has prepared as an habitation for himself S. AMBROSE The shadow was in the Law the IMAGE is in the Ambros lib. 1. de officiis c. 48. Gospel THE TRUTH IS IN HEAVEN The Jews offer'd anciently a Lamb an Heifer now Jesus Christ is offer'd he is offer'd as a man as capable of suffering and he offers himself as a Priest HERE IS THIS DONE IN A FIGURE but at the Fathers right hand where he intercedes for us as our advocate THIS IS PERFORMED IN TRUTH S. AUSTIN Before the coming of Christ the Flesh of this Sacrifice Aug. contr Faust lib. 20. cap. 21. was promised by Victims of Resemblance In the Passion of Jesus Christ this Flesh was given BY THE TRUTH IT SELF After his Ascension it is celebrated BY A SACRAMENT OF COMMEMORATION IN another place You shall not eat THIS BODY WHICH YOU Aug. in Ps 98. SEE nor drink this Blood which those that are to crucifie me will shed I have recommended to you A SACRAMENT if ye receive it spiritually it will quicken you AGAIN elsewhere The Body and Blood will be the life of every one Aug. Serm. 2. de ver Apost of us if we eat and drink SPIRITUALLY IN THE TRUTH IT SELF that which we take VISIBLY IN THE SACRAMENT si quod in Sacramento visibiliter sumitur in ipsa veritate spiritualiter manducetur Spiritualiter bibatur THE Author of the Commentary on the Psalms attributed to S. Jerom Hieronym Com. in Psal 147. Altho what Jesus Christ says He that eateth not my Flesh nor drinks my Blood may be understood in reference to the Mystery yet the word of the Scriptures the Divine Doctrine IS MORE TRULY the Body of Jesus Christ FACUNDUS The Bread is not PROPERLY the Body of Jesus Facundus def trium capit l. 9. Christ nor the Cup his Blood but they are so called because they contain the mystery of them RABAN Of late some that HAVE NOT A RIGHT SENTIMENT Raban in paenitent have said of the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of our Lord that 'T IS THE BODY it self and Blood of our Saviour born of the Virgin Mary OECUMENIUS The servants of the Christians had heard their Oecumen in 1 Pet. cap. 2. Masters say that the Divine Communion was the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ and they imagin'd that 't was INDEED flesh and blood CHAP. IX That the Fathers of the Seventh and Eighth Centuries held not Transubstantiation nor the Substantial Presence WE may judg by these passages which I now alledged as from a sampler what has been the Doctrine of the ancient Church in General That of the 7th and 8th Centuries in particular will soon discover it self upon the least observation WE shall not find therein either substantial Presence or conversion of substance nor existence of a Body in several places at once nor accidents without a subject nor presence of a Body after the manner of a Spirit nor concomitancy nor adoration of the Eucharist nor any of those things by which we may comprehend that the Church in those times believed what the Roman Church believes in these WE shall find on the contrary as I have already observed that the Greg. Mag. Isidorus Beda Haymo alii passim Beda in Ep. ad Heb. c. 7. Idem in Ps 3. in quest in 2 Reg. cap. 3. in Marc. 14. Carol. Mag. ad alcuin de Septuagint Isidor in alleg Vet. Test Idem Orig. lib. 7. Idem Comment in Genes cap. 12. Idem Comment in Genes c. 23. Authors of those Ages commonly called the Eucharist The mystery of the Body of Jesus Christ the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ the figure of Christ's Body which Bede calls the image of his Oblation which the Church celebrates in remembrance of his Passion Who in another place assures us That the Lord gave and recommended to his Disciples the figure of his Body and Blood And Charlemain to the same effect That he broke the Bread and delivered the Cup as a figure of his Body and Blood WE shall therein find that this Sacrament or figure is Bread and Wine properly so called without any equivocation The Sacrament says Isidor of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ that is to say the Oblation of Bread and Wine which is offered throughout the whole world Elsewhere Melchisedeck made a difference between the Sacraments of the Law and the Gospel inasmuch as he offered in sacrifice the Oblation of Bread and Wine Again in another place Jesus Christ is a Priest according to the order of Melchisedeck by reason of the Sacrament which he has enjoyned Christians to celebrate to wit the Oblation of Bread and Wine that
is to say the Sacrament of his Body and Blood The multitude of Corn and Wine says he in another place is the multitude which Jesus Christ gathered to the Sacrament of his Body and Blood BEDE explaining how the Church has every day our Saviour with Beda Expos alleg in Sam. c. 5. Idem Expos alleg in Prov. lib. 3. c. 31. Idem de Taber lib. 2. c. 2. Idem Hom. est in Vigil S. Jo. Bapt. her says 'T is because she has the Mysteries of his Flesh and Blood in the Wine and Bread elsewhere applying to the Church what Solomon says of the virtuous woman that she eats not her bread in idleness She eats not says he her bread in idleness because receiving the Sacrifice of our Lords Body she carefully imitates in her actions what she celebrates in his Ministry taking care lest she eat our Lords Bread and drink of his Cup unworthily The ancients says he moreover celebrated our Lords Passion by which both they and we have been redeemed by the blood and flesh of Sacrifices and we celebrate it by an Oblation of Bread and Wine Elsewhere he assures us That our Saviour has established under the New Testament the same kind of Sacrifice idem sacrificii genus as that of Melchisedeck to be the Mystery of his Body and Blood In his Homily on the Epiphany he says that our Saviour Idem hom de sanctis in Epiphan having abolished the Paschal Lamb has changed the Mystery of his Passion into the creatures of Bread and Wine In his Commentary on the 33d Psalm he applies what is said of David that he changed his countenance Idem Comm. in Psal 33. and he expresses himself in this sort He changed his countenance before the Jews because he converted the Sacrifices of the Law which were according to the Order of Aaron into the Sacrifice of Bread and Wine according to the Order of Melchisedeck In the same place he says That our Saviour carried himself in some sort in his own hands at his last Supper when he gave to his Disciples the Bread which he blessed and which his mouth recommended to them In his Commentary on S. Luke explaining the words of Idem Comm. in Luc. 22. our Saviour This is my Body this my Blood Instead of the flesh and blood of the Lamb says he he has substituted the Sacrament of his Flesh and Blood IN THE FIGURE OF BREAD AND WINE And to shew wherein consists this mystical figuration he adds That our Saviour did himself break the Bread to signifie the fraction he was voluntarily to make of his own Body And a little further The Bread strengthens the Flesh and the Wine creates Blood in our Bodies and therefore the Bread mystically alludes to the Body and the Wine to the Blood WE find in truth says Mr. Arnaud the language of sense in the Authors Book 8. Ch. 4. p. 75 5. of these Ages as well as in those of the following They could not exempt themselves from using it whatsoever their opinion was otherwise But to judg of that which they had in effect we must consider what they tell us of the Eucharist when they explain to us what they believe of its nature and essence when they do not design it but teach what it is when they do not only denote to us the matter which God has chosen but tell us what God does in this matter when they do not speak of it according to the impressions of sense but according to the sentiments of Faith To make in the sense of the Authors in question a solid opposition between the language of sense and that of Faith it ought to be made appear that according to them these two languages justle one another that they cannot be both of 'em true in the main and that that of sense is deceitful and illusory if taken according to the letter But this is that which Mr. Arnaud does not demonstrate We know our senses tell us that 't is bread we know their deposition is literal for 't is literally and without a figure that our senses tell us that the Eucharist is Bread and Wine As often then as we find the Fathers of the 7th and 8th Centuries speaking according to sense reason will guide us to the understanding of their language according to the letter unless we are shew'd that according to these same Fathers our Faith must correct this language that she declares it to be false being taken according to the letter and does not allow of it unless under the favour of an interpretation and a figure Were this shew'd us I confess then we ought to lay aside this language of sense as being very improper for the discovering to us the true opinion of Authors But till then we have liberty to take it according to the purport of the senses themselves which is to declare to us that the Eucharist is real Bread and Wine For unless it be shew'd us that those who have used it had an intention contrary to that of their senses we ought to suppose they have had even no other than that for we must ever suppose in favour of nature and the general rule That if afterwards there be met with in the expressions of Faith something that seems contrary to those of sense 't is more reasonable to attribute a figure to the language of Faith which can well bear it than to that of sense which naturally cannot suffer it So that comparing these two kinds of expressions Bread and Wine Body and Blood of Jesus Christ one with the other we must ever take the first in a literal sense and the second in a figurative one unless as I said we are shew'd the contrary by some express declaration TO make likewise an exact opposition between the matter of the Eucharist and its essence or nature it must first be shew'd that this matter does no longer subsist but ceases to be in the very moment wherein the Eucharist is made For if it subsists it makes one part of the essence or nature of the Sacrament to wit the material part and we shall always have right to use for our advantage the passages which call the Sacrament Bread and Wine altho they design the marter of it seeing this matter subsists Now of these two suppositions either that the matter subsists or does not subsist that which affirms it subsits is natural in favour of which by consequence we must always prejudicate till such time as the contrary is establisht by good proofs I say that the supposition that the matter subsists is the natural one First Because that in all the changes which happen in the world there is ever a common subject which subsists it being never heard of that there was ever made a change of one thing into another where the whole substance of this first thing has absolutely ceased to be Philosophy can give us no instance of this and even miracles wrought
by the Almighty Power of God furnish us not with any Secondly All the changes wrought by Grace leave the matter still subsisting There 's made according to the Scriptures and Fathers a new Heaven and a new Earth a new Creature and a new Man A Temple is made of a House an ordinary Man is made a Bishop a Stone an Altar Wood or Metal a Cross Water and common Oyl Sacraments without the matters ceasing to be IT subsists on the contrary in all these instances If then we may not draw advantage from the expressions of the Fathers which call the Eucharist Bread and Wine under pretence they design thereby the matter of it we must be shewed that according to these Fathers themselves this matter subsists not after the Consecration for otherwise we shall still naturally suppose that the Fathers delivering themselves with an honest plainness and far from the prospect of our Controversie have regarded this matter as subsisting BUT supposing what I now said signifies nothing 't is certain the passages which I produced which design the matter of the Sacrament do of themselves establish the subsistence of it for they all consider it after the Consecration and speak of it as being still the same as it was before to wit Bread and Wine They say that 't is an Oblation of Bread and Wine an Oblation of the same kind as that of Melchisedeck Bread and Wine which are the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ Bread which the Church eats Bread with which is celebrated our Lords Passion as the Ancients Celebrated it by the flesh of Victims Bread that came in the room of the Paschal Lamb to be the mystery of Christ's Passion Bread which has succeeded Aarons Sacrifices Bread which our Lord held in his hands after he had blessed it and by means of which he did in some sort carry himself to wit inasmuch as he held in his hands his own Sacrament Mr. Arnaud's Remark might take place did they only say that the Body of Jesus Christ is made of Bread or that the Bread becomes and is made this Body for then one might dispute whether the Bread be made this Body either in ceasing to be Bread or in remaining so But speaking in the manner I now mention'd calling it Bread after the Consecration according to the language of sense which naturally admits not a figure and without correcting or explaining themselves is a sufficient evidence they meant 't was real Bread in substance YET let us see what they say of the Eucharist when according to Mr. Arnaud they design not the matter but expound the nature and essence of it Besides what I already said that they commonly call it the Mystery of the Body of Jesus Christ the Sacrament of this Body the Figure of this Body the Image of his Sacrifice the Sacrament of his Incarnation the Sacrament of his Humanity the Mystery of his Humanity the Mystery of his Humiliation Besides this I say 't is certain they often explain themselves in such a manner that they establish a formal distinction between the Sacrament and Jesus Christ himself represented by it and leave it to be plainly concluded they held not this substantial Presence which the Church of Rome teaches IT is in this sense that Gregory the first Bishop of Rome who lived towards the end of the 6th Century and about the beginning of the 7th wrote That this Mystery reiterates the Death of Christ and altho since his Gregor Mag. Dialog lib. 4. cap. 58. Resurrection he dies no more Death having no more dominion over him yet being IN HIMSELF alive immortal and incorruptible he is still Sacrificed for us in the MYSTERY of the Sacred Oblation ISIDOR recites a prayer inserted in the Liturgy of his time which desires of God That the OBLATION being sanctified may be made CONFORMABLE Isidor de Offici Eccles l. 1. c. 15. to the Body and Blood of Christ Brevil's Edition has these words Vt oblatio quae Domino offertur sanctificata per spiritum sanctum corpori Christi sanguini confirmetur but this has no sense and 't is evident we must read conformetur as Cassander rightly observes who thus recites it Vt oblatio quae Domino offertur sanctificata per spiritum sanctum corpori Christi sanguini conformetur NOW howsoever we understand this conformity 't is certain it supposes a formal distinction between the Body and Blood of Christ and the Oblation of the Eucharist whence it appears that the sense of the then Church was not to desire of God that the substance of Bread might become the proper substance of the Body for this would be not a conformity but an intire and perfect identity IT is in the same sense that Bede expounding these words of the 21th Psalm The poor shall eat and be satisfied makes a difference between the Beda Comm. in Psal 21. Bread and Wine of the Sacrament and the true Body or Blood of Christ for he introduces our Saviour Christ speaking thus The poor that is to say those who despise the world shall eat of my Vows They shall really eat of them in reference to the SACRAMENT and shall be eternally satisfied for by this BREAD AND WINE which are visibly offer'd to 'em they will understand ANOTHER INVISIBLE THING to wit the TRUE BODY AND BLOOD of our Lord which are really meat and drink not such as fill the belly but which nourishes the mind And in his allegorical expressions on Esdras speaking of the Passover which the Israelites celebrated In Esdr lib. 2. cap. 8. after their return from the Babylonish Captivity The immolation says he of this Passover represents the glory of our Resurrection when we shall eat altogether the Flesh of the immaculate Lamb I mean of him who is our God and our Lord no more IN A SACRAMENT as Believers but IN THE THING IT SELF AND IN THE TRUTH as Spectators SHOULD we proceed further we shall find that these same Authors acknowledg but one true manducation of the Body of Jesus Christ to wit that which is particular to the Faithful and which necessarily and only communicates Life and Salvation whence it follows they knew not of this oral manducation of the substance of this Body which is common as well to the wicked as the good and will not be necessarily attended with Salvation It is on this ground Isidor says That the Flesh of Jesus Christ is the food of the Saints of which if any one eats he shall never die And in another place It is the Living and Celestial Bread the food of Angels with which the Word nourishes corruptible men after an incorruptible manner He was made flesh and dwelt amongst us to the end men might eat him Isidor in Gen. cap. 1. Idem in Exod. c. 23. Beda in Genes Exod. Exposit in Exod. c. 12. and that such as do it may live spiritually WE read the same words in Bede
Idem in Joan. lib. 6. cap. 34. come by the presence of my Divinity by which I shall be with you to the end of the world He retired from them says he again as to his manhood Ibid. cap. 35. but as God he did not leave them For the same Christ who is man is likewise God He left them then as to his manhood but remained with 'em as to his Godhead He went away in reference to that by which he is but in one place yet tarried with 'em by his Divinity which is every where LET Mr. Arnaud reflect if he pleases on these passages and on I know not how many others like 'em with which his reading will furnish him and tell us faithfully seeing on one hand there 's not to be found in Authors of the 7th and 8th Centuries either Transubstantiation or a presence of substance or any natural consequences of these Doctrines and seeing on the other so many things to be met with in them contrary thereunto as those I now mention'd whether he believes 't is likely we shall by the force of his preparations suppositions reticencies and supplements acquiesce in his Assertion that the then Church held constantly and universally as he speaks the Real Presence and Transubstantiation 'T is certain we must offer great violence to our minds and after all when we have endeavoured to imagin what Mr. Arnaud would have us we shall never be able to accomplish it We must imagin says he Christians persuaded that by the Lib. 8. cap. 2. p. 737. words of the Consecration the Bread and Wine were effectually changed into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ This Doctrine was known distinctly by all the faithful I know not where Mr. Arnaud has found any of these fanciful people that are able to persuade themselves what they list As to our parts we are not such masters of our imaginations and in an affair of this nature he must pardon us if we tell him that we cannot fancy a thing to be true when it appears so plainly to us to be false BUT lest he should again accuse us as indocible we 'l see what he has to offer us from these Authors of the 7th and 8th Centuries when they expound the nature and essence of the Eucharist S. Isidor says he calls Lib. 8. cap. 4. p. 755 756. the Eucharist the Sacrament of Christ's Body and if we desire to know in what manner 't is the Sacrament of it he 'l tell us That the Bread we break is the Body of him who says I am the living Bread He further adds That the Wine is his Blood and is the same meant by these words I am the true Vine But he should not suppress what he likewise immediately adds But the Isid lib. 1. de Offic. Eccles cap. 18. Bread is called the Body of Jesus Christ because it strengthens the body and the Wine alludes to the Blood of Christ because it produces blood in our flesh These two things are visible yet being sanctifi'd by the Holy Spirit they become the Sacrament of this Divine Body Is this the language of a man that believes a real conversion of substance HE expresly asserts says moreover M. Arnaud that this Body of Christ Ibid. which we receive in the Eucharist and of which we are deprived when 't is taken from us is the Flesh of Christ concerning which 't is said If ye eat not the Flesh of the Son of man nor drink his Blood ye have no life in you and that this is the Body the truth the original represented by the shadows and types in the Old Testament I answer that S. Isidor supposes we eat the Flesh of Christ in the Eucharist which is true He likewise supposes that if we eat not this Flesh we remain deprived of Salvation and this is moreover true From whence he concludes men ought not to abstain long from the use of the Sacrament because a total neglect of this means which Christ has ordained for the eating of his Flesh and drinking his Blood will put us in danger of being wholly deprived of them for without eating and drinking this Flesh and Blood there is no hope of salvation This is Isidor's sense whence there can be nothing concluded in favour of the Thesis which Mr. Arnaud defends For we spiritually eat our Lord's Flesh in the due use of the Sacrament and 't is this manducation which S. Isidor speaks of as appears from what he there says Manifestrum est eos vivere qui corpus ejus attingunt And as to what he asserts that this is the Body the Truth the Original represented by the ancient Figures we grant it but deny it ought to be hence concluded that the Sacrament is the Body it self of Jesus Christ in substance I have sufficiently elsewhere discoursed in what manner the ancient types related to our Sacraments and those that please to take the pains to read the first Chapter of the third part of my Answer to Father Nouet will find there if I be not mistaken enough to satisfie 'em in that particular BEDE adds Mr. Arnaud says that the creatures of Bread and Wine Ibid. are changed through an ineffable virtue into the Sacrament of his Flesh and Blood This is one of the expressions which arises from the nature of the Sacrament But what does it signifie in this Author He tells us in these following words And thus says he the Blood of Christ is no more shed by the hands of Infidels for their ruine but received into the mouths of the faithful for their salvation But this is a very weak objection The sense of Bede is that the Blood of Jesus Christ is received by the mouths of the Faithful because they receive the Wine which is the Sacrament of it Which is the meaning of this term And thus sicque for he shews in what manner the mouths of the Faithful receive the Blood to wit inasmuch as they receive the Sacrament of it Gregory the Great said before Bede in the same sense That we drink the Blood of the Lamb not only with the mouths of our bodies but with the mouths of our hearts Quando sacramentum passionis Greg. Mag. Hom. 22. in Evangel illius cum ore ad redemptionem sumitur ad imitationem quoque interna mente cogitatur When we receive with our mouths the Sacrament of his Passion and inwardly apply our selves to imitate his great Saviour I shall elsewhere in its due place examine what Mr. Arnaud alledges touching Amalarius Florus Drutmar and some other Authors of the 9th Century Contemporaries with Paschasus It only remains for the finishing of the discussion of the 7th and 8th to answer some slight Observations which he has made on a passage in the Book of Images which goes under the name of Charlemain's The Author of this Book will not have the Eucharist be called an Image but the Mystery or Sacrament of the Body
Ch. 4. That most of the expressions which the Ministers pervert against the Real Presence and Transubstantiation are naturally of kin to this Doctrine The equity says Mr. Arnaud of this Consequence is apparently visible For why must these terms subsisting in Authors that lived since the seventh Century with the persuasion of the Real Presence be inconsistent with this Doctrine in the six preceding Ages And why must not nature which has put later Authors upon making use of them without prejudice to their sentiment produce the same effect in the first Ages And in fine what difficulty is there in understanding these terms of the Fathers of the first Ages in a sense that contradicts not the Catholick Doctrine provided this sense be found authoriz'd by the consent and practice of the ten following Ages Reflection Mr. ARNAVD seeming to forget the distinction which the Author of the Perpetuity made and which he himself has sometimes used concerning a natural language and one that is forced will not I suppose take it ill if I remember him of it and use it against his pretended Consequence There is a difference between the expressions which the Fathers use on the subject of the Eucharist and the same expressions in Authors of later Ages The last borrowing sometimes the expressions of the Fathers have at the same time declared themselves in favour of Transubstantiation or the Real Presence the former have done nothing like this The first have left their expressions in the full extent of their natural sense without any mistrust of their being abused The last have commonly restrained and mollified them by violent expositions and such as are contrary to their natural sense as well knowing they may be used against themselves The first have used them indifferently in all occasions because they contained their real opinion but the last have used 'em only accidentally as the necessity of their discourse required The first have likewise used without any difficulty other emphatical expressions which the last dared not use for dare they say for example what Theodoret and Gelasius have said that the Bread loses not its nature or substance dared they say what Facundus said that the Bread is not properly the Body of Jesus Christ but is so called because it contains the mystery of it whence it appears that when they use any of the Fathers expressions 't is by constraint because they must endeavour to accommodate as much as in them lies their stile to the stile of the Ancients whereas the Ancients delivered themselves in a natural manner We must then make another judgment of these expressions when we find them in the Fathers than when we meet with 'em in Authors of later Ages since Transubstantiation has been established There they explain the real Belief of the Church here they are expressions which are endeavoured to be linked with another Belief which is expounded in another manner There they must be taken in their natural signification here in a forced and forein one THE natural sense of these words of Justin Ireneus Cyril of Jerusalem and some others that the Eucharist is not mere Bread common Bread is that it is in truth Bread but Bread that is Consecrated The strained sense of these words is that 't is only Bread in appearance and in respect of its accidents THE natural sense of these words which are frequently used by the Fathers that our Lord called the Bread his Body that he gave to the Bread the name of his Body that he honored the Bread with the name of his Body That our Saviour made an exchange of names giving to the Bread the name of his Body and to his Body that of the Bread Their natural sense is I say that the Bread without ceasing to be Bread has assumed the name of Christ's Body the forced sense is that the Bread takes the name of it because the substance is really changed into the substance of this Body THE natural sense of the passages of the Fathers which assert the Bread and Wine are symbols signs figures images of our Lords Body and Blood is that by the consecration the Bread and Wine are exalted to the glory of being the mystical signs of the Body and Blood of Christ without losing their own nature The forced sense is either that the Body of Jesus Christ is the sign of it self or that the accidents that is to say the appearances of Bread and Wine are signs IT is the same in respect of other expressions of the Fathers which the modern Doctors have endeavoured to accommodate to their stile in giving 'em strained senses and forced explanations which were unknown to the Ancients To take from us the liberty of making use of them we must first be shew'd that the Fathers themselves have taken them in this extraordinary and distorted sense Otherwise we shall still have reason to use them according to their natural and ordinary one CHAP. XI Other Reflections on Mr. Arnaud's Consequences The fifth Consequence HITHERTO we have not found Mr. Arnaud's pretensions very equitable but we may truly say that that which we are now about examining and which is contained in his fifth Consequence is less reasonable than the rest He proposes it in these terms That the Catholicks have right to suppose without any other proofs that the passages of the Fathers are to be understood in the sense wherein they take 'em and that all the Answers of the Calvinists in which they establish not theirs by evident demonstrations are ridiculous and unreasonable THIS proposition being very surprizing and contrary to the true rules of Disputation which do not allow any other right or liberty than what reason and truth afford Mr. Arnaud therefore endeavours to confirm it by a long train of big words and censures full of Authority and with which he has enriched his 5th and 6th Chapters The result of all which amounts only to this That the Dispute being reduced to the expounding of certain terms which the Catholicks take in one sense and the Ministers endeavour to turn into another the Catholicks stopping at the literal signification of these expressions that they take the Body of Jesus Christ for the Body of Jesus Christ and the change of the Bread into the Body of Jesus Christ for the change of the Bread into the Body of Jesus Christ But that the Ministers hereto apply one of their two general solutions or famous keys of virtue and figure so often used by them That in this contest 't is evident that the right of the supposition belongs to the Catholicks The other thing is that the expressions which the Catholicks alledg for themselves have been taken in the sense wherein they use them this thousand years by all Christians in the world That these two qualities reduce this sense into such a point of evidence that nothing but demonstrations can counterpoise them and hinder our reason from acquiescing in them The first Reflection THE first of
and particular or such equivalent ones as may prevent a mans being mistaken in them MOREOVER It cannot be denied that Transubstantiation of it self is a hard matter to be believed and that humane nature is naturally averse to the belief of it What likelihood is there then if the Fathers designed to teach it they should be content with these general expressions which six not the mind being as they are capable of several senses Had they no reason to fear lest humane inclinations would be apt to turn peoples minds on the other side and carry 'em off from the true sense of their words IN fine we need only consider the greatest part of those expressions themselves which are proposed to prejudicate according to appearance that they signifie nothing less than Transubstantiation or the Real Presence For they can no sooner have this sense given 'em but they become immediately difficult and perplexed whereas in taking them otherwise they become easie and intelligible What can there be for example more perplexing than this usual proposition of the Fathers That the Bread and Wine are the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ if a man takes it in a sense of Transubstantiation For what must we conceive by this Bread and Wine Is it real Bread and real Wine They are not the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ Are they the appearances of Bread and Wine How can these appearances be this Body and Blood Is it that which appears to be Bread and yet is not so But why must not that be Bread which appears to be Bread Why if it be not Bread is it called Bread Is it that which was before Bread and Wine But how is that which was before Bread and Wine now the Body and Blood seeing there is no common subject of which we can rationally say that it was before Bread and Wine but now Body and Blood After this rate a man knows not on which side to turn himself whereas if you understand that the Bread and Wine are the Sacrament of Christ's Body you 'l meet with no difficulty for the Sacraments usually assume the names of the things of which they are Sacraments and these ways of speaking create no trouble to amans mind Now when we contend about two senses our reason will lead us to prejudicate in favour of that which is the most easie and less intricate and make us suppose it without proof till such time as it evidently appears that the other altho more difficult yet is the truest COMPARE now I pray our pretension with that of Mr. Arnaud and judg which of the two is the most just and natural He grounds his on two reasons whose strength and truth we question and have already overthrown and I ground mine on Principles which must be granted by both parties and which are apparently conclusive For it cannot be denied but we must prejudicate in behalf of nature of common lights which regulate the judgments of men the manner of the Sacramental expressions and the most easie and least perplexed sense Neither can it be denied that the nature of the Doctrine in question guiding men of it self to explain themselves about it in precise terms and indeed necessarily obliging them by reason of the natural repugnancies of mens minds does not entirely favour this prejudication It is then a thousand times more rational than the other Mr. ARNAVD grounds his pretension on an advantage which we are in possession of as well as he For he says he understands the expressions of the Fathers which are alledged in a literal sense we say the same in respect of those which we alledg but I ground mine on particular advantages to which he cannot pretend Now 't is far more reasonable to establish a particular right on particular advantages than to establish it on a common thing For from that which is common to both parties there can arise no particular privilege The third Reflection ALTHO we have this right to suppose without any other proof that the expressions of the Fathers which the Roman Church alledges in her own favour must be taken in a Sacramental sense and not in a sense of Transubstantiation or Real Presence yet in the answers we make we do not absolutely make use of this right For before we return our answers we establish the real sentiment of the Fathers by authentick passages taken out of their Books so that our Answers be only an application of that which the Fathers themselves have taught us Thus has Mr. Aubertin used them and thus have I used them against the Author of the Perpetuity There is then a great deal of injustice in Mr. Arnaud's proceeding when he produces some of my Answers and offers 'em to be considered dislocated from my proofs whereas they ought only be considered in their reference to these proofs from which they draw their light and strength FOR example when I answered the passage of S. Ignatius taken from Theodoret's Collections which bears That Hereticks receive not the Eucharist Answer to the Perpetuity part 2. ch 2. and the Oblations because they do not acknowledg the Eucharist to be the Flesh of our Lord that suffered for our sins I said that Ignatius's sense was That our Saviour did not adopt the Bread to be his Body as if he had no real Body which was the foolish imagination of those Hereticks as appears by Tertullian ' s Disputes against Marcion but that the Bread is the Sacrament of this true Body which died and rose again This Answer is grounded on the express Declarations of the Fathers which I had already produced and which shew they meant by the term of Flesh or Body of Jesus Christ applied to the Eucharist not the substance of this Flesh but the Sacrament or Symbol of it which is in it self Bread To take this Answer alone separate from the proof which authorises it to declaim afterwards that I return Answers without grounding them on proofs is a thing that is neither honest nor ingenuous Moreover what I said touching these Hereticks believing our Saviour Christ adopted the Bread for to be his Body as having no true Body of his own is grounded on Tertullian's attributing this opinion to Marcion who as every one knows follow'd in this the ancient Hereticks and 't is to no purpose to say That those that taught this ridiculous adoption of the Bread received the Eucharist and that S. Ignatius speaks on the contrary of Hereticks that did not receive it For 't is certain that these ancient Hereticks still retained some use of the Eucharist celebrating it in their manner but did not receive it according to the just and true design of its institution which is to represent and communicate to us the true Flesh of Jesus Christ who suffered death and is risen again because they denied our Saviour assumed real Flesh affirming he appeared in the world only in a phantasm If Mr. Arnaud will contest hereupon besides that I can
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
things FIRST then Mr. Arnaud makes me contradict my self He says That Lib. 6. cap. 4. pag. 550. if it be not true I admitted the confused Belief during ten Ages if I included it in the 9th and 10th it follows that I knew that during eight Centuries the Faithful had a distinct knowledg of the mystery of the Eucharist I acknowledg this Consequence to be just enough But adds he Mr. Claud bethinks himself and finds 't is more for his advantage to grant nothing to the Author of the Perpetuity and even to affirm that during these eight Centuries the Faithful had no distinct knowledg of the Presence or Real Absence Why does Mr. Arnaud call this recollecting a man's self What contrariety is there between these two things Not says he but that there 's an equivocation in all this If there be any equivocation Mr. Arnaud ought not to make a contradiction of it nor say I am at discord with my self But the truth is there is neither equivocation nor contradiction in it for we have already told him that to know distinctly the mystery of the Eucharist is neither to know distinctly the Real Presence nor Real Absence and that there 's a difference in these things To know distinctly the Real Absence in the sense wherein we take this term in this Dispute is to reject formally and by a positive act this invisible Presence as an error But to know distinctly the mystery of the Eucharist is according to us to know clearly that the Eucharist is Bread and Wine as to the substance of it that by Consecration this Bread and Wine are made signs or mystical figures of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ that this signification is grounded on several relations which are between the Bread and Wine and the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ that those who receive these Symbols with Faith and Devotion towards Jesus Christ who died for us and rose again and is reigning in Heaven they spiritually eat of his Body and drink of his Blood that these Symbols are called the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ by a Sacramental way of speech because they do both represent them to our Faith or because there 's a great conformity between them and the things which they represent or because they communicate them to us and several other like Articles In a word to understand the mystery of the Eucharist is to know positively wherein consists the nature and essence of a Sacrament which does not include any distinct knowledg either of the Real invisible Presence or Real invisible Absence I acknowledg 't is not easie to surprize people that are in this capacity nor persuade them that this Real Presence has been ever believed in the Church especially if they have Pastors that are learned and honest who acquit themselves of their Duty and watch diligently over their Flocks But howsoever this is not to understand distinctly the Real Absence in question IN the mean time to the end Mr. Arnaud may no longer equivocate on this subject let me tell him that when we attribute this distinct knowledg of the mystery of the Eucharist to the eight first Centuries we would not be understood either that they had it in a degree always equal and uniform or that all persons who lived in each of those Ages have been equally enlightned We know the light of those Ages was diminished by degrees so that the 7th and 8th had much less of it than the first six We know likewise there has been always in the Church I mean even then when 't was most flourishing a great number of pious Christians in truth but little advanced in knowledg and with them multitudes of prophane worldly wretches who little concerned themselves touching what they believed of the mysteries of Christian Religion IN the second place Mr. Arnaud reproaches me with having done two things which would be strange enough were they true the one that I ill explain'd the Author of the Perpetuity's sentiment and th' other that I granted him in effect whatsoever he pretended to He grounds these two reproaches on that I said somewhere to the Author of the Perpetuity That if Answer to the second Treatise part 2. chap 3. he meant that the Faithful who took the instructions of the Fathers in a metaphorical sense believed Jesus Christ present corporeally in Heaven without thinking on what has been said since that he is at the same time in Heaven and on Earth there after the manner of a Body here after the manner of a Spirit I acknowledged that the Faithful had in this sense a most distinct idea of the Real Absence which is to say they did not at all believe that he was substantially present in the Sacrament applying their whole mind to the presence of his Grace and Merit setting themselves to meditate on his infinite love c. without exerting their thoughts to this presence of substance invented of late by the Roman Church But if by having an idea and distinct belief of the Real Absence that Author meant they knew and rejected distinctly this means of existence of the Body of Jesus Christ on the Altar in multiplying his Presence in several places I affirm'd they had it not at all BUT these two reproaches are without grounds for in respect of the first it appears from what we have seen in the preceding Chapter that the Author of the Perpetuity must have pretended to that which I charge him with to wit that the Faithful have had the distinct idea of the substantial invisible Presence such as the Church of Rome believes and that they formally rejected it as an Error For there 's only this manner of believing the Real Absence which can have place in this Dispute seeing that of the three which Mr. Arnaud has proposed the first as we have seen is impossible and the third useless for the design of the Author of the Perpetuity so that necessarily his sense must fall upon the second which is precisely that which I have attributed to him And as to the second reproach 't is clear that if the Author of the Perpetuity pretended to no more than what I granted him his Argument will fall to the ground for it does not follow from persons not fixing their minds on the presence of an invisible substance such as the Church of Rome teaches and their applying themselves only to meditate on a presence of Grace which is precisely what I grant him it does not hence follow I say that they are led by this alone to reject the Real Invisible Presence as a novelty contrary to the Faith of the Church There needs something more than this I mean there needs greater lights to inevitably effect this rejection For a man must have for this not only the idea of this substantial invisible Presence such as is fancied in the Church of Rome but likewise distinctly know that such a Presence was never taught in the Church For
manner in which the Bread might be the Body of Jesus Christ to wit in Figure aed Virtue In the mean time the doubt against which the Fathers have pretended to fortifie the Faithful is removed by the same Fathers by confirming and several times repeating that the Eucharist is the Body of Jesus Christ without the addition of an explication of Figure or Virtue Whence it follows that the doubt they would take away is not in any wise that which Mr. Claude attributes to three of his ranks For his doubt requires not proofs but illustrations that is to say the question is not to prove the Eucharist to be the Body of Jesus Christ but to explain in what sense this is true Now in all the passages of the Fathers wherein they mention a doubt they are only solicitous to prove that the Eucharist is the Body of Jesus Christ without any elucidation and they prove it by these words Hoc est corpus meum or by these Panis quem ego dabo caro mea est or by the divers examples of the Power of God the Creation of the world the Miracles of the Prophets and by that of the Incarnation I PRETEND not to examin here all the parts of this discourse 't will be sufficient to make some remarks which will clearly discover the impertinency of it First The division Mr. Arnaud makes of the doubts is insufficient for the subject we are upon for he should again subdivide into two the second kind of doubt and say that sometimes those that doubt in being ignorant of the causes or manner of the thing yet do nevertheless acknowledg the truth of the thing it self and hold it for certain altho they know not how it is Thus when a man doubts of the causes of the flux or reflux of the Sea he yet believes that this flux and reflux is true When Divines doubt of the manner after which God knows contingent matters this hinders 'em not from believing he knows them and when they doubt concerning the manner in which the three persons exist in one and the same essence this does not hinder them from believing that they do exist But sometimes the ignorance of the manner makes people doubt of the truth of the thing it self Thus Nestorius not being able to comprehend how the two Natures make but one Person in Jesus Christ doubted of this truth that there were in Jesus Christ two Natures and one Person and not only doubted of it but deny'd it Thus Pelagius because he could not understand how Grace operates inwardly on the hearts of the Faithful rejected this operation We may call this first doubt a doubt proceeding from mere ignorance and the second a doubt of incredulity Secondly Mr. Arnaud takes no notice that the doubt which arises from the inconsistency of these terms Bread and Body so far prevail'd in the minds of some as to make 'em doubt of the truth it self of these words How can this be said they seeing we see Bread and Wine and not Flesh and Blood Who will doubt Cyril Hieros Catech. myst 1. says Cyril of Jerusalem and say 't is not his Blood You will tell me perhaps says the Author of the Book De Initiatis I see quite another thing how will you persuade me I receive the Body of Jesus Christ And the same kind of doubt we have observ'd among the Greeks of the 11th Century in Theophylact Quomodo inquit caro non videtur and in the 12th in Nicolas Methoniensis for he entitles his Book Against those that doubt and say the Consecrated Bread and Wine are not the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ Perhaps says he you doubt and do not believe because you see not Flesh and Blood but Bread and Wine Thirdly Mr. Arnaud takes notice that when we have to do with these kind of doubters who will not acknowledg the truth of the thing it self because they are ignorant of the manner of it we usually take several ways to persuade them sometimes we confirm the thing it self without expounding to 'em the manner altho it be the ignorance of the manner which makes them doubt of the thing Thus our Saviour seeing the doubt of the Capernaits How can he give us his flesh to eat did not set about explaining the manner of this manducation to 'em but opposes 'em by a reiterated affirmation of what he had told ' em Verily verly says he if you eat not the Flesh of the Son of man and drink his Blood you will have no life in you c. Sometimes the explication of the thing and the manner of it are joyn'd together and thus our Saviour dealt with the doubt of Nicodemus How can a man be born when he is old can he enter again into his Mothers womb and be born Verily verily says our Saviour I say unto you unless a man be born of Water and of the Spirit he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God These words do at the same time both confirm and explain But when we have to do with doubters that are only ignorant of the manner without calling into question the truth of the thing then we usually explain only the manner without confirming any more the thing because this alone is sufficient to instruct them and 't is thus the Angel bespeaks the Virgin How said she can this be for I know not a man The Holy Spirit says he shall come upon thee and the virtue of the most high shall overshadow thee therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God TO apply these things to the present occasion I say the Fathers had to do with two sorts of Doubters the one who were only ignorant of the manner how the Bread is or is made the Body of Jesus Christ but yet who held the proposition to be true altho they knew not the sense of it and they are those that make up the third second and fourth ranks in my Answer to the Perpetuity others who went so far as to call in question the truth of the proposition under pretence they understood not the manner of it As to these last supposing the Fathers contented themselves with sometimes confirming their proposition by the words of Jesus Christ who is Truth it self it must not be thought strange the nature of the doubt led 'em to this yet is it true they have always added to the confirmation of the thing the explication of the manner as may be apparently justifi'd by several passages which we have elsewhere cited But when they had only to do with the first sort of Doubters then they contented themselves with explaining the manner without pressing the truth of the words Thus does S. Austin after he had proposed the doubt of those that were newly Baptiz'd How is the Bread his Body and the Wine his Blood make this answer My Brethren these things are called Sacraments because that which we
Body of Jesus Christ the Bread is made the Body of Jesus Christ the Bread is chang'd into the Body of Jesus Christ the Body of Jesus Christ enters into us we receive the Body of Jesus Christ and such like If a man considers each term of these in particular they naturally bring into the mind the idea of what they ordinarily and commonly signifie the Bread that of Bread the Body of Jesus Christ that of the Body of Jesus Christ is that of an affirmation changed that of a change enter and receive that of an entrance and reception But the sense which results from these terms collected being determin'd by the matter in hand can be naturally no other than a mystical sense to wit that the Bread is the Sacrament the sign the pledg the memorial of the Body of Jesus Christ that it serves us instead of it that 't is mystically chang'd into this Body that this Body enters into us by its symbol that we receive and partake of it by a spiritual reception and participation This is the true and natural sense of these expressions and that which first presents it self to the mind by reason of the matter in hand NEITHER the truth of my Principle nor the truth of the application which I make of it can be disputed me The Principle is that when the matter in question determins the propositions to a certain sense which they may reasonably receive then we must not seek for the natural sense of these propositions in the natural signification of each term taken apart but from the matter it self and that the sense to which the matter determins them is the simple and natural sense This Principle may be justifi'd by a thousand examples drawn from the ordinary use of human speech in which is made every moment propositions which would be sensless did not a man take the natural sense of the matter in question Each Art and Profession has also its particular expressions which would be as so many extravagancies were they not understood according as the matter determins them and this is in my opinion what no one can contradict Th' application which I make of this Principle is no less undeniable for 't is true that the expressions of the Fathers on the Eucharist are determin'd to a certain sense by the very nature of the Eucharistical action which is a Sacrament or a mystery of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ Seeing then their expressions are capable of receiving a Sacramental and mystical sense it must be granted that that is the natural sense THE natural sense of a proposition is that which may be most naturally in the mind of him that made it but to judg well of it we must consider the matter and see whether it has not led them to explain themselves in this manner Now it will be granted me that the question here being about signs or mystical symbols and a Spiritual Communion which we have with Jesus Christ men have more naturally in their thoughts the mystical and Sacramental sense than that of Transubstantiation or Consubstantiation BUT besides this distinction which respects the expressions both in themselves and in relation to those that have used them there must be made another which regards the persons to whom these expressions are addressed For there are some that have small knowledg of the matter in hand which know only confusedly what a Sacrament or mystery is who have made little reflection on the manner after which our Lord communicates himself to us in the Eucharist and there are others that have this knowledg more distinct and better form'd Now it being the matter or subject in hand that determins the sense of these expressions 't is certain they are more or less clear more or less intelligible according as this matter is more or less understood by every one But 't is likewise certain that to mark well the natural sense of 'em we must suppose persons who have a distinct knowledg of the subject in question and manner after which the Church has expressed her self about it and not ignorant persons that have only a very obscure notion of it The natural sense of th' expressions of each Art and each Profession is without doubt not that in which those may take it who have scarcely any knowledg of this Art or this Profession but that wherein intelligent and able persons take it and 't is for this reason the later are consulted rather than the others upon any difficulty I confess Religion ought to be the Art and Profession of the whole world but men are neither wise nor honest enough to apply themselves exactly to it It cannot be deny'd but there have been always many persons in the Church little advanced in the knowledg of the mystery of the Gospel 'T is not from them then that we must learn the natural sense of the expressions of the Fathers They might have been the object of their Faith tho not of their Understanding I mean they might believe 'em to be true without diving into the sense of 'em and knowing what they signifie And this is the meaning of S. Austin in his Sermon to Children What ye see says he is Bread and Wine which your eyes likewise tell you but the instruction which your Faith demands is that the Bread is the Body of Jesus Christ and the Cup or that which is in the Cup his Blood This is said in a few words and perhaps this little is sufficient to Faith but Faith desires to be instructed for the Prophet says If ye do not believe how will you understand Ye may reply seeing you have commanded us to believe explain to us what that is to the end we may understand it Whilst these persons remain in this degree of Faith without understanding 't is not to them we must address our selves for the finding out the natural sense of the propositions of the Fathers seeing they do not understand ' em We must desire this of them that are more advanced in knowledg who know what the Church means by these ways of speaking and can give a good account of the natural impression they make on their minds BUT who are these people They are those that learn'd from the Fathers themselves what a Sacrament or Mystery is who knew that a Mystery or Sacrament is when we see a thing and understand and believe another who knew that the Bread and Wine of the Eucharist are signs images figures memorials representations resemblances pictures of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ who knew that the Bread and Wine are to us instead of the Body and Blood that Jesus Christ is signified and communicated to us by means of these symbols and that in partaking of this visible Bread we spiritually eat our Lords Flesh who knew that the signs take commonly the names of the things which they represent that the Sacraments are called after the name of the things themselves that our
between Mr. Arnaud and us Paschasus Ratbert a Religious of Corbie that lived in the 9th Century was according to us the first who taught the conversion of the substances of the Bread and Wine and the Real Presence of the Body of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist He treats of these Points in three different places of his works in his Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord in his Commentaries on the 26th Chapter of S. Matthew and in his Letter to Frudegard Book 8. ch 8. page 36. Mr. Arnaud calls our pretension on this subject a new Hypothesis and a pure work of fancy But adds he as mens fancies are very different that of other Ministers who wrote besore Aubertin turn'd not on this hinge as not thinking 't were their interest to set ' emselves more against Paschasus than other Authors of that Century So that this same Paschasus against whom they pronounce such woes was at first in another course of fancy one of their best friends Henry Boxornius a fnrious and passionate Calvinist asserts that he perfectly well explain'd the Doctrin of the Eucharist and makes him a Calvinist by the common privilege of all the Ministers to make Calvinists of whom they please Hospinien likewise treats him very kindly and takes him for one of the witnesses of the true Doctrin of the Church during the 9th Century Blondel seems not to have any particular quarrel against him but only charges him for following the innovations which he attributes to Anastasius Sinait and the Greeks which he pretends were embraced by Charlemain and the Council of Francfort but does not think of making him an Author of any considerable change in the world IT must be acknowledg'd there is a great deal of rancor and injustice in this discourse First seeing Mr. Arnaud himself affirms that Paschasus taught the Real Presence and Transubstantiation why does he make it criminal in Mr. Aubertin and me to do the same Does the aversion which he has to our persons transport him so far that he cannot endure we should be agreed with him no not in one point I acknowledg that as oft as Mr. Aubertin and I affirm Paschasus taught the Real Presence and Transubstantiation we do at the same time add that he was an Innovator wherein we are at odds with Mr. Arnaud But why may we not at least agree with him in one Point if we cannot in more Let him oppose us as oft as he will touching th' innovation of Paschasus we shall not dislike it for he maintains his own sentiment but let him give us leave to tell him that Paschasus also taught the Real Presence and Transubstantiation seeing that herein we say nothing but what he himself asserts and all Roman Catholicks with him SECONDLY 't is not generally true that those who wrote before Mr. Aubertin did not acknowledg that the Doctrin of Paschasus was the Real Presence and Transubstantiation The Author of the Orthodox Treatise Page 479. touching the Eucharist Printed at Lyons in the year 1595. expresly mentions that Paschasus laid the foundations of Transubstantiation and Consubstantiation Mr. Le Faucheur says he taught that the Eucharist Lib. 9. Ch. 6. was the proper Body and the proper Blood of Jesus Christ residing substantially in the Bread and Wine Du Plessis ranks him amongst those that Book 4. of the Sacrament pretended in the Mass ch 8 have proposed a contrary Doctrin to that of the Fathers and the Church And long before them Berenger himself attributed to Paschasus the Doctrin of the conversion of the substances as well as we Sententia said he according Lanfranc de Corp. Sang. Dom. to Lanfranc imo vecordia vulgi Paschasi atque Lanfranci minime superesse in altari post consecrationem substantiam panis vini BUT 't is needless to cite Authorities when the point concerns a matter which may be clear'd by reading Paschasus himself He that takes pains to read exactly his Book De Corpore sanguine Domini his Commentaries on the 26. of S. Matthew and his Letter to Frudegard will find First That he held and taught the substance of the Bread and Wine was changed absolutely into the same Flesh which is born of the Virgin which died and rose again altho the colour and savor of Bread and Wine still remains Secondly That he held and taught that the Flesh of Jesus Christ enters into our flesh and that as he has joyn'd our substance to his Divinity so he will have his substance to be in our flesh Thirdly That he held and taught that the words of Jesus Christ This is my Body must be understood neither of the figure of his Body nor his Body in the Sacrament nor of his Body in virtue but of his Body born of the Virgin Crucified and Risen in propriety of nature Fourthly That he disputed as strongly as he could against those that held the contrary Fifthly That there were made against his Doctrin such objections as naturally arise from the Real Presence such as the Roman Church does at this day believe it to be Sixthly That he endeavoured to answer these objections on the Hypothesis of the Roman Church IT hence methinks very clearly results that Paschasus held and taught the same Real Presence and the same substantial conversion as Gregory VII and Innocent III. establish'd since in the Latin Church and that this truth cannot be call'd in question Yet must what I observed in my answer to the Perpetuity be remembred that the Book De Corpore Sanguine Domini does not every where contain the Doctrin of the conversion of substances in a manner so express or uniform but that there are here and there several passages which seem at first to favour the subsistence of the Bread and several others that are capable of a Sacramental sence or may be turn'd to the union of the Bread with the Divinity acording to Damascen's Doctrin Mr. Arnaud must grant me this seeing he sometimes alledges Paschasus his expressions t'elude such kind of ones which are to be met with in the Fathers Now hence it has hapned that several Protestants having been deceiv'd by these passages have reckon'd this Author amongst the number of those that held not Transubstantiation But their error having sprang from the want of attentive examining the depths of his Doctrin Mr. Arnaud does not do right in drawing hence advantage against those that have entred into a more exact scrutiny of him especially considering that this opinion justifies it self by the bare reading of Paschasus his Writings and that this is moreover Mr. Arnaud's own sentiment and that also of his whole Church WE need only now see whether Paschasus in teaching the Real Presence and Transubstantiation has been an Innovator that is to say whether he first taught a Doctrin which no body ever before him did teach Mr. Arnaud affirms that according to my proper Principles this would be impossibly human His reason is
conformable to these words of Jesus Christ This is my Body nor to these others The Bread which I shall give is my Flesh nor to these He that eats my Flesh and drinks my Blood dwells in me and I in him Let but Mr. Arnaud read Paschasus his Text and he 'l find what I say to be true Jesus Christ says he did not say this is or in this mystery is the virtue or figure of my Body but he has said without feigning This is my Body S. John introduces likewise our Lord saying the Bread which I shall give is my Flesh not another than that which is for the life of the world And again He that eats my Flesh and drinks my Blood dwells in me and I in him Vnde miror adds he quid velint c What can be concluded hence for the novelty of this solution of virtue IN fine Frudegard himself says moreover Mr. Arnaud to whom Paschasus Page 857. wrote about the latter part of his life to remove some doubts he had on this mystery may serve further to confute the falsity of Mr. Claude ' s fable who pretends no body could have the idea of the Real Presence unless he took it from Paschasus his Book Dicis says Paschasus to him te sic antea credidisse in libro quem de Sacrament is edidi ita legisse sed profiteris postea te in libro tertio de doctrina Christiana B. Augustini legisse quod tropica sit locutio Mr. Arnaud will have these words Dicis te sic antea credidisse to denote that the Doctrin of the Real Presence was the Faith in which he had been brought up and that the following Et in libro quem de Sacramentis edidi ita legisse denote that the reading of Paschasus his Book had confirm'd him in it But who knows not that in these kind of discourses the Particle Et is very often a Particle which explains or gives the reason of what was before said and not that which distinguishes as I have already observ'd in another place He would only say that before he thus believed it having so read it in Paschasus his Book And that Mr. Arnaud's subtilty might take place he must have said not that he had thus believ'd it before but thus believ'd it from the beginning in his youth that he afterwards thus found it in Paschasus his Book who had confirm'd him in his belief but that afterwards he had found in S. Austin that 't was a figurative locution In this manner he had distinguish'd the three terms of Mr. Arnaud whereas he distinguishes but two antea and postea and as to the first he says he had thus believ'd it and thus read it in Paschasus his Book denoting by this second clause the place where he drew this Faith AND these are Mr. Arnaud's objections but having examin'd them 't will not be amiss to represent the conclusion he draws from ' em I do not believe says he that having considered all these proofs seriously one can imagin that Paschasus in declaring the Eucharist to be the true Flesh of Jesus Christ assum'd of the Virgin has proposed a new Doctrin Neither can I believe that amongst the Calvinists themselves any but Mr. Claude will be so obstinate as to maintain so evident a falsity and one so likely to demonstrate to the world the excessive boldness of some of their Ministers Thus does Mr. Arnaud wipe his Sword after his victory Can you but think he has offered the most convincing proofs imaginable oblig'd us to be everlastingly silent and that the Minister Claude must be a strange kind of a man seeing he alone of all his party will be able to harden himself against such puissant demonstrations and clear discoveries CHAP. IX Proofs that Paschasus was an Innovator I SAID in the preceding Chapter that the best way to be informed whether Paschasus has been an Innovator was to search whether those that went before him and wrote on the same subject have or have not taught the same thing as he has done I repeat it here to the end it may be considered whether after the discussion which Mr. Aubertin has made of the Doctrin of the Ancients and what I have wrote also thereupon either to the Author of the Perpetuity or Father Noüet or Mr. Arnaud we have not right to suppose and to suppose as we do with confidence that no body before Paschasus taught the conversion of the substances of Bread and Wine or substantial Presence of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist Whence it follows he was the first that brought this new Doctrin into the world BUT besides this proof which is an essential and fundamental one we shall offer several others taken from the circumstances of this History which do much illustrate this truth The first of this rank is taken from Paschasus himself 's acknowledging he moved several persons to understand this mystery Altho I wrote nothing worth the Reader 's perusal in my Book Epist ad Frud which I dedicated cuilibet puero I had rendred these words to a young man because that in effect his Book was dedicated to Placidus Mr. Arnaud would have it rendred to young people this is no great matter yet am I inform'd that I have excited several persons to understand this mystery Now this shews that before his Book came forth his Doctrin was unknown whereunto we may also add the passages wherein he declares how the Church was ignorant of this mystery as we have already observ'd TO judg rightly of the strength of this proof and to defend it against Mr. Arnaud's vain objections we should first shew what kind of ignorance and intelligence Paschasus here means For Mr. Arnaud has wonderful distinctions on this subject Ought not Mr. Claude to know says he that besides Book 8. ch 10. p. 860. this knowledg common to all Christians which makes 'em believe the mysteries without much reflection there is another clearer one and which is often denoted in S. Austin by the word intelligence which does not precede but follows Faith as being the fruit and recompence of it sic accipite sic credite says this Father Vt mereamini intelligere fides enim debet proecedere intellectum ut sit intellectus fidei proemium As then all Christians believe the mysteries they believed likewise all of 'em the Eucharist in Paschasus his time in the same manner as we believe it which is to say that they all believ'd the Real Presence and Transubstantiation but they had not all of 'em an understanding of it that is to say they had not all considered this adorable Sacrament with the application which it deserves That they did not all know the mysteries contained in the symbols the relations of the Eucharist with the Sacraments of the ancient Law the ends which God had in appointing them those that have right to partake of 'em the dispositions with which
if it appears on the contrary that they have express'd themselves on the Eucharist quite otherwise than he has done if one party of 'em have formally declared themselves against his Doctrin I see no reason why any man should still obstinately maintain that Paschasus has said or wrote nothing but what the Church of his time believed and taught with him FIRST 't is certain we shall not find the Authors of that Century altho they were not inconsiderable for their number and almost all of 'em wrote something on the Eucharist have delivered themselves on so great a subject in the manner Paschasus has done neither in respect of the sense nor terms Let any man shew us for example they have asserted that the substance of the Bread is converted into the Body of Jesus Christ in such a manner that it does not any longer remain altho the savour and colour still remain or taught that the substance of the Flesh of Jesus Christ enters into our Body that what we receive from the Altar is nothing else but the same Flesh which was born of the Virgin which died and was buried and that 't is this Flesh in propriety of nature or have said that this Flesh of the word pullule this is the expression Paschasus uses which is to say that it multiplies it self and that this multiplication is made in the Sacrament and yet the same Flesh of Jesus Christ and that yet he remains wholly entire Let any one shew us any thing like this in these Authors Mr. Arnaud ought to have employed himself in this instead of expatiating as he has done upon vain arguments Twenty whole Chapters will not so well satisfie rational persons as twelve clear passages out of Authors of the 9tth Century did they contain the same Doctrin which Paschasus has set down in his Writings for this would shew the conformity there was between him and his Contemporaries and at the same time discharge him from the accusation of novelty which we lay against him But there is no danger of Mr. Arnaud's taking upon him this task because he knows 't is impossible to acquit himself well of it IN the second place 't is certain these Authors have not only not spoke of the Eucharist as Paschasus has done but on the contrary have spoke of it in a very different manner from his whence we may easily collect that his Doctrin agreed in no sort with theirs I shall begin with Walafridus Strabo whose words may be seen more at length in my answer to the Perpetuity We shall find him thus speaking That Jesus Christ has establish'd Answer to the second Treatise part 3. ch 2. the Sacraments of his Body and Blood in the substance of Bread and Wine That our Saviour has chosen the Bread and Wine to wit the same species which Melchisedec offered to be the mystery of his Body and Blood That instead of this great diversity of Sacrifices which were in use under the Law the Faithful must be contented with the simple Oblation of Bread and Wine Mr. Arnaud may talk as long as he pleases that these are expressions which do naturally link themselves with the belief of the Real Presence Which is what we deny him These expressions do naturally signifie nothing else but that the Sacrament is real Bread and real Wine and if any use these kind of expressions in the Church of Rome they do it merely by constraint to accommodate themselves in some sort to the expressions of the Ancients Mr. Arnaud again tells us that Walafridus says That the mysteries be really the Body and Blood of our Lord. But we have already several times told him that Walafridus explains himself in the same place and refers this really to the virtue not the substance of Christs Body which also appears from the title of his Chapter which is De virtute Sacramentorum FLORVS an Author of the same Century who has wrote a kind of Florus magister in Exposit Missae Commentary on the Liturgy says That the Oblation altho taken from the simple fruits of the Earth is made to the Faithful fidelibus the Body and Blood of the only Son of God After which borrowing the words of S. Augustin he says That the Consecration makes us this Body and this mystical Blood And the better to explicate what he means by this Body and this mystical Blood he adds That the Creature of Bread is made the Sacrament of the Flesh and Blood of Jesus Christ that 't is eaten Sacramentally that it remains wholly entire in Heaven and is so in our hearts And again a little further Whatsoever is done in this Oblation of the Body and Blood of our Lord is a mystery We see therein one thing and understand another what we see has a corporal species what we understand has a spiritual fruit What he says of this mystical Body and Blood which he explains afterwards by the Sacrament of the Flesh and Blood of Jesus Christ in referring to this alone the effect of the Consecration sufficiently denotes he had not in his view either change of substance or any Real Presence The opposition likewise which he makes of Jesus Christ eaten in parts in the Sacrament to himself who remains entire in Heaven and who enters entire into our hearts does no less denote it for to what purpose is this distinction If our Saviour Christ be really in the Sacrament is he not eaten entire in the same manner in our hearts and wholly entire in Heaven The former words that whatsoever is done in the Eucharist is a mystery wherein we soe one thing and understand another testifie the same thing for what is this thing which we see but the Bread and Wine and what is this other which we understand but the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ which are the object of our understanding He explains himself immediately afterwards The mystery says he of our Redemption was Wine according to what our Saviour himself says I will drink no more of this fruit of the Vine And again Our Lord recommends to us this mystery saying Do this in remembrance of me which the Apostle explaining says As often as yee eat of this Bread and drink of this Cup yee shew forth the Lords Death till he comes The Oblation then of this Bread and this Cup is the Commemoration and annunciation of the Death of Jesus Christ That which is most considerable is his making this Commentary on the very words of the Consecration without adjoyning a word either of the conversion of substances or substantial Presence of the Body and Blood of our Lord. Mr. ARNAVD who oft loses his time in vain contests leaves all these principal passages which I come now from relating and sets himself only against the translation of these words Oblatio quamvis de simplicibus terroe frugibus sumpta divinoe benedictionis ineffabili potentia efficitur fidelibus Corpus Sanguis I said that this fidelibus must
Jesus Christ and pass into the Body of Jesus Christ signifies to transubstantiate in all the languages of the world is a matter ill offered and evidently unjustifiable For if the Bread becomes the Body of Jesus Christ formally by reason of the union as the sense of these Authors is in the same manner as the food we receive becomes our body by the union which it has with it it is made the Body of Jesus Christ not by any real conversion into this same substance of the Body of Jesus Christ which was before but it becomes it by way of addition to this substance or according to the precise explication which Damascen gives of it by way of augmentation and growth of the natural Body of Jesus Christ as we have already seen in the third Book when we treated of the opinion of the Greeks THIS being thus clear'd up 't is no hard matter to answer the passages of Remy which Mr. Arnaud alledges with so great confidence Seeing that a Page 832. Book 8. ch 7. mystery says he is that which signifies another thing if it be the Body of Jesus Christ in truth why call we it a mystery 'T is because that after the Consecration it is one thing and it appears another It appears to be Bread and Wine but 't is in truth the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ For God accommodating himself to our weakness seeing we are not used to eat raw Flesh and drink Blood makes these gifts remain in their first form altho they be in truth the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ I answer that Remy means that the gifts appear to be after the Consecration what they were before to wit simple Bread and Wine that the change which they have received being become the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ by their union with the natural Body is an invisible thing and that this union does not change any thing of their first form altho it seems it should do it seeing the Bread which our Saviour aet and which became likewise his Body by union took the form of Flesh That God deals otherwise in the Eucharist by way of condescention to our weakness because we cannot suffer this form of Flesh but yet the union ceases not to be true and consequently the Bread is in truth the Body of Jesus Christ altho it does not appear to be so This is the true sense of Remy grounded on his own Hypothesis and not that which Mr. Arnaud imputes to him THE second passage as Mr. Arnaud alledges it is conceived in these terms As the Divinity of the Word is one which fills all the world so altho the Body be consecrated in several places and at infinitely different times yet this is not several Bodies of Jesus Christ nor several Cups but the same Body and the same Blood with that which he took in the Virgins Womb and which he gave to his Apostles And therefore we must observe that whether we take more or less all do equally receive the Body of Jesus Christ entire But first I demand of Mr. Arnaud who gave him that liberty to retrench from this passage a whole sentence to alledg what goes before and what follows and leave out a whole period in the middle without any other reason than that it solves the difficulty and clearly shews Remy's sense Is it fairly done in these kind of disputes to maim passages of Authors which do not make for us Moreover were it some words either before or after we might perhaps suppose in his favour that 't were only an omission or neglect and that he did not mind that what he left out belonged to the same passage but to retrench a whole sentence from the middle of a discourse is I think a thing without example Here then is what Remy says 'T is one and the same Body and the same Blood with that which he took in the Womb of the Virgin and which he gave to his Apostles FOR THE DIVINITY FILLS IT AND JOINS IT TO IT SELF AND MAKES THAT AS IT IS ONE IT BE LIKEWISE JOIN'D TO THE BODY OF JESVS CHRIST AND THAT IT BE ONE ONLY BODY IN THE TRVTH This period eclips'd leaves all the rest of the passage favourable to Mr. Arnaud and therefore he has thought fitting to lay it aside according to the liberty which he allows himself of removing whatsoever offends him but this same period re-establish'd shews clearly the sense of Remy which is that all the Loaves consecrated in several places are one and the same Body of Jesus Christ with that which he took of the Virgin not because they are transubstantiated into it but because they are joyn'd with it by means of the Divinity which is one in all these Loaves THE third passage has these words That as the Flesh which Jesus Christ has taken in the Womb of the Virgin is his true Body crucified for our salvation so this Bread which Jesus Christ has given to his Disciples and to all those which are predestinated to eternal life and which the Priests consecrate every day in the Church WITH THE VIRTUE OF THE DIVINITY WHICH FILLS THIS BREAD is the true Body of Jesus Christ And this Flesh which he has taken and this Bread are not two Bodies but make one only true Body of Jesus Christ so that when this Bread is broken and eaten Jesus Christ is sacrificed and eaten and yet remains entire and living And as this Body which he deposed on the Cross was offered for our Redemption so this Bread is offered every day to God for our Salvation and Redemption which altho it appears to be Bread is yet the Body of Christ For our Redeemer having regard to our weakness and seeing us subject to sin has given us this Sacrament to the end that being now incapable of dying altho we sin every day we may have a true Sacrifice by which our iniquities may be expiated And because all these Loaves make but one Body of Jesus Christ and are offered for our Redemption he has said This is my Body which shall be given for you and added do this which is to say Consecrate this Body in remembrance of me to wit of my Passion and your Redemption for I have redeemed you by my Blood Our Lord leaving this blessed Sacrament to all his faithful servants to engrave it in their hearts and memories has done like a man who drawing near the time of his death sends to his friends a great present for a remembrance of him saying Receive this gift my dear friend and keep it carefully for my sake to the end that every time you see it you may think on me There is nothing in all this but what may very well agree with the Hypothesis of Remy that the Bread is the Body of Jesus Christ by way of union and conjunction with the natural Body This Bread with the virtue of the Divinity which fills it is the true Body of Jesus Christ
and Raban who were Paschasus his Adversaries But in short if we will consult Mr. Arnaud he will tell us on the contrary Book 8. ch 11. Page 870. that Amalarius and Heribald were in no wise adversaries to Paschasus That the Author of the Perpetuity granted it because he believed William of Malmsbury said it but that this does not appear to be true That Amalarius indeed was a Sterconarist but yet never any body taught more expresly the Real Presence Thus these Gentlemen who so greatly insult over us when they find any difference amongst us Ministers in the least point of History or conjecture do not always agree among themselves one says Amalarius was the fore-runner of Berenger the other maintains that never any man taught more formally the Real Presence the one makes him together with Heribald and Raban a bitter enemy to Paschasus and th' other protests 't is not likely to be true TO clear up this confusion we must have recourse to the passages of Amalarius and judg of his Doctrin from it self He tells us then first That those things which are done in the celebration of the Mass are transacted Praesat ad lib. de Offic. Eccl. as in a Sacrament of our Lords Passion as he himself commands us saying Every time you do this do it in remembrance of me and therefore the Priest who immolates the Bread and Wine is in Sacrament of Christ the Bread the Wine and Water and Wine are for Sacraments of the Flesh and Blood of Christ The Sacraments must have some resemblance with the things of which they be Sacraments Let the Priest then be like our Saviour Christ as the Bread the Wine and Liquors are like the Body of Jesus Christ It appears from these words that in the stile of Amalarius to be a Sacrament of a thing is to represent it and hold the place of it for this is precisely what these terms signifie The things of the Mass are done IN SACRAMENT of our Lords Passion and these other terms the Priest is in Sacrament of Christ When then he adds that the Bread the Wine and Water are in SACRAMENT of the Flesh and Blood of Jesus Christ it is clear he means they stand in stead of it and represent them and this resemblance which he inserts afterwards between the Bread the Wine and the Water and the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ because they are the Sacraments of 'em confirm the same thing and at the same time formally distinguishes them from the Body and Blood themselves Mr. ARNAVD answers that Amalarius has follow'd the language of Book 8. ch 4. p. 783. sense and that the question here was not to explain the nature of the Eucharist but the mysterious references which God would engrave in the symbols which he has chosen in this mystery But what reason has Mr. Arnaud to make Amalarius to have follow'd the language of sense in opposition to that of Faith seeing Amalarius does not mention any thing that leads to this distinction and that on the contrary it appears by the terms which he makes use of that he honestly meant the Eucharist was real Bread and Wine in substance Who told Mr. Arnaud that Amalarius made not the nature of the Eucharist to consist in the whole action's being a Sacrament of our Lords Passion that the Priest immolates the Bread and Wine that he represents therein our Saviour Christ and that the Bread and Wine stand for his Body and Blood We must judg of Amalarius his Doctrin by his expressions To be in Sacrament according to him is to represent and stand for the Bread and Wine are in Sacrament of the Body and Blood as the Priest is in Sacrament of Jesus Christ they are not then really this Body and Blood AMALARIVS himself does clearly explain his mind in another Lib. 3. de Off. cap. 25. Book â— ch 7. page 834. place saying That the Priest bows himself and recommends to God what is immolated in the stead of Jesus Christ Hoc quod vice Christi immolatum est Deo patri commendat Mr. Arnaud says this is not an expression contrary to the Real Presence because Agapius has made use of it and that in effect this expression is grounded on the different state wherein Jesus Christ is in the Eucharist and that wherein he has been in his Passion and that wherein he now is in Heaven For this diversity distinguishing him to our senses it makes one distinguish him likewise in the expressions But all this is but a mere evasion Amalarius does not say that Jesus Christ in one state holds the place of himself in another state He ingenuously says that which is immolated in the stead of Jesus Christ and if you would know what he means by what is immolated in the place of Jesus Christ he has already told you that 't is Bread and Wine which are immolated and which are in Sacrament of the Flesh and Blood of Christ HE says moreover the same thing elsewhere The Oblation and the Cup Lib. 3. de Off. cap. 26. signifie our Lords Body and when Jesus Christ has said This is the Cup of my Blood he meant his Blood which was in his Body as the Wine was in the Cup. And a little further By this particle of the Oblation which the Priest puts in the Cup he represents the Body of Jesus Christ which is risen from the dead by that which the Priest or the People eat is represented this Body of Jesus Christ which is still on the Earth to wit his Church and by that which remains on the Altar is represented this other Body which is still lying in the Sepulchre to wit the faithful dead IT is in vain that Mr. Arnaud opposes to these passages what the same Amalarius says That the Church believes this Sacrament ought to be eaten by Book 8. ch 4. p. 785. men because she believes 't is our Lords Body and Blood and that in eating it the Souls of the Faithful are fill'd with benediction For 't is true that the reason for which the Church recommends to the Faithful the eating of the Eucharist is because 't is the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ this is not a matter in contest the question is only to know in what manner this is 'T IS moreover in vain that Mr. Arnaud urges these other words Credimus Ibid. naturam simplicem panis vini mixti verti in naturam rationabilem scilicet Corporis Sanguinis Christi We believe that the simple nature of Bread and Wine is changed into a reasonable nature to wit of the Body and Blood of Christ For his sense is not that there 's made a real conversion of one nature into another but that there 's made a mystical conversion by which 't is no longer mere Bread and Wine but the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ or as himself says elsewhere several times the Sacrament of the Body
and Blood of Jesus Christ 'T IS also no less in vain that Mr. Arnaud endeavours to make advantage of some terms of Amalarius his Letter to Guntard which may be seen in Spicilege's seventh Volume Guntard was a young man that was scandaliz'd at his seeing Amalarius spitting without any scruple immediately after his receiving the Communion Amalarius answers him that this was a thing natural and necessary to the preservation of health and that he thought he did nothing herein which cast any dishonor on the Body of Christ that if he imagin'd he cast out in spitting the Body of Christ he was deceived That he would say to him touching the Body of Jesus Christ which we receive what the Emperor Valentinian said to his Army 'T was in your power to choose me Emperor but now 't is in mine to choose whom I please for my Collegue 'T is the same here for 't is your part to have a pure heart and to beseech God to give it you but 't is his to disperse his Body throughout our members and veins for our salvation For 't is he who in giving the Bread to his Apostles has said This is my Body which shall be given for you His Body was on the Earth when he would and it is there when he pleases yea after his Ascension he has not disdain'd to shew himself to S. Paul in the Temple of Jerusalem which was on earth His sense is that we ought not to trouble our selves about what becomes of the mystical Body of Jesus Christ which we receive in the Eucharist that 't is our part to purifie our hearts and his to give us his Body in the manner which he thinks fitting because 't was he that said of the Bread of the Eucharist that 't was his Body What he adds concerning his Body being on the Earth c. he says it not with respect to the Real Presence as Mr. Arnaud imagins but in reference to the right which our Saviour has to make his Eucharistical Body what he pleases For 't is an argument à pari as we call it by which he undertakes to prove that Jesus Christ is the master of his Eucharistical Body as well as the master of his natural Body having left it on Earth as long as he thought fitting and after his Ascension was not so taken up with his abode in Heaven as not to shew himself to his Apostle in the Temple of Jerusalem And this appears from the sequel of his discourse I say this says he to the end that if thro ignorance or without my consent there should proceed out of my mouth any part of the Lords Body you may not believe presently hereupon that I am void of Religion and that I despise my Lords Body or that this Body be carried into any place where he would not have it come Our Soul lives by this Body as the Lord himself says If you eat not the Flesh of the Son of Man nor drink his Blood you have no life in you If then this Body be our life it will not lose being separated from us what it has in it self and what we receive from it My Son desire your Priests to take heed they lose not out of their hearts any of those words which the Lord has spoken in the Gospel for they are likewise our Life as well as the Consecrated Bread He means that altho he casts out of his mouth in spitting some part of the Eucharistical Body yet we must not believe this Body is carried to any place where our Saviour would not have it or this Body being in this place lies stript of the advantage which it has to be the life of our souls no more than the words of the Gospel which altho neglected be yet also our life What signifies this to the Real Presence Will not his discourse be every whit as coherent and as well followed if we suppose that the consecrated Bread is the Body of Jesus Christ in Sacrament as he teaches elsewhere as if we suppose it to be so in propriety of substance which we believe that Amalarius never taught THE conclusion which he draws from all this is yet if you will less favourable to Mr. Arnaud Thus says he having taken with an honest and faithful heart the Lords Body I have nothing to do to dispute whether it be invisibly carried up into Heaven or reserved in our Body till the day of Judgment or whether exhaled up in the Air or whether it flows from our Body with the Blood when our Veins be opened or issues out thro the Pores the Lord saying Whatsoever enters by the mouth into the belly goes into Excrement Which is to say that it belongs not to us to make all these questions about the Sacrament because our Saviour does with it what he pleases As to our parts adds he we ought only to have a care lest we receive it with a Judas ' s heart lest we despise it but on the contrary discern it salutarily from other common aliments I confess Mr. Arnaud has some reason to conjecture hence that Amalarius was of the number of those which they call Stercoranists but on what side soever he turns himself he cannot conclude he held the Real Presence and this very thing that Mr. Arnaud believes Amalarius was a Stercoranist ought to convince him on the contrary that this Author did not believe the change or conversion of the substance in the Eucharist HAD Mr. Arnaud consulted the Letter of the same Amalarius to Rangar which is within two pages of that which he wrote to Gruntard he had seen that Amalarius expounds these words of Jesus Christ This is the Cup of the New Testament in my Blood which is shed for you in this manner This Cup is a figure of my Body in which is the Blood which shall issue from my side to accomplish the ancient Law and when 't is spilt it shall be the New Testament because 't is a new and innocent Blood the Blood of the Man without Sin which shall be spilt for the Redemption of Mankind Explaining aftetwards what is said in the Liturgy Mysterium fidei This Blood says he is called the mystery of Faith because it profits to the Salvation and Eternal Life of him that believes himself Redeemed by this Blood and makes himself an imitator of our Lords Passion And therefore the Lord says If yee eat not the Flesh of the Son of man nor drink his Blood yee will have no life in you Which is to say if ye partake not of my Passion nor believe that I died for your salvation yee will have no life in you The mystery is Faith as S. Augustin teaches in his Epistle to Boniface as in some manner the Sacrament of the Body of Jesus Christ is the Body of Jesus Christ the Sacrament of the Blood of Jesus Christ is the Blood of Jesus Christ so the Sacrament of Faith is Faith 'T is plainly seen this
Bread The aforesaid Waldensis disputing in the sequel against Wicliff says Ibid. cap. 26. that Wicliff proved that the Eucharist was Bread by the experience of nature because a man may be fed with Hosts Whence adds he I conclude that as he admits the digestion of the Eucharist he must likewise grant that it passes into Excrements And thus is he agreed with Heribald and Raban of Mayence who have taught that the true Sacrament was subject to the casualty of other food 'T is plain he puts no difference between the Stercoranism of these two Bishops and the subsistence of the Bread of Wicliff Elsewhere he also more clearly proves that Honorius of Autun believed that the substance of Bread remained or as he speaks that he was of the Sect of the Panites because he alledges the passage of Raban which bears that the Sacrament passes into our food Et ipse enim says he de secta Panitarum Rabani versum Ibid. cap. 90. ponit infra ubi agit de partibus Missoe Sacramentum inquiens ore percipitur in alimentum corporis redigitur BUT if we will besides the testimonies of these Authors hearken moreover unto reason we shall find that there is nothing more inconsistent with the belief of the Real Presence than this pretended error of the Stercoranists and that those who will have these two opinions agree together have never well considered what they undertook to establish It is not possible to believe the Real Presence of the Body of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist I mean of this same numerical substance which was born of the Virgin and is now in Heaven without believing at the same time that this substance is not sensible in it palpable visible extended capable of being divided in the same manner as 't was when our Lord conversed on Earth 'T will be the greatest folly imaginable to impute to persons that have eyes and see the Eucharist and have some remains of common sense to make therein exist this Body without making it therein exist insensible indivisible impalpable after the manner of spirits as they also do of the Church of Rome Now with what likelihood can one make this opinion agree with that of Stercoranism which asserts that this Body is digested into the stomach after the manner of other meats that one part of it passes into our nourishment and the other is subject to the common necessity of aliments What is digested is touched by the substance of our stomach penetrated by our natural heat divided and separated into several parts reduced into Chyle then into Blood distributed thro all the several parts of our Body and joyn'd immediately to 'em after it has been made like 'em whilst that which is most gross and improper for our nourishment passes into Excrement What likelihood is there that persons who are not bereft of their senses can subject to these accidents an indivisible and inpalpable substance which exists after the manner of Spirits Moreover they were not ignorant that the Body of Jesus Christ is animated with its natural Soul and that what passes into our nourishment is animated by ours what a monstrous opinion then is it to imagin that the same numerical Body can be at the same time animated with two Souls with that of Jesus Christ and ours to be united hypostatically to the Word and hypostatically to us On what hand soever we turn 't is certain that 't is an inexpressible chimera to say that those which were called Stercoranists believ'd the Real Presence in the sense which the Roman Church understands it It must be acknowledged that they were Panites as Thomas Waldensis calls them that is to say they believ'd that the Eucharist was a Real Substance of Bread And seeing we shew'd that Amalarius Heribald and Raban were of the number of these pretended Stercoranists it must be necessarily acknowledged that they were contrary to the Doctrin of Paschasus whence it evidently follows that this Doctrin was not commonly held in the Church then as Mr. Arnaud pretends it was For these three great men held in it too considerable a rank to permit us to believe they were contrary to the publick Belief in a point so considerable and Mr. Arnaud himself will not have us think thus of ' em One of 'em to wit Amalarius was sent to Rome by the Emperor Lewis to seek the Antiphonaries as he himself testifies The other to wit Heribald was Bishop of Auxerre and reputed a Saint after his death as appears from the Inscription of his Sepulchre Here lies the Body of S. Heribald and the last to wit Raban was Abbot of Fulde and afterwards Arch-Bishop of Mayence accounted one of the most learned men of his Age as appears by the testimonies of Baronius and Sixtus of Sienne TO these three we must add Bertram for it cannot be doubted but that he was also one of those who were afterwards called Stercoranists which is to say he believ'd that this substance which we receive in the Sacrament was subject to digestion and passed into our nourishment He clearly shews his sense in several places of his Book For having related these words of Isidor The Bread and Wine are compared to the Body and Blood of Jesus Bertram de Corp. Sang. Dom. Christ because that as the substance of this visible Bread and Wine inebriate the outward man so the Word of God which is the living Bread chears the faithful Soul when she participates of it he makes this remark Saying this he clearly confesses that whatsoever we take outwardly in the Sacrament of our Lords Body and Blood is used for nourishment to our Body And a little further Secundum visibilem creaturam corpus pascunt And speaking afterwards of the Eucharistical Body of Jesus Christ Negari non potest corrumpi quod per partes comminutum disparitur ad sumendum dentibus commolitum in corpus trajicitur And again Non attenditur quod corpus pascit quod dente premitur quod per partes comminuitur sed quod in fide spiritualiter accipitur THESE two last Authors to wit Raban and Bertram besides this Doctrin which is common to 'em with the rest have especially this that they have formally opposed the novelties of Paschasus by publick Writings Which is what appears by the testimony of the anonymous Author whose words we have already related for he says in proper terms that Raban and Ratram wrote against Paschasus to wit Raban a Letter to the Abbot Egilon and Ratram a Book dedicated to King Charles and that they defamed him for offering this proposition that what we receive from the Altar is nothing else but the same Flesh which was born of the Virgin and suffered on the Cross and rose again from the Sepulchre and is at this day offered for the sins of the world WE have no reason says Mr. Arnaud to believe that Raban attack'd Paschasus Book 8. ch 12. p. 874. otherwise than
united to the Son of God and personally to an hundred millions of men at a time or do they imagin that the Body of Jesus Christ is loosed from his proper and natural Soul and dis-united hypostatically from the Word Believe me a man must be fallen into a dreadful disorder of mind to be guilty of these kind of fooleries But if these persons of the 9th Century against whom Raban and Bertram wrote believed in effect all these matters how happens it there 's no such thing to be found in Authors of those Ages nor the following ones and that to establish this fact to wit that there were persons who believ'd that the proper Body of Jesus Christ the same numerical substance which is in Heaven is here below really endued with the accidents of Bread Mr. Arnaud could offer nothing but some few conjectures impertinently drawn from a Principle of Amalarius BUT you will say how happens it that the passages which Mr. Arnaud alledges out of Bertram seem not directly to oppose the Doctrin of Paschasus and that sometimes they both meet in their expressions Bertram declares his design was against people who maintain that the mystery of the Body of Jesus Christ which is celebrated in the Church is not made under any figure nor under any vail but that the truth appears therein naked and manifest He makes to himself the questions Whether the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ which is received in the Church by the mouth of the Faithful be made as a mystery or as a truth which is to say Whether it contains any thing conceal'd which is only perceiv'd by the eyes of Faith or whether without the vail of any mystery the sight of the body sees outwardly that which the sight of the mind sees inwardly so that whatsoever is done in this mystery is discovered to the view of sense And in the second place Whether it be the same Body which was born of the Virgin Mary that suffered and died Paschasus on the other hand declares That it ought not to be denied that this Sacrament is a figure He distinguishes that which is felt outwardly from that which is hid inwardly and teaches that one is the figure of the other Est autem figura vel character hoc quod exterius sentitur sed totum veritas nulla adumbratio quod interius percipitur ALL the force of this objection consists in an equivocation Paschasus takes the term of figure in one sense Bertram takes it in another Bertram affirms that the Eucharist is a figure in a sense which Paschasus denies So that their Doctrins in the main cannot be more opposite than they are And of this the readers needed not to have been ignorant had Mr. Arnaud been pleased to relate in what manner Bertram explains himself For having proposed two questions in the terms which we have seen he adds Let us examin the first of these questions and to clear it from all ambiguity define what we mean by a figure and what by truth to the end that having something that is certain before our eyes we may better find the reasonable way which we ought to follow The figure is a kind of shadow which by means of some vails shews us what it proposes to shew us As for example when we would signifie the Word we call it Bread as in the Lords Prayer where we ask our daily bread or as our Saviour says in the Gospel I am the living Bread that came down from Heaven Thus does he call himself a Vine and his Disciples the Branches I am says he the true Vine and you are the Branches In all which there is one thing said and another signified The truth on the contrary is a manifest demonstration of the thing without using either shadow image or vail it being discovered by simple and natural expressions there being nothing to be understood but what is contained in the terms 'T is not the same in these other examples for our Saviour Christ is not substantially either Bread or Vine nor the Apostles Branches Here then we have a figure but in the last examples the truth is uttered in plain and open terms Now to apply this to the things in question to wit the Body and Blood of Christ Were this mystery celebrated without a figure it could not be call'd a mystery for one cannot call that a mystery wherein there is nothing secret nothing remote from the corporal senses nor hid under any vail Yet this Bread which is made the Body of Christ by the ministry of the Priest shews another thing outwardly to the senses and offers another thing to the intelligence of the Faithful Outwardly one discovers the form of Bread its colour and savour such as it was before But there is another thing far more precious and excellent which is taught inwardly a divine and heavenly thing to wit the Body of Jesus Christ which is therein represented and 't is not by the corporal senses but by the spiritual intelligence of the Faithful that this thing is considered taken and eaten He says the same of the Vine and concludes seeing no body can deny but this is so 't is manifest that this Bread and this Wine are the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ figuratively A man must shut his eyes if he cannot see he means that the Bread and Wine of the Eucharist are a mystery which represent to us the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ and that when they be called the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ 't is a figurative locution like in some sort to these others in the Gospel where our Lord is called Bread a Vine and his Apostles Branches Now 't is precisely in this sense that Paschasus denied the Eucharist was a figure When our Saviour says he brake and gave the Bread to his Disciples Câ—mment in Mat. 26. he does not say that this or there is in this mystery a certain virtue or a figure of my Body but he says plainly This is my Body And a little lower I marvail at some peoples saying 't is a figure and not the truth a shadow and not the Body And in his Letter to Frudegard Sacramentum Corporis Christi Sanguinis quamvis Sacramentum dicatur non est aliud quam veritas quod ipsa veritas repromisit which he proves by the same examples which Bertram alledges of simple locutions to wit of the Birth Incarnation and Passion of our Saviour These things says he which our Saviour did as God and Man be Sacraments of his Grace and a mystery of Faith and yet are they nothing but the truth altho they be called Sacraments And he afterstards makes this objection These things being mysteries cannot to wit in this quality be either seen or toucht and consequently this is not a Body and if it be not a Body they are a figure of the Flesh and Blood of Jesus Christ and not this Flesh and this Blood in propriety
of nature Then answering this objection Totum says he quod est Christus proedicatur non in figura sed in re in proprietate atque in natura 'T is then plain that Paschasus and Bertram are directly opposite not only as to sence but terms So that when Paschasus acknowledges there is a figure in the Eucharist meaning by this figure either the accidents of Bread and Wine which cover the substance of the Body of Jesus Christ or the representation of the Passion of Jesus Christ this expression in this sense does not hinder but Bertram formally contradicted it and that the testimony of the anonymous is true For Paschasus expresly denies the Eucharist to be the Body of Jesus Christ in figure and Bertram expresly affirms it AS to wherein both of 'em seem to agree in saying that our senses shew it to be Bread but that inwardly our Faith discovers therein the Body of Jesus Christ this is but an equivocation Paschasus means we must not refer our selves to the testimony of our senses in respect of the substance hidden under the accidents and by the term of inwardly he means this substance covered with accidents which he would have us believe to be the substance of the Body of Jesus Christ Bertram on the contrary argues from the testimony of our senses and concludes that 't is real Bread and real Wine in substance For he maintains from the evidence of sense that there happens no real change According to the species of the creature says he and the form of visible things the Bread and Wine do not suffer any change And if they do not suffer any change they are not any thing else but what they were before And in another place We see not any thing that is changed in these things corporally We must then confess either that they be changed in another respect than that of the Body and consequently that they are not what appears in truth which is to say they are not the substance of the Body of Jesus Christ in truth because 't would be then invisible were it there but that they are another thing which yet we plainly see they are not by their proper existence Or if this will not be acknowledg'd it must of necesssity be denied that they are the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ which will be impious to say or think And immediately after he concludes that the change which happens to the Bread and Wine is a change of figure Vt jam says he commutatio figurate facta esse dicatur He also proves there that the change which happens to the Eucharist does not make the Bread and Wine cease to be in truth what they were before We do not find says he that such a change happens here but we find on the contrary that the same species of the creature which was before remains still And a little lower in respect of the substance of creatures they are after the Consecration what they were before they were before Bread and Wine and we see they remain in the same kind altho they be consecrated And again he concludes that 't is not the Body of Jesus Christ in specie but in virtute because our eyes do not see it 'T is Faith says he that sees whatsoever this is the eye of the flesh discovers nothing therein these visible things then are not the Body of Jesus Christ in specie but in virtue He understands then that the testimony of our senses which shew us that they are still Bread and Wine in substance are true and that were the substance of the Body therein our senses would discover it Now this wholly contradicts the sense of Paschasus I will not examin says Mr. Arnaud whether Bertram understands these Page 881. words in another sense than Paschasus But why will not Mr. Arnaud do this seeing on it depends the real opposition which is between these two Authors They that will contradict an Author says Mr. Arnaud directly do oppose not only his sense but his words and they never borrow the words of those whom they combat to express their own opinion Whosoever designs to contradict an author solidly minds particularly his sense without troubling himself about his expressions 'T was enough for Bertram to refute the new Doctrin of Paschasus and this very thing that he uses his expressions only more shews their opposition for Bertram does not speak of the testimony of our senses on the subject of the Eucharist in the same terms of Paschasus but to draw thence arguments to overthrow the pretended change of substance and the Real Presence which Paschasus had advanced so that this apparent conformity is no less in effect than a real contradiction THIS contrariety of sentiment appears still more in the second question which Bertram discusses which is Whether what the Faithful receive with the mouths of their bodies in the Communion is this same Body which was born of the Virgin that has suffered for us died and rose again and is now at the right hand of the Father Paschasus affirms it and endeavours to establish it by his Book Bertram denies it and proves most strongly his negative The one says that these things nourish in us that which is born of God and not that which is born of Flesh and Blood The other answers us that in respect of what we see and receive corporally which is bit with the teeth swallowed and received into the stomach they do not communicate eternal life for in this respect they nourish our mortal flesh and do not communicate any corruption The one says That we must not stop at the savour nor colour of Bread for were it changed into flesh to wit visibly and sensibly as he explains himself in the same place 't would be no longer the Flesh of Jesus Christ The other teaches That seeing 't is Faith and not the eye of the Body which discovers the Bread to be the Body of Jesus Christ we must hence conclude that 't is not so in specie but in virtute The one ever says that what we receive from the Altar is this same Flesh which is born of the Virgin The other says that this Flesh which was Crucified and born of the Virgin consists of bones and sinews distinguish'd into several members and enliven'd by the spirit of a reasonable soul having his proper life and motions Whereas this spiritual Flesh which nourishes spiritually the Faithful in respect of its outward species consists of grains of Wheat and is made by the hands of man that it has neither nerves nor sinews nor bones nor different members that 't is animated with no rational soul nor can exercise any vital functions Whence he concludes that 't is not then this Flesh of Jesus Christ which was born of the Virgin In a word the opposition therein is so formal and so evident that it cannot be more plain WHAT we have hitherto seen touching Authors Contemporary with Paschasus
THE CATHOLIC Doctrin of the EUCHARIST Written in French by the Learned M. Claude Veritas fatigari potest vinci non potest Etheâ— Bâ—â—â— 1683. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 London Printed for R. Royston THE Catholick Doctrine OF THE EUCHARIST In all AGES In ANSWER to what M. ARNAVD Doctor of the Sorbon Alledges touching The BELIEF of the Greek Moscovite Armenian Jacobite Nestorian Coptic Maronite AND OTHER EASTERN CHURCHES Whereunto is added an Account of the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord Published under the Name of BERTRAM In Six BOOKS LONDON Printed for R. ROYSTON Bookseller to His most Sacred Majesty at the Angel in Amen-Corner MDCLXXXIV TO THE RIGHT HONORABLE AND RIGHT REVEREND FATHER in GOD HENRY Lord Bishop of LONDON AND One of His MAJESTIES most Honorable PRIVY-COVNCIL c. J. R. R. Humbly Dedicateth this TRANSLATION To the Worthy Gentlemen The MINISTERS and ELDERS of the CONSISTORY Assembled at Charenton Gentlemen and my most Honored Brethren THE design of the Book which I here offer you being chiefly to invalidate those pretended proofs of Perpetuity wherewith men would set up such new Opinions as alter the purity of the Christian Faith touching the Holy Eucharist I have therefore reason to believe that this present Treatise will not prove unacceptable to you for altho the Religion we profess needs not the hands of men to support it no more than heretofore the Ark of the Israelites yet have we cause to praise God when we see that Reproach of departing from the Ancient Faith may be justly retorted upon them who charge us with it Ye will find here in this Discourse a faithful and plain representation of things such as they are in truth in opposition to every thing which the Wit of Man and the fruitfulness of Human Invention have been able to bring forth to dazle mens Eyes and corrupt their Judgments As soon as ever I had read the Writings of these Gentlemen whom I answer the first thought that came into my mind was that of Solomon That God made man Eccles 7. 29. upright but he had sought out many inventions And indeed what is plainer than the Supper of our Lord as he himself has instituted it and his Apostles have delivered it to us and what can be more preposterous than to search for what we ought to believe touching this Sacrament amongst the various Opinions of these later Ages and different Inclinations of men and especially amongst them who are at farthest distance from us These remote ways do of themselves fill us with doubts and suspicions and the bare proposal of them must needs disgust us and make us draw consequences little advantageous to the Doctrins which these Gentlemen would Authorize Yet I have not refused to joyn issue with them on their own Principles as far as the truth will permit me and if they would read this Answer with a free unprejudiced mind I am certain that they themselves will acknowledg the contrary to what they have endeavoured to persuade others I here offer you then Gentlemen and my most Honored Brethren this last fruit of my Labor first for your own Edification and secondly for a publick testimony of my Respect and acknowledgments All that I do or have done is justly due to you not only upon the account of the Right which ye have over me and my Labors but likewise because it is partly from your good Examples that I have taken and do still every day draw the motives which strengthen me in the ways of God and in the love of his Truth It is in your Holy Society that I learn the Art of serving the common Master of both Angels and Men according to the purity of that Worship which he hath prescribed us and at the same time how to work out my own Salvation as well as that of others And indeed what is it that a man cannot learn in an Assembly wherein all hearts and minds do unanimously concur in the practice of Piety and Charity which consists of persons who have no other aim but so to order their Conversations as to draw down thereby the Blessings of Heaven upon themselves and the people whom God hath committed to their Charge and render themselves worthy of the protection of our great and Invincible Monarch This Work would have been published sooner had it not been for three great Losses we have suffered by the Death of Mr. Drelincourt Mr. Daillé and Morus three names worthy to be had in everlasting Remembrance These persons have left us so suddenly one after another that we have scarcely had time to bewail each of 'em as much as we desired The loss of the first of these extremely afflicted us the loss of the second overwhelmed us with Sorrow and the Death of the last stupified us with Heaviness God having taken to himself these three famous Divines it was impossible but this work should be retarded But being now at length able to Publish it I therefore entreat you Gentlemen to suffer me to Dedicate it to you that it may appear in the World honored with your Names May the Father of Lights from whom descendeth every good and perfect Gift enrich you more with his Graces and preserve your Holy Assembly and the Flock committed to your care These are the ardent Prayers of your most Humble and Obedient Servant and Brother in Christ Jesus CLAVDE THE PREFACE THE Dispute which the first Treatise of the Perpetuity of the Faith hath occasion'd on this Subject of the Eucharist has made such a noise in the world since Mr. Arnaud's last Book that I have no need to give an account of the motives which engage me in this third Reply Besides it is evident to every one that the Cause which I defend and which I cannot forsake without betraying my Trust and Conscience obliges me necessarily to state clearly matters of Fact and maintain or refute those Doctrins which are debated between Mr. Arnaud and me AND yet whatsoever justice and necessity there may be for publishing this Work I am afraid some persons will be displeased seeing so much written on the same Subject for this is the sixth Book since the first Treatise of the Perpetuity has been publish'd besides two others of Father Nouet's and mine And these Tracts which at first were but small have since insensibly grown into great Volumes Yet for all this we have not seen what Mr. Arnaud or his Friends are oblig'd to produce as to the first six Centuries of which without doubt much may be said on both sides IF any complain of this prolixity I confess it will not be altogether without cause For altho the Controversie of the Eucharist is one of the most important that is between the Church of Rome and the Protestants and which deserves therefore to be carefully examin'd yet since it may be treated with greater brevity even this consideration of its
or at least doubtful and suspected ones The five and twentieth is his producing the testimony of several false Greeks link'd to the interest of the Latin Church 258 CHAP. IV. The testimony of some Protestants alledged by Mr. Arnaud touching the Belief of the Greeks answered 269 CHAP. V. Mr. Arnaud's negative Arguments drawn from the silence of the Greeks and Latins on the Article of Transubstantiation examin'd 272 CHAP. VI. A farther examination of Mr. Arnaud's negative Arguments A particular reflection on what past in the Treaties of Râ—union and especially in the Council of Florence and afterwards 293 CHAP. VII Several passages of Greek Authors cited by Mr. Arnaud examin'd 306 CHAP. VIII The Profession of Faith which the Saracens were caused to make in the 12th Century considered Several passages out of Cabasilas Simeon Archbishop of Thessalonica Jeremias the Patriarch of Constantinople and several others collected by Mr. Arnaud out of Greek Authors examin'd 319 CHAP. IX Several passages of Anastasius Sinaite Germane the Patriarch of Constantinople and Damascen examin'd 429 CHAP. X. An examination of the advantages which Mr. Arnaud draws from the two Councils held in Greece in the 8th Century upon the subject of Images the one at Constantinople the other at Nice 339 CHAP. XI Several circumstances relating to the second Council of Nice examin'd 355 The Second Part. BOOK V. Wherein is treated of the Belief of the Moscovites Armenians Nestorians Jacobites and other Churches called Schismatics of the Belief of the Latins in the 7th and 8th Centuries and of the Consequences which Mr. Arnaud draws from the pretended consent of these Churches on the Doctrins of the Real Presence and Transubstantiation CHAP. I. Of the MOSCOVITES THat the Moscovites do not believe Transubstantiation Page 1 CHAP. II. Of the ARMENIANS That the Armenians do not believe Transubstantiation First proof taken from that the Armenians believe the Human Nature of our Saviour Christ was swallow'd up by the Divinity 14 CHAP. III. The testimony of some Authors who expresly say or suppose that the Armenians hold not Transubstantiation 26 CHAP. IV. Testimonies of several other Authors that affirm the Armenians deny Transubstantiation and the Real Presence 38 CHAP. V. Mr. Arnaud's proofs touching the Armenians examin'd 44 CHAP. VI. Of the Nestorians Maronites Jacobites Coptics and Ethiopians that they hold not Transubstantiation 50 CHAP. VII Mr. Arnaud's eighth Book touching the sentiment of the Latins on the mystery of the Eucharist since the year 700 till Paschasius his time examin'd 61 CHAP. VIII An examination of these expressions of the Fathers That the Eucharist is the Body of Jesus Christ the proper Body of Jesus Christ properly the Body of Jesus Christ the very Body of Jesus Christ the true Body or truly the Body of Jesus Christ 71 CHAP. IX That the Fathers of the 7th and 8th Centuries held not Transubstantiation nor the Substantial Presence 89 CHAP. X. An Examination of the Consequences which Mr. Arnaud draws from the pretended consent of all the Christian Churches in the Doctrin of Transubstantiation and the Real Presence 98 CHAP. XI Other Reflections on Mr. Arnaud's consequences 106 BOOK VI. Concerning the Change which has hapned in the Doctrin of the Latin Church touching 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 119 CHAP. II. Mr. Arnaud's proceedings considered His unjust reproaches also examin'd 131 CHAP. III. A Defence of the second third and fourth rank of persons against the Objections of Mr. Arnaud 143 CHAP. IV. A Defence of the fifth rank against Mr. Arnaud's Objections 154 CHAP. V. General Considerations on Mr. Arnaud's ninth Book An examination of the Objections which he proposes against what he calls Machins of Abridgment and Machins of Preparation 163 CHAP. VI. Mr Arnaud's Objections against what he calls the Machins of Mollification and the Machins of Execution examin'd The state of the 12th Century 172 CHAP. VII Mr. Arnaud's Objections against what he terms Machins of forgetfulness examin'd The examples of the insensible changes alledged in answer to the Perpetuity defended 188 CHAP. VIII That Paschasius Ratbert was the first that taught the Real Presence and conversion of Substances Mr. Arnaud's Objections answer'd 198 CHAP. IX Proofs that Paschasius was an Innovator 214 CHAP. X. Of Authors in the 9th Century Walafridus Strabo Florus Remy of Auxerre Christian Drutmar 229 CHAP. XI Of other Authors in the 9th Century Amalarius Heribald Raban Bertram and John Scot 242 CHAP. XII Of Personal Differences which Mr. Arnaud has treated of in his 11th Book 259 An Answer to the Dissertation which is at the end of Mr. Arnaud ' s Book touching the Treatise of our Lords Body and Blood publish'd under the name of Bertram and touching the Authority of John Scot or Erigenus The first Part. Wherein is shew'd that the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord Publish'd under the name of Bertram is a work of Ratram a Monk of Corby and not of John Scot. CHAP. I. AN Account of the several Opinions which the Doctors of the Roman Church have offered touching this Book to hinder the advantage which we draw from it 277 CHAP. II. That what the Author of the Dissertation would reform in the Opinion of Mr. De Marca does not at all make it the more probable 282 CHAP. III. That Ratram is the Author of the Book of our Lords Body and Blood publish'd under the name of Bertram 284 CHAP. IV. A Refutation of what the Author of the Dissertation offers to persuade that the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord publish'd under the name of Bertram is of John Scot 292 CHAP. V. Other Difficulties which the Author of the Dissertation forms on the name of Bertram examin'd 299 The Second Part. That the Authority of the Book of our Lords Body and Blood Publish'd under the name of Bertram will be still of great weight if we suppose John Scot to be the Author of it CHAP. VI. That John Scot was greatly esteemed both in his own age and in the following ones 303 CHAP. VII An Examination of what the Author of the Dissertation alledges against the employs of John Scot 306 CHAP. VIII That John Scot was esteemed a Martyr 311 The end of the Table 1683 Coenantibus ejs accepit Iesus panem et benedixit at fregit deditque discipulis fuis et ait accipite et comedite hoc est And as they did eat Iesus took the bread and when he had blessed he broke it and gave it to the Disciples and said take eat this my body Mat. 26. AN ANSWER TO Mr. Arnaud's Book INTIT'LED The Perpetuity of the Faith of the Catholick Church touching the Eucharist defended BOOK I. Wherein is treated of the Method which the Author of the Perpetuity hath followed CHAP. I. That I have reason to take for granted as I have
accomplishment and whatsoever Clouds have fallen on the Ministration of it by the mixture of mens Devices with Gods everlasting Truths yet has our Saviour taken care to preserve the Faithful and execute the Decree of his Election So that such a one has no need to perplex himself with History nor with reading over of three or four hundred Volums which will not yield him the least Satisfaction much less need he entangle himself in the Author of the Perpetuity's Method which is a fourth way the World hath yet never been acquainted with When such a Person hears of Mr. Aubertin's Book and the account he gives of the Change which hath hapned I doubt not but he is glad to hear that even by this way which is only proper to the Learned the Truth he believes has bin illustrated neither do I doubt but he believes with a humane Faith what is told him concerning it but we must not imagine that his Belief touching the Eucharist hath changed its Foundation and left its Relyance on the Word of God for it remaineth still where it was so that when he should be questioned concerning the solidity of Mr. Aubertin's Proofs or that of any other Minister relating to this Subject he will not be troubled about it nor farther concern himself in these Debates for he knows his Incapacity He will content himself with a favourable Opinion of the Fathers and with his Confidence in God leaving these Debates to those that have Skill to manage them NOW as to such as contemn Mr. Aubertins Book I know none in our Communion of that number and perhaps in the Church of Rome there will be found as few of that Mind if we except Mr. Arnaud and his Friends who have given their Judgments about it after a very slighting and peremptory manner But I shall not take any farther Notice of this here but continue my Observations I do affirm then I never yet had the Luck to meet with this wretched Calvinist whom he has described in such pittiful Strains I was never yet told That the Scripture fills the Mind with Doubts Lib. 1. C. â— P. 34. which it doth not resolve and that such a Person finds the Writings of the Fathers Obscure and that the Divines of either Party could not satisfy him and there was nothing but the Arguments of the Perpetuity which could win his Heart Is not this such a Model of Calvinism as Mr. Arnaud desires drawn from an Idea of his own Conceiving and offered to them who would henceforward be of the number of its Proselytes But what likelyhood is there that any man to become Mr. Arnaud or the Author of the Perpetuity's Proselyte would Sacrifice the Scriptures Fathers and Divines of both parties to them What Probability I say is there that their Pretention should so far prevail upon any man Howsoever it be it 's an idle Fancy to imagine that a Person who is really of our Communion can fall into this Condition and thereupon take up a Resolution of changing his Belief and the Proof which Mr. Arnaud gives us is entirely faulty for it can at farthest but conclude an Uncertainty touching the Fathers but not at all as it relates to the Word of God from which a good man will never depart even when he shall fall into Doubts touching the Opinions of the Fathers BUT let us see who these Persons are who are represented to us floating on Doubts and Scruples They are two sorts of Person the most knowing Ministers on one hand and all the unlearned Calvinists on the other It is Lib. 1. C. 5. P. 36. most False saith Mr. Arnaud that the most able Ministers are perswaded the Fathers are manifestly for them To which he addeth that all Protestants of mean Capacities who are not able to make this Search are rash in believing it and cannot be perswaded of it but by a fond Humor The former of these Points is grounded on slight Proofs Observe here the first of them Lewis Lavater relates that Oecolampadius began to doubt of the Truth of Transubstantiation and the Real Presence in reading St. Austins Works that he was strengthened in his Doubtings by reading of the Evangelists that he immediately rejects his first Thoughts by considering these Doctrines were generally entertained yet being willing to overcome this weakness of Mind he applyed himself to the reading of the Fathers but could not be fully satisfied by them because he oftentimes met in their Writings with the Expressions of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Sacrament Whereupon at length rejecting the Authority of men he wholly applied himself to the Word of God and then the Truth appeared more clearly unto him This Testimony concludes nothing unless it be this that it is not easy for a man that has imbibed the Principles of the Romish Church from his Infancy to discover immediately the Truth seeing that Oecolampadius who perceived the first Beams of it shining in St. Austins Works and afterwards received deeper Impressions by reading of the Holy Scriptures was puzled by reading the Fathers till such time as he wholly applyed himself to the studying of the Word of God by which he was put out of Doubt and afterwards came more easily to the Knowledg of the real Doctrine of the Fathers whose Writings from that time he vehemently urged against all opposers of the Truth This shews us the strength of Prejudice and how necessary it is for the Understanding of the Fathers to become first well exercised in the Holy Scriptures AS to the Centuriators of Magdebourg it is known they held the Ausbouyg Confession and taught the Doctrine of the Real Presence and consequently are not competent Judges in this Controversy For they have bin greatly concerned to have the Fathers on their side some of them choosing rather to impose the Sence of Transubstanciation on the indefinite general Expressions which import that the Bread is made the Body of Jesus Christ or that it is changed into the Body of Jesus Christ rather than to understand them in a mystical Sence which would overthrow their Doctrine Howsoever it be they are not of the number of our Ministers and Mr. Arnaud ought not to stray thus beyond the Bounds of this Controversy THAT Passage of Scaligers which he urgeth against us is taken out of one of the most impertinent Books as ever was written and Mr. Arnaud hath more Leasure than he pretends seeing he sets himself upon inquiring after such kind of Proofs This Book being a Collection of what Scaliger is pretended to have discoursed in a familiar Colloquy which is stuffed with all manners of Fooleries and Absurdities For the School Boyes from whose Memoirs these Exercitations were committed to the Press have inserted whatsoever came into their Heads after a childish and inconsiderate manner which shews us they had not yet arrived to years of Discretion Moreover Mr. Arnaud informs us himself that one of these Youths who helpt to
confidently undertakes to convince us of the Antiquity of the Roman Creed touching the Eucharist upon this Principle that this same Doctrine is held by other Christian Churches as if all the passages from Rome to Greece were so blocked up that these Doctrines could never be transported thither or as if the Latins had never attempted this Had these People received these Doctrines elsewhere or invented them themselves Mr. Arnaud would have some pretence for his Argument neither could we then charge him with asserting things as we do now against the light of his own Conscience But seeing he knew well enough the Latins have been perpetually endeavouring to introduce their Doctrines in these Countrys and constantly laboured at this since I know not how many Ages he therefore upon supposal they have effected this comes and offers us the belief of these People as an undoubted Proof of the Perpetuity of this Doctrine this is to speak modestly such a way of proceeding as will never be approved by just and reasonable men IT will perhaps be objected that I do indeed here shew That the Latins endeavour'd to insinuate their Religion in the East but that I do not make it particularly appear they at any time endeavoured to introduce their Doctrine of Transubstantiation To which I answer first this is not necessary for proposing only to my self at present to shew the Nullity of the Consequence Mr. Arnaud pretends to draw in order to the proving of the Perpetuity of the Roman Creed touching Transubstantiation in that he imagines the Eastern Churches hold the same it suffices me to shew thereupon That this Opinion might be communicated to them by the Latins themselves in their several attempts to introduce their Religion into the East especially considering that Transubstantiation is one of the most important Doctrines of it And if Mr. Arnaud would have his Proof subsist he must set aside all the time of these efforts we now mentioned and betake himself only to those Ages which preceded them For unless he proves that Transubstantiation has been believed in these Churches before all these endeavours to bring them over to the Roman Faith there is no Person endued with sence but will perceive how little strength his Argument carries along with it seeing he is ever lyable to be told they have received it from the Latins it not appearing amongst them before BUT in the second place I will not have it stick here to the end Mr. Arnaud may receive full satisfaction touching this point I say then that in the Year 1627. Clement the Fourth intending to make his Advantage of that Raynald ad ann 1267. num 75. great Earnestness Michael Paleologus shewed for the Reunion of his Church with the Roman as it has been observed in the third Chap. of this Book he thereupon sent him a Confession of Faith which he would have received by the Greeks because he found that which the Greeks sent him not only deficient in several things but full of Errors altho the Fryar Minorites then at Constantinople had accepted it Now Amongst other Articles in this Confession there is one which relates to the Eucharist and which runs thus in Latin Sacramentum Eucharistae ex azymo conficit eadem Romana Ecclesia tenens docens quod in ipso Sacramento panis verè transubstantiatur in Corpus Vinum in Sanguinem Domini nostri Jesu Christi which is to say the Church of Rome Celebrates the Sacrament of the Eucharist with unleavened Bread Believing and Teaching that in this Sacrament the Bread is really transubstantiated into the Body and the Wine into the Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ He sent afterwards Dominicains to Confirm this Confession and procure its acceptance with the Greeks IN the Year 1272 Gregory the Tenth sent Fryar Minorites into Greece Raynald ad ann 1272. num 27. to endeavour afresh the Reduction of the Greeks under the Authority of the same Michael Paleologus who resolved to finish this Affair at any rate and to whom he likewise recommended the same Confession of Faith IN the Year 1288. Pope Nicholas the Fourth sent Fryar Minorites into Idem ad ann 1288. num 30. Esclavonia to bring off these People from the Greek Religion to that of the Church of Rome he gave them Letters to King Urosius and Helena the Queen Mother and recommended to 'em the same Form of Doctrine containing the Article of Transubstantiation to the end this might be the Rule of their instructions to the People THE same Pope sent it likewise to three Bishops in the East who embraced his Communion exhorting them to instruct the People according Ibid. num 33. to the Doctrine contained therein and at the same time he recommended to them the Emissaries sent into those Countries for the Conversion of the Greeks Bulgarians Valaquians Syrians Iberians Alains Russians Jacobites Nestorians Georgians Armenians Indians whence it is easie to conjecture that the Emissaries were likewise enjoyned to use this Formulary IN the Year 1318. Pope Innocent the twenty Second sent this Confession Raynald ad ann 1318. num 13. to the King of Armenia And not only say's Rynaldus The Armenians which inhabited Cilicia and Armenia embraced the Doctrine of the Roman Church but others also who being driven out of their Country by the Sarracens had retired into Chersonesus Taurique They submitted themselves to the Roman Church in the presence of the Bishop of Capha who was a Latin The Pope adds he congratulated them and shewed 'em that in the Divine Mysteries the Substance of Bread is changed into the Body and Blood of Christ the Species remaining entire IN the Year 1338. Bennet the Twelfth received Letters from the Alains Idem ad ann 1338. num 77. who were a sort of Christians that professed the Greek Religion and lived under the Government of the Tartars He return'd them an answer and sent the Confession of Faith I already mention'd for their Instruction Raynaldus referrs this Letter to the Year 1338. But there is an old Book I lately cited intitled The marvelous History of the great Cham of Tartaria which referrs this to the Year 1328. The Article of Transubstantiation is expresly mentioned in it IN the Year 1366. John Paleologus the Grecian Emperor designing to Idem ad ann 1366. num 6. reunite himself to the Church of Rome that he might be assisted against the Turks Pope Urbain the Fifth sent him as his Predecessors had done to Michael this same Confession of Faith SO that here then the Latins are not only enjoyned to propagate their Religion in general amongst the Eastern Christians but particularly the Doctrine of Transubstantiation and to the end it may not be said this Confession contains the other Points of the Christian Faith as well as that of the Substantial Conversion it is to be observed that it has two distinct parts in the first of which the Articles of the Apostles Creed are explained and
Nicetas Pectoratus and Theophilact Compare the Discourses of Urbain the Second in the Council of Plaisance of Innocent the Third in the Council of Latran of Thomas Aquinas and all the School-men and in short of the Council of Trent with what he alledgeth out of Euthymius Nicholas Methoniensis Zonaras Nicetas Choniatus Cabasilas and Jeremias and you 'l find on the one hand the conversion of the Substances clearly and plainly expressed and on the other no such thing I have already mentioned Mr. Basire an English Divine who had a particular Commerce with the Greeks and during the time he was amongst them carefully applied himself to the reading of their Books observe here then what he wrote me from Durham Decemb. 6. 1668. Dico 3. in specie Ecclesiam Graecam Transubstantiationem nullibi asserere neque voce neque re De publicis instrumentis puta Symbolis confessionibus catechismis c. intelligi volo quorum plurima pervolvi ad indaginem neque in eorum vel unico 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vocis ut rei ipsius priscis patribus Graecis prorsus ignotae vel vola vel vestigium Privatos eorum Doctores nil moror quoniam non sum nescius quemdam ipsorum pseudo-Graecorum hieromonachum in suam cathechesin quam mihi videre licuit Constantinopoli illam vocem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 intrusisse qui vel ideo verorum Graecorum censuram haud effugit The Greek Church does no where teach Transubstantiation I mean in their publick Symbols confessions and catechisms c. several of which I have upon this account carefully perused but could not find in any of them the least trace either of this Term of Transubstantiation or the thing it self signifi'd thereby which Doctrine was altogether unknown to the Greek Fathers I matter not some private Doctors amongst them for I know that a certain Monk of the number of these false Greeks had secretly inserted the Term of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Transubstantiation in his Catechism which I saw at Constantinople but he was severely checkt for it by the true Greeks It will be perhaps replied that Mr. Basire is a Protestant and consequently to be suspected in this case but besides that he is a person deservedly honoured for his integrity and whose testimony cannot be question'd without the highest injustice and moreover a Divine and therefore not likely to mistake in things relating to his own Profession being a person of great Learning and one that dwelt long in those Parts and had not only the curiosity but likewise the means and opportunities to inform himself exactly in the truth of what he relates besides this I say Mr. Arnaud cannot justly reject his Testimony upon this only ground that he is a Protestant seeing he himself has produc'd the Letters of Mr. Pompone his Nephew and Mr. Picquet and the History of what passed at M. the Archbishop of Sens touching the Muscovits attested by Roman Catholicks BUT should I lay aside Mr. Basire's testimony that of Mr. Arnaud would serve my turn I suppose there 's no body doubts but that Mr. Arnaud has made all possible search into these matters touching the Greeks and 't is certain had he found any passages containing in express Terms the Doctrine of Transubstantiation he would not omit them Yet it is evident that whatsoever he has hitherto alledged which seems to intimate the conversion of Substances in all this long dispute which takes up half his Book is but a meer Sophism imposing on us by means of the reunion made between the Greeks and Latins by Michael Paleologus and some testimonies the ancientest of which bears date but from the year 1641. We shall examine these matters in their proper place and hope to undeceive mens Minds whatsoever impressions they may have made upon them In the mean time we may observe that instead of giving us express and clear proofs which are the only ones that can lawfully be produced on this subject he amuses his Readers with tedious Discourses wide Consequences and negative Arguments which at bottom conclude nothing For the Point in question relating to a Fact which ought to be decided by proofs of Fact we expect thereupon Testimonies conclusive in themselves without the help of Mr. Arnaud and the impossibility wherein he has found himself of satisfying the publick expectation is in it self an evident proof of the contrary of what he pretends But this will appear yet more plain by what follows in the next Chapter wherein we shall more fully discover Mr. Arnaud's imposing on the World CHAP. III. The Third Proof taken from that the Expressions used by the Greeks are general and insufficient to form the Idea of a substantial Conversion The Fourth that the Greeks only receive for Determinations of Faith the Decrees of the seven first General Councils The remaining part of Mr. Arnaud's Delusion laid open The Fifth Proof taken from that the Greeks in their Transactions with the Latins have ever kept to their General Expressions Mr. Arnaud's Eighth Delusion discovered THE Common Expressions the Greeks use in the explaining their Belief touching the Mystery of the Eucharist are these They call the Symbols the holy gifts the holy things the ineffable mysteries the body and blood of Jesus Christ the sanctified bread the particle or parts the pearl and the like They say that the Bread is the Body of Jesus Christ that it is made the Body of Jesus Christ that 't is changed into the Body of Jesus Christ that 't is the real Body of Jesus Christ AND to express this change they use the Terms of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifie to change Now 't is certain these expressions whether we take 'em severally or joyntly cannot form the Idea of Transubstantiation For besides that being general they are capable of several particular sences and are found indifferently used on other Subjects wherein there is no Transubstantiation imagined as may be justified by a thousand Examples if it were needful besides this I say our reason guides us never to attribute a particular and determinate sence to persons who explain not themselves otherwise than in general Terms unless it evidently appears from something else that they had this particular sence in their minds I confess that in this case that is to say if it appears they have had a particular sence in their minds we ought readily to take their Terms in this sence how general soever they may be but if they come not up to this we can give them no more than a general and undeterminate meaning We know for example that in the Church of Rome Transubstantiation is commonly believed when then we are told that the Bread is made the Body of Jesus Christ or that 't is changed into the Body of Christ although these words are general yet do we immediately understand them in this particular sence that the Bread is changed substantially into the Body of Christ But had she not
contained only that the Bread is really changed as we shall make it appear hereafter NEITHER are the Attestations and particular Testimonies which are but from the year 1641. to be urged against us for not to alledge that these pieces are apparently the fruit of the Emissaries and Seminaries and that the quality of the Persons who make these attestations does not furnish them with sufficient Authority to decide our question which concerns the body of the Greek Schismatical Church all these pieces are too new whereon to build alone a Tradition from the â—â—â—venth Century that is to say since six hundred years WE may then already see in general that Mr. Arnaud's whole dispute is reduced to consequences which will be easily overthrown by a particular examination of them which shall be done in its place but in the mean time what I already said is sufficient to establish the validity of my Argument which is drawn from that the usual expressions of the Greeks I mean the clearest of them and those which the Church of Rome believes to be most favourable to her upon the account of the Eucharist only consist in general terms Whence I conclude they hold not Transubstantiation for there is nothing more opposite to this Doctrine than general expressions seeing the belief of the substantial conversion as I have already established it is in it self the particular and distinct determination of the manner of the Bread's being made or changed into the Body of Jesus Christ and that 't is not possible but that a Church which believes it and would instruct its people in this Doctrine must explain this Point clearly and distinctly And thus in strength'ning my own Arguments I lay open the weakness of Mr. Arnaud's BUT this Argument I now produced ought to be attended by this following consideration which will farther evidence its strength and solidity Which is that the Greeks profess to receive only for the determinations of Points of Faith the seven first general Councils to wit that of Nice against Arius under the Emperour Constantine the Great that at Constantinople against Macedonius under Theodosius that of Ephesus against Nestorius under Theodosius Junior that of Chalcedon against Eutychus and Dioscorius under Marcion that of Constantinople upon occasion of the quarrel of the three Chapters under the Emperour Justinian the third of Constantinople against the Monothelites under Constantine Pogonatus and in fine the second of Nice on the subject of Images under Constantine and his Mother Iréna Now 't is certain there is nothing in all these Councils which determins Transubstantiation for what is produced concerning the first at Nice That we must conceive by Faith that the Lamb of God that takes away the sins of the World lies ou this holy Table that he is sacrificed without a sacrifice by the Priests and that we do really receive his precious Body and Blood This I say as any man may see is not Transubstantiation no more than what is offered us touching the second at Nice as will appear by reading the fifth Chapter of Mr. Arnaud's seventh Book wherein he relates it And as to these Councils by which the Church of Rome has determin'd the conversion of the Substances as that of Gregory the Seventh held at Rome in the year 1079. that of Plaisance held in the year 1095. under Urbain the Second that of Latran in the year 1215. wherein Innocent the Third declared the Doctrine of his Church on this Subject that of Constance assembled in the year 1414. wherein Wicliff was condemned for opposing this Doctrine and in fine that of Trent which established the preeeding decisions the Greek Church receives none of these nor makes any account of them They all commonly say say's Richardus the Relation of the Isle of St. Erinys chap. 12. pag. 150. Jesuit in his relation of the Isle of St. Erinys that the Decrees of the seven first Councils ought only to be observed and the Priests make the people believe that at the end of the seventh Council an Angel descended from Heaven testifying that whatsoever concerned our Faith was therein perfected and there remain'd nothing more to be added or decided Leo Allatius likewise only mentions seven Councils which they approve They have say's he in great esteem Allat de prep cons lib. 1. cap. 9. the Decrees of the seven first general Councils and hold them inviolable they receive their Canons for their Rule in all things and the most Religious amongst them do constantly observe them ALEXANDER Guagnin discoursing of the Religion of the Russians Guag in Mosc descrip which is the same as that of the Greeks relates their Belief is that 't was concluded in the seventh general Council that the matters determin'd in the preceding Councils should remain firm for the time to come and that there should no other Council be called under the penalty of an Anathema wherefore adds he they say that all the Councils and Synods held since the seven first are accursed perverse and desperately defiled with Heresie Sacranus Chanon of Cracovia tells us likewise that they regard not any of those Councils which have been held since Relig. Rutheni art 9. the seventh saying they are not concerned in them seeing they were held without their consent SCARGA the Jesuit sets down this as their sixth Errour that there De uno past part 3. c. 2. ought only the seven Councils to be regarded and that whosoever receives the Decrees of an eighth or ninth is accursed Mr. Basire whom I mentioned in the foregoing Chapter confirms me in this matter by his Letter In publica say's he Graecorum professione non nisi 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 recipiunt quas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nuncupant In the publick confession of their Faith they only receive the Decrees of the seven Councils which they call Oecumenical And Metrophanus Confess Eccles Or. cap. 15. the Patriarch of Alexandria authorises all these Testimonies by his express Declaration We only receive say's he the seven Oecumenical Councils and as to the particular Councils we receive from them what has been received and confirmed by the seven Oecumenical ones Should I conclude from hence they hold not Transubstantiation for an Article of their Faith this conclusion perhaps would not be contemptible for in fine not to receive for a determination of Faith any thing else but what is contained in the seven first Councils and at the same time to believe the Doctrine of the substantial conversion are two things very inconsistent with each other especially in reference to people that utterly reject the other Councils wherein this Doctrine has been determin'd And in effect it seems to me that this Doctrine is important enough to be inserted amongst the Articles of their Faith already decided or confirmed by Councils and not amongst the common customs or practices which are still observed altho not expresly determined or amongst the Points which being minute and inconsiderable
are therefore left undecided altho they are held Let the Reader judge whether 't is likely a Church would only receive for a determination of Points of Faith the Decrees of Councils wherein there has passed not a word concerning Transubstantiation and reject others wherein Transubstantiation has been established and yet believe this Doctrine as firmly as the Latins and not dare to explain her self in clear and proper terms which would have eased Mr. Arnaud of that great pains he has taken to fill three or four large Books with his long Syllogisms the greatest part of which are besides the purpose What mean these Greeks by their general expressions which are good for nothing but to puzzle people For according to Mr. Arnaud they distinctly believe the whole substance of Bread is changed into the substance of our Saviour's Body and teach as they believe it being their interest to do so to the end this Doctrin may prevail with the people to adore this substance when changed They are not ignorant of the manner after which the Church of Rome explains it self touching this Doctrine And yet are they obliged not to receive any Doctrine as an Article of Faith but what has been already determined by the seven first Councils in which there 's no mention of this Change of Substance and to reject all those Councils which expressly decreed it and nevertheless they express themselves in general terms which signifie nothing And must Mr. Arnaud to whose immortal praise the Greeks are still in the World and to whom they are obliged for their preservation under the Turkish Empire tire himself his Friends and his Readers exhaust his store of Consequences that is to say his stock of Delusions and be continually imploying his invention to find some appearance or shadow of Transubstantiation in the usual expressions of this People To speak impartially he has reason to be angry with these Greeks who are so obstinate or at least so lazy that they will not be at the pains to express plainly and without ambiguity a Notion so clearly and distinctly imprinted in their minds And moreover not only these Greeks have not explained themselves but even when moved by temporal interests and the politick intrigues of their Emperours they consented to these patched re-unions with the Church of Rome they have changed the Latin expressions and whereas in the Acts of these last it is expressly mention'd that the Bread is Transubstantiated into the Body of Jesus Christ they have barely inserted that it is changed that 't is consecrated and in a word they have ever substituted their general expressions to the formal and precise expressions of the Latins What can Mr. Arnaud alledge when on one hand he sees in Raynaldus this Confession of Faith about which he has made such a noise and which was offer'd to the Greeks by Clement IV. by Gregory X. by John XXI and by Urbain V. as distinctly and clearly containing the Belief of the Roman Church and that he sees it I say expressed in these Latins words Sacramentum Eucharistae ex azymo conficit eadem Romana Ecclesia tenens docens Raynald ad ann 1267. num 77. quod in ipso Sacramento Panis veré Transubstantiatur in Corpus Vinum in Sanguinem Domini nostri Jesu Christi The Church of Rome celebrates the Sacrament of the Eucharist with unleavened Bread holding and teaching that in this Sacrament the Bread is really transubstantiated into the Body and the Wine into the Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ and when on the other hand he finds this same Article in the Greek Copy produced by Allatius in these Words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Allat perp cons lib. 2. cap. 17. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Church of Rome celebrates the Sacrament of the Eucharist with unleavened Bread holding and teaching that in this Sacrament the Bread is really changed into the Body and the Wine into the Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ The Latins say's veré Transubstantiatur it is really Transubstantiated and the Greeks 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is really changed Mr. Arnaud who loves not to complain when his complaints will do him Liv. 3. cap. 7. pag. 298. no good passes lightly over this difference as if it were a trifle not worth his notice for having told us that Raynaldus observes some read in Latin Transmutatur and others Transubstantiatur he adds Allatius who has given us the Original it self makes it appear that these words Transmutatur and Transubstantiatur are mere Synonimous Terms seeing they have been substituted by Interpreters to these Greek words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. And this is what is soon dispatched by the Rule of Synonimy Transmutatur and Transubstantiatur are both the same because Interpreters substitute both one and the other of these words to the Term 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But who are these Interpreters who thus render Transubstantiatur are they not such who find Transubstantiation every where and will have it brought into the Greek Church by force If Transmutare and Transubstantiare are Synonimous Terms Mr. Arnaud may when he pleases render Gregor Naz. Ora. 40. those words of Gregory Nazianzen Christo indutus sum in Christo Transubstantiatus sum for there is Transmutatus and when he shall find in a Homily attributed to Origen Sanctus Theologus in Deum Transmutatus he may read Hâ—m 2. in divers Iren. ad Haeres lib. 5. cap. 12. in Deum Transubstantiatus and when he reads in St. Iréneus Oleaster Transmutatur in bonam olivam he may render this Transubstantiatur in bonam olivam If we may as well substitute to the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 these two Latin ones Transmutatur and Transubstantiatur Mr. Arnaud may read in the Version of St. Macairus omnes in naturam Divinam Transubstantiantur for the Interpreter has set down Transmutantur and the Greek imports 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and when he shall find in the same Author that Jesus Christ came to change the nature he may understand it that he came to Transubstantiate the nature forasmuch as the Latin bears Transmutare and the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 'T is certain that a man who reads good Authors upon Mr. Arnaud's credit and follows his Synonima's will make abundance of extravagant Transubstantiations and I do not believe Mr. Arnaud will be willing to warrant them all He will say these words are Synonimy's when they concern the Eucharist for the Bread's being Changed or Transubstantiated is the same thing It is so indeed with them that believe Transubstantiation but not with them who do not believe it But the Greeks believe it say's Mr. Arnaud which he is obliged to prove before he affirms it Mr. Arnaud's Arguments are really admirable for they are very conclusive provided we suppose the truth of what they conclude If it be demanded of him wherefore he makes such a noise with this
Form of Faith he will answer 't is because the Term of Transubstantiatur is in it Tell him that in the Greek there is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Transmutatur and not Transubstantiatur he will answer that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Transmutatur and Transubstantiatur are the same thing But let this be examined it will be found to be indeed the same thing to them that believe Transubstantiation but as to others who do not there is a great difference so that to speak truly to make Mr Arnaud's Argument good it must first be supposed the Greeks believe the Substantial Conversion as well as the Latins HE may adjust these matters when he pleases but let me tell him in the mean time that the Greeks used the same expressions in the Council of Florence The Latins having demanded wherefore after the words of our Saviour Concil Florent Sess 25. Jesus Christ take eat this is my Body which has been broken for you for the Remission of your Sins c. they added this Prayer and make this Bread the precious Body of thy Christ and that which is in this Cap the precious bloud of thy Christ in changing them by virtue of thy Holy Spirit they answered they did acknowledge that the Consecrated Bread was made the Body of Christ by these words The Latin Decree has this expression fateri nos diximus per haec verba Transubstantiari Sacrum Panem fieri Corpus Christi but the Greek expressions are these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Latin say's 't is Transubstantiated the Greek that 't is Consecrated MR. Arnaud has recourse here likewise to his Synonimy's for he tells us that the Latins to whom this answer was made having taken it in the sence Lib. 4. cap. 2. pag. 345. of an acknowledgement of Transubstantiation it is ridiculous to pretend there was such a great equivocation between them and the Greeks the one understanding a change of Substance and the others a change of Virtue He adds That if the Greeks had not taken these words in the sence of the Latins Syropulus and Marc of Ephesus would have observed that the Latins were derided by this equivocation and would have accused them who made this answer of prevarication and deceit In fine he say's that Andrew de S. Cruce who deserves as much to be credited as any of the other Historians who wrote on this Council because he was there present relates this acknowledgment of Transubstantiation which Bessarion made in the name of all the Greeks in a manner more precise distinct and with greater circumstances and that he attributes to him these words we have learnt that these are the words of our Lord which Change and Transubstantiate the Bread into the Body of Jesus Christ and the Wine into his Blood and that these divine words have the full force of Transubstantiation I answer the more I study the Character of Mr. Arnaud the more clearly I perceive that these things are no otherwise ridiculous and affrightful but only as they agree not with his designs For it is certain that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Transubstantiari are two different Terms which signifie not the same thing the first is applicable in general to all Mysteries and signifies only to be conjecrated or perfectly consecrated the second signifies a Change of one Substance into another It is moreover certain that when the Latins wrote Transubstantiari the Greeks have only set down 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 why then will he have it that the Greeks took not this Term in its natural signification and in the usual sence given to it amongst them Because say's he that the Latins took this answer for an acknowledgment of Transubstantiation But who told him that the Latins did not do ill in taking it after this manner Who told him the Greeks intended the Latins should take it in this sence The Greeks have kept to their general expressions and the Latins have drawn them as far as they could to their advantage If there has been any equivocation in them the Latins have voluntarily made it and 't is very likely could they have made the Greeks say 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they would gladly have done it but not being able to effect it they have made what advantage they could of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in interpreting it by the word Transubstantiation And this is the whole Secret which is neither ridiculous nor affrightful in any other than Mr. Arnaud's imagination And as to what he say's concerning Syropulus and Mark of Ephesus namely that they would have observed the Latins were deluded by an Equivocation and accuse them who thus answered in behalf of the Greeks of prevarication and deceit I see no reason they had to do this for when the Greeks sayd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they spoke their usual Language and derided no body If the Latins understood it otherwise than the force of the Term and common use permitted them 't is they that derided the Greeks rather than the Greeks them wherefore there is no reason in this respect to accuse them who made this answer of prevarication and deceit Andrew de S. Cruce his relating the words of Bessarion according to the intention of the Latins does but confirm what I say which is that the Roman Church has ever endeavoured to expound to its advantage the general expressions of the Greeks and I know not wherefore Mr. Arnaud tells us that he deserves no less credit than the other Historians who wrote of this Council Would he have it that Bessarion who speaks for all the rest of the Greeks did not use the Term 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This is the very word in the Greek Text concerning that Council and Andrew de S. Cruce's Authority is not sufficient to correct a Publick Act neither can his Latin alter the Greek Would he have it that the Latins explain'd the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Bessarion by Transubstantiatur I grant it and the Decree of the Council shows it so that he needs not call Andrew de St. Cruce to his assistance Yet may we observe that Mr. Arnaud himself is not fully satisfi'd that the Greek and Latin expressions on this Subject do mean but one and the same thing altho he tells us he is for he calls that which Andrew de S. Cruce relates from Bessarion a more precise manner more distinct and circumstantial which is as much as to say after all that the Transubstantiari of the Latins is more precise distinct and plain than the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Greeks AND this the force of Truth has extorted from him and it were well if it could likewise so far prevail with him as to make him acknowledge that this proceeding of the Greeks is an evident mark they believed not Transubstantiation For had they believed it what likelyhood is there they should thus carefully keep themselves from using the expressions
of the Latins which are proper distinct and clear and change them into others which are general and equivocal and that in the same Acts wherein those aforementioned exactly describe the conversion of the Substances th 'others should be so obstinate as not to take notice of it Had they been perswaded the Latins did not innovate would they not have yielded to a thousand Reasons which seem'd to constrain them to manifest their thro Conformity with them Their Affairs were in very bad circumstances they left their Country to implore the assistance of the Western Princes they were in the Pope's hands and maintain'd at his charge they consented to the re-union of the two Churches their Emperors did not only sollicite but constrain them thereunto and they had already offered great violences to their own consciences for they consented to the addition of the Filioque in the Creed what reason then could hinder them from acknowledging the Conversion of the Substances had their belief been the same with that of the Church of Rome Wherefore should they still affect their general Terms of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Wherefore even in the very act of the re-union made at Florence the Term of Transubstantiation was never inserted but only that of confici in the Latin and that of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Greek For thus was it set down 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Item in azymo sive fermentato Pane triticeo Corpus Christi veraciter confici Sacerdotesque in altero ipsum Domini Corpus conficere debere unumquemque scilicet juxta suae Ecclesiae sive Occidentalis sive Orientalis consuetudinem That the Body of Jesus Christ is really consecrated or made into Wheaten Bread either with or without Leven and that the Priests ought to make or consecrate the Body of our Lord with either of these every one according to the Custom of his Church whether Eastern or Western Here is no mention of the conversion of the Substances for the general Terms carri'd it away from the determinations of the Latins Neither need Mr. Arnaud tell us as he does that the Greeks took Lib. 4. cap 2. pag. 346. these words in a sence of Transubstantiation because the Latins did so For if the Greeks believed a true and real conversion of Substance wherefore then was not that Article expressed in clear and proper Terms The Latins were not ignorant of them the Greeks knew them well enough there being no word more common among them than that of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That of Substantia had been already affected by the Latins in the Mystery of the Eucharist and the Popes that preceded Eugenus the IV. were not wanting to bring it into that famous Confession of Faith which we have so often mention'd In short Mr. Arnaud need not tell us so often of these Equivocations for we know very well that in these kind of Accommodations wherein interest holds the chiefest rank the two Parties agree commonly in certain generalities which each of 'em endeavour to explain to their own advantage There is nothing more common than these kind of Treaties in which when there 's foreseen any insuperable difficulties they are usually left untoucht both Parties contenting themselves with general Terms by which each of 'em think to compass their designs Mr. Arnaud is a Person of too much reading and experience to question a Truth so well known and I believe we need not go far for instances of this kind But howsoever this is certain and undeniable that in all the Decrees of the Florentine Council there appears nothing on the part of the Greeks that establishes the conversion of Substances but on the contrary it seems as if they had prevail'd on the Latins to abate their expressions in the solemn act of their re-union BUT before we leave this Proof it is to be observed that Bessarion Archbishop of Nice who was one of the Principal Agents in this Accommodation in behalf of the Greeks was a Person already brought over to the Interests of the Latins and for his good Services was soon after made a Cardinal in the Roman Church It cannot then but be supposed he favoured the Latins and used all possible means to prevail on his own Country-men In effect Syropulus complains of this in such a manner as sufficiently shews what judgment we ought to make of this particular In the mean time compare I pray the Terms Bessarion uses when he speaks in behalf of the Greeks in the Conferences of the Council with those he uses in his Treatise of the Eucharist wherein he speaks from his own head since he was made a Cardinal in Specie say's he in this Treatise Panis Vini veritas Corporis Sanguinis continetur cum in illa Substantia Panis Vinique mutetur The Body of Jesus Christ is really contain'd under the Species of Bread and Wine the Substance being changed into this Body and Blood and a little farther verba dicuntur quibus dictis mox Consecratio fit Transubstantialitas perficitur The words are no sooner said but the Consecration is made and the Transubstantiation finished 'T is no longer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Consecration and Sanctification but Substantia mutatur Transubstantialitas perficitur the change of Substance Transubstantion Whence comes this difference but from that the Greeks do not use the same expressions as the Latins and that there is not any Conformity between these two Churches in this Point of the Conversion of Substances Bessarion counterfiting the Greek makes use only of general expressions But when he discovers himself to be a Latin he speaks plainly and distinctly BUT besides Bessarion this same difference is observable in other Latinised Greeks engaged to propogate the Roman Doctrines if we compare their Style with that of the true Greeks Compare for example what Mr. Arnaud tells us out of Emanüel Calecas and John Plusiadéne with what he himself alledges out of Cabisilas Mark of Ephesus Simon of Thessalonica and others and you will find these last mention not the change of Substance whereas the former do expressly assert it Emanuel tells us concerning the Eucharist that God is able to change the inward Substance and yet conserve the same Accidents entire Plusiadene after the same manner That the Substance of Bread is changed into the Body of Christ Whereas there 's no such expressions in the true Greeks for we meet only with such expressions as these that the Bread is really the Body of Jesus Christ and that 't is changed into the Body of Jesus Christ but as to the Substance they make no mention of it and there is nothing but Mr. Arnaud's Consequence or Synonimy which can make them do it CHAP. IV. The Sixth Proof taken from the Greeks employing on other Subjects the same Expressions as on the Eucharist Mr. Arnaud's Tenth Delusion manifested THE only way to judge of the meaning of Authors when 't is matter of Debate is
to examine their Style in other like Matters it being impossible but in comparing their expressions some of 'em will give light to others Had Mr Arnaud followed this method he would never have valued so highly several expressions in Greek Authors for he would have seen at the same time that they deliver themselves almost after the same manner on other Subjects where there 's no Transubstantiation to be suspected I know 't is a hard matter for a Person that is prejudiced to consider the question he handles in those respects which are disagreeable to him but besides that this prejudice is a fault and therefore to be avoided especially when men write on a Publick Account or take upon them to instruct People besides this I say there are several considerable matters which so offer themselves to be seen that we cannot abstain from beholding them and 't is more especially in respect of these that mens neglect is blame-worthy because 't is affected and is inconsistant with the Rules of Sincerity As for instance how can we approve of Mr. Arnaud's proceeding who has scarcely mentioned a word in his Book touching that prodigious ignorance which has overspread the East in matters of Religion How can we approve his taking no notice of that multitude of Emissaries wherewith all that Country has been filled for I know not how many Ages together nor of the means used for the propogation of the Romish Doctrines nor the progresses they made These are things he could not be ignorant of and are not matters of small importance seeing the Judgment to be made of this whole Controversie does in some measure depend thereon But not to rehearse what we already mention'd how can we bear with him when he passes over in silence several Greek expressions like unto those from which he would draw advantage and yet are applied to Subjects which have not the least relation to Transubstantiation These expressions offered themselves to him and there needed little deliberation to determine what use was to be made of them and what rank they hold in the decision of this Controversie Yet has he taken no notice of them for his desire of vanquishing has far exceeded his love to Truth BUT howsoever 't is certain the Greeks speak almost after the same manner concerning the Church it being likewise the Body of Christ as they do concerning the Eucharist Cabisilas is one of the Authors Mr. Arnaud has quoted with most complacency having filled a long Chapter with Passages taken out of him he alledges amongst others these words of his 38 Chapter The Church is represented in the Mysteries of Religion not as in the Signs but as the Members are marked by the Heart the Tree by the Root and the Vine-branches by the Vine forasmuch as the Mysteries are the Body and Blood of Christ and that this Body and Blood are the Nourishment of the Church So far is his Allegation but 't is requisite to hear Cabisilas himself in the full extent of his Discourse to judge of the Style of this Author and Mr. Arnaud's Delusion The Church say's he is represented in the Mysteries of Religion not as in the Signs but as the Members are in the Heart the Branches of the Tree in the Root and the Vine-leaves in the Vine as speaks our Lord. For here is not only a Communion of Names or a reference of likeness but 't is the Identity of the thing it self For the Mysteries are the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ Now they are the real nourishment of the Church and when she partaketh of them she does not change them into a humane Body like unto other Food but she her self is changed into them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 forasmuch as the most excellent part has the predominancy Behold the iron when 't is joyned with the fire it becomes fire and it does not make the fire become iron for the fire effaces all the properties of the iron so in like manner if any one could see the Church of Christ in that respect whereby 't is united to him and partakes of his Flesh he would behold nothing but the Body of Christ and therefore St. Paul say's you are the Body of Jesus Christ and each of you are his Members For when he calls him the Head and us the Members he does not represent to us thereby the cares of his Providence nor our subjection to him in the same sence as we call our selves the Members of our Parents or Friends by an hyperbolical way of speaking But he means what he says That the faithful by the efficacy of this Blood live the Life which is in Jesus Christ and have their real dependance on him as their Head and are clothed with this Body It needs not now be demanded of Mr. Arnaud why he cut short this passage of Cabisilas seeing the reason manifestly appears for if we take but the pains to compare what he alledges from this Author touching the Eucharist with what I now related touching the Church we shall soon find that these last expressions are far stronger and significant than what he say's concerning the Sacrament He excludes the bare communion of name and resemblance between Christ and the Church and establishes a perfect Identity He say's the Church is changed into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ He uses the comparison of iron inflamed which others apply to the Eucharist and as if he design'd to make us understand that the Church is Christ's Body in a litteral and complete sense he assures us this is no Hyperbole and that St. Paul speaks the same thing I am greatly deceived if there can be any thing found so pressing and comprehensive in relation to the Eucharist either in this Author or any other of the true Greeks and this shews on one hand how vain and groundless Mr. Arnaud's Triumphs are and on the other how requisite and necessary a thing it is for men to shew the Substantial Conversion clearly and expresly in the Doctrines of a Church before it be concluded she believes it CABISILAS is not the only man who speaks after this manner touching the Church for others borrow his proper Terms to explain themselves fully like him for we may find the same passage at large in the first Answer of Jeremias the Patriarch of Constantinople to the Divines of Wittemberg PHOTIUS spake likewise to the same purpose and Oecumenius after him as appears by the Commentaries of the latter of these on the Tenth Chapter of the first Epistle to the Corinthians The Apostle say they tells us that the Bread is the Communion of the Body of Jesus Christ but forasmuch as it seems that that which is communicated is of a different nature from him to whom 't is communicated he would now shew us that we do not communicate but that we are all of us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the same Body of Jesus Christ For as one piece of Bread is made of several
but supposes on the contrary they are not consecrated for if the Greeks believed they were consecrated it would be in vain for the Latins to demand wherefore they joyn them with that which is consecrated It appears likewise by Arcudius that Gabriel of Philadelphia maintains this Opinion of the non-Consecration of these Particles not only as the bare Opinion of Simeon of Thessalonica but as that of the whole Greek Church for he recites these words of Gabriel What is it which perswades me Arcud lib. 5. cap. 11. of this 'T is first the Faith and in the next place the Authority of the Holy Fathers but in fine I am perswaded of this because 't is the Doctrine which the Catholick Church dispersed over the Face of the whole Earth teacheth and confirmeth By this Catholick Church he means that of the Greeks In like manner the Jesuit Francis Richard an Emissary speaking of this Belief touching the non-consecration of the Particles tells us that he has had several Relation of the Isle of St. Erini Disputes with the Papa's that embraced this False Opinion and that the People for want of Instruction know not what to believe Had Mr. Arnaud carefully perused Leo Allatius his chief Author who has furnished him with the greatest part of his Materials touching this Dispute about the Greeks he might have found this Sentiment to be the same with that of the Monks of Mount Athos All the Monks say's he that inhabit Mount Athos are of this Epist 2. ad Nihus Opinion as testifies Athanasius Venoire the Archbishop of Imbre who dwelt a long time with them and I my self have seen several who were Priests that zealously maintain'd the same thing BUT be it as it will Mr. Arnaud and I would draw from one and the same Principle very different Conclusions the Principle is that the Greeks do not believe that the Particles are consecrated his Conclusion is that they then hold Transubstantiation and mine on the contrary that they then do not believe it Let us now see which of these Conclusions is the truest HE tells us that when any Object against the Greeks that if their Opinion be true it would follow that they which communicated of these Partcles Lib. 4. cap. 1. pag. 330. would not receive the Body of Jesus Christ they answer there is put into the cup part of the Host truly consecrated which is mixt with its Particles not consecrated out of which afterwards they distribute in a spoon the Communion to the Laity so that it commonly happens that all in general receive some part of the Body of Jesus Christ and when it should fall out otherwise it would only follow they communicated but of one kind BUT this pretended Answer of the Greeks hath no other Foundation than Mr. Arnaud's Authority who alleges no Author to confirm it and Arcudius who manages this Dispute against Simeon and Gabriel and whence Mr. Arnaud has taken all he knows makes no mention of it HE adds That this Errour invincibly proves the Greeks hold Transubstantiation and that we need but consider after what manner they express it And he afterwards produces the Passages of Simeon and Gabriel The Church upon just Grounds say's Simeon offers these Particles to shew that this lively Sacrifice sanctifies both the quick and dead but she makes them not Gods by nature He means that as the Saints are united to God by Grace but become not Gods in their nature so these Particles are united to the Body of Jesus Christ altho they do not therefore become his Body And this he clearly expresses in these words The Saints being united to Jesus Christ are deifi'd by Grace but become not Gods by nature so likewise the Particles which are offered upon their account obtain holiness by the participation of the Body and Blood and become one with this Body and Blood by this mixture but if you consider them separately they are not the very Body and Blood of Christ but are only joyned to them The Archbishop of Philadelphia say's the same thing in using the same comparison as the Souls of the Saints say's he being brought to the light of the Divinity which enlightens them become Gods only by participation and not by nature so these Particles altho united to the Flesh and Blood of Jesus Christ are not changed but receive holiness by participation After this Mr. Arnaud concludes in these words it is as clear as the day that all this has no sence but only as it relates to the Doctrine of Transubstantiation and that as these Authors suppose these Particles are not transubstantiated so they suppose the greatest portion which is offered in the name of Jesus Christ and from which alone is taken what is reserved for the sick is effectually transubstantiated and becomes the very Body of Jesus Christ BUT I shall not stick to tell him his Philosophy deceives him for these Authors do not dispute on this Point that is to say whether these Particles are transubstantiated or not But whether they are made the Body of Jesus Christ in the same manner as the great Portion And this does in truth suppose that the great Portion becomes this Body but not that it is transubstantiated The comparison they use does not favour this pretended supposition for they mean no more by it than this that as the Saints are indeed united unto God and partake of his holiness but become not Gods by nature so the Particles which represent the Saints are really united with the great one which represents our Saviour Christ and partake of its Sanctification but they become not effectually what the great one is made to wit the Body of Jesus Christ And this is their reasoning which does not satisfie us how the great Particle is made this Body whether by a Substantial Conversion or otherwise And thus does Mr. Arnaud's Logick conclude nothing LET us see now the Conclusion I pretend to draw hence First we are agreed that in Simeon's sence these little Particles are bread in Substance and represent the Saints Now if we suppose the biggest ceases to be Bread and is made the proper Substance of Jesus Christ there can be nothing more impertinent than the Ceremony of the Greeks to place in the same Mystery round about our Saviour who is in his own proper Substance not real Saints but little morsels of Bread which represent them Now methinks there is a great deal more reason in saying that the great Particle is the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ and the small ones according to their way mystical Saints than to say that the great one is substantially Jesus Christ and the small ones are only Bread in Substance and Saints in the Mystery MOREOVER what means Simeon when he tells us that the small Apud Arcud lib. 3. cap. 11. Particles become one with the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ by mixture which is to say that when they joyn them with
the great Particle in the Cup and mix them therein together it is no more then but one and the same thing For if we suppose that as well the great one as the lesser are the Body of Jesus Christ and mystical Saints I find no difficulty therein for he means that all these Particles put together make no more than one Mystery which expresses that perfect Unity which is between Christ and his Saints which together with him make but one Body But if on the contrary we suppose that the first Particle is Jesus Christ in Substance there will be found nothing more absurd than the expression of this Person when he tells us that little Saints made of Bread are converted into the very Substance of Jesus Christ He is one and the same with his true Saints whether they are in Heaven or on Earth but to say he becomes one and the same with their Figures and Representations or with Crums of Bread which represent them on an Altar is in my opinion such an extravagant fancy that we ought not to charge the Greeks with it IN fine Arcudius assures us that 't is customary to administer these Particles to the People after the same manner as we do the Sacrament He say's indeed that Simeon and Gabriel warned the Curats not to distribute them in this manner to the People but to administer them with the great Particle mixt and pressed together in the Cup. Yet adds he Simeon ambiguously Arcud lib. 3. cap. 10. expresses himself for he say's that the Particles are the Body of our Lord when they are mixt with the Body and Blood and are not so being separate and therefore the Faithful may partake of them in the Sacrament which is to say they may receive them as the real Sacrament Now tell me I beseech you whether 't is likely a man that believes the Eucharist to be the Body of Jesus Christ in its proper Substance would speak after this manner These Particles say's he become the Body of our Lord when mixt but separate they are not so Is it that the conjunction and mixture transubstantiates them and the separation untransubstantiates them If this be his meaning why does he so earnestly assert that they are not consecrated Why does Gabriel his Disciple say that they are not changed altho united He must certainly mean Ibid. they are the Body of Christ otherwise than in propriety of Substance and he sufficiently explains himself when he says in the second passage which Mr. Arnaud has alleged 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they participate Apud Arc. lib. 3. cap. 11. pag 331. of the Body and Blood of our Lord which Mr. Arnaud understood not amiss when he translated it they receive holiness by the participation of the Body and Blood Which is to say they are made the Body and Blood by a Communication of Sanctity which comes to them from the great Particle by means of the mixture even to the making them capable of being given in the Communion to the Faithful Now there are several things which do hence necessarily follow For first it follows that the Bread which is the Body of Jesus Christ not in Substance but in Sanctification is sufficient for the Communion of the Faithful Secondly that the great Particle is the Body of Jesus Christ in such a manner that it may be communicated to another piece of Bread without the change of its Substance and by consequence that it is not it self this Body substantially for besides that this manner of being the Body of Jesus Christ is incommunicable it is evident that if it could be communicated to another Subject even to the making of it the Body of Jesus Christ it then follows that this other Subject must be transubstantiated In a word Simeon's meaning is that the great Particle is in such a manner the Body of Jesus Christ that it may communicate this honour to the rest and make them become the Body of Jesus Christ in such a sort as renders them proper for the Communion And to the same effect are these words of Arcudius He saith say's he that the Particles are the Body of our Lord when mixt with the Body and Blood and therefore the Faithful may receive them in the Sacrament and these other words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they communicate or participate of the Body and Blood of our Lord. It is then evident he means not that the great Particle is the Body of Christ in propriety of Substance for this propriety cannot be communicated to another Subject if we suppose at the same time as Simeon does that this other Subject remains really Bread AND this is my Argument Mr. Arnaud who saw the force of it has endeavour'd to escape it by his usual Artifices for on one hand he has concealed from us what Arcudius has expressly declared to wit that these Particles are the Body of Christ being mixt and that the faithful may partake of them as of the Sacrament and on the other he has mis-represented Simeon's sence and pretended it to be to his advantage But all his Artifices cannot hinder us from perceiving that the real Sentiment of the Greek Church is 1. That the Substance of Bread remains in all the Particles that is to say as well in that which is consecrated as in all the rest 2. That the consecrated Particle becomes the Body of Jesus Christ in full virtue of Sanctification and is as it were a Fountain of Grace and Divine Efficacy 3. That the other Particles by mixture and union with the great Particle do partake of this Sanctification and become by this means the Body and Blood of our Lord not after a complete and perfect manner like unto the great Particle but in a far lower degree which is yet sufficient to make them proper to be distributed to the People in the Communion as being the Body and Blood of our Lord. WE shall be confirm'd in this opinion if we consider the eighth Proof which I shall here offer It consists in that the Greeks believe the Eucharist consecrated on Holy Thursday to have a greater efficacy than that which is consecrated at other times which may be verifi'd if 't were needful by the testimony of several Authors See here what Prareolus say's They assure us say's he that this excellent mystery consecrated on the day in which our Saviour celebrated his Supper that is to say on Thursday in the Holy Week hath a more excellent virtue and is more efficatious than when 't is consecrated on other days Prercol Elem. Heres lib. 7. pag. 201. and 't is for this reason according to Guy Le Carmes Relation that they consecrate the Eucharist for the sick on no other day of the year than in that wherein our Saviour made his last Supper which they keep all the year only for this purpose John de Lasko Archbishop of Gnesne and Ambassadour from the King of Poland to Leo X. in
to favour the Conversion of the Substances IT is no more favour'd by several other Clauses in the same Liturgy For in that of St. James there is a Prayer which the Priest directs to our Saviour in Heaven altho he has the Consecrated Bread before him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 say's he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bibl. Patr. Graeco Lat. Tom. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 O thou Holy One that dwellest in the Holy Places sanctifie us by the Word of thy Grace and coming of thy Holy Spirit We find this same Prayer in St. Mark 's Liturgy In those of St. Basile and Chrysostom there is another directed after the same manner to our Saviour in Heaven Look down we beseech thee say's it O Lord Jesus Christ our God from the Holy Place of thy Habitation and Throne of thy Glory which is in thy Kingdom and come to sanctifie us thou that sittest at the right hand of the Father and art here with us invisibly Mr. Arnaud perverts these last words and who art here invisibly with us not considering they relate to that part of the Petition wherein they beseech him to come and sanctifie them and that they only signifie this invisible presence of his Grace and Divinity which he promised his Disciples when he left the World and ascended up into Heaven It plainly appears that the intention of the Greek Church is to send up their Devotions to the Place where our Saviour inhabits How comes it to pass we find not at least one Prayer wherein is expressed that he has clothed the proper Substance of his Humanity with the Veil of the Accidents or some such like words But on the contrary when the Priest reads with a loud voice 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Holy Things are for Holy Persons the Quire answers there is only one that is Holy only one Lord who is Jesus Christ at the Glory of God the Father For 't is clear that these words at the Glory of God the Father mean that he is above in Heaven In the Liturgy of the presanctifi'd Bread the Priest thus addresses himself to God beseeching him that his only Son may rest on this Altar by vertue of these dreadful Mysteries thereon Eurho Goar exposed thus manifestly distinguishing the Mysteries from Jesus Christ and immediately prays That he would sanctifie our Souls and Bodies by a perpetual Sanctification to the end that partaking of these Holy Things with a pure Conscience a holy assurance and enlightned mind and being quickned by them we may be united to Jesus Christ himself our true God who has said he that eateth my Flesh and drinks my Blood dwells in me and I in him By which words it is evident that the Mysteries are plainly distinguished from our Saviour himself and that those who receive them unworthily are not united with him In the Liturgy of St. Basil the Priest prays That receiving with the Testimony Vbi supra of a pure Conscience the Particle of the Sanctifications of God we may be united to the Body and Blood of his Christ and that receiving these things worthily we may have Jesus Christ dwelling in our hearts These words do moreover distinguish Jesus Christ from the Sacrament he has ordained and 't is certain these Terms of Jesus Christ dwelling in our hearts do more plainly intimate a Spiritual Communion than a corporeal one In fine in this same Liturgy the Priest having performed his Office in this particular makes a Prayer unto God in which he recapitulates whatsoever has passed in this Mystical Celebration but mentions not the least tittle concerning Transubstantiation We have say's he finished and consummated the Mystery of thy Oeconomy O Jesus Christ our God as far as we have been able For we have celebrated the memory of thy Death we have beheld the Figure of thy Resurrection we have been filled with thy never fading Life and been made partakers of thy immortal Pleasures grant we may be found worthy to enjoy the same in the World to come Is it not a wonderful thing there should not in all this be the least mention of the conversion of the Substances which is yet in the sence of the Roman Church the most essential part of that Mystery that whereunto all the rest does tend and whereon depends so much that the rest without this would signifie nothing Let Mr. Arnaud alledge what he pleases 't is not to be imagin'd the Greek Church would forget this part of the Mystery in such a solemn recapitulation which it makes to God at the end of its Office did she in effect believe any other Change in the Bread than that of its Virtue and Holyness CHAP. VI. The Tenth Proof taken from that the Greeks do often use an extenuating Term when they call the Eucharist the Body of Jesus Christ The Eleventh from their not believing the wicked who partake of the Eucharist do receive the Body of Jesus Christ The Twelfth from their believing the dead and those in Deserts remote from all Commerce do receive the same as we do in the Communion ALTHO the Greeks do frequently call the Eucharist the Body of Jesus Christ yet must we not thereupon immediately conclude that they are in this respect of the same opinion with the Church of Rome and adopted Transubstantiation or the substantial presence amongst the Articles of their Faith One Proof of the contrary of this is that sometimes when they mention the consecrated Bread and give it the name of the Body of Jesus Christ they add a Term of Diminution which shews they do not mean that it is his Body in propriety of Substance Which appears by a passage taken out of Balsamon on the Seventieth Canon of the Apostles This Canon ordains a punishment to those that shall fast with the Jews and celebrate their Feasts and Balsamon takes hence an occasion to inveigh against the Feasts of unleavened Bread in these words If a Balsam in Canon 55. Apost Can 70. man deserves to be deposed only for eating unleavened Bread with the Jews and expelled the Christian Communion what punishment do they not then deserve that partake of it as of the Body of our Lord and celebrate the Passover after the same manner as they do MATTHEW Blastarius speaks almost to the same purpose in Arcudius They say's he that celebrate the mystical Sacrifice with unleavened Bread Areud lib. 3. cap. 6. do greatly offend against the Christian Customs for if they who only eat the unleaven'd Bread of the Feast of the Jews ought to be deposed and excommunicated what excuse can they make for themselves who receive it as if it were the Body of our Lord. SIMEON of Thessalonica expounding that passage of the Liturgy where the Priest perfumes the Gifts in saying these words Be thou exalted O God above the Heavens and be thou glorifi'd thro out all the Earth the Priest say's he speaks of the Ascension of our Lord and the Glory
he received when he was preached to every Creature as if he spoke to our Saviour himself and said to him Thou art descended to us thou hast ascended into Heaven and fillest the whole Earth with thy Glory And therefore do we celebrate these Holy Mysteries and partake of and possess thee eternally Wherefore have we this as if he spoke to him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which Goar has well translated Quasi cum salvatore dissereret How comes it to pass I Goar in Euchol p. 153. say we have this quasi if in effect our Saviour was present and the Priest spake to him It may be alledged the passages I come from producing have some ambiguity for it may be doubted whether by the aforemention'd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is meant as being the Body of our Lord or as if it were the Body of our Lord that is to say as if it were in the stead of our Lord's Body But first of all this ambiguity is void in respect of the passage of Simeon who tells us that the Priest does as it were speak to our Saviour for it cannot be alledged that this is either a quasi of quality or of Identity if I may so speak nor give it another sence than this to wit that the Priest speaks no otherwise than if he had our Saviour himself in Person before him and directed his Discourse to him in the same sence as he says Let us see our Saviour speaking in the Apud Allat de perp cons lib. 3. cap. 13. Gospel and that he is as it were present 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and elsewhere That the Priest holding the Gospel in his hand gives it to be kissed by him that takes upon him the Christian Profession as if it were our Saviour himself 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and says to him behold Jesus Christ is invisibly present in the midst of us Now this contributes to the resolving of whatsoever may seem doubtful in the other passages MOREOVER the reasoning of Balsamon and Blastarius clears the difficulty for if we suppose they believed Transubstantiation we cannot give any tollerable sence to their Discourses In effect either they acknowledged that the Azyme was changed into the Body of Jesus Christ as well as the leavened Bread or deni'd it if they acknowledged it their sence is that 't is a great crime to eat the proper Body of Jesus Christ under the Accidents of an Azyme Now this is absurd for if the Body of Christ be really under the Accidents of the Azyme what crime is there in thus eating of it For that which is eaten is no longer a real Azyme but the Substance of the Body it self Wherefore moreover should they be judged more worthy of condemnation than those who mix themselves with the Jews when they celebrate their Feast and eat unleavened Bread with them For the latter of these do really eat an Azyme whereas the others receive only the Accidents of it which serve as a vayl to the proper flesh of our Lord. If it be said they do not acknowledge the Azyme to be changed into the Body of Jesus Christ as the leavened Bread is their sence will be that 't is a greater Crime to eat an Azyme in supposing it to be the Body of Jesus Christ than to eat the same Azyme wittingly and willingly in the Communion of the Jews Now this is no less absurd for the intention and belief which the first have lessens their fault whereas the knowledge and intention of the other aggravates it They that eat the Azyme with the Jews mean only to eat an Azyme whereas those that eat it in imagining they eat the Body of our Lord pretend nothing less than to eat an Azyme so that it cannot be said in this respect but that the crime of these last is greater than that of the others It must then be granted that to give a likely sence to Balsamon and Blastarius their quasi must be a quasi of comparison and not of Identity and that they mean that for a man to eat unleavened Bread in stead of the Body of Jesus Christ is a greater crime than to eat it simply with the Jews because this is an introducing of Judaism in the Christian Religion and to make of that which is accursed the Mystery of our Lord's Body Mr. Arnaud will without doubt reply that they dispute against the Latins and so by consequence this quasi ought to be taken in the sence of the Latins Now the Greeks know very well that the Latins do not receive the Bread of the Eucharist instead of the Body of Jesus Christ but as being really and in effect this Body it self I answer that Balsamon and Blastarius do not dispute in particular against the Latins whom they do not so much as mention in the Commentary they wrote on the Seventieth Canon of the Apostles but establish in general this Rule that we ought not to eat unleavened Bread in this Mystery So that this subterfuge will not serve Mr. Arnaud's turn for their quasi must be taken in the sence of the Greeks and not in the sence of the Latins But supposing there be still a great deal of ambiguity in this Term yet is it fully cleared by the expression of John Citrius in a passage cited by Allatius We offer say's he leaven'd Bread in the Sacrifice instead of Apud Allat lib 3 â—e perp Câ—ns cap 12. the Body of our Lord. And this is the meaning of this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Greeks as the Body that is to say instead of the Body IT is in the same sence that Germain the Patriarch of Constantinople say's That as often as we eat this Bread and drink of this Cup we confess the Death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ and that in this Belief we eat the Bread and drink of the Cup AS of the Flesh of the Son of God confessing his Death and Resurrection We find the same Particle used by Nicetas Choniatus Our Saviour say's he is AS it were eaten after his Resurrection ST Athanasius used this Particle AS a great while before him Our Saviour say's he after his Passion and Resurrection sent his Apostles to gather Athan. disp hab in Concil Nic. Vâ—l alius sub nomine Athanasâ— together the Nations having spread his Table which is the Holy Altar from which he gives the heavenly and incorruptible Bread to wit his Body and Wine that makes glad the heart of man 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 mingling AS it were his Blood in the Chalice These quasi's have such a bad rellish with them that Father Noüet alledging this passage of St. Athanasius has thought good to leave it out and 't is the same antipathy to quasi's that obliged the Translators of Mons to leave out one which they found on another Subject in the Text of St. Paul in his Third Chapter of the First Epistle to the Corinthians Verse 15. For whereas the Greek
reads 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ipse autem salvus erit sic tamen quasi per ignem which they have translated he shall be saved but must pass thro the fire The respect due to St. Paul could not save his quasi from the fury of these Gentlemen And thus do they deal with the Holy Scripture when it speaks not according to their mind I know not whether the quasi's of Balsamon Blastarius Simeon of Thessalonica Germane Nicetas and those of Athanasius are less distastful to 'em than that of St. Paul But howsoever these diminutive Terms do sufficiently evidence the Greeks do not believe Transubstantiation for thâ—se that do believe it study rather to strengthen by clear and precise expressions the name of the Body of Jesus Christ which is given to the Eucharist than to weaken it by restrictions and diminutions BUT to go on with our Proofs It is an opinion generally received amongst the Greeks That the wicked who participate of the Eucharist do not receive the Body of Jesus Christ And that they do hold this opinion may be proved by the Testimony of several good Authors PRATEOLUS expressly mentions this amongst their Errors They affirm say's he that those who live in the practice of any known sin do not receive Prateol Elen. Heresic lib. 7. cap. de Graecis the Body of Jesus Christ altho they draw near to the Table of our Lord and receive the consecrated Bread from the hands of the Priest POSSEVIN the Jesuit confirms the same thing They err says he Possevin in Mosc p. 43. in affirming those that are defiled with sin do not receive the Lord's Body when they come to the Altar NICHOLAS Cabasilas does fully set forth the Belief of the Greek Church touching this Point The causes say's he of our sanctification or if Gabisil in explicat Litur cap. 22. you will the dispositions which our Saviour requires of us are purity of Soul and love of God an earnest desire to partake of the Sacrament and such a thirst after it as shall make us run to it These are the things which procure our Sanctification and with which it is impossible but those that come to the Communion must partake of Jesus Christ and without which it is impossible they should And a little further endeavouring to prove that the Souls seperate from their Bodies do receive the same as the Faithful which are living in this World of the Sacrament If the Soul say's he has no need of the Body whereby to receive Sanctification but on the contrary the Body has need of the Soul what more of the Mystery do the Souls receive which are clothed with their Bodies than those which are stript of them Is it that they behold the Priest and receive the Gifts from him But the Souls that are out of the Body have the Eternal Priest who is to them more than all these things being the same likewise that administreth it to them alive who receive it as they ought to do For all those to whom the Priest administers it cannot be said truly to receive it The Priest administers it to all that come to him but our Saviour gives it only to those that are worthy to partake of it Whence it clearly appears that 't is our Saviour alone who by means of this Sacrament consecrates and sanctifies the Souls as well of the living as the dead LEO Allatius has made a Catalogue of Simeon the Abbot of St. Mamant's Works who lived about the end of the Eleventh Century and whom the Greeks call Simeon the Divine Now in one of his Treatises there is a Hymn expressly relating to this Subject before us to wit that the wicked do not partake of the Body of Jesus Christ when they receive the Sacrament Allatius tells us that he has seen this particular piece being a Manuscript in a certain Library in Italy and that the Title of it is That they which receive unworthily the Sacraments do not receive the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ And 't is unto this whereunto relates what Nilus say's in his Sentences Keep your selves from all corruption and partake every day of the Mystical Supper Apud Allat de Simeon Nil in Par. Bibl. Patr. Graeco-lat Tom. 2. for 't is after this sort that the Body of Jesus Christ becomes ours And what we find in the Verse of Psellus on the Canticle of Canticles Jesus Christ gives his Body to the Children of the Virgin that is to say to the Church for thus does he speak to them but 't is Only to those that are worthy whom he calls his near Kindred come my Friends eat and drink and be merry my brethren you Comm. trium Patr. in Cant. Cant. that are my brethren in good Works eat my Body and drink my Blood And these words of Joanicius Cartanus the Saints are made partakers of holy things not they that are unworthy and sinners who having not cleansed themselves from Apud Allat de perpet Cons lib. 3. their sins remain still polluted and elsewhere when we shall draw near unto God with Love Fear Reverence and Repentance and be in charity with all men then shall we be meet partakers of the Body and Blood of Christ NOW if you would know of what importance the Argument is which we draw from this Doctrine of the Greeks you need but read what Chifflet the Jesuit and others have written touching a passage of the Confession attributed Chifflet praefat ad Lector in Confess Alcu. to Alcuinus which bears That the virtue of this Sacrifice is so great that it is the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ only to the just sinners tanta est virtus hujus Sacrificii ut solis justis peccatoribus Corpus sit Sanguis Christi If the Sacrifice or Sacrament say's this Jesuit be the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ to some only and not to all what remains then but to confess that Alcuinus has been the Forerunner of Berengarius and Calvin and that he has denied the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist He tells us this passage has given him no small trouble and endeavours to expound it saying that Alcuinus speaks of the Body and Blood of Christ in respect of their salutiferous effect which appertains only to the Just But the Authors of the Office of the B. Sacrament having told us that it seems we must read tanta In their Historical and Chronological Table under the title of B. Alcuin est virtus Sacrificii ut solis justis non peccatoribus Sanguis sit Corpus Christi they have added that this expression has not been used since the Heresie of Berengarius and that the Schoolmen who have been more scrupulous as to Terms have after the rise of the Heresies touching this Mystery avoided it Which is as much as to say in my opinion that if we believe Transubstantiation as the Church of Rome has believed it
since the time of Berengarius's condemnation we cannot be of this Belief that the Eucharist is only the Body of Jesus Christ to the faithful and not to the wicked And in effect if the Substance of Bread be really changed into that of Christ's Body it hence evidently follows that all those that communicate thereof be they either righteous or wicked do receive this Body as it is that is to say in its proper Substance covered with the vail of Accidents So that the Greeks asserting the Eucharist not to be the Body of Christ to Sinners as I have already shew'd makes the Proof I draw hence concerning their not believing of Transubstantiation to be solid and convincing YET may there be two Objections made against my Argument the First That what the Greeks say concerning Christ's Body is to be understood only in respect of its salutiferous effect as has been declared by the Jesuit Chifflet and not in respect of its Substance which is to say their meaning is that the wicked do indeed receive the real Substance of this Body and Blood but receive thereby no advantage The Second that the Bread reassumes its former Substance when a wicked man approaches to receive the Communion and that that of the Body of Jesus Christ withdraws it self But first I say to make people of good sence contented with this explication they must be shewed these kind of meanings in the Writings of the Greeks themselves which without question would be met withall did they hold Transubstantiation It cannot be denied but this Doctrine they teach concerning the wicked does manifestly oppose that of the Substantial conversion and furnisheth us with this conception that if the Eucharist be not the Body of Jesus Christ to the wicked how can it then be said that the Substance of the Bread has been changed into that of this Body This scruple does naturally arise in the mind of those that believe Transubstantiation as appears by the example of the Jesuit Chifflet by that of the Authors of the Office of the blessed Sacrament and by the pre-caution of the Schoolmen and Lattin Writers who carefully shun these kind of expressions We need not doubt but if the Greeks believed the conversion of the Substances they would do one of these two things either they would renounce this other Opinion and deliver themselves after another manner or at least they would so expound and mollifie it as to shelter thereby Transubstantiation But besides this I say if we examine these pretended illustrations in particular one after another we shall find they are vain and ill apply'd to the Greeks In effect the first cannot be of any use because the Latins impute to them the Doctrine here in question as an Error Now this would not be an Error in respect of the Latins if the Greeks understood it only in this sence that the wicked do not receive the salutiferous effect of the Body of Jesus Christ in the Communion altho they received the Substance of it for even this is believed in the Church of Rome Yet Possevin does not only affirm they err but he opposes moreover against their Error a contrary Proposition to be held and on which he grounds his censure They err say's he Possevin ubi Supra for the wicked do really receive the Body of Jesus Christ although they receive it unworthily and to their condemnation AS to the other Objection 't is certainly groundless for not to take notice of the extravagancy of this Opinion that the Substance of the Bread is changed into that of Christ's Body and again that of the Body into that of the Bread the Terms of Cabasilas are so clear that they admit not any evasion for he distinguishes two Persons that give the Communion one the Priest and th' other our Saviour Christ and he attributes to our Saviour alone the glory of giving his Body and Blood 't is likewise he himself say's he that administers to Gabasilas ubi Supra them amongst the living who truly receive For all them to whom the Priest gives it do not truly receive it He himself that is to say immediately and without the Priests sharing in the honour thereof The Priest has the honour to distribute the Bread but not of giving the Body and Blood Now this does wholly overthrow Transubstantiation and refutes the second Objection which I examine for if the Bread were transubstantiated there would be no need of having recourse to our Saviour himself in order to his giving the Faithfull his Body and Blood the Priest would give it them for that which he holds in his hands and communicates to the Faithful would be this Body and Blood in propriety of Substance and Cabasilas would have no reason to oppose our Saviour to the Priest BUT before we leave this passage of Cabasilas it is necessary to observe two things one of which respects the Proposition he would establish and th' other the means he makes use of for this The Proposition he would establish is That the dead receive the same as the living when they partake of the Eucharist The purity of the Soul say's he the Love of God Faith an earnest desire to partake of this Holy Mystery a secret joy which accompanies this desire a fervant appetite and thirst which makes us run to it these are the things which procure our Sanctification with which qualifications it is not possible but those that approach the Communion do partake of Jesus Christ and without which it is impossible Cap. 42. they should Now all these things depend only on the Soul and are not corporeal There is nothing then which hinders the Souls of the dead from having these things as well as the living If then these Souls are in the state and disposition requisite for the receiving of the Mystery if he to whom it belongs to bestow Sanctification and Consecration is always willing to sanctifie and ever desires to communicate himself in all places what can then hinder this participation And a little further It is evident say's he by the things I now mention'd that whatsoever belongs to this Mystery is common as well to the dead as living and a little lower the participation of the Holy Gifts is a thing which necessarily attends Cap. 43. the Souls after death If their joy and repose sprang from any other Principle it might be said that even this would be the reward of that purity wherein they are and this Table would be no longer needful to them But it is certain that whatsoever makes up their delights and felicity whether you call it Paradice or Abraham ' s bosom or those happy seats free from sorrow and cares or that you call it the Kingdom of Heaven it self all this I say is no more than this Bread and Wine For these things are our Mediatour who is entred as our Forerunner into the Holy Places who alone conducts us to the Father who is the only
Sun of our Souls which at this time appeareth and communicates himself to all them that are in the Bands of the Flesh in the manner he himself pleases but he shall then visibly manifest himself without a Vail when we shall see him as he is and shall gather together the Eagles about the dead Body He afterwards proves that the Souls seperate from the Bodies are far more fit to partake of the Mysteries than when cloathed with their Flesh that whatsoever rest or recompence they enjoy is nothing else but this Bread and this Cup of which the dead have as much right to participate as the living and for this reason our Saviour calls the Saints felicity a Supper to shew us thereby that 't is nothing else but this Table And this already gives us great cause to suspect that Cabasilas did not believe that which we eat in the Sacrament to be the proper Substance of the Body and Bloud of Christ for we must not imagine he thought the Souls of the dead did really partake thereof They do indeed participate of the Body and Blood of Christ but after a spiritual manner which is accomplished without our Saviour's Substance entring into them Yet Cabasilas say's the dead receive the Holy Gifts that they receive the Mystery and that which makes up their felicity is this Bread and Cup that they partake of it and that whatsoever appertains to this Mystery is common to them with the Living All which is well enough understood provided it be supposed we have no other Communion with our Saviour Christ in the Eucharist than what is Spiritual for the Souls seperate from the Body have this as well as we and partake of our Bread and Cup not in respect of their Substance and Matter but in respect of the Mystery they contain and Grace they communicate and thus it is certain that whatsoever belongs to this Mystery is common to them with the living But if we supposed the Substantial Conversion how could it be said They partake of the Holy Gifts that they receive what we receive that we have nothing more in the Mystery than they and that whatsoever appertains to the Mystery is common to them with us For in fine we should really receive the proper Substance of the Body and Blood of Christ which they do not BUT to manifest more clearly this Doctrine of Cabasilas and put it out of doubt we should consider the course he takes for the strengthening of his Proposition For it will appear that this participation of the Body and Blood of Christ which he makes common both to the dead and living respects not only the thing of which we partake but likewise the manner of partaking of it and in a word he means we communicate thereof no otherwise than Spiritually First then he always speaks of the Sanctification which is made by way of participation and reception of the Body of Jesus Christ as of one and the same thing without the least difference which is justifi'd by the bare reading of his whole Discourse Now this shews us he means not that we receive in the Sacrament the proper Substance of the Body of our Lord for if it were so the wicked would receive it without receiving Sanctification as the Church of Rome it self does acknowledge and the reception of this Substance and the Sanctification could not be considered but as two distinct things Yet Cabasilas confounds them and thereupon immediately considers this difficulty how the dead which neither eat nor drink can be sanctifi'd by this participation Are they say's he in a worse condition in this respect than the living No sure say's he for our Saviour communicates himself to them in Cap. 42. such a manner as is best known to himself He afterwards inquires into the causes of the sanctification of the living and their participation of Jesus Christ and say's 't is not to have a Body nor to come with feet to the Holy Table nor to receive the Communion with our hand and mouth nor to eat or drink but that 't is the purity of the Soul Faith Love of God and other motives of Piety these are the things say's he which make us necessarily partakers of Jesus Christ and without which it is not possible to be so Whence he concludes that the Souls seperate from the Body are capable of this participation and that in effect they have it seeing they have all these good affections Now it hence plainly appears that he grants the living but one kind of participation of Jesus Christ which is Spiritual and which they have in common with the dead and which immediately respects the Soul For if they be only the good dispositions of the Soul which make us partakers of Jesus Christ and that without them it is not possible for us to be so and that the dead have the same advantage we have it cannot then be said we receive the proper Substance of the Body seeing on one hand according to the Hypothesis of the Church of Rome the want of these dispositions hinders not men from receiving it and on the other that the dead with all these their qualifications cannot receive it THIS appears by the Sequel of his reasoning for what he say's concerning the dead the same he say's concerning the living which dwell in Deserts and that cannot personally come to the Lord's Table Jesus Christ Ibid. say's he sanctifies them invisibly with this Sanctification How can we know this I answer because they have the life in themselves and they would not have it were they not partakers of this Mystery For our Saviour himself has said unless you eat the Flesh of the Son of man and drink his Blood you have no life in you And for a further confirmation of this he has caused to be brought to several of these Saints the Gifts by the Ministry of Angels It is evident he attributes to these Inhabitants of Deserts the same participation of Jesus Christ the same manducation of his Flesh and Blood which we receive in the Sacrament without the least difference whence it follows that our Communion with Jesus Christ by means of the Sacrament is purely Spiritual and that our eating of his Flesh is Spiritual likewise there being no need of adding the reception of his Substance into our Stomacks BUT yet this does more plainly appear by what follows The Gift say's he is indeed communicated to the living by means of the Body but it first passes to the Substance of the Soul and afterwards communicates it self to the Body by the Ministry of the Soul Which St. Paul meant when he said that he that is joyned to the Lord is one and the same Spirit with him because this Union and Conjunction is made first of all in the Soul This being the Seat of this Sanctification which we obtain by the exercise of our virtues This is likewise the Seat of Sin 'T is here wherein is the Band of
Servitude by which the Sacrament links us to God The Body has nothing but what it derives from the Soul and as its pollutions proceed from the evil thoughts of the heart from the heart likewise comes its Sanctification as well that of the Virtues as that of the Mysteries If then the Soul has no need of the Body to receive Sanctification but the Body on the contrary of the Soul why then must the Souls which are yet cloathed with their Bodies be greater partakers of the Mystery than those stript of them We must be strangely prepossessed with prejudice if we do not acknowledge that this Author only establishes the sanctifying and spiritual Communion and not that of the proper Substance of the Body and Blood of our Saviour for if we suppose the Bread to be the Body of Jesus Christ in Sanctification and Virtue it is easie to comprehend what he means but if we suppose Transubstantiation how shall we then understand what he say's viz. that the Gift is indeed received by the Body but it immediately passes to the Soul and afterwards communicates it self from the Soul to the Body Does not the Substance of the Body of Jesus Christ descend immediately from the Mouth into the Stomack and does it not remain there till the change of the Species How then shall we understand him when he say's that our Communion with Jesus Christ is first established in the Soul For 't is certain that to judge of it in the sence of Transubstantiation it would be established on the contrary first of all in the Body which would be the first Subject that would receive the Substance of the Flesh and Blood of our Lord. How shall we understand the Conclusion he draws from all this Discourse to wit that the Souls of the dead are no less partakers of this Mystery than those of the living for the living do communicate after two manners Spiritually and Substantially whereas the dead only in one How in fine shall we understand what he means in saying that the Body has no other Sanctification by means of the Mystery than that which comes to it from the Soul Is it no wise sanctifi'd by touching the proper Substance of the Son of God CABASILAS stay 's not here for concluding by way of Interrogation that the Souls cloathed with their Bodies do not more partake of the Mystery than those which are stript of them he continues to demand what they have more Is it say's he that they see the Priest and receive from him Cap. 43. the Gifts But they that are out of the Body have the great Eternal High Priest who is to them all these things It being he indeed that administers to them that truly receive Was there ever any man that betrayed such a want of memory as this man does should it be supposed he believed Transubstantiation Could he not remember that the living have not only this advantage above the dead to behold the Priest and receive from him the Gifts but likewise to receive the proper Substance of their Saviour Could not he call to mind that the Spiritual Communion remaining common both to the one and the others the Substantial was particularly to the living Moreover what does he mean in saying that as 't is Jesus Christ that administers it to the dead so it is he likewise that gives it to the living that effectually receive it Is it that the Priest who gives the proper Substance of Jesus Christ does not truly and effectually administer it Is it that this Substance which is called with so great an Emphasis the Truth and Reality and which Mr. Arnaud always understands when he finds these kind of expressions the real Body and Blood of Jesus Christ Is it I say that this is not a Truth MR. Arnaud can without doubt remove all these difficulties when he pleases and 't is likely he will find a way to reconcile them with the belief of Transubstantiation seeing he himself has heretofore written that God admits Of frequent Com. part 3. P. 725. us to the participation of the same Food which the Elect feed on to all Eternity there being no other difference betwixt them and us but only that here he takes from us the sensible taste and sight of it reserving both one and the other of these for us when we come to Heaven He will tell us there 's no body doubts but that he is of the number of Transubstantiators seeing he has with so much honour vanquished the Minister Claude and yet that what he has maintain'd is not contradictory to the discourse of Cabasilas I do verily believe his single Proposition has almost as much force as whatsoever I have mention'd from Cabasilas for if there be no other difference between the participation of the Faithful on Earth and that of the Elect in Heaven than that of the sight and sensible taste which we have not here nor shall have but in Heaven I do not see any reason wherefore Mr. Arnaud should so bestir himself to shew us that what we take by the Mouths of our Bodies and which enters into our Stomacks is the proper Substance of the Body and Blood of Christ seeing 't is certain the Elect in Heaven do not receive Jesus Christ in such a manner But it being no ways reasonable that what Mr Arnaud has said at one time contradictorily to what he has said at another should serve me as a Rule for the understanding of Authors all that I can do in his favour is this freely to offer him to lay aside the Proof taken from Cabasilas when he shall have made his Proposition to be approved of in the Court of Rome CHAP. VII That the Greeks adore not the Sacrament with an Adoration of Latria as the Latins do and consequently believe not Transubstantiation The Thirteenth Proof Mr. Arnaud's Eleventh Illusion VVE may I think already begin to doubt whether the Greeks have in effect the same Sentiments with the Latins touching Transubstantiation and whether the assurances Mr. Arnaud has given us thereof be well grounded He appears very brisk and confident in asserting this Point and behaves himself as a Person that has already conquered but 't is more than probable that these flourishes are the effects of that kind of Rhetorick which teaches men to put forth their voices in the weakest part of their cause to the end they may obtain that by noise which they could not by reason But howsoever it may now be demanded what will become of all those Historical Collections Arguments Attestations Consequences Keys Systems those confident Defies and Challenges to produce any thing which had the least appearance of Truth or Reason against his Proofs and in a word of all this great torrent of Eloquence and mundane Philosophy Aurae Omnia discerpunt nubibus irrita donant THE Proofs I have already produced do sufficiently confirm this but that which I shall farther offer will yet more evidence it
and at the same time discover another of Mr. Arnaud's Illusions My Proof shall be taken from the Greeks not adoring the Eucharist with that Sovereign Adoration the Latins do Now if this be made apparent what likelihood is there that a Church which otherwise is not at all scrupulous in matters of Ceremony and which has such a great devotion for Pictures for the Writings of the Evangelists consecrated Bread which they call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and even the Bread of the Eucharist before 't is consecrated should believe the Substance of the Symbols to be really changed into the Substance of the Body and Blood of Christ and yet not render it that Sovereign Honour which belongs to it It concerns us then to know what the Custom of the Greeks is touching this Adoration and so much the more because this Question being one of the chief of our Dispute it is therefore absolutely necessary to be throughly inform'd in it BUT before we proceed any farther we must distinguish according to the sence of the Greeks and Latins two sorts of Adoration the one inferiour and subalternate which is rendred to Subjects in which we do not acknowledge an infinite Majesty and th' other a Sovereign and Highest Worship called that of Latria which is only due to God WE must likewise distinguish according to the sence of the same Greeks and Latins an Adoration called relative which terminates not it self in any one Subject but passes as it were from one Subject to another as thro a Channel and an absolute Adoration which terminates it self in that Subject which is worshipped without a reference to any thing else IN fine there ought to be a distinction made betwixt an internal Adoration which consists in the motions of the Soul towards the Subject adored and the external Adoration which consists in outward expressions WHICH Distinctions being premised we are now to enquire whether the Greeks adore the Eucharist with a Sovereign Adoration and that of Latria not relatively as we speak but absolutely and in the same manner we ought to worship the proper Substance and Person of Jesus Christ And because the internal affections of the Soul cannot be immediately known it therefore concerns us to enquire whether the Greeks do outwardly express any Sign of such an Adoration either by their words or actions Mr. Arnaud holds the affirmative and I the negative and this being here only a question of Fact 't is likewise by Proofs of fact wherewith it must be decided FOR this effect I shall first here offer the testimony of a Cannon of Cracovia called Sacranus who in reckoning up the Errors of the Moscovits whom we all know do follow the Greek Religion does expresly mention this Before the Cup is prepared say's he they light Torches and expose to the Religio Ruthenor art 20. Peoples sight with exceeding great devotion the Bread which is to be consecrated with the Wine and hot Water which they pour into the Chalice They carry these about and the People bow down before them with the greatest testimonies of respect and veneration But afterwards when the Bread is placed on the Altar and consecrated there is no veneration shewed it nor do they make any elevation of it JOHN de Lasko Archbishop of Gnesne and Ambassadour from Poland Raynald ad ann 1514. to Rome in the beginning of the last Century makes the same relation of the Errors of the Russians as Sarcanus had done before him It is likely by what Mr Arnaud tells us that he has only copied out what Sacranus wrote and appropriated it to himself for we find their expressions to be both the same But be it as it will he has not forgotten this Article I now mentioned PETER Scarga a Jesuit of Vilna in Lituania has written a Book against the Greeks and Russians which he intitled de uno pastore in which Par. 3. cap. 2. art 8. making a Catalogue of their Errors he particularly mentions this At Mass they worship on their knees the Bread before 't is consecrated but after its Consecration they give no honour to the most Holy Body of Jesus Christ SO that we have here already three Witnesses whose Testimonies are not to be rejected seeing they are of far greater weight than the forced consequences of Mr. Arnaud for they lived in those Parts and were eye-witnesses of what they tell us and moreover considerable Persons in the Romish Church the first of them being a Cannon th' other an Archbishop and the third a Jesuit who do all three of them positively affirm the Greeks do not adore the Eucharist after Consecration Behold here a fourth of the same Order which is Anthony Caucus a Venetian and Archbishop of Corfou He had an order from Pope Gregory XIII to inform himself exactly of the belief of the Greeks and to make him a Relation thereof which he did Allatius speaks of this Relation as if it were published I confess I never saw it in print but I have seen a Manuscript of it in the King's Library wherein I found these words in the thirteenth Article of their Errors They yield no Reverence Honour Veneration nor Worship to the most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist consecrated with leavened Bread according to their Custom they carry it to the sick without Lights and Torches They keep it in their Churches in a bag hanging against a wall in a little wooden box and yet burn Tapers before the Images of all the Saints He informs us elsewhere that the Greek Priests when they carry the Sacrament to the Sick are wont to wrap it up in a linnen cloth or Handkercher and so put it into their bosoms without any other Ceremony But when he sets himself to the opposing of this Error he thus speaks There 's no People that I know of who profess the Christian Religion that shew less respect and veneration to the Holy Sacrament than the Greek Nation They adore and reverence their leavened Bread before 't is consecrated even to the very idolizing of it but after scarcely rise up to respect it Their Priest carry the Eucharist in their bosoms to the sick without any Lights and that which is most absurd is they keep it in their Churches in a little wooden box tied up in a bag and hanged against a wall without any Lights before it as if 't were a prophane thing to the scandalizing of all pious People I believe they have this Custom from the Heretical Sacramentaries who deny the virtue of this most Holy Sacrament They are moreover so super stitious and covetous that when deceased Persons have bequeathed them any Legacy they light Candles before the Images of all the Saints drawing near to them with the greatest testimonies of reverence when they enter the Churches but they turn their backs to the Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist I wondred to see them do thus and being desirous to inform my self of the reason of this
acknowledges them to be Types and Figures because he would have a difference made they being not as yet the Body and Blood of Christ But this is not to say they ought to give to the Gifts either before or after their Consecration an honour which terminates it self in them alone AS to what he alledges out of Simeon de Thessalonica we have no other Ibid. assurance of the truth of these passages than the bare word of Allatius that is to say of a passionate man ready to assert and maintain any thing right or wrong for the interest of the Court of Rome We shall have occasion to speak more of him hereafter but in the mean time shall only say that the words of Simeon be they what they will do not conclude we ought to yield the Gifts an absolute honour which terminates it self in that Substance which the Priest carries on his head when he enters into the Church THE passage the Author of the Perpetuity quoted as of Gabriel de Philadelphia Second part pag. 257. was more specious but because Cardinal Perron from whom 't was borrow'd does not recite the Greek Text and Arcudius who relates some clauses thereof describes him as a Person void of all kinds of Learning either in Divinity Philosophy or Grammar and that moreover the same Arcudius assures us the Greeks do give very little honour if any at all to the Sacrament after its Consecration I therefore said I would suspend my Judgment till I could ascertain my self by reading the Book it self MR. Arnaud who is ever upon his Criticisms and willingly passes over the Answer to the 2. Treat of Perp 2. part cap. 8. matter that he might fasten on the Person imagines he has found here a lucky occasion to triumph over me But I am sorry to find my self oblig'd to disturb his Enjoyments which I would not do could I well avoid it I affirm then first I had reason to suspend my Judgment because that to judge aright of the sence of an Author it is not sufficient that we see a passage translated into French by Cardinal Perron For besides that his Translations are not always very exact as several have observ'd no more than those of the Office of the Blessed Sacrament according to their Relations that have examin'd them 't is probable this passage of Gabriel has been already made to his hand by Persons unknown to us and for whose Fidelity he was not willing to answer In effect forasmuch as he has not inserted the Greek in the Margent as he has done in the most part of his other Quotations may justly give us a shrewd suspition of this Moreover we meet therein with the Term of Transubstantiation which Mr. Arnaud himself confesses is not an usual expression with the Greeks There is likewise mention therein of the Accidents of Bread which remain which is not the usual Style of the Greeks I have then wrong'd no body when I suspended my Judgment but have rather done what I and every man else ought to do in the like occasion I was not oblig'd to ask Mr. Arnaud's leave for this altho he pretends I was for he is not the Sovereign Arbitratour of Affairs which are treated of in the Empire of Reason there being several things which pass there in which he takes no part BUT say's he Arcudius Mr. Claude ' s great Author relates several passages Ibid. out of Gabriel which are as expressive as that now in question I answer that what Arcudius relates obliges me yet more to suspend my Judgment because that in it there are several Contradictions and manifest Absurdities as I shewed in my Answer to Father Noüet which the Reader may consult if he desires information touching this particular I confess adds Mr. Arnaud that having not the least reason to doubt of the Ibid. Sentiment of this Author touching the passages produced by Arcudius I have therefore avoided giving my self the trouble to inquire after his Book And I for my part profess I am not so easily satisfi'd for I cannot thus take things upon trust What shall we say every one has his way Mr. Arnaud's humour is immediately to catch hold of any thing but mine is not so hasty and indeed I never had cause to repent of my slowness in this particular reckoning it to be the best way to prevent mistakes Not that I would have him put himself to the trouble of seeking after this Book of Gabriel's as he has proffer'd me to do for our Dispute may be as well carri'd on without this Archbishop whofe Book if we will believe Arcudius is a very extravagant one and the Civilities of such a Person as Mr. Arnaud is may be expected in a weightier occasion BUT as we must not suffer our selves to be prevailed on by his kindness so neither must we suffer our selves to be run down by his Injuries For he charges me with disingenuously suppressing Arcudius his words which would have discovered the true sence of what I cited He chages me with likewise impertinently designing to invalidate the Testimony of Gabriel by that of Arcudius I must then justifie my self concerning these two particulars The first of which will be soon dispatched by considering that having in the first Edition of my Books only set down in the Margent the particular places of those Authors where are to be found the passages I made use of I have in the last Edition inserted these passages themselves in full length according as they are in the Original Now that very place of Arcudius in question may be seen there set down at large together with the Clause which Mr. Arnaud say's I have suppressed Let but any man take the pains to read the 296 page and he shall find these very words therein Nam etiam postea in elevatione Sacratissimae Hostiae quamtumvis eam non aspiciant quamprimum tamen Sacerdos ea verba protulerit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sancta sanctis statim procumbunt cultu Latriae adorant which are the same words Mr. Arnaud makes his efforts upon This is then a groundless Accusation for he cannot alledge he knew not of this Edition seeing he has mention'd it himself in the Eighth Chapter of his Seventh Book upon occasion of the Council at Nice BUT it will be demanded perhaps why I did not insert into the Body of my Discourse these words of Arcudius which do so plainly manifest his meaning I answer that if I had argued on the sence of Arcudius I should have been to blame in not alledging whatsoever might give light to this sence For when we would draw a true consequence we ought to establish the Principle in a clear and perfect manner to take away all occasion of mistakes But Mr. Arnaud needs not be told what kind of Person this Arcudius is being a Greek latiniz'd Priest brought up at Rome in the Seminary of the Greeks extremely passionate for the Interests of the
Roman Church having wrote a Book particularly against the Protestants to perswade us that the Greeks are at agreement with the Latins as to what concerns the Sacraments in all essential Points I cannot then otherwise alledge Arcudius than to confront him with himself concerning some Truths and Matters of Fact which do now and then escape him after the same manner as I would quote Cardinal Perron and Bellarmin and Mr. Arnaud himself not as witnesses that believe what I would conclude but as Persons who affirm things from whence I conclude what they themselves do not believe And thus does Mr. Arnaud quote Mestrezat and Daillé and sundry others of our Authors Now 't is evident that when the Testimony of an Adversary is alledged in this respect a man is not obliged to set down what has been his Sentiment at the bottom nor to relate all the words which may make it known for this piece of impertinence would be good for nothing but to tire the Reader 's patience and trifle away the time It is sufficient if what is alledged from them be true Mr. Arnaud therefore has very unjustly accused me seeing I published this illustration in my Answer to Father Noüel which altho well known to him yet has it not stopt him in his carreer concealing my Justification neither more nor less than if I had said nothing IT only then remains to know whether what I alledged from Arcudius be sufficient to conclude that the Greeks adore not the Eucharist notwithstanding whatsoever the same Arcudius has elsewhere asserted Which is what I take upon me to maintain He say's that when the Priest consecrates the Gifts Arcud lib. 3. cap. 21. in saying this is my Body this is my Blood he then shews them little or no respect at all he bows not his head neither does he adore them nor prostrate himself before them nor lights Candles nor makes any Reverence Mr. Arnaud answers the question concerns not the Adoration in it self but the time of the Adoration Book 10. chap. 9. that we must distinguish betwixt a voluntary Adoration and an Adoration of Rite or Ceremony that the first is one and the same both with the Greeks and Latins because it chiefly consists in acknowledging the Eucharist to be the Body of Christ with an inward Submission which both one and the other do as soon as the Consecration is performed that as to what concerns the second the Latins immediately perform it after the Consecration and the Greeks later to wit at the Elevation of the Hoste which is done a little before the Priest disposes himself to communicate THAT we may examine this Answer we must lay aside this voluntary Adoration of which he speaks for it has no other foundation in relation to the Greeks than his bare word or at most the Proofs he supposes he has given of their Belief touching the real Presence but this is what 's in question and we cannot yet suppose the solidity of his Proofs To colour over this pretended distinction of a voluntary Adoration and an Adoration of Rite he should shew us that the Greeks do give at least at some time to the Eucharist immediately after Consecration this honour he calls voluntary and that in their intention this is a sovereign honour But to tell us as he does that this honour chiefly consists in acknowledging the Eucharist to be the Body of Christ with an inward reverence and to perswade us the Greeks do this is a plain abuse for what is this but a setting us upon penetrating into mens hearts and guessing at their thoughts Those that have this inward reverence to the Eucharist do certainly shew it by some outward Sign and the Greeks shewing none Mr. Arnaud cannot ground what he say's on any thing unless it be upon some particular revelation he has had of this matter SACRANUS Scarga and Caucus who lived amongst the Greeks were ignorant of this pretended inward reverence for had they known any thing of it they would not have been so positive in asserting the Greeks do shew no Reverence Respect or Adoration to the Eucharist after its Consecration nor would they call them as they have done Heretical and Prophane People Even the Greeks themselves who answer'd Caucus there was no command which enjoyn'd this Adoration knew nothing of this This inward Reverence had its residence and operations in their Souls and yet they knew nothing of it for had they known it they would never return such an Answer None but Mr. Arnaud knew this secret but if he gives us not other Proofs it is to be feared his voluntary Adoration will be taken for one of his own private conceits WE must come then to this Adoration of Rite or Ceremony which is used as he say's at the Elevation of the Hoste and see whether it is an Adoration of Latria which terminates in the Sacrament it self Now I cannot but admire these Gentlemens Ingenuity with whom I am concerned The Greek Liturgy has these words That the Priest and Deacon adore three times in saying thrice with a low voice O God be propitious unto me a sinner The Author of the Perpetuity would have these three Adorations refer to the Sacrament Second Part. chap. 5. pag. 254. wherefore he say's that the Priest adores and the Deacon likewise three times in the place where they are in saying thrice softly Lord be propitious to me a sinner My Answer was that I found in Goar ' s Book of Rites and Answer to the second Treatise part 2 c. 8. Ceremonies not this Term of Lord but that of God which shews that this Adoration terminated it self in God and not in the Sacrament Mr. Arnaud who cannot deny this Truth leaves out the Priest's Prayer which discovers his deceit and contents himself with alledging these words of the Liturgy then the Priest bows and the Deacon likewise and a little while after the People in Book 10 ch 9. p. 7. general do reverently bow Leaving it to be believed that these Adorations do certainly terminate themselves in the Eucharist But he ought to proceed sincerely it is true that then the Priest and Deacon do adore but it is likewise as true that their Adoration addresses it self to God in these express Terms 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 O God be propitious to me a sinner from whence 't is plainly apparent there can be no such thing concludedas the Adoration of the Eucharist AS to Arcudius's Testimony who tells us that the People prostrate themselves on the ground as soon as they hear the Priest say Sancta Sanctis Holy Things are for Holy Persons and that they adore the Sacrament with an Adoration of Latria we need not be much concerned thereat being a Person prepossessed and one who testifies of a thing whereof he is altogether ignorant Goar in not in S. Joan Chrysost Miss pag. 153. Arcudius say's Goar altho a Greek knew very little of the Rites of
the Greeks being brought into Italy when he was but ten years of age In effect what he say's concerning the Peoples prostrating themselves on the ground as soon as they hear the Priest say Sancta Sanctis is not true for the Liturgy denotes this Adoration of the People before the Sancta Sanctis at the same time as the Priest and Deacon adore immediately after this Prayer Look upon us O Lord Jesus Christ our God c. But granting it were so that the People prostrated themselves in the time the Sancta Sanctis was said it would not thence follow that their Adoration terminated it self in the Sacrament They would worship God as does the Deacon in the words I now mention'd O God be propitious c. Or our Saviour in Heaven as they do in the Prayer which I likewise now mention'd which precedes the Sancta Sanctis Look down O Lord our God from the Holy Place of thy Dwelling They prostrate themselves before the Images of the Saints before the Book of the Gospels before the Bread when as yet unconsecrated and yet no Body concludes hence they adore these things with an absolute Adoration Why then will Arcudius have them to adore the Eucharist with an Adoration terminating it self in it BUT if Arcudius's Testimony be of no validity in reference to this last Article wherefore must it be otherwise in respect of this other Article on which I ground my Conclusion I answer for two Reasons the one for that being interressed as he is against us it is not to be imagin'd he would speak any thing in our favour unless the thing were so well known and undeniably true that he could not disguise it or pass it over in silence and th' other because that in effect his Testimony in this respect agrees with the Liturgy of the Greeks which expresses no kind of Adoration directed to the Eucharist immediately after its Consecration And there being no mention likewise of any such thing afterwards to the end of the Office the Conclusion I draw hence is undeniable Had the Greeks the same Sentiments as the Latins and made profession of rendring the same Divine honours to the Substance of the Sacrament which are due only to the proper Person of the Son of God what time could they choose better for the acquitting themselves of this Duty than that in which he begins to be present on the Altar When a Prince comes into a place People are not wont to delay the shewing him the respect due to him every one stands immediately uncovered in his Presence and those Persons that did otherwise would be esteemed foolish and stupid What likelyhood is there then did the Greek Church believe that immediately after the Consecration the Bread becomes the very Substance of the Body of our Lord she would defer any longer to acknowledge it to be so by a Solemn Adoration Mr. Arnaud must not tell us that the Priest's mind is so taken up with the Idea of the Sacrifice that it is all this while fixed in Heaven These are Reasonings invented expresly to excuse a thing which cannot be alter'd but in truth it is so natural to Persons that believe Transubstantiation to shew immediately the Signs of Adoration to that Object they have before their eyes that notwithstanding all these fine Reasons those who compiled the Liturgy of the Greeks would never have been wanting in this particular had they believed the aforemention'd Doctrine So that this very consideration of the Greeks not having ordain'd any solemn kind of Reverence or Worship to the Sacrament after its Consecration is alone sufficient to make us conclude what we contend for MR. Arnaud who indeed has no reason to rest satisfi'd with his first Proofs has recourse to his Baron of Spartaris and Paysius Ligaridius that is to say to two false Greeks brought up in the Faith of the Roman Church and won to its interest as will appear hereafter I only wonder he is not asham'd to bring for witnesses such kind of People as these are AS to Oderborne the Lutheran who discoursing of the Russians tells us That the Priest leaving the Altar to shew the People the Eucharist the People kneel down and the Priest say's in the Moscovit ' s Language Loe here the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ whom the Jews put to death altho innocent it is easie to perceive he is deceived in taking for an Adoration of the Eucharist a Devotion which they practise before its Consecration when the Bread is carri'd from the Prothesis to the great Altar There can be rais'd no scruple concerning the truth of this seeing we have the Testimony of all Authors who by unanimous consent observe that this Ceremony is performed before the Consecration of the Symbols ALEXANDER Gagnin say's That one of them carries the Bread Moscovit descript cap. 2. which is prepared for the Sacrifice and another the Cup full of Wine that they issue out of the Sanctuary thro a little door with other Priests that carry the Images of St. Peter St. Nicholas and Michael the Archangel whilst in the mean time the â—â—ople express their Devotion by Acclamations and Acts of Worship that some of 'em cry out Lord have pity on us others knock their foreheads against the Ground and that others make often the Sign of the Cross and bow their heads in fine that they render to the Symbols which are carri'd about sundry marks of veneration and honour That having went round the Church they enter again thro the Gate which is in the middle of the Quire into the Sanctuary and there make the Sacrifice Sigismond Baron of Herberstain say's likewise Comment Vir Mosco That before they consecrate the Bread according to our manner they walk with it about the Church worship it and adore it with a certain form of words they utter ARCUDIUS who inveighs so earnestly against this Custom as an Idolatrous Arcud lib. 3. cap. 19. practice attributes it not only to the Greeks but likewise to the Russians and say's That they prostrate themselves and knock their heads against the Ground M. Habert Bishop of Vabres say's That in the Greek Churches Pontif. Eccl. Gr. obscrvat XI ad partein 7. litt the People make a low bow but in other Churches as in those at Russia they prostrate themselves on the ground after the same manner as if our Saviour's real Body passed along We have already observ'd that Sacranus and Scarga do expresly refer this Devotion to the Bread when as yet unconsecrated as well as others and moreover add that the Russians shew no reverence to the Sacrament after its Consecration And in effect we do not find they go twice round the Church whence it follows that Oderborne was mistaken and supposed this respect was given the Bread after its Consecration for there being but one turn made round the Church it cannot be denied but 't is done before the Consecration What
preserve the Substance of the Sacrament The Sixteenth from a Passage of Oecumenius WE know very well that the Greeks consecrate the Eucharist with leaven'd Bread and that there is touching this Point between them and the Latins so stiff a Controversie that the Greeks believe their Altars are polluted when the Latins have perform'd their Service thereon and therefore when ever this happens they wash them with exceeding great care before they use them I shall not trouble my self or Reader with mentioning here any thing touching the beginning or progress of this Dispute all that I aim at here being only to give farther light to the question I handle It seems to me then no hard matter in reading their Books concerning this Point to know what their real belief is touching Transubstantiation for we find them continually arguing from this Principle that the Eucharist is still Bread after Consecration AND this appears by the Letters of Michael Cerularius and Leo Bishop of Acrida to John Bishop of Tranis in the Kingdom of Naples for giving an account of the Institution of the Holy Sacrament they add observe how our Saviour has called under the New Testament the Bread his Body This expression Bibliot Paâ—â— Tom. 4. â—dâ—t 4. let Mr. Arnaud say what he will does not well agree with the belief of Transubstantiation for according to this Doctrine it may be affirm'd that our Saviour has made Bread his Body and changed it into his Body but it cannot be said with good sence that he calls the Bread his Body seeing this latter expression signifies he attributes to the Bread the name of his Body which supposes the Bread remains and receives the name of the Body of Jesus Christ Yet do we meet with these kind of expressions not only in Michael Cerularius but in the Triode of the Greeks which is one of their Ecclesiastical Books 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 say they having likewise related the words of the Institution 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Allat de lib. Eccles Graec. diss 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Observe that he calls the Bread his Body and not an Azyme let them then be ashamed that offer in the Sacrifice unleaven'd Bread It appears by the Dispute which bears the name of Gennadius that this Passage Gennad pâ—o Concil Flor. cap. 2 sect 7. Book 10. is frequently used by the Greeks And Mr Arnaud has observ'd that Jeremias and Photius Patriarchs of Constantinople express themselves in this same manner Jesus Christ called the Bread his Body the Wine his Blood He assures us that Jeremias believed Transubstantiation but whether he did or not we shall see hereafter He likewise tell us that Photius joyns this expression with that which naturally denotes Transubstantiation to wit that the common Bread is changed into the Body of Jesus Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but this is meer mockery to desire us to believe that a Term so general as is that of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 does naturally signifie a Conversion of Substance IN the second place the Greeks are wont in this Controversie to reproach Bibl. Patr. Tom. 4. Edit 4. the Latins with their eating the Jewish Azyme and that they eat it as a Figure of the Flesh of Christ You offer to God in Sacrifice say's Nicetas Pectoratus the Azyme and dead Bread of the Jews and eat it as a Figure of the true and living Flesh of Jesus Christ and a little further he that makes the Azyme and eats it altho he has not taken this Custom from the Jews yet does he in this imitate them and his Knowledge is no greater than that of a Jew They apply to this occasion the Eleventh Canon of the Sixth Council in Trullo which forbids the eating of the Azyme of the Jews and this is near upon the same Language of all the rest of the Greeks But these expressions would be extravagant did they not suppose that which we eat in the Eucharist to be real Bread for to eat the Body of Jesus Christ under the Accidents of an Azyme is not to eat the Azyme of the Jews and in effect those amongst the Latins that have refuted them touching this Article have not fail'd to tell them that after the Conversion 't is no longer Bread neither leaven'd nor unleaven'd but the Body of Jesus Christ and that in supposing this Conversion the Question concerning the Azyme's is superfluous as appears in an Anonymous Treatise in the Bibliotheca Patrum and in a Letter of Pope Gregory the 9th which Mr. Arnaud mentions in the Tenth Chapter of his Third Book IT appears likewise by a Treatise attributed to Gennadius the Patriarch of Constantinople that at the Council of Florence wherein 't was ordain'd the Priests shall consecrate the Body of Jesus Christ with leavened Bread and with the Azyme every one according to the Custom of his own Church the Greeks that rejected the Union thus loudly expressed themselves saying Gennad pro Concil Flor. cap. 2 sect 1. That the Council had divided the Mystery of the New Testament into two Parts and made two Bodies of Jesus Christ the one of unleavened and th' other of leavened Bread Which Language would be very improper in the mouths of Persons who believe Transubstantiation for besides that this would not be two Bodies but one alone under the different Species it should at least have been said they had set up two Bodies one made of leaven'd th' other of unleaven'd Bread WE find that the Greeks in this same Controversie to shew unleavened Bread ought not to be used in this Mystery affirm that Leaven is the same thing to Bread as the Soul is to the Body because Bread receives elevation by means of the Leaven so that they call leavened Bread living Bread as being that which has Spirits and on the contrary the Azyme dead Bread a dead Lump unfit to represent the living Body of Jesus Christ and thereupon they ground this Accusation that the Latins eat a dead Lump inanimate Bread and not the Body of Jesus Christ which is of the same Substance as ours and is not void of Soul as taught the Heretick Apollinarius We may find this kind of arguing in Cerularius his Letter in that of Nicetas Pectoratus and in the Answers of Cardinal Humbert and likewise describ'd at large in the Anonymous Author I mention'd The Christians Easter say's he Bibl Patr. Tom 4 Edit 4. was celebrated not with unleaven'd Bread but on the contrary with that which is leaven'd to set forth the Perfection of Jesus Christ For our Lord has united to himself two Natures in one Person and as the Divine Nature is most simple so the humane Nature is composed of Soul and Body or Flesh There being then in Jesus Christ the Divinity the Soul and the Body so likewise in the Mystery of the Sacrament which we celebrate with compleat Bread that is to say with leavened Bread there are three things namely Flower
is famous amongst the Greeks and lived in the Eleventh Century expounding these words of Saint Peter Let your Conversation be honest among the Gentiles that whereas they speak ill of you as of evil doers they may glorifie God Saint Peter say's he speaks here of the false Accusations of the Heathens and if you would know the particulars thereof read what Ireneus Bishop of Lyons has written touching the Martyrs Sanctus and Blandina and you will be perfectly informed This in few words is an account thereof The Greeks having taken some Slaves belonging to the Christian Catecumenists used great violence towards them to make them confess the Christians Mysteries and the Slaves not knowing what to say to please those that so rudely handled them remembred they heard their Masters relate that the Holy Communion was the Body and Blood of Christ imagining that 't was In effect Flesh and Blood Whereupon they taking this as if the Christians were wont REALLY to eat and drink human Flesh and Blood made report hereof to all the other Greeks and by torments forced the Martyrs Sanctus and Blandina to confess it But Blandina afterwards very pertinently demanded of them how they could imagine People who out of Devotion did abstain from eating Flesh whose use was permitted them should do any such thing THIS passage may be considered in two respects either as being of St. Ireneus or Oecumenius I know very well there are several Learned men that believe Oecumenius was mistaken in relating this Story as if it came from Saint Ireneus and in effect we do not thus find it in the Letter of the Churches of Vienna and Lyons produced by Eusebius But in the second respect under which I now offer it we may certainly conclude that 't was the Sentiment of Oecumenius himself For how can we suppose he would call the belief of the Slaves and Heathenish Inquisitors a mistake That the Holy Communion did in effect consist of Flesh and Blood and that the Christians did really do this Wherefore would he reckon this Errour amongst the Slanders of the Heathens Wherefore should he introduce Blandina refuting this Imagination had he himself believed the Communion to be in effect and reality the Flesh and Blood of Christ in its proper Substance and had this been the real Sentiment of his Church How came it to pass he did not endeavour to mollifie and explain these Terms and show that Blandina was mistaken in denying the Eucharist to be in effect and reallity Flesh and Blood or that what she did in this case was only to conceal from the Heathens the Churches Belief in this particular or in fine that she only denied it in one sence to wit that it was visibly and sensibly Flesh and Blood How happened it he feared not lest the Greeks amongst whom he lived when he gave this account would not be scandaliz'd at it or the weak take hence occasion to call in question the truth of the Doctrines of Transubstantiation and the real Presence Yet does he not trouble himself in searching after mollifying Terms or Explanations and the manner in which he has laid this down does clearly shew us that he did not in any sort believe the Holy Communion to be really and in effect the Body and Blood of Christ nor imagin'd he affirm'd any thing contrary to the Doctrine of his Church or which might be taken in an ill sence CHAP. IX The Seventeenth Proof taken from the Dispute agitated amongst the Greeks in the Twelfth Century touching the Eucharist some of 'em affirming the Body of Jesus Christ to be incorruptible and others corruptible The Eighteenth from a Passage out of Zonarus a Greek Monk that lived in the Twelfth Century I Mention'd in my Answer to the Perpetuity a Dispute which arose amongst the Greeks in the Twelfth Century touching the Body of Jesus Christ which we receive in the Eucharist from whence I took occasion to prove the Greeks do not believe the Transubstantiation of the Latins Mr. Arnaud contents not himself with pretending my Proof is not good but will needs draw a contrary Conclusion from the same Principle I made use of It then lies upon me to examine in this Chapter two Passages the one of Nicetas Choniatus and th' other of Zonarus who both take notice of this Controversie and to know whether this difference do's suppose Transubstantiation or not I will begin with Nicetas who lays down the Question in these Terms The Question say's he was whether the Sacred Body of Jesus Christ which we Nicet Chon Annal. lib. 3. receive be incorruptible such as it has been since his Passion and Resurrection or corruptible as it was before his Passion Before we go any further we should consider whether 't is likely such a Question should be stated in a Church that believes Transubstantiation This is a Point easily decided if we consider that those that hold this Doctrine do not reckon the Body of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist to be either in a corruptible state such as it was before his Passion or an incorruptible one wherein it has been since his Resurrection They have invented a Third which holds the middle between the two others and which equally agrees with the two times before and after his Resurrection which is that they call the Sacramental State in which they will needs have this Body to lie hid under the Accidents of Bread being invisible and insensible in it self without Extension Action or Motion having all its Parts in one Point and existing after the manner of Spirits In this State according to them he has neither the incorruption he obtained by his Resurrection nor the Corruption he put on in coming into the World but is corruptible in respect of the Species which enclose him and incorruptible by reason of that Spirituality which Transubstantiation gives him How can Mr. Arnaud imagine that in this Principle of the Sacramental State there may be formed the Question whether he is incorruptible such as he has been since his Resurrection or corruptible as before his Passion How can he conceive that Persons who have his third State in view and are agreed amongst themselves can fall into a debate touching the two others For it cannot be supposed the ignorance of the Greeks has bin so great as not to let them see the inconsistency there is between their Question and the Doctrine of the Substantial Conversion as it is taught by the Latins No People can be so ignorant as not to know that a humane Body such as is that of our Saviour being under the Accidents of the Eucharistical Bread is neither the same that was on the Cross nor that which Thomas touched when it was risen and we must necessarily suppose that he has neither the corruptibility under which he was before his death nor the incorruptibility he received when he arose from the Sepulchre but another incorruptibility which comes to him from his existence
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
hearers receiving more or less but it remains indivisible and wholly intire in all when they should be several thousands in number altho it be but one Body for a voice is nothing else but verberated Air. Let no one then doubt but that after the Holy Sacrifice and Resurrection of the incorruptible and immortal Body of our Lord and his holy and living Blood are applied to the Anti-Types by their Consecration but that they do I say as much imprint his proper virtue as the things I offered by way of example do and that he fully and intirely exists in them I know not what Mr. Arnaud thinks of these words but certainly he ought not to suppress them as he has done He mentions what precedes and follows them but leaves out those that are in the middle 'T is probable he could not well brook this comparison of the Seal that imprints its Image on several things nor that of the voice which multiplies it self in the Air without losing its Unity for in effect there happens no change of Substance neither in the Matter that receives impression nor in the Air which receives the voice and these several Matters to which the Seal communicates its Image or those several parts of the Air into which the voice is carried are one and the same thing amongst themselves and with the Seal or the first Air in respect of the Characters or Articulation but not at all in respect of the Substance whence we may conclude the same thing concerning the parts of the Sacrament which is to say that the Bread altho it receives the impression of the virtue of Christ's Body yet does it keep its Substance after the same manner as the Body of Jesus Christ retains his the virtue remaining the same in all the parts of the Bread 'T is probable he did not like that in proposing the comparison of the Seal Eutychius has observ'd that 't is not changed into the things to which it communicates its Characters whence it follows that they are not likewise changed substantially into him 'T is likely he could not well rellish this expression that the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ are applied to the Anti-Types and that they imprint no less in them their proper virtues 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 than the Seal does in things and the voice which a man utters in the Air. In effect I am much mistaken if this does not represent the Idea of a Body of Jesus Christ in virtue and efficacy against which Mr. Arnaud has so great an aversion I am greatly deceived if these expressions be not inconsistent with the Doctrine of Transubstantiation or the real Presence For what mean this Body and Blood applied to the Anti-Types by Consecration and which as a Seal imprint on them their proper virtues if we suppose these Anti-Types to be really changed into this Body and Blood and become the same numerical Substance But be it as it will Mr. Arnaud ought not to retrench all this Discourse from the midst of the rest or if he design'd to do it not to reproach me for that in my Answer to the Perpetuity I did not mention at large the Passages of Nicetas and Zonarus I can easilier justifie my self concerning this particular than he can himself for it will appear at the end of this Chapter that 't would have been very advantagious to me to represent them at their full length and the reason why I did it not was because I was unwilling to tire the Reader with Passages which are very long and the sum of which may be represented in few words besides I have caused them to be printed at large in the Margent of the last Edition of my Book We must then attribute this reproach Mr. Arnaud makes me to his humour and not to his Judgment for had he taken time to consider he would have spared us the reading of so frivolous a matter But when we call to mind that he himself has suppressed one part of Eutychus his Discourse this must be said to be an effect of his Judgment and not of his humour for he seems to be naturally an Enemy to Com pe diums IN fine Nicetas having made the Greeks of the first party speak their sence he introduces the other and adds these following words Which things being alledged by these and they producing several other Testimonies of the Church the others replied on the contrary That the Mystery is not an acknowledgment of the Resurrection but only a Sacrifice and consequently is corruptible being without Soul or Understanding and that the Communicant does not receive Jesus Christ intire but in part For were it say they incorruptible it would be indued with Spirit it would be alive it could neither be touched seen nor chewed with the Teeth and in its cutting it would be insensible of pain TO know whether these People believed Transubstantiation or the real Presence we need only inquire whether they had common sence for unless they were deprived of it they could never believe that the Substance of the Bread is changed into the dead and inanimate Body of our Lord which is seen handled cut and chewed with the teeth and which altho inanimate yet is grieved and pain'd to see it self thus used If Mr. Arnaud can make us believe this he may make us believe any thing How apparently impious and contradictory would this their Opinion be to expose our Saviour again to grief and pain to imagine they see him and chew him with their teeth and cut his flesh in pieces that every one may partake thereof to believe he is without Life and Soul 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and yet that he is pained and grieved 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 BUT It will be perhaps then demanded what is their sence seeing Mr. Arnaud assures us That all this would be ridiculous if we understand it as meant of Bread which is only the Figure of our Saviour and which contains only his virtue I answer 't is no hard matter to give their words a national sence in supposing they only believe a change of Mystery and Virtue for they mean that we receive Jesus Christ in the Eucharist as dead and sacrific'd for us and that for to thus represent him the Symbols are taken from the number of those things which have neither Life nor Understanding from amongst those things I say which we see handle and chew with our teeth and which relate to the first visible State of Jesus Christ when he lived on Earth and was subject to pain and misery whereas were he represented in it in his incorruptible State wherein he is no more visible to our eyes nor liable to the ill usages of his Enemies our Lord would without doubt employed other Symbols wherein these dolours are not so lively represented And as to what they say concerning our not receiving Jesus Christ wholly entire but in part this supposes nothing else but that they believe the whole Body
God which shews his perplexity to be so great in this particular that he knew not on which side to turn himself Whilst the Greeks possess so great Tranquility in this Point that it does not appear they ever found the least difficulty in it They assure us the Eucharist does nourish our Bodies but they see none of those inconveniencies which disturb the Latins which clearly shews they do not believe the Conversion of Substances For did they believe it they would not fail to see what common sence discovers to others and seeing it how is it possible they should express no astonishment nor any difficulty therein or at least not take that side which Mr. Arnaud has taken which is to leave these difficulties to Almighty God NEITHER do we find that the Greeks do trouble themselves about the alteration or corruption which frequently happens in the Substance of the Eucharist as the Latins do altho the former of these have more reason for it than the latter For the Latins take all possible care to keep their Hosts from corrupting but the Greeks on the contrary take none at all And keeping as they do the Sacramental Bread sprinkled with consecrated Wine the space of a whole year for the use of the sick it often happens that 't is corrupted and full of Maggots as it is observ'd by Sacranus and the Archbishop of Gnesne and consequently are more exposed to these inconveniencies than the Latins Yet do they not seem to be concerned nor inform themselves whence come these Worms which being as they are Substances it cannot be said they generate from bare Accidents Neither can it be said without blasphemy that they are made of the proper Substance of Jesus Christ THIS Proof may be extended farther for 't is certain we do not find amongst the Greeks any of these kind of things which depend on Transubstantiation I mean which necessarily and wholly depend thereon They are in this respect in a most profound silence But it 's worth our while to hear Mr. Arnaud It is indeed say's he a real truth that the Greeks take little Lib. 10 cap 8. p. 59. notice of these Philosophical Consequences Samonas speaks occasionally of a Body in two places and of Accidents without a Subject the Archbishop of Gaza does the same but both one and the other of these do this by constraint What signifies this tergiversating for he ought not to say the Greeks speak but little hereof seeing they speak not at all of it This Samonas and this Archbishop of Gaza are not Authors to be quoted seeing we shall make it appear in its place that the Book which bears the name of the first of these is deservedly suspected to be counterfeit and that the other is a Roman Proselyte wedded to the Interests of the Court of Rome It is evident that to establish a restriction of this Consequence Mr. Arnaud should have better Proofs But that we may do him right we will not conceal what he adds afterwards I drew from the silence of the Fathers touching the Miracles of Transubstantiation and its Consequences an Argument to conclude they believed it not He answers that instead of Fathers I should substitute the Greeks Armenians Ibid. pag. 63. and Copticks of those times for say's he 't is certain that all these Christians believed Transubstantiation as we do and yet take no notice of all these difficulties which Mr. Claude ' s head is full of This acknowledgment is sincere and we need desire no more The Greeks take no more notice of the difficulties arising from Transubstantiation than the Armenians and Copticks and Mr. Arnaud grants this to be so undeniable a Truth that he makes it the ground of an Answer OUR present business then is to know whether the Consequence I hence draw be just and good Which he contests me and first he say's that all these Eastern Churches profess to believe original sin and yet their Divines trouble not themselves about explaining this Doctrine He adds that they observe Ibid. pag 58 59. the same silence in all the Questions and difficulties which the Socinians propose against the Trinity the Person of the Holy Spirit and the satisfaction of Christ altho these difficulties are as obvious and sensible as those alledged against the real Presence BUT 't is his prejudice and not his reason that has dictated to him this Answer For first there is a vast difference betwixt the incomprehensible Mysteries respecting the Divinity which being above the natural light of reason require a profound submission and the Doctrine of Transubstantiatiation The nature of the Sacraments is well known and the matter and signs thereof are better known which are Bread and Wine Even the thing signifi'd to wit the natural Body and Blood of Jesus Christ are not only the natural Object of Reason but likewise of Sence and both one and the other of these Faculties can judge of it nay they do judge of it by a spontaneous motion even when we would not our selves Secondly besides this infinite difference which yields no room for Mr. Arnaud's comparison the Point in hand concerns not the difficulties touching Transubstantiation or the real Presence but the Doctrines which necessarily attend them and Questions which immediately arise thence of themselves There is a great deal of difference between these two Particulars The difficulties which are raised against a Truth are commonly false Consequences which the Adversaries draw thence and I confess it would not be to reason aright absolutely to conclude that a Church holds not a Doctrine because she troubles not her self in answering all the Objections which may be made against it To allow these kinds of Arguments there are distinctions to be made and particular circumstances to be observed without which there can be nothing concluded But we speak here of real Consequences of a Doctrine of Consequences I say which immediately shew themselves to the ordinariest capacity without any great Meditation and Study Now altho the Greeks do not apply themselves to answer the Objections of the Socinians against Original Sin against the Mystery of the Trinity the Person of the Holy Spirit and Satisfaction of Christ being perhaps not acquainted with them yet do we plainly see amongst them the Consequences of these Doctrines They baptise little Children and baptise them in the Name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost they believe the Father Son and Holy Spirit are consubstantial they adore the Person of the Holy Spirit they put their trust in the death of Jesus Christ and such like things Wherefore should it not be the same in respect of the Consequences of Transubstantiation Is it possible to hold this Doctrine without thinking at the same time at least on some one of these Consequences on the actual existence of a humane Body in several places the existence of this Body without its usual Dimensions the concomitancy of the Body and Blood and on the Accidents of
Bread which remain after Consecration THE difficulties which the Socinians object against the Trinity and other Doctrines mentioned by Mr. Arnaud are for the most part false Consequences which these Hereticks draw from these Doctrines It is no wonder if almost all Christians be ignorant of these Consequences They do not spring up naturally For 't is passion and blindness that produces them For I call blindness those false Lights which cause these Hereticks to behold that which is not But that which Mr. Arnaud calls the difficulties of Transubstantiation are real Consequences of this Doctrine and acknowledged to be such by them of the Church of Rome Let him say as long as he will these are Philosophical Consequences I affirm they are not so Philosophical as to hinder them from being very natural appearing to be so even to the light of common sence It is most natural for a man that believes the Substance of Bread ceases to be to think on the Accidents which remain It is very natural for him that believes the Body of Jesus Christ and his Blood to be substantially therein to imagine that where the Body or Flesh is there must the Blood be also which is called in one word the concomitancy It is most natural for him that believes that 't is not the Substance of Bread that nourishes to consider what should cause this nourishment It is very natural for a man that believes the Body of our Lord to be a real humane Body to inquire how this Body can be stript of the proprieties of its Nature It is natural when we see Worms which ingender in the Eucharist to inquire whence they take their matter It is likewise certain that Philosophy is not properly any more concerned in these Consequences than barely to defend them and not to illustrate them And yet when they should not appear in themselves to the eyes of the Greeks and we suppose the whole Body of this Church to be in such a prodigious stupidity that for so many Ages since they have discovered nothing of themselves touching these things which would be in my mind one of the boldest suppositions imaginable yet it must be acknowledged they have seen them in the Doctrine and common belief of the Latins who have filled their Religion with them since Beringarius his time NEITHER is it true that 't was mens Disputations which occasion'd all these Questions on the Subject of the Eucharist or discover'd these Consequences we speak of Mr. Arnaud would fain perswade us to it but we know the contrary and that 't is the very Doctrine it self of Transubstantiation which has produced them For they take their birth from what our eyes see and hands touch and experiences which cannot but be acknowledged In effect they are to be found more amongst the Schoolmen than Controvertists more amongst Authors of the Church of Rome than Protestants THERE is so great absurdity in saying the Greeks are ignorant of the Consequences of the Doctrine of Transubstantiation supposing they believed it that Mr. Arnaud seems to be ashamed to maintain it to the end Ibid. pag. 62. He turns himself on another side and tells us that 't is the docility of the Faith of the Greeks which will not permit them to behold these difficulties But this is very absurdly answered again For were it thus the Greeks themselves would at least tell us something of it I mean they would tell us themselves in some sort that they know well all these Consequences and are not so stupid but that they see such and such Questions which arise from the Conversion of the Substances but that they behold them as an Abyss which cannot be fathomed or to use Mr. Arnaud's Eloquent Expression That they stifle and Ibid. drown all humane thoughts in the absolute certainty of the Word of God and infallible Authority of his Church They would give some reason for their silence and endeavour to hinder its being interpreted in an ill sence They would instruct their People in the same Modesty and Docility and observe that their Conduct in this particular was more discreet than that of the Latins And this is what the Greeks would do did they believe Transubstantiation after this gentle and quiet manner Mr. Arnaud attributes to them Yet do they not so much as mention these Consequences or difficulties they take no notice of their own silence in this respect But Mr. Arnaud speaks for them without any call or order from them He tells us his Conceptions and those of Ernulphus an English Bishop of the Twelfth Century but not a word of the Greeks The Greeks are in such an absolute silence on this Subject that this silence cannot come from any other cause than the nature of their Doctrines which not having the Consequences of Transubstantiation do no ways oblige them to take notice of these same Consequences AND thus far I think my Argument may pass for good in the Opinion of those People that understand reason Yet Mr. Arnaud will have this to be Ibid. pag. 59. meer Folly and Extravagancy And to shew it to be so he tells us That reason it self shews us we must not disown certain and undoubted Truths under pretence they appear contrary amongst themselves on weak conjectures but the certainty of these Truths should make us conclude touching the falsity of these Reasonings and pretended Contrarieties It is adds he as certain a Truth as any thing of this kind can be that the Greeks and other Eastern Churches do believe the real Presence and Transubstantiation and there is nothing but may be called in question upon the same grounds if we may doubt of the consent of all the Churches with the Church of Rome in this Doctrine This is another Truth that the Greeks take little notice of the Philosophicl Consequences Whence he concludes that these two Truths being equally certain they cannot be contrary and that they shew us the falsity of Mr. Claude's Consequence IT must be acknowledged that never man had less trouble to answer an Adversary than Mr. Arnaud I prove to him the Greeks do not believe Transubstantiation because they make no mention of its Consequences nor difficulties He denies my Consequence because the Greeks do believe Transubstantiation and that two Truths cannot be contradictory It costs little to make such kind of Answers and it costs no more to tell him that if it were a certain Truth as he affirms it is that the Greeks believed the conversion of Substances he would have no need to trouble himself to answer my Arguments For the Question being decided there would be nothing remaining upon this account betwixt us I believe I established the Negative which I defend a thousand times more solidly than he has proved his Affirmative but if I pretended to elude his Arguments by saying I deny the Consequence because the Greeks do not believe Transubstantiation I should be an impertinent Disputer It seems to me I should
make it appear either that the Matters of Fact which Mr. Arnaud proposes are not true or that he takes them in a contrary sence and draws from them false Conclusions but barely to say I deny the Consequence because it opposes my Thesis which I hold for a certain Truth this would be to make my self ridiculous I know that a man that answers supposes always his Thesis to be true and that he has liberty to draw thence if he can where withal to solve the Arguments of his Adversary but he must do it in another manner than by saying I deny the Consequence because my Thesis is true For otherwise his Adversary will tell him and I prove that your Thesis is false by the very Argument I offer so that this would be always to begin again Mr. Arnaud will reply he does not barely propose his Thesis for an Answer but proposes it as having already solidly established it by a great number of Proofs and pretends that his Proofs surmount mine I confess that if this be his sence he has right to oppose Proof against Proof and require a comparison to be made of them before the Reader passes his final Sentence But I demand likewise for my part that there be comprehended in this comparison not only one oâ— my Proofs but all of them together with the Answers which I shall return his to shew their weakness and insufficiency Which is what a judicious Reader ought to do at the end of the Dispute in the mean time each Proof in particular should have his force neither must he imagine to elude them one after another by barely opposing against them those which seem to establish the contrary If I pretended by the only force of my Argument drawn from the silence of the Greeks on the Consequences of Transubstantiation to acquit my self of the examination of Mr. Arnaud's Proofs and end the Dispute by this means alone he might reasonably bring me back to this Discussion For this would be to err in the same manner as the Author of the Perpetuity has done who would decide the whole Controversie of the Eucharist by an Argument drawn from the pretended Consequences of a change without any regard to our Proofs of Fact which conclude directly the contrary It would signifie nothing for me to alledge that my method is a method of Prescription and not of Discussion for this would be meer wrangling But this is not my design I proposed to my self having first established by divers most solid Reason that the Greeks do not believe Transubstantiation to answer in its due order whatsoever Mr. Arnaud has offered to shew that the Greeks do believe it And yet this Proof which I here treat of comes with the rest into the order of the Dispute It hath then as I said its particular force and weight and Mr. Arnaud must not imagine to overthrow it by barely opposing his Proofs against it for before the Dispute be ended I hope to shew that what he terms Proofs are but meer Paralogisms and Delusions TO the end the Reader may better judge of the solidity of my Proof Answer to the Sccond Treatise of Perp. cap. 8. pag. 442. Edit 7. he must observe that I offered it in my Answer to the Perpetuity only on this Ground that there is no Law amongst the Greeks or general determination that establishes Transubstantiation that none of their Councils have decided it none of their Confessions of Faith comprehended it nor any of their publick Catechisms asserted it Now when men differ touching a matter of Fact they usually have recourse to the place where they may most reasonably expect satisfaction and if it does not appear there in it self sence obliges 'em to address themselves to its Consequences and if the Consequences do not manifest themselves any more than the Fact it self they draw thence a negative Argument which in its place has all the force that can be desired This method have I followed in this Answer to Mr. Arnaud for I produce not this Argument drawn from Consequences till I manifested that the Fact it self here in question that is to say Transubstantiation does not appear any where amongst the Greeks neither in respect of the Terms nor thing which the Terms signifie and to justifie it I have produced what Mr. Arnaud has alledged to the contrary IN effect if you set aside the Latiniz'd Greeks such as Bessarion Emanuel Calecas Plusiadenus the counterfeit Greeks such as the Baron of Spartaris and the Archbishop of Gaza whom I can prove to be a Pensioner of the Court of Rome and others that are notoriously suspected such as the pretended Samonas the Monk Agapius the six Priests of the Patriarchate of Antioch and the Synod of Cyprus in the Year 1668. with some Acts that have been alter'd by the Latins already mention'd by us all the rest consists only in Arguings and Consequences which have even in this quality neither Evidence nor certainty as will appear hereafter For as to Mr. Arnaud's vaunting that he has shewed Transubstantiation hath been defined by Councils that it is expressly contain'd in the profession of Faith sign'd by the Sarrasins and in the Ecclesiastical Writings of the Greeks is what he ought not to affirm on such slight Grounds seeing People may be convinced of the contrary by the bare reading of these pretended Councils of Cyrillus Berrhea and Partenius and Passages he produces as well of the profession of Faith of these Sarrasin Proselytes as Ecclesiastical Writings for 't is certain we find Transubstantiation neither defined nor expresly taught therein THIS Belief then appearing not of it self in the Greek Church and the expressions she makes use of being lyable to sundry Interpretations a prudent man will consider the Doctrines which depend thereon and which are the inseperable Consequences of it for if these Doctrines do no more appear than the Substantial Conversion this must be granted a new Proof which confirms the first and very much helps us to make our final Judgment For as I said it is not possible that the Greeks can be in this Point agreed with the Latins without believing at the same time with them that the Accidents of Bread which remain subsist without being upheld by the Substance of Bread that the Body of Jesus Christ is substantially present in several places at one time that it exists in the Eucharist void of these natural dimensions and that the Body and Blood are equally found under both Species by vertue of the concomitancy c. These are the necessary dependances on Transubstantiation and the Greeks are so much the more obliged to explain themselves in as much as the Terms by which they are said to express their Belief touching this last particular are equivocal and capable of several sences for they ought at least to shew hereupon what is their meaning So that having not done it it is a Proof they are not agreed with the Church of Rome
are taken off the King's Table are always the remains of the King's Table while they last altho kept several years so it cannot be but that the remains of this Holy Mystery are the remains of the Body and Blood of Christ Let Mr. Arnaud tell us sincerely whether this be the Style of a man that believes Transubstantiation and whether he himself would call that which is reserved of the Sacrament the remains of the Body and Blood of Christ and compare the Sanctification which the Bread receives to the colour wherewith Wool is dyed Whether he would say that this Sanctification remains in the Mysteries and is indelible For 't is certain this gives us the Idea of Bread which so remaining yet receives an Impression of Grace and Holiness which resides in it as in its Subject and makes it to be the Body of Christ but no wise transubstantiated Bread If we were to understand by the vertue not an Impression of the Holy Spirit in the Bread but an Action that changed the Substance of the Bread into the Substance of the Body of Christ it might then be said the effect which is produced by this Action or Conversion remains that is to say that 't is ever the Substance of the Body of Christ But it could not be said as Metrophanus does that the Action it self that is to say the Sanctification always remain'd because it would be conceived in this case as a momentary Action which ceases to be assoon as the Conversion is made Neither could it be moreover compared to the dye which Wool receives seeing Wool remains still Wool in respect of its Substance In fine if Metrophanus means no more but that the Mystery remains still what it has been made to wit the Body of Christ in Substance there can be no reason given why being able without doubt to explain himself easily and clearly he chose rather to use obscure and perplexed Terms which have an Ayr wholly contrary to his Mind and need a Commentary and Distinctions than to use clear and natural expressions for how many Commentaries need we to render intelligible that this indelible Sanctification which the Bread receives and is like to the dye which Wool takes signifies the proper Substance of the Body and Blood of our Saviour I will finish this Chapter with another Proof taken from the Form of Abjuration which the Greeks make when they leave their Religion to embrace the Roman One of the Articles they are made to confess is this That the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ with his Soul and Divinity are really truly Apud Possevin Bibl. select lib. 6. and substantially in the Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist and that there is made a Conversion of the whole Substance of Bread into the Body and of the whole Substance of Wine into the Blood which Conversion the Catholick Church calls Transubstantiation The Greek runs thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 HERE 's clearly expressed the substantial Conversion 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Transubstantiation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for thus do the Greeks speak when they become Latins and 't is thus they ought to speak that believe this Doctrine But why must the Greeks profess this when they change their Religion if they held the same Language before Is it usual when Proselytes are received to make them profess Doctrines common both to the Religion they forsake and that which they embrace Do the Greeks do so by the Latins that pass over to them and is not this a plain sign that their former Belief touching this Point was not that of the Church of Rome For 't is to be observ'd that this Formulary contains first the Symbol with the addition of the filioque which the Greeks do not receive Then it contains the Decrees of the Florentine Council which the Greeks reject and in fine the Articles determin'd in the Council of Trent and in respect of this last part 't is the same profession of Faith which them of our Communion make when they embrace that of Rome IT will be perhaps replied that amongst these Articles there are two to wit that of the Invocation of Saints and worshipping of Images which there is no necessity of making the Greeks confess seeing they practised them already in their Religion whence it does not follow that they believed not Transubstantiation altho found expressed in this Form of Confession for there ought to be the same Judgment made of this as of the other two Articles But if this Answer happens to be approved by Mr. Arnaud I will tell him 't is of no weight For as to the Invocation the Greeks will not practise it to the Saints of the Church of Rome which they do not acknowledge When I enter into a Church of the Latins say's Gregory the Confessor Hist Conc. Flâ—â— sect 4. cap. 31 Relig. Ruthen art 6. in the History of Syropulus I adore not the Image of any Saint because I know not any one of them that I see They blaspheme say's Sacranus speaking of the Russians against the Churches Saints who lived in the Communion and Obedience of the Roman Church In the Invocation of Saints say's the Error Mos ex Scarga art â— Jesuit Scarga they are guilty of several absurdities This Article then was not needless but on the contrary there was some kind of necessity to insert it in the formulary And as to that of Images we all know that the Greeks do abhor the Images of the Latins and therefore call their Worship in this respect Idolatry THE Greeks say's William Postel call the Western People that are subject De Repub. Turcor pag. 46. Voyages of the Sieur Bénard lib. cap. 24. to the Church of Rome grand Idolaters because we have Statues erected They have no other Images in their Churches say's the Sieur Benard than the Crucifix the Virgin Mary Saint John the Evangelist and Saint George which are Painted in Tables They teach say's the Jesuit Richard that carved Images are Idols and that 't is unlawful to worship any others than those which are painted POSSEVIN the Jesuit reckons likewise this amongst the rest of their Errours That they will not suffer a carved Image of our Saviour to be set up in their Churches And the Sieur de la Boulay le Goux asserts the same thing viz. that they suffer no other Images but those that are painted against the Walls their reason being that carved Images are forbid in Moses his Law which Nicholas de Nicolai confirms telling us They suffer no carved Images in their Churches only Table-Pieces IT was then moreover needful to insert in the profession of Faith this Article of Images But there can be nothing alledged like this touching that of Transubstantiation There could be no reason obliging the Popes to require an express Declaration from the Greek Proselytes unless that of this Doctrines being not taught in the Church they left and therefore they must change
Communion is imperfect in respect of the Institution of Christ who has ordain'd we should partake of both kinds and not in respect of the Body and Blood it self which we fully receive under one he thereupon explains himself clearly in the 68 Proposition This is an Ibid. Blasphem 6. impious Doctrine of the Papist say's he and of which Pope Eugenus has been the first Author that where the Body of Christ is there is likewise his Blood and for this reason it is not necessary that the Laity receive the Communion under both kinds So that here the pretended concomitancy is overthrown and consequently Transubstantiation inasmuch as one cannot subsist without the other This Author lived about the Year 1630. CHAP. XII The Twenty Sixth Proof taken from the Confession of Faith of Cyrillus Lucar Patriarch of Constantinople and what followed thereupon HAD Mr. Arnaud contented himself to the end he might get clear from the Confession of Faith of Cyrillus in saying this Patriarch studied John Calvin and was a great admirer of his Doctrine That his Confession of Faith contradicted several Articles of the Belief of the Greeks that 't was condemned by two Councils held since his death and that there is no reason the Doctrine of the whole Greek Church touching the Eucharist should be determined by his opinion had he I say only thus expressed himself we should not have complained against him but endeavoured to satisfie him in every one of these particulars But instead of containing himself within these bounds he has faln foul on the Person Lib. 4. cap. 6. pag. 382 83. of Cyrillus himself whom he treats as a hireling charging him with receiving five hundred Crowns in Germany for subscribing to Articles against the Catholicks as a sacrilegious Person and Usurper who diverted the money he gathered in Candia under the name of his Patriarch Meletius to the purchasing the Patriarchate of Alexandria to the prejudice of another that was elected by common consent as an insatiable ambitious Wretch who not content with the Patriarchate of Alexandria would have that of Constantinople and which is yet worse as a Villain and Murtherer who having caused his Predecessor Timotheus to be poysoned got afterwards Janisaries to strangle him who assisted him in this detestable Action Tho I resolved not to be concerned at Mr. Arnaud's Passion which cannot but be displeasing to good People of either Communion yet I may tell him that seeing he publishes these Accusations against a Person that is dead he must be able to prove by good Testimony his charge to be true but having no better an Author than Allatius for this he cannot take it ill if I affirm his account of this Person to be meer Calumny and Forgery HE confesses he relates this whole Story chiefly upon the credit of Allatius who Ibid. pag. 383. made it his business to inform himself and being a Greek ought sooner to be believed than Dutch or Switzers Ministers and especially than Hottinger who is one of the most passionate Ministers and least sincere Writers he ever read Let the Dutch or Switzers Ministers and especially Hottinger be what he pleases what signifies this to the Confirmation of the Truth of these Accusations and the sincerity of Allatius When the Ministers shall positively affirm any thing in favour of Cyrillus which they cannot prove then Mr. Arnaud may question their Testimony and term them passionate Persons not worthy of credit If Allatius relates the same thing otherwise than the Ministers he may say he is sooner to be believed than they and see what answer we will make him but for Allatius to charge Cyrillus with such hainous Crimes and to authorize his Impostures we must be told that Hottinger is no good Author and that Allatius is more worthy of credit this is mere mockery For to decide the Question whether what Allatius affirms be true or fabulous Hottinger and other Ministers are not concerned we are only to inquire whether Allatius cites any Witnesses or whether he himself is an Author worthy of credit Allatius say's Mr. Arnaud has taken special care to inform himself He must tell us then what his Informations contain and not affirm such important matters without good Grounds He was a Greek by Nation very true but a Greek that forsook his Religion to embrace the Roman Faith a Greek whom the Pope preferred to be his Library-Keeper a Person the most wedded of all men to the Interests of the Court of Rome a Person than whom none could be more malicious against those he took to be his Adversaries and especially against Cyrillus and those called Schismatical Greeks a man full of words but little sence His Religion and Office of Library-Keeper will not be called in question by those that ever heard of him His Zeal for the Interest of the Court of Rome appears in the very beginning of his Book De perpetua consensione for observe here how he expresses himself in the Pope's Favour The Roman Prelate say's he is independent he judges all the World and Allat de Perpet Cons lib. 1. cap. 2. is judged of none we must obey him altho he governs unjustly he gives Laws but receives none and changes them when he pleases he makes Magistrates determins Points of Faith and orders as seems good to him the greatest Affairs in the Church If he would err he cannot for he cannot be deceived himself neither can he deceive others and when an Angel should affirm the contrary being guarded as he is with the Authority of Christ he cannot change The sharpness wherewith he treats those against whom he writes such as Chytreus Creygton the Archbishop of Corfou and some others appears by the bare reading of his Writings every period honouring them with these kind of Titles Sots Vide Allat de Perpet Cons lib. 3. cap. 15 16 17 18. c. advers Châ—eygt passim Lyers Blockheads Hellish and impudent Persons and other such like Terms which are no Signs of a moderate Spirit To prove the Conformity of the Greek Church with the Roman in Essentials he takes for his Principle to acknowledge none for the true Church but that Party which has submitted to the Roman See and in respect of the other Greeks whom he calls Hereticks and Schismaticks he fiercely maintains that a good course is taken with 'em when they can be reduced by Fire and Sword That Hereticks must be exterminated Allat de Perpet Cons lib. 2. cap. 13. Ibid. lib. 3. cap. 11. and punished and if obstinate put to death and burnt these are his Expressions and as to what concerns Cyrillus we need but read what he has written of him to be perswaded of his partiality and injustice Does Mr. Arnaud think he has done fairly to borrow the Weapons of such a man to defend himself against the aforemention'd Confession of Faith CYRILLUS had Adversaries whilst living and after his death but he has had likewise Defenders of
the sence of the Catholick Church the Substantial and Eternal Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and the Son which is exactly the expression the Greeks abhor WE may add to this that Mr. Arnaud tells us of a Treatise of Paysius Ligaridius Archbishop of Gaza in which Ligaridius discourses of Cyrillus and his Confession and raises an Objection about it which he himself answers saying That several boubted of the truth of this Piece and that should it be true yet one Swallow does not make a Summer but he makes no mention of these two pretended Censures which without doubt he would never have forgotten being as he is a man full of Zeal for the interests of the Roman Religion were they acknowledged to be good and Authentick Acts in the Greek Church I might say the same thing of the Barons of Spartaris did it not elsewhere appear that he was a Person of small Knowledge in the Affairs of the Greeks HEYDANUS a Dutch Professour of Divinity relates that in the year 1643. The News being come to Constantinople that this pretended Heydanus praefat ad lib cui titulus est causa Dei Council was confidently reported to be true in the West Parthenius himself was so surprised and offended thereat that assembling his Clergy and People in the Patriarchal Church he openly professed 't was false and that he never intended such an injury to the memory of Cyrillus IN fine Mr. Rivet Doctor of Divinity in Holland writing to Mr. Sarrau a Councellour in the Parliament of Paris the 21 of March 1644. tells him touching this Business That he saw at Mr. Hagha ' s a Letter written in Vulgar Greek from Pachomius the Metropolitain of Chalcedon which disowned the pretended Council under the Patriarch Parthenius Farther affirming that the Subscriptions were counterfeit and particularly his That this Piece was contrived by a Rascal c. That the Patriarch was a double minded man yet denied what was printed in Moldavia to be the Act he signed and that the Prince of Moldavia banished the Author of this Impression from his Territories BUT supposing what I now alledged to be wholly untrue and that these two pretended Councils were as really true as I believe 'em to be false yet is it certain they will but confirm the Proof we draw from Cyrillus his Confession against Transubstantiation and change it into Demonstration Which will clearly appear if we consider that whosoever composed them did all they could to turn Cyrillus his words into a sence odious to the Greeks even to the imputing to him several Falsities that Cyrillus of Berrhaea who presided in the first Council was a false Greek and one of the Jesuits Scholars engaged long since in the Party of the Latins and that Parthenius seemed likewise fastned to the Roman Interest if we take that for one of his Letters which one Athanasius a Latinising Greek published in which he makes him thus write to the late King That he heartily desired the Peace of the two Churches Athan. Rhetor Presbyt Bisant anti patellar Paris 1655. as much as any of his Predecessors but if the Turk under whose Empire they lived knew of this Affair he would kill 'em all Yet could the King find out a way whereby to secure them from this danger he solemnly protests that for his part he would not be wanting So that we see here what kind of men the Authors of these two Censures have been supposing 'em true and yet they have not expresly censured what Cyrillus Lucaris asserted touching Transubstantiation the first of these to wit Cyrillus of Berrhaea say's Anathematised be Cyrillus who teaches and believes that neither the Bread of the Altar nor the Wine are changed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the Priests Consecration and coming down of the Holy Spirit into the real Body and Blood of Jesus Christ seeing 't is written in the seventeenth Article of his Heretical Doctrine that what we see and take is not the Body of Jesus Christ The second namely Parthenius say's His Doctrine is so destructive to the Eucharist that he attributes only the bare Figure to it as if we were still under the Old Law of Types and Shadows For he denies the Bread which is seen and eaten becomes after Consecration the real Body of Jesus Christ in any other than a spiritual manner or rather by imagination which is the highest pitch of Impiety For Jesus Christ did not say This is the Figure of my Body but this is my Body this is my Blood this to wit that which was seen received eaten and broken after it was blessed and sanctified Not to take here notice how captiously these People turn the Words of Cyrillus to make them contradictory to the Belief and common Expressions of the Greeks it will be sufficient to observe that howsoever prejudiced these Persons have been they durst not re-establish the Transubstantiation he expresly condemned nor take any notice of that part of the Article which rejects it in express Terms But to the end we may better judge of this it will not be amiss to recite Cyrillus his own Words We believe say's he that the second Sacrament which the Lord has instituted is that which we call the Eucharist for in the Night in which he was betrayed taking Bread and blessing it he said to his Apostles take eat this is my Body and taking the Cup he gave thanks and said drink ye all of this this is my Blood which is shed for you do this in remembrance of me And Saint Paul adds as often as ye shall eat of this Bread and drink of this Cup ye shew the Lord's death This is the plain true and lawful Tradition of this admirable Mystery in the administration and understanding of which we confess and believe a real and certain Presence of our Lord Jesus Christ to wit that which Faith offers and gives us and not that which Transubstantiation has rashly invented and teaches For we believe the faithful eat the Body of Jesus Christ in the Sacrament not in a sensible chewing of him with the teeth in the Communion but in communicating by the sence of the Soul For our Lord's Body is not in the Mystery what our eyes behold and what we take but that which Faith which receives after a spiritual manner presents and gives us Wherefore it is certain if we believe we eat and participate but if we believe not we are deprived of this benefit If you compare this Article with Cyrillus of Berrhaea and Parthenius's Censures you will find they apply themselves to that which is said concerning Our Saviour's Body being not what we see and eat but that which our Faith does spiritually receive and that they endeavour to give these Words a construction abominated by the Greeks and different from their usual expressions But as to what he says touching Transubstantiation which he calls a rash invention 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we see they
that their Faith must be the rule of ours yet will I endeavour to satisfie the Reader in this particular I do also hope that this inquiry will not be useless towards the clearing up of the principal Question between Mr. Arnaud and my self because that in shewing what the Greeks do believe I do at the same time shew what they do not believe I shall do then three things in this Chapter the first of which shall be to shew the real Belief of the Greeks touching the Eucharist Secondly describe in what they agree and differ from the Church of Rome And thirdly likewise wherein we of the Reformed Church do agree with them and in what particulars we do not AS to the first of these Points to the end we may have a fuller and clearer understanding of the real Opinion of the Greeks it will be necessary we make several Articles of it and reduce them into these following Propositions FIRST in general the Eucharist is according to them a mystical representation of the whole Oeconomy of Jesus Christ They express by it his coming into the World his being born of a Virgin his Sufferings Death Resurrection Ascension into Heaven and the Glory he displayed on the Earth in making himself known and adored by every Creature Were it necessary to prove this Proposition we could easily do it by the Greek Lyturgies and Testimonies of Cabasilas Germain Simeon Thessaloniensis Jeremias and several others but this not being a matter of contest I shall not insist upon it SECONDLY They consider the Bread in two distinct respects either whilst it is as yet on the Table of the Prothesis or on the great Altar Whilst 't is on the Prothesis they hold 't is a Type or Figure Yet do they sometimes call it the Body of Jesus Christ sometimes the imperfect Body of Christ sometimes the dead Body of Jesus Christ although they do not believe the Consecration is then compleated This is confirmed by what I related in the Fourth Chapter of this Third Book and it is not likewise necessary to insist any longer thereon because this particular concerns not the matter in hand THIRDLY When the Symbols are carried and placed on the great Altar they say that by the Prayers of the Priest and Descent of the Holy Spirit the Bread and Wine are perfectly consecrated and changed into the Body and Blood of Christ To express this change they use these general Terms I already noted to wit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. which signifie a change They say the Bread is the Body of Christ and that it is made the very Body it self or the proper Body of Christ and hereunto refer all those Citations Mr. Arnaud has alledged out of Theophylact Euthymius Nicholas Methoniensis Cabasilas Simeon Thessaloniensis and Jeremias We do not deny that the Greeks use these Expressions it concerns us here only to know in what sence the Greek Church uses them and what kind of change they mean thereby I say then that when we come to examine this change and determine in what manner the Bread and Wine are made the Body and Blood of Christ they curb our curiosity and remit this knowledge and determination to God and for their own parts keep within their general Terms Which appears by the profession of Faith which the Sarrazins made in the Twelfth Century when they imbraced the Greek Religion I believe Bibl. Patr. Tom. 2. Graeco-Lat say's the Proselyte and confess the Bread and Wine which are mystically sacrificed by the Christians and of which they partake in their Divine Sacraments I believe likewise that this Bread and Wine are in truth the Body and Blood of Christ being changed intellectually and invisibly by his Divine Power above all natural conception he alone knowing the manner of it And upon this account it was that Nicetas Choniatus complains that in the Twelfth Century the Doctrine Nicetas Choniat Annal. lib. 3. of the Divine Mysteries was divulged and therefore censures the Patriarch Camaterus for his not having immediately silenced a Monk who proposed this Question to wit whether we receive in the Eucharist the corruptible or incorruptible Body of Jesus Christ He should have been condemned say's he for an Heretick that introduced Novelties all the rest silenced by his example to the end the Mystery may ever remain a Mystery John Sylvius in his Cathe'merinon Joan Sylv. aâ—rebat Cathem of the Greeks recites a Prayer wherein it is said That the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ are touched and changed on the Altar after a supernatural manner which must not be inquired into We have likewise already seen in the Tenth Chapter of this Book the Testimony of Metrophanus the Patriarch of Alexandria who having told us the consecrated Bread is really the Body of Jesus Confess Eccles Or. cap. 9. Christ and that which is in the Cup undoubtedly his Blood he adds That the manner of this change is unknown to us and the knowledge thereof reserved for the Elect in Heaven to the end we may obtain more favour from God by a simple Faith void of curiosity And thus acquits himself ANOTHER Greek Author cited by Allatius under the name of John Allat adversus Chreygton exercit 22. the Patriarch of Jerusalem You see say's he that Saint Paul scruples not to call this Body Bread But be it so if you will that it be no longer called Bread and being no longer Bread is neither leavened nor unleavened you see that it is not bereaved of these Appellations till after Sanctification But before this dreadful Sacrifice when you offer it to sanctifie it shall this be neither Bread nor an Azyme Now that which is done in this Oblation is by our selves but that which happens in this admirable change is not from us but God It appears by this passage recited by Allatius and taken if I be not deceived out of a Manuscript wherein this Author disputes touching the Azymes against a Latin who told him that this Controversie was vain seeing that after the Consecration it is no longer Bread but the Body of Jesus Christ and it seems this Patriarch maintains against him that 't was still Bread and proves it by the Authority of Saint Paul who so calls it It seems likewise by what he adds that he would say that supposing it was no longer called Bread and lost this name yet we must not speak of what it becomes by Consecration because God only knows that and not men ALTHO the Greeks are sometimes thus reserved restraining themselves within their general Terms yet for the most part they shew more particularly their thoughts touching the nature and kind of the change which happens to the Bread and Wine and which makes them to be the Body and Blood of Christ And they do it likewise in such a manner that 't is no hard matter to find out their meaning Which is what we have now to demonstrate But before we enter into
Wax imprints its Character thereon which does moreover represent this impression of virtue we now speak of VIII IN the Fifth Century lived Cyrillus Alexandriensis and Victor of Antioch which latter relates these Words of Cyrillus not to contradict but to approve them Lest we should conceive horrour at the sight of Flesh Victor Antioch Com. MS. in Marc. and Blood on the Holy Table God in regard to our weakness indues the things thereon offered with a VIRTUE of life and changes them into the efficacy of his Flesh to the end they may be to us a vivifying Communion and that the Body of life may be found in us as a living Seed IX IN the Fourth Century Saint Epiphanius held the same Language Epiph. Serm. de Fide Eccles in Anacephal They that come say's he to the Baptism receive the virtue which Jesus Christ brought to it when he descended into it and are illuminated by the communication of his light Thus is the Oracle of the Prophet accomplished which say's that there shall happen in Jerusalem a change in the virtue of Bread and Water and there shall be given to them a saving virtue For here to wit in Jesus Christ the virtue of Bread and force of Water are made strong not that the Bread is thus powerful to us but the virtue of the Bread For as to the Bread it is indeed an Aliment but there is in him a VIRTUE to inliven us X. GREGORY of Nisse in this same Century spake to the very same Greg. Niss in Bapt. Chr. effect You see say's he that Water is made use of in the Holy Baptism but you must not therefore despise it for 't is of great virtue and marvellous efficacy Do you see this Holy Altar where we attend As to its nature 't is a common stone which differs in nothing from others with which we build our Houses But when it has been sanctified by the Divine Service performed thereon and received the blessing it becomes a Holy Table an impolluted Altar which all the World cannot touch the Sacred Ministers alone touch it but yet with respect So the Bread is at first common Bread but after the Mystical Consecration it is called and is the Body of Jesus Christ I affirm the same concerning the Mystical Oyl and Wine these are things of small value before their Consecration but when bless'd by the Holy Spirit both the one and th' other operate after an excellent manner His Design is to shew how mere Water such as is used in Baptism comes to have such great virtue and produces such admirable effects For this purpose he alledges divers Examples of mean and despicable things in themselves which by their Consecration acquire an excellent virtue and efficacy Amongst which he especially reckons the Bread and Wine in the Eucharist As to the Wine he makes use of the Term of operate but as to the Bread he say's 't is the Body of Jesus Christ which plainly shews that in his sence to be the Body of Jesus Christ and to have an excellent operation is but one and the same thing XI WE find at the end of Clement Alexandrinus his Works a Treatise Epitome Theodot in calce oper Clem. Alex of a Greek Author named Theodotus who lived in the Third Century wherein he asserts this same change of virtue The Bread and Oyl say's he are sanctified by virtue of the Holy Spirit They are no longer then what they were before notwithstanding their outward appearance but are changed INTO A SPIRITUAL EFFICACY WE have here then the Doctrine of the Greeks cleared up by express Testimonies both from Modern and Ancient Authors So that methinks Mr. Arnaud has no reason to turn into sport and raillery as he has done this change of virtue in calling it our Key of Virtue Every man sees 't is no invention of ours and that we alledge nothing concerning it but what is authoriz'd by good and real Passages and by the Sentiments and proper expressions of the Greeks of greatest account in all Ages When Mr. Arnaud shall produce as many and solid Testimonies for his change of Substance we will give him leave to deride our change of virtue as he is pleased to term it But till then I have reason to desire him to stop his Laughter I should now pass on to the proving my Proposition That the Greeks believe the Bread and Wine only thus become the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ to the Faithful but having already established this Article in the Sixth Chapter and drawn from thence an Argument to shew they believe not Transubstantiation I shall therefore for the avoiding needless Repetitions refer the Reader to it I come then to the last Article which contains that the Greeks hold the Bread is made the proper and real Body of Jesus Christ by means of the addition of his Natural Body This Point calls for a particular consideration for not only it will further discover to us what the real Opinion of the Greeks is but likewise shew us whence come these emphatical expressions which they sometimes use in saying 't is the very Body of Jesus Christ and no other Body than that which was born of the Virgin Mary and likewise shew us in what sence we must understand them I. I say then among other Comparisons the Greeks use for the explaining the manner of this change which happens to the Bread and Wine they especially imploy that of Food which being received by us is changed into our Bodies Now every man knows that the Matter or Substance of Food is not changed into the first Substance which we had before we take it in such a manner that the one must be absolutely the other and by a Numerical Identity on the contrary each substance conserves its proper being and that of the Food is joyned to that of our Body and receives its Form it augments it and by way of Union Augmentation and Assimilation as they speak becomes ours and makes but one and the same Body and not two with that which we had before And this is the Comparison the Greeks do most often urge whereby to express their Conceptions touching the Holy Sacrament Theophilact in his Commentaries on Saint John's Gospel having told us the Bread we eat in the Mysteries is not an Antitype of the Flesh of Jesus Christ but the very Flesh it self immediately adds these Words The Bread is changed into the Flesh of Christ by the Ineffable Words the Mystical Theophil 1. Joan 6. Benediction and coming of the Holy Spirit No man ought to be troubled in being obliged to believe that Bread becomes Flesh For when our Lord was conversant on Earth and received his nourishment from Bread this Bread he eat was changed into his Body being made like unto his Flesh and contributed to augment and sustain it after a humane manner And thus now is the Bread changed into our Lord's Flesh THEODORUS Abucara
sufficiently enough declare the Doctrine of the Greek Church to wit that the Substance of Bread conserving its proper being is joyned to the natural Body of Jesus Christ that it is made like unto it that it augments it and becomes by this means one and the same Body with him For 't is thus the Aliment we take altho it conserves its own Substance and proper being becomes one with our Body by way of Addition or Augmentation DURANDUS a Bishop and Famous Divine amongst the Latins who Durand in 4. sent dist 11. quaest 3. lived in the beginning of the Fourteenth Century acknowledged the force of this Comparison and made it be observed by those in his time and also used it himself to strengthen his Opinion which was that the Substance of Bread remains and losing its first form of Bread receives the natural form of the Body of Christ Bellarmin answers that these Comparisons must not be Bell. de Sacr. Euch. lib. 3. cap. 13. strained too far that they are not in all things alike and that the Greeks only use that of Food to shew the reality and truth of the change which happens in the Bread and Wine in the Sacrament and not to signifie that this change is made in the same manner And this is in my mind as much as can be said with any shew of reason We must then see here whether in the sence of the Greeks we may extend the Comparison of the Food so as to understand thereby that the Bread and Wine are made the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ by way of Augmentation of this Body for if it appears they take it in this manner Bellarmin's Answer signifies nothing and our Proof will be compleat and undeniable DAMASCEN decides the Question himself in his Letter to Zacharias Damascen E. pist ad Zachar. Doar in Hum. de Corp. Sanct Dom. in Edit Biblii Bishop of Doare and in the short Homily which follows it Observe here what he say's in his Letter Touching the Body of our Lord of which we partake I declare to you it cannot be said there are two Bodies of Jesus Christ there being but one alone For as the Child assoon as he is born is compleat but receives his growth from eating and drinking and altho he grows thereby yet cannot be said to have two bodies but only one so by greater reason the Bread and Wine by Descent of the Holy Spirit are made one only Body and not two by the AUGMENTATION OF THE BODY OF CHRIST BUT to the end it may not be thought this Discourse slipt from him unawares observe here how he explains his mind in the following Homily This Body and Blood of our God of which we partake is subject to Corruption being broken spilt eaten and drunk and passes thro all the natural Oeconomy of the Incarnation of the Word which comes to pass in the same manner as the GROWTH of our Bodies For as to our Bodies the first thing supposed is the matter of which the Embryo consists afterwards the Mother furnishing it with the Aliment of her Blood this matter is changed by little and little and becomes an organised Body by means of the virtue which our Creature has given to nature In the same manner is formed the Flesh Bones and rest of the Parts by the assistance of the Faculties destini'd for Attraction Retention Nourishment and Growth So likewise the Food we take increases and augments the mass of our Body by the ministry of these same Faculties designed for nourishment which attract retain and change the Food And therefore our Lord shews us the whole divine Oeconomy of his Incarnation Crucifixion Burial Resurrection and State of Corruption in this GROWTH of his Body For the Body of our Lord became not immediately incorruptible but corruptible and passible till his Resurrection and after his Burial became incorruptible by this same Divine Power by which he raised himself and makes us also incorruptible But how comes this to pass The Holy Virgin has been as it were the Table whereon was the Substance of Bread when according to the saying of the Angel the Holy Spirit came upon her and the virtue of the most High overshadowed her that is to say the Divine Word the Divine Person who took Flesh of her So likewise here the Substance which is Bread and Wine mingled with Water is placed on the Mystical Table as it were in the Womb of the Virgin for even the Virgin was nourished with these things and distributed the Substance of them to the Body of the Child In fine the Priest he say's in imitation of the Angel let the Holy Spirit come upon and sanctifie these things and make the Bread the Sacred Body of Jesus Christ and the Chalice his precious Blood Then there is made not by the virtue of nature but supernaturally and by the AUGMENTATION of the Body and Blood of Christ there is made I say one only Body and not two After this it is lifted up by the hand of the Priest as he was lifted up on the Cross it is distributed broken and buried in us to make us thereby incorruptible And thus the Oeconomy is finished AND this is the Doctrine of the Greeks the Bread and Wine are made the Body and Blood of Christ in the same manner the Food we receive becomes our Body and this Example or Comparison exactly comprehends three things The first that as Nature observes the same course and performs the same Operations in the Food we receive as it does in the first matter of which our Bodies are composed so Divine Grace keeps the same measures and does the same things in the Bread and Wine as in the Body our Lord took of the Virgin This is in all respects the same Oeconomy They receive the same Holy Spirit are corruptible raised up as it were on a Cross buried in us and in fine become incorruptible The second that as the Food increases and gives growth to our Bodies so the Bread and mystical Wine are a Growth or Augmentation which the Body of Jesus Christ recieves The third that as the Food makes not another Body but becomes one and the same Body with that which it augments so the Mystery is not a new Body of Jesus Christ but the same which was born of the Virgin MOREOVER altho the Greeks use the Simile of Food whereby to explain the manner after which the Bread in the Eucharist becomes the Body of Christ yet we must not imagine they believe the Bread receives the physical or natural form of our Lord's Flesh in the same manner the Food receives that of ours whether we understand by this physical Form the Soul of Jesus Christ or some other substantial Form subordinate to the Soul This is not at all their Belief for they only mean that as the Food we eat receives the physical or natural Form of our Body so the Bread in the Eucharist
receives the impression of the inlivening and sanctifying virtue residing in the natural Body of Christ and that as the Food in receiving the physical Form of our Flesh becomes an Augmentation of our Body so the Bread in the Eucharist receiving the impression of the virtue of the Body of Jesus Christ becomes an Augmentation This is a Comparison wherein there is some proportion of one thing with another but not an intire resemblance The Greeks conceive the sanctifying virtue of the Body of Jesus Christ as its supernatural and oeconomical Form which belongs to it not so much for that it is a mere Body as that it is the Body of the Word the Principle of our Spiritual Life and Salvation THERE is made then according to them not a Communication or an extension of the natural Form of the Body of Jesus Christ on the Bread but a communication or an extension of its virtue WHICH plainly appears by what we have already alledged For first hereto relates this composition of Bread and Holy Spirit and Union of Bread with the Divinity which they assert Secondly hitherto expressly relate all the Passages we have seen touching the change of virtue to which the Greeks so strictly keep themselves never mentioning the impression of the physical Form but ever that of virtue Thirdly we gather the same thing from their comparing the Bread in the Eucharist with the natural Body whereby to establish how the Bread is made an Augmentation of the Body they say not that the same physical Form of the one is communicated to the other but only that the same Oeconomy which is observed in the natural Body is likewise observed in the Bread And explaining in what consists this same Oeconomy they say 't is in that the Bread receives the Holy Spirit as the natural Body receives it that 't is raised up as it were into a Cross in the like manner as the natural Body that 't is buried in us and becomes in fine incorruptible as the natural Body does Now this is quite different from the impression of the physical Form and gives only the Idea of an impression of virtue Fourthly the same thing appears from a great part of the Proofs I produced in this third Book as from what they teach touching the unconsecrated Particles that they become in some sort the Body of Jesus Christ by connection with that which is consecrated and that the People may receive them as well as the Sacrament for this shews they mean the consecrated Bread becomes only the Body of Jesus Christ by the impression of this sanctifying virtue of which we speak And that which they believe touching the Eucharist consecrated on Holy Thursday that 't is of a more excellent virtue than that of other days for this would have no sence did they hold the impression of the natural Form of the Flesh of Jesus Christ on the Bread And all the Clauses of their Liturgies by which it appears they restrain the effect of the Consecration to the Bread's becoming the Body of Jesus Christ in Sanctification and Virtue And what they say touching the dead that they receive the same as we do in the Communion which would be absurd if they meant the physical Form of the Flesh of Christ was imprinted on the Bread for the dead receive not this physical Form And their not adoring the Sacrament with an absolute Adoration of Latria as do the Latins and as the Greeks would do without doubt if they held the impression of the physical Form And that which the Greeks of the Twelfth Century mentioned touching the Eucharist namely that 't is not indued with a Soul or Understanding which shews clearly they do not mean the Bread in the Sacrament receives the impression of the Soul of Christ And in fine that they take so little care to preserve the Substance of the Sacrament using it after such a negligent manner as would be highly criminal and impious or to speak better after such a manner as is not conceivable did they believe the physical Form of the Flesh of Jesus Christ BUT to finish the justification of my Proposition touching the Belief of the Greeks there only remains to be proved the Comparison of the Paper which becomes the Princes Letter when it receives his Characters or Seal For as concerning that of the Food we have already sufficiently treated on it we have likewise considered that of Wood in conjunction with Fire that of Wool which takes the dye and that of Wax or Matter which receives the impression of the Seal As to that of Paper Nilus Abbot of Mount Sina an Author of the Fifth Century and who was Saint Chrysostom's Schollar furnishes us with it in one of his Epistles Paper say's he consists of a certain Matter and is called only Paper but when the Emperor puts thereunto his Seal or Name it becomes Sacred In the same manner must our Mysteries be conceived Before the Words of the Priest and Descent of the Holy Spirit 't is mere Bread and Wine which are offered but after the Holy Prayers and coming of the holy and enlivening Spirit 't is no longer mere Bread and Wine but the pretious and immaculate Body of Jesus Christ who is God over all and therefore those that receive them with fear and reverence are cleansed from all filthiness HAVING thus historically and sincerely shew'd the real Belief of the Greeks touching the Eucharist it will be no hard matter to observe wherein they agree with the Latins and wherein they differ which is the second thing I proposed to do in this Chapter First They agree with them in the general Terms which denote the change of the Bread and Wine into the Body and Blood of Christ Secondly They agree in those other expressions which bear that the change is made into the real Body of Christ into his own proper Body born of the Virgin Mary and that he has not two Bodies but one alone Thirdly They agree in that both of them attribute this change to the Holy Spirit who descends on the Bread and makes it the Body of our Lord. Fourthly They agree in fine in that they both assert this change to be an effect of the Almighty Power of God above all the Laws of nature So far the Greeks and Latins agree BUT they differ in several things First In that the Latins believe that the Substance of Bread ceases the Greeks on the contrary believe its existence Which we plainly gather from the Proposition I now established and the Proofs I offered For seeing they make the Eucharist to consist of the composition of a sensible Substance which is the Bread and the Holy Spirit as we have already observed seeing they joyn the Bread to the Divinity believing that what results thence is double that is to say that it has two Natures it is clear the Greeks hold that the Nature or Substance of Bread remains This same truth appears likewise concerning what
virtue And therefore they bring the comparison of Food which becomes one with our Bodies and invented this way of Growth or Augmentation of a natural Body for all this ends only in establishing a Unity between the Bread and the Body which may make us say literally and without recourse to a Figure that the Bread is the Body As to what concerns us we need not take such a great circuit because the Question concerning a Sacrament we believe we may take the Words of Christ in a sacramental and figurative sence IV. IT seems likewise that the Modern Greeks understand some real or physical impression of the Holy Spirit and inlivening virtue of Jesus Christ on the Bread with some kind of inherency yet I will not positively affirm this was the general Belief of their Church altho their expressions intimate as much But howsoever this is not our Opinion We do indeed believe that the Grace of the Holy Spirit and virtue of Christ's Body accompany the right use of the Sacrament and that in the Communion we participate of the Body of Christ by Faith in as great a measure and more really than if we received him with the Mouth of our Bodies but we hold not this impression or real inherence of virtue which it seems the Greeks admit whence it happens that our expressions are not so emphatical as theirs AND this is what I had to say touching the real Opinion of the Greeks with its principal Circumstances and in reference to that of ours and the Church of Rome's I do not doubt but several People reading this Chapter will say I charge the Greeks with a very foolish and unreasonable Doctrine They 'l make Objections touching this composition of Bread and Holy Spirit this Union of the Symbols with the Divinity and especially concerning this manner of being the Body and Blood of Christ by way of Growth or Augmentation But to this I need say no more than that it concerns me not to justifie the Opinion of the Greeks Our business here is to know what it is and not whether it be justifiable nor to answer the Objections may be made against it because we adopt not either their Expressions or Opinions Yet I shall endeavour to solve two difficulties which may trouble the Readers the one is that according to the Hypothesis of the Greeks it seems as if it might be said in some sence that the Bread is changed into the Substance of the Body of Jesus Christ after the same manner we say the Bread we eat is changed into our Substance Th' other is that by this Union of Bread to the Divinity it seems they understand a real hypostatical Union like unto that which joyns the natural Body to the Word TO the first I answer the Greeks mean not the Bread receives the natural or physical form of the Flesh of Christ as we have proved neither do they say the Bread is changed into the Substance of the Body of Christ because this way of speaking which we use in respect of the Bread we eat is grounded upon the Food 's receiving the Substantial or physical form of our Flesh Now they mean no other impression on the Bread in the Eucharist than an impression of the inlivening virtue of Christ's Body by means of the Holy Spirit And thus the Bread keeps its proper and natural Substance wholly intire and yet is augmented by an Augmentation of the Body of Christ in asmuch as the supernatural virtue which is proper to this Body is communicated to the Bread As to what remains altho this pretended Augmentation of the Body of Jesus Christ by means of the Bread is absurd enough yet we may give it a plain sence in saying 't is not necessary for this that the Bread and Body be locally joyned it being sufficient to conceive the Holy Spirit is the mutual link which unites them together and the Bread receiving only the virtue of the Body by a dependance thereon and in asmuch as 't is the Mystery of it this is a kind of Growth and Augmentation a Mystery being as it were an Appendix or Circumstance to the thing of which 't is the Mystery TO the second Question I answer that altho the whole Hypothesis of the Greeks and especially some of their expressions seem to induce us to attribute to 'em the Belief of the hypostatical Union of Bread to the Divinity yet their Authors not plainly expressing themselves in this matter and it not appearing elsewhere by their practice that they hold this Opinion there is more justice in not charging them with it than in imputing it to 'em and so much the more because there is none of their usual expressions how emphatical soever but may agree with a simple Union of efficacy The Term of Assumption used by Damascen Panis Vinum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 assumuntur induced me to believe at first with Mr. Aubertin he meant thereby a real hypostatical Lib. 4. de Fid. Orth. cap. 14. Assumption but having since carefully examined this Passage it seemed to me this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be easily referred not to the foregoing Words in the same Discourse but to that which follows in the simple sence That the Bread and Wine are used in the Eucharist because they are things familiar to us BUT howsoever we may here observe that ever since both Greeks and Latins deviated from the simplicity of the Gospel and natural Exposition which the Ancients gave this Mystery how they have fallen I say into vainand idle Speculations both of 'em wandring from the Truth Which commonly happens to such as love rather to follow their own imaginations than the Word of God Our Saviour tells us concerning the Sacrament that 't is his Body and added that it was for a remembrance of him and Saint Paul thus commented on it This is a Declaration of the Lord's death till his coming What could be more easie than to keep here and to judge thereof by the very nature of a Sacrament by the expressions of our Saviour and his Apostle and other parts of Christian Religion But instead of this we have abused several excessive expressions of the Fathers taking no notice of divers others by which they explain themselves these have been extended and altho innocent yet are made a Rock of Offence The Latins proceed to a real Presence a real Transubstantiation and Accidents without a Subject and all the rest of those Doctrines unknown to the Ancients which they heap up without number The Greeks on their side have imagined a Union of the Bread with the Divinity a kind of real impression of supernatural virtue of Christ's Body on the Bread a Growth or Augmentation of this Body I hope I shall have this Justice done me that it will be acknowledged I have produced nothing touching the Doctrine of the Greeks but what has been taken out of their best Authors from them I say that are of greatest account
write in a superficial view only not penetrating into the bottom of things and that occasions my falling into such idle fancies that I multiply my may-be-so's and am one of the boldest and fruitfullest men in the World in Hypothesises and Systems To which I have nothing to answer but that in the Year 1059. Baron ad ann 1059. six years after the Synods held by Pope Leo Nicholas the Second condemned likewise Berengarius in another Synod held at Rome and made him sign a Formulary of Abjuration and that according to Lanfranc they earnestly desired Lanfr de corp sang Dum. lib. 2. cap. 5. to establish the real Conversion of Substances in this Formulary that Cardinal Humbert who drew it up did firmly believe this Doctrine as Mr. Arnaud protests for him and yet for all this it was asserted only in ambiguous Terms which might be expounded in a sence that does not at all contradict the Doctrine of the Greeks seeing Berengarius himself turned them to his own advantage And in effect the Formulary bears That the Bread and Wine are after Lanfr de corp sang Consecration not only the Sacrament but likewise the real Body and Blood of Jesus Christ and are sensibly touched and broken by the Priest's hands and chewed with the teeth of the Faithful not only sacramentally but really and in truth It cannot be denied but these words need a Commentary to make them signifie Transubstantiation seeing the natural sence of them is that those very things which are Bread and Wine are also the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ which is the Opinion of the Greeks as I already shewed in theforegoing Chapter How comes it to pass that what was done under Nicholas was not done likewise under Leo who preceded him and wherefore were the Terms of Leo more expressive and determinative than those of the Pope that came after him Is it the Custom in the Court of Rome to recede from and diminish Doctrines But howsoever if Mr. Arnaud will make advantage of Cerularius his Silence he must shew us that Leo decided the Doctrine of Transubstantiation in such Terms that the Patriarch of Constantinople could not when he saw them expound them in another sence But to suppose this without proving it is a mere Illusion SO far is Mr. Arnaud from shewing us that this formal decision was carried to Cerularius that he does not so much as undertake to inform us whether the Decrees of these Synods at Rome and Verseil be they what they will came to the hands of this Patriarch He contents himself with saying That it had been already eighteen years since Berengarius his Heresie became Lib. 2. cap. 5. pag. 141. famous in the World that Dedowin the Bishop of Liege and Adelman Bishop of Bresse testifie that the report of it o'respread all Germany and that there is no likelihood but the Latins at Constantinople and the Greeks in Italy were informed of it and that a Patriarch should be ignorant of so famous an occurrence FIRST he has forgot what his Friends observed in their Office that Sigibert speaks not of the troubles Berengarius his Heresie raised till 1051. which is to say that his eighteen years must be reduced to two even by his own Friends consent And as to what he say's of Deadwin 't is true his Letter produced by Baronius under the name of Durand has these Words That there was a common report throughout all Germany that Bruno Bishop of Anger 's and Berengarius renewed the Ancient Heresies in teaching that the Body of Jesus Christ was not so much a Body as a Shadow and a Figure and that they annulled the Sacrament of Marriage and that of Baptism of Infants And this was it according to this good Bishop which disturbed all Germany As to Adelman he expresses himself more to the purpose for he say's the report was that Berengarius deviated from the Catholick Faith touching the Body Baron ibid. and Blood of our Lord and to use the words of those that accused him they said he taught the Sacrament was not the real Body and Blood but a Figure or resemblance of them Does Mr. Arnaud believe that these Reports when they should come even to Cerularius his ears were capable of making him take the Field in favour of Berengarius On one hand they represented his Doctrine in Terms very different from the usual expressions of the Greeks which assert the Bread to be the real Body of Jesus Christ and not a Figure and on the other hand he had things laid to his charge which were mere Falsities and Calumnies Why will he needs have a Patriarch that was always at Constantinople and held little or no communication with the Latins to know better what Berengarius did in France than Dedowin Bishop of Liége or Adelman who had been Berengarius his School fellow and who by this long acquaintance might have some interest in his Affairs Why must it needs be that during these pretended eighteen years Cerularius has been better informed by his Spyes or Inquisitors than the Pope by his For it does not appear that the Court of Rome concerned themselves at the matter till 1053. which is as we observed the same year in which Cerularius wrote his Letter Nay 't is probable they had not so soon taken notice of it had not an Ecclesiastick of Rheims brought along with him to Rome some Letters which Berengarius wrote to Lanfranc If the Popes remained silent eighteen years notwithstanding this great disturbance in the West I see no reason why a Patriarch of Constantinople should be any more concerned I could wish Mr. Arnaud would tell us why since the year 1053. to which Baronius refers the Letters of Dedowin and Adelman Bennet the Ninth Gregory the Sixth Clement the Second Damasus the Second have taken no notice of so considerable a matter and why Leo the Ninth concerned not himself in it till the fifth year of his Popedom All Italy was full of French and Dutch France and Germany of Italians and yet no body all this while could think of waking these sleepy Popes and cautioning them against this damnable Heresie which overthrew the Faith of the whole Earth Let him tell us why the Patriarchs that preceded Cerularius or Cerularius himself reproached them not with this scandalous neglect For if on one hand they believed Transubstantiation as Mr. Arnaud supposes and on the other that there was nothing else almost talkt of in the West and being so probable that the Patriarchs of Constantinople were informed of so famous an occurrence how came they to be so mute in such an important Affair and prodigious neglect of the Popes Of this he must give us an account before he can require a reason of us for Cerularius his silence But to speak plainly Mr. Arnaud devises matters in his Closet and having clothed them with all the rhetorical colours wherewith the power of his invention
preserve Orthodoxy and stifle Heresies supposing the Eastern People believed Transubstantiation MR. Arnaud finding Berengarius his Affair would not do his Business betakes himself to another Artifice It concerns us not to know say's he whether Lib. 2. cap. 5. pag. 143. Cerularius and Leo D'Acrida could be ignorant of Berengarius his Condemnation Yet this was the Author of the Perpetuitie's Chief Argument But whether they could be ignorant of the Opinion of the whole Latin Church touching the Eucharist which was then by the Calvinists own Confession most clear distinct and determinate for the real Presence But let the Matter concern what it will his Proof will be never the better But instead of saying for the real Presence he should say for Transubstantiation for our Question touching the Greeks being only on this Point if Mr. Arnaud will make advantage of Cerularius and Leo d' Acrida's silence he must establish that the Latins made it then an Article of their Belief There is a great deal of ambiguity in these Terms of real Presence the Greeks do and do not believe it they believe as we already observed a real Presence of Virtue but not areal Presence of Substance And even we our selves who deny the real Presence Mr. Arnaud means profess to believe another which we hold not only for real but a thousand times more real than that which Mr. Arnaud intends If then he designed to explain himself clearly and to the purpose he must say that the Opinion of the whole Latine Church was plainly and distinctly for Transubstantiation BUT 't is not enough to say so it must be proved for endless and impertinent Stories will never satisfie our Reason He tells us that Cerularius having sent his Letter caused the Latin Churches at Constantinople to be shut Lib. 2. cap. 5. up and took away from the Latin Abbots and other Religious Persons their Monasteries That in the following year Pope Leo sent Cardinal Humbert and the Bishop of Blanche Selve and the Archbishop of Melphus in quality of his Legats to Constantinople with Letters to both the Emperour and Patriarch Which is no more than what we know already without Mr. Arnaud's telling us HE adds That Humbert wrote a refutation of Cerularius his Letter by way of Dialogue and amongst the rest that the Azyme is made by invocation of the Trinity the real and individual Body of Christ There are so many faults to be reprehended in this Allegation that a man scarce knows where to begin to refute it Were his Translation as it should be it would appear these words do not so clearly assert Transubstantiation as to give Cerularius an occasion to reproach the Latins with it For may we not understand that the Bread is made the real and individual Body of Christ in as much as he has not two Bodies but one only in the same sence Saint Chrysostom say's that Chrysost Ep. ad Ces although the nature of Bread remains even then when it becomes worthy to be called our Lord's Body Yet do we not say that the Son of God has two Bodies but one And in the same sence Damascen say's also That when the Bread Damascen I. pist ad Zac. Doar Humbert cont Graec. Bibl. Patr. 1. 4 Edit and Wine pass into the growth of our Lord's Body and Blood it becomes not two Bodies but one Moreover Humbert say's not what Mr. Arnaud makes him say viz. that the Bread becomes the Individual Body his words are Corpus Singulare the Singular Body that is to say the Body which singly and only belongs to Jesus Christ and not to the Father and Holy Spirit and there is so great blindness or rather unfaithfulness in this Translation that I cannot suppose it to be Mr. Arnaud's He has published it without doubt from the Collection of some of his Friends and not from Humbert's Text For how great soever his prejudice may be I do not believe he would venture his reputation for so small an advantage as might be expected from this false Translation Observe here what Humbert say's The Azyme being thus prepared is made by an hearty Invocation of the Holy Trinity the real and single Body of Christ Not as the Theopaschites would have it the Body of the Father Son and Holy Ghost Which it seems you believe likewise seeing you say the Azyme does not participate of the Father Son and Holy Spirit as the Leavened Bread does Leave this wicked Opinion unless you will be condemned with the Theopaschites In the Commemoration of our Lord's Passion the Holy and Impassible Trinity has nothing in common except the single Consecration wherein all the Persons co-operate For the death of the Humanity only of the Son of God is celebrated in this visible Sacrament the Apostle saying every time ye cat of this Bread and drink of this Cup ye shew the Lord's death till he comes Our Lord himself in this particular Commemoration delivering the Bread to his Disciples said to em this is my Body which was given for you Mine say's he which by the Grace of the Holy Spirit I who am the Wisdom of the Father have built as a Temple in 46 days in the Womb of the unspotted Virgin It now plainly appears what is the meaning of this Singulare Corpus Christi which is to say the Body which the second Person only assumed and not the Father nor Holy Spirit To make of this the individual Body of Jesus Christ to conclude from thence Transubstantiation is so gross and ridiculous a mistake that had Mr. Arnaud met with the like in my Writings in the humour he seems to be of he would have made it the Subject of a whole Chapter I shall only advise him to take more care another time and not labour so confidently hereafter upon other Peoples Memories This first Passage is attended by another almost of the same kind He say's say's he that the Latins honouring the Body of Truth that is to say the Body of Christ made of an Azyme and in the Azymes taste with their Mouths and Heart how sweet the Lord is This adds he is clear enough and a man must be very dull not to understand this Language I confess I am not quicker of apprehension than another yet I understand very well Humbert ' s Discourse without Transubstantiation We say say's he that the Azyme of the Christians is very different from that of the carnal Jews who observed and pursued the shadow of Truth invited hereunto by the promise and desire of a Terrestial Felicity such as a long Life Riches a numerous Off-spring and such like things But as to us honouring and retaining the Body of Truth which is of the Azyme and in the Azyme we taste with our mouths and heart how sweet the Lord is desiring of him no more but that he may dwell in us and we in him eternally Is not this to deride People to alledge such a Passage as this whereby to
of the Truth than solid Philosophy And therefore the Devil to keep the Greeks in this ignorance has so ordered it that the Bishops are still elected from amongst the Monks and that moreover the Monks should lay this necessity upon themselves of being ignorant 'T IS likely Persons in these Circumstances do not trouble themselves with Inquiries into the Opinions of the Latins touching the Mystery of the Eucharist and in effect amongst all those that have written since the Eleventh Century to this present excepting the Latinizing Greeks there will be found very few that mention the Belief of the Roman Church touching the Conversion of Substances which shews that they are not well instructed in it YET do not I believe this ignorance has been so Universal but that there have been some from time to time who sufficiently understood the Opinion of the Latins and especially those that have had most Commerce with them as for instance such as negotiated the Re-unions those that conferred with the Emissaries and were Assessors at the Council of Florence and such as were forced to live under the Jurisdiction of Latine Bishops Mr. Arnaud needed not trouble himself with proving this for 't is a thing we grant him SO that here are already several of Mr. Arnaud's Illsions and yet we are not at the end of all those he has imposed on us touching this single Article of the Greeks WE may moreover reckon into this number the perpetual Quotation of this Form of a Re-union which was so often offered to the Greeks and which the Greeks have sometimes received when they were at accord with the Latine Church He tells us that the Emperour Michael Paleologus his Deputies Lib. 3. cap. 3. pag 275. being arrived at the Council of Lyons presented the Emperours Letters to the Pope containing in express Terms the Confession of Faith which was sent them by Clement the Fourth and Gregory the Tenth wherein Transubstantiation is expressly inserted in these Terms Sacramentum Eucharistae ex Azymo conficit Romana Ecclesia tenens docens quod in ipso Sacramento Panis verè transubstantiatur in Corpus Vinum in Sanguinem Domini Jesu Christi He adds that this Profession of Faith was sworn to on the Emperour's part by George Acropolitus and that the Legate of the Council of the Greeks presented likewise a Letter to the Pope as from the Metropolitain of Ephesus and thirty Greek Bishops and that he swore in their name after the same manner the Ambassador had done to imbrace intirely the forementioned Confession of Faith wherein Transubstantiation was expressed He tells us moreover that in the Confession of Eaith which Ibid. pag 277. John Veccus inserted in his Letters aswell in his own Name as in the Name of the Greek Bishops that Transubstantiation was expressly contained in it altho occasionally upon account of the Azymes credentes nos ipsum Azymum panem in ipso Sacro Officio Eucharistae verè transubstantiari in Corpus Domini nostri Jesu Christi Vinum in Sanguinem ejus per Sanctissimi Spiritus Virtutem Operationem That they likewise do believe the unleavened Bread is transubstantiated into the Body of Christ He afterwards observes this Confession of the Greek Bishops was not expressed in the same Terms as that which was sent thence by Clement the Fourth and Gregory the Tenth but that this difference has no after effect in respect of the Article of the Azymes and that of Transubstantiation but that 't is expressed more plainly than in the Confession of Faith compiled by Clement SO that if we will believe Mr. Arnaud we have here Transubstantiation formally received and acknowledged by the Greek Church But all this is but a meer Delusion This Confession of Faith in the Latin of Raynoldus from whom Mr. Arnaud has borrowed whatsoever he has alledged concerning it has indeed these Words Panis verè Transubstantiatur in Corpus Vinum in Sanguinem but as I alreay observed in the Greek which Allatius cites Allat de Perp. Concil lib. 2. cap. 17. touching the Re-union of the Emperour John Paleologus there are these Words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Bread is really changed into the Body and the Wine into the Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ Changed is not transubstantiated I have already shown there is a great deal of difference between these two Terms The Greeks hold that the Bread is changed into the Body which is not the Point in question but whether they believe 't is transubstantiated Mr. Arnaud was not ignorant of the difference between the Latine and Greek Copy of this Confession of Faith for he has taken notice of it himself elsewhere upon the Subject of the Re-union of the Emperour John Paleologus and has no better defence for it than saying that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Greeks and the Transubstantiatur of the Latins are Synonimous Terms Why did he not mention this difference in this place and wherefore has he grounded his Proof on the Latin Expressions The Doctrine of Transubstantiation say's he is expressly inserted in this Confession of Faith I will shew Mr. Claude Transubstantiation solemnly approved by the Greek Church in the Lib. 2. cap. 3. pag. 273. cap. 2. same manner as men approve things they ever believed and of which they have not the least doubt And a little after And thus I obliged my self to shew him the Doctrine of Transubstantiation signed and sworn to by the Greeks And this indeed he does shew us if we only consider the Latin Text but if we consult the Greek we shall find quite another thing than what he pretends We shall find indeed the Latins do believe Transubstantiation and endeavour to insinuate it amongst the Greeks but we shall likewise find that the Greeks depart not from their general expressions For to tell us that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and transubstantiatur are Synonymous Terms is what I deny and have refuted already and shall again refute in the following Discourse This whole Proof which Mr Arnaud has been so earnest upon reduces it self to a thing which we do not deny him which is that the Greeks hold the Bread is really changed into the Body and the Wine into the Blood This Confession of Faith informs us of no new thing but that which I already acknowledged is to be found amongst the Greek Authors Why then must this be made a matter of Triumph It remains still to inquire whether they understand it of a change of Substance which is our only Question Moreover Mr. Arnaud must not think to draw advantage from John Veccus the Patriarch of Constantinople's Letter in that the Confession of Faith contained therein is not expressed in the same Terms as that sent by Clement and Gregory which was signed and sworn to by the Emperours Ambassadour and by the Greeks Legat in the Council at Lyons for it appears by reading this Letter and comparing it with the
do not differ from the Latins in the Subject of Transubstantiation I confess he has not made a Proof thereof as knowing the Matter would not bear it yet has wrote an express Chapter about it and produces them with a great deal of Art and Pomp hoping by this means to make some Impression on the Mind of his Readers and prepossess them with this Imagination that I alone amongst all the Protestants deny the Greeks believe Transubstantiation THE first he produces is Crusius Professor in the University of Tubinga who says that the Greeks believe the Bread is changed into the Body of Jesus Christ and the Wine into his Blood but this is not Transubstantiation there being a vast Difference betwixt this and that Crusius relates the Terms which they use and this is not Contested the Question is whether by these Terms they mean a real Conversion of Substances Which is what we deny HE offers us likewise something out of Grotius against Rivet and sets again before us the Testimony of Forbesius Bishop of Edinburg But we all know these two Persons altho otherwise learned enough especially Grotius suffered themselves to be carryed away by Prejudices and whimsical Projects in relation to the Differences between the two Churches which they pretended to Reconcile and Accomodate and thereupon wrote several things which they did not throughly Examine Moreover Grotius in those Passages alledged by Mr. Arnaud speaks not of Transubstantiation in particular and Forbesius only says that 't was received by most of the Greeks by most Here 's a Restriction Mr. Arnaud says that Forbesius does not prove it But whether he proves it or not we do not much matter for 't is not by such a man and his Writings that we are willing to regulate our Sentiments It lyes upon Mr. Arnaud who cites him to see whether the Testimony of such a man be sufficient He adds he alledges him neither as a Catholick nor Protestant but as a learned Man well skilled in all the Religions of Europe and as a great Traveller that he quotes him as St. Augustin quoted Tichonius to confirm an important Matter of Fact acknowledged by this Donatist who was more sincere than his Fellows BUT how comes he to forget so soon the Qualification which the Author of the Perpetuity gave him in citing him Forbesius says he one of the most learned amongst the English Protestants What account does he think we will make of a Person whom he can neither alledg as a Protestant nor Catholick and yet lived in the midst of the Protestants he alledges him says he as a learned Man I grant he may be so But was this learned Man a Jew Turk or Moor whilst Bishop of Edinburg St. Augustin never alledged Tichonius as a Person of this kind that was neither Catholick nor Donatist but as a real Donatist altho Tichonius sincerely acknowledged a Truth which the rest denyed accordingly as we alledg often the Doctors of the Roman Church which acknowledg those things others deny altho we do not thence infer they are not of that Religion they Profess FELAVIUS adds Mr. Arnaud derides the Insolence of Hottinger who Pag. 131. pretends to make advantage of Cyrillus his Confession and shews it does in no wise contain the Faith of the Eastern Churches Felavius does not speak of Hottinger's Infolence but on the contrary calls him Virum doctissimum Clarissimum Hottingerum He grants not indeed with Hottinger that Cyrillus his Confession Praefat. ad Christoph Angel contains the Doctrine of the Greek Church and shews his Reasons but inveighs not against Hottinger thereupon nor particularly mentions Transubstantiation OF all those that Mr. Arnaud alledges there are only Sands and Dannhaverus Professor of Strasbourg who attribute this Doctrine to the Greeks and Sands adds a term of Restriction saying that in the main they do in a manner agree with the Church of Rome in the Doctrine of Transubstantiation c. But for two Authors who perhaps wrote this without much Reflection how many others can we produce who stick not to deny there 's any Conformity in this Article between the Greeks and Latins For not to mention here Kemnitius Boxornius Hospinian and Episcopius whom Mr. Arnaud grants to be of this number we may here name the famous Bishop Morton the Author of a Book intituled Catholick Tradition or a Treatise touching the Belief of the Christians of Asia Europe and Affrica The Learned Saddeel for whom Henry the IV. had such great Esteem and Kindness Mr. Mestrezat Monsieur Ulric Minister of Zurich Mr. Hottinger Professor in the same City Mr. Robert Chreygton an English Doctor who published the History of Syropulus and several others which I mention not because 't is not necessary to make an exact enumeration of them It is sufficient that Mr. Arnaud knows I mean the general Opinion of the most Learned Protestants in this particular IF some amongst them as Chytreus Breerwood and Hornbeck for Instance who discourse of the Religion of the Greeks say nothing concerning the Article of Transubstantiation Mr. Arnaud must not think to draw Advantage from their Silence The reason of their Silence is that they set not themselves to the describing any other Points but those that have bin expresly Controverted between the Greek and Latin Church that is to say such Points as have bin openly and solemnly Debated on both sides such as the Article of the Procession of the Holy Ghost that of the Azymes that of Purgatory and some others All that then can be gathered from this Silence is that the Greeks never openly quarrelled with the Latins about Transubstantiation nor the Latins with the Greeks and that both one and the other contented themselves in keeping their own Sentiments and particular manner of Expressions without condemning one another But as it does not hence follow that the Greeks received the Doctrine of the Latins so we must not take the Silence of Chytreus Breerwood nor Hornbeck for an Acknowledgment or tacit Confession that there is no difference in this Point between the two Churches Which is what I already answered to the Author of the Perpetuity who would have prevail'd by the Silence of Breerwood in relation to the other Schismatical Communions For I told him that this Author does only transiently observe Answer to the Perp P 3 C. 8. the most common different Religions contenting himself to say what People Imbrace or what they positively and expresly Reject without proceeding to mention things which they believe not by way of Negation as not having heard of them That is to say as neither finding them in the Articles proposed to 'em to Believe nor in those which they were made expresly to Renounce as I have already explain'd Mr. Arnaud sets himself against this Answer and say's I Lib. 2. C. 4. p. 133. shew by this that provided I say any thing 't is enough for I trouble not my self whether it be Rational or not
any mention of it in the Reunions WE may moreover reckon amongst the Differences of the two Churches the Rejection which the Greek makes of several Books in the Bible which they esteem Apocryphal whereas the Latins receive them as Canonical Scripture For 't is certain the Greeks follow in this point the sixtieth Canon of the of Council Laodicea and the Authority of John Damascen as appears by the Testimony of Metrophanus Cytropulus who reckoning up the number of Canonical Books which he say's are thirty three in all has these Words As to other Books which some admit into the Canon of Scripture as the Books of Metroph Confess Eccl. Orien C 7. Toby Judith Wisdom of Solomon of Jesus Son of Sirach Baruc and the Maccabees We do not believe they ought to be wholly rejected seeing they contain several excellent moral Precepts But to receive them as Canonical and Authentick Writings is what the Church of Christ never did as several Doctors testify and amongst others St. Gregory the Divine St. Amphilocus and after them St. John Damascen And therefore we ground not our Doctrines on their Authority but on that of the thirty three Canonical Books So that here is the Opinion of the Greeks very opposite to that of the Latins and yet we do not find they made a point of Controversy of this Difference nor any mention of it in their Reunions WE can give another Instance to the same purpose and that touching the Eucharist too The Greeks since the seventh Century reject the terms of Type Figure and Image but the Latins use them and yet they never made this a point of Controversy betwixt them It cannot be said they slighted this Point for when they explain themselves thereon they add to their Rejection a form of Detestation God forbid say's Anastasius Sinaite that we should say the Holy Communion is the Figure of Christ's Body God forbid say's Damascen we should think the Bread and Wine are the Figure of Christ's Body and Blood Yet how averse soever they have bin to this way of speaking they never objected this as a Crime to the Latins nor accused them of Error in this matter WE can Instance in several other Examples of Differences between the two Churches about which the Greeks never fell out with the Latins but those I already denoted are sufficient to shew Mr. Arnaud the nullity of his Consequence and at the same time the possibility of my Proposition For why may not Transubstantiation bin passed over in Silence as well as other Articles Why must the negative Argument which is of no validity in these particulars be good in that of Transubstantiation If the Greeks could remain in their own Opinions and keep their Belief to themselves touching the Damned and Christ's preaching to them touching the number of Canonical Books c. without entring into Debate with the Latins and charging them with Error in these Points why may not the same have hapned touching the Change relating to the Eucharist MR. Arnaud will reply without doubt the Doctrine of Transubstantiation is a Point of greater Importance than those I now mentioned and therefore it might well happen that these slight and inconsiderable Matters were never disputed of but that we must not suppose the same Moderation in reference to the substantial Conversion which holds a higher rank in Religion I answer first it cannot be said these Articles I mentioned are of small Importance For as to the first of them it is of great Importance to Christian Piety not to give this Encouragement to the Wicked that live how they will they may hope to be delivered one day from the Pains of Hell As to the second it has bin already reckoned amongst the Number of Heresies by St. Ireneus Epiphanius Philastrius St. Austin and Gregory the great The third concerns the Canon of Holy Scriptures which ought to rule our Faith and the fourth is attended with the Execration of the Greeks These things then cannot be slighted as small and inconsiderable Matters But in the second place I answer to judg rightly of the Importance of Transubstantiation we must consider it not in it self nor in relation to our present Disputes but to the Greeks and their Disputes with the Latins which is to say we should consider what Judgment Persons plunged in Ignorance could make of it and whose whole Religion almost wholly consists of Grimaces and superstitious Ceremonies who have lived hitherto in Disorders and perpetual Confusions and have had the Latins continually to deal with and bin forced to accommodate themselves with them as much as possible who never found Transubstantiation amongst the Points about which the two Churches disputed in the beginning and separated afterwards in fine Persons with whom the Latins never openly quarrelled about this Article but agreed with them in certain general Terms Let any Man consider whether Persons in these Circumstances are capable of making all due Reflections on the Opinion of the Latins and examining the Importance and Weight of this Difference which is between the Doctrines of the two Churches Let any Man judg whether 't is impossible they should abstain to make thereof a particular Controversy and content themselves with their own Opinion and Expressions without concerning themselves with other People's III. I produce in the third place Examples of the Silence of the same Greeks touching some Opinions of other Eastern Christians who have a nearer Commerce with them than the Latins and yet we do not find they reproach them with their Opinions nor dispute with them about ' em The Jacobits reject the Custom of confessing their Sins to the Priest They hold another Jacob. a Vitri hist Orient cap. 76. Error say's De Vitry which is no less an Error than that of Circumcising their Children which is that they do not confess their Sins to the Priest but to God alone in Secret They confess not their Sins to any Man say's Villamont but Vallim lib. 2. cap. 22. to God alone in private They cannot indure to hear of auricular Confession say's Boucher but when they have committed any Fault that troubles their Consciences they confess themselves to God alone They do not allow of the sacramental Confession Itinerar Hierosol Joa Cottoric lib. 2. c. 6. say's Cottoric altho 't is admitted by both the Greeks and Latins saying we must confess our Sins to God who only knows the Hearts of Men. The Jacobits are dispersed over all Palestine Syria Egypt and all the rest of the East One of their Patriarchs resides at Aleppo and they have an apartment as well as the other Christians in the Church of the Holy Sepulcher at Jerusalem and consequently hold a perpetual Commerce with the Greeks And yet do I not find the Greeks have ever disputed with them about auricular Confession nor denoted the Rejection they make thereof as if it was an Error Damascen mentions them in the Treatise he wrote of Heresies He
Solution of it as will appear by what follows Now a Man cannot fall into a greater Error than to take for the cause of a Doubt that which is the Solution thereof and which makes the Doubt cease To Dispel then this vain Shadow under which he has disguised the Passage of Theophylact we need only examine the several Parts of this Author's Discourse and show their mutual Dependence Immediately treating on the Words of Christ he rejects the Sence of Figure Jesus Christ say's he in his Commentary on St. Comm. in Mat. c. 26. Mathew by these Words this is my Body shows us that the Bread which is Consecrated on the Altar is the Lord 's own Body and not an Antitype For he did not say This is the Antitype but this is my Body this Bread being changed by an ineffable Operation altho it appears to us to be still Bread He say's the same thing on the sixth Chapter of St. John and the fourteenth of St. Marc. So far he asserts that the Bread is the Body it self and Flesh of Christ but he does not explain after what manner it is so Now because from this Proposition thus generally conceived and not explained there may arise two difficulties one how the same thing can be Bread and Flesh th' other how it does not appear to us to be Flesh but Bread Theophylact proposes 'em both Com. in Joan. and resolves ' em He proposes the first in these Terms The Bread is changed into our Lord's Flesh by mystical Words by the mystical Blessing and coming of the Holy Spirit And let no body be troubled that he must believe the Bread is Flesh He resolves it by the Example of the Bread which Christ eat and which was changed into his Body and became like unto his Flesh in augmenting it and nourishing it The Lord say's he when as yet in the World receiving Ibid. his Nourishment from Bread this Bread he took was changed into his Body and became like unto his Flesh and contributed to augment and sustain it after a natural manner so in like sort this Bread is now changed into our Lord's Flesh IT is plain this Answer supposes that the Bread is made the Body of Christ by way of Augmentation and by a kind of Assimulation as the Bread which he eat whilst on earth became his Body Now first we see that this is not the Romane Transubstantiation The substance of Bread which the Lord eat was not changed into the same Substance which he had before it was joyned unto it and made like it But moreover what relation has this with the Difficulty which Theophylact proposed to himself Is it not evident that it must be solved after another manner supposing he believed Transubstantiation For it must be said that the Bread is not Flesh but only as it is really and substantially converted into the same Substance of this Flesh The Romish Hypothesis would unavoidably lead him to this but instead of this he answers by an Example wherein Transubstantiation is not concern'd and this shows clearly that he had not this Transubstantiation in his Thoughts AS to the second Difficulty which consists in that if the Bread were Flesh it would appear Flesh as it may equally spring both from the Solution which he came from giving to the first Doubt to wit the Comparison of the Bread which Christ eat which was changed into his Flesh and from the general Proposition he established in the beginning to wit that the Bread is the Flesh and the Body it self of Jesus Christ not his Image he considers it likewise as coming from both one and the other of these two Principles He proposes it in his Commentaries on St. John as arising from the Solution he had given it For having related this Comparison of the Bread Christ eat which became his Body he adds how then can it be said Why does it appear to us to be Bread and not Flesh In effect if it be the same with the Bread of the Eucharist as that which Christ eat it seems it ought appear to us to be Flesh as the other did To this Theophylact answers that if it appeared Flesh to us we should be struck with Horror at the sight of it It is say's he to the end we may not conceive Horror in the eating of it For if it appeared to us to be Flesh we could not but abhor the Communion It is then by an effect of God's Condescention to our Weakness that the Mystical Food appears to us to be such as we are used to This Answer suffers us to conclude that 't is not the Physical or Natural from of Flesh which is communicated to the Eucharistical Bread but the other For if it received the Physical Form as the Bread Christ eat did it would appear Flesh as well as that Bread did All this agrees still very well with the Greeks Hypothesis BUT some will reply this Answer is short for it does not sufficiently explain what is this other Form which the Eucharistical Bread receives and which makes it the Body of Christ I reply the Answer would be short indeed had not Theophylact clearly explained himself thereon in his Commentary on St. Marc wherein he proposed the same doubt as arising from the general Proposition that the Bread is Flesh This Bread say's he is not a Figure of our Lord's Body but it is changed into the Lord's Body The Bread which I shall give is my Flesh He does not say 't is the Figure of my Flesh but my Flesh And in another place if you eat not the Flesh of the Son of Man But it will be replied how does it not appear to be Flesh O man 't is because of thine Infirmities For because the Bread and Wine are Food familiar to us and that we are not able to suffer Blood and Flesh before us God full of Mercy in Condescension to our Weakness conserves the Species of Bread and Wine but changes them into the VIRTUE OF HIS FLESH AND BLOOD It is clear he means that our Weakness not suffering us to eat Bread which received the natural form of Flesh God conserves the Bread and Wine in their proper Species but to make them his Flesh and Blood imprints on them this supernatural Virtue Who sees not that the whole Scope of his Discourse tends to this The Bread is the real Flesh of Christ not its Representation because there must a proper Sence be given to our Lord's Words But if it really be this Flesh why does it not appear Flesh It is by an effect of God's Condescention which seeing we are not able to bear the sight of Flesh and Blood makes the Bread his Flesh not by an Impression of the substantial Form of Flesh but by an Impression of Virtue IT appears then from the Explication which I now gave to Theophylact's Discourse 1st That Mr. Arnaud has been strangely mistaken when he imagined that to expound him according to
regulating Theophylact's Sence by his Expressions besides this I say there is nothing can hinder us from saying that when he called the internal Essence of things their Virtue it was in respect of their Operation and Effects But this cannot be said of Theophylact for his Discourse does not concern the Effects of the Eucharist but only to know why the Bread being the Flesh of Christ yet does not appear Flesh If then he would say it is because the appearance of Bread remains and that its Substance is changed into the Substance of the Body of Christ to what purpose should he explain himself in this manner it is changed into the Virtue of the Body Why should he say Virtue for Substance seeing that here there was no Question raised about the Efficacy of the Sacrament MR. Arnaud's second Explication is no better than the first He tells us t is an usual way of speaking amongst the Greeks to say 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Strength or Power of Flesh to signifie the Flesh full of Efficacy But not to enter into the Discussion of his Criticism concerning which much might be said did he only pretend to prove it by two Verses of Horace by a Passage of Paschasius Ratbert and another of St. Bernard's I say that when Authors express themselves in this manner the Virtue of a thing to signify a thing full of Virtue or Efficacy 't is only when they consider this thing under the Idea of its Virtue or Efficacy and not otherwise Thus when Horace say's The Virtue of Scipio and the Wisdom of Lelius It is because he considered them under the Quality of Virtuous and Wise as we call the King his Majesty then when we are filled with the Idea of his Greatness It is the same in these Expressions 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Force or Rapidity of the River for a swift River 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the strength of Hercules for the valiant Hercules for then they are considered under the Idea of their Strength Our Saviour say's the Virtue of the Holy Spirit when he meant the Effects of the Power of the Holy Spirit on the Apostles St. Bernard say's likewise in the same Sence that the wise Men acknowledged the Virtue of God in the weak Body of a Child because he designed to oppose the eternal Power of the Divinity to the weakness of Childhood But there is no such thing in the Passage of Theophylact for he does not consider the Flesh of Christ in respect of the Effects which it displays on the Faithful but simply considers it in Reference to the Bread which is changed into it and the Point is not to know as I have already said why this Bread produces so great Effects but only why being Flesh it does not appear Flesh but Bread So that these two pretended Explications of Mr. Arnaud's are but mere Evasions being Groundless and Improbable AS to the third did ever any man see any thing more forc'd and Illusoâ—y than this whole Discourse he makes to establish it When the Bread say's he is changed into the Body of Christ it becomes full of its Virtue and Efficacy What means Mr. Arnaud by this If the Bread be changed into the Substance of Christ's Flesh it ceases to be Bread Now that which ceases to be is no longer filled with any thing because 't is absolutely no longer in being There remains only the external Figure and when we understand that 't is this external Figure that is filled we cannot say that that which is changed is filled for 't is not the Figure that is changed It is certain when a Mans Head is overy full of Philosophical Notions they make him forget himself IT sometimes happens adds he that Authors express these two Truths joyntly together as Euthymius has done But I already shewed that Euthymius in saying the Bread and Wine are changed into the Body and Blood and into the Virtue of both never designed thereby to express two different things but only made use of two different Expressions to signify one and the same thing the latter of which is only the Explication of the former his Et being to be taken for a that is to say MR. Arnaud goes on and say's that Theophylact having said several times the Bread is changed into the Body of Christ tells us once 't is changed into his Strength as an effect of the Mystery which makes it conceived intire But it is easy to answer him that when Theophylact say's the Bread is changed into the Body and that it is changed into the Virtue of the Body these are neither two distinct things nor two parts of the Mystery but two Expressions which signify at bottom but one and the same thing with this Difference that the one is general and th' other particular the one more confused and th' other more distinct the one which gives way in some sort to the Doubt by its generality and th' other which resolves it It is certain he has said several times the Bread is changed into the Body and only once ' that 't is changed into the Virtue of the Body but it is also true that he never said it is changed into the Substance of the Body If he only once spake of the Change of Virtue this once is sufficient to shew his meaning Others have mentioned it as well as he as Theodotus Cyrillus of Alexandria Victor of Antioch Eutychius Euthymius Ely de Crete Who could ever be perswaded all these Authors who lived in divers times have conspired together to say always Virtue and never Substance altho they had in their Thoughts a Change of Substance and not of Virtue THE Language of the Greeks is Conformable to that of Paschasius his Adversaries as he shews us himself in his Commentary on St. Mathew They said the Bread was changed into the Virtue of the Flesh of Christ and Paschasius is not so nice in his Language as Mr. Arnaud He neither say's the Virtue signifies Verity Reality internal Essence nor that the Virtue of the Flesh signifies the Flesh full of Virtue nor that 't is only one part of the Mystery which signifies the other All these Turnings were not in fashion in his time He very honestly takes this Term in the true Sence of those that used it I am astonished say's he at what some say now viz. that the Eucharist is not Paschas Rat. 6. in Mat. 26. the Flesh and Blood of Christ really but Sacramentally a certain Efficacy of the Flesh not the Flesh itself the Virtue of the Blood but not the Blood itself In this manner did they understand it who spake of a change of Virtue and thus was it taken by Paschasius But Mr. Arnaud has found that according to the Rules of his Grammar it must be taken otherwise and as if he were the sole Judg of mens Thoughts and Interpreter of their Sence he assures us that this
than that which receives Augmentation and they make use of the Example of a Child which Eating and Drinking and Growing by this means has not two Bodies but one MR. Arnaud then has in vain collected all the Passages of Cabasilas which assert The Gifts are changed into the Body and Blood of Christ that the Bread is Lib. 3. c. 8. the very Body of our Saviour the Sacrifice offered for the Salvation of the World that the Lord is seen and handled by means of the Holy and Dreadful Mysteries and that we receive him in the Eucharist These Expressions are common both to the Latins and Greeks from whence he can conclude nothing to the Prejudice of these Differences we have observed and which decide the Question IT is in vain he tells us that Cabasilas Disputing against the Latins on the Subject of this Prayer which they make after the Consecration Jube sursum ferri dona haec in manu angeli ad supercaeleste tuum Altare Reasons on these four Principles which include the real Presence and Transubstantiation 1st That we ought not to wish the Body of Christ be taken up from us 2ly That the Body of Christ being in Heaven and on Earth we ought not to desire it should be carried up into Heaven because it is there already 3dly That it cannot be offered by Angels because it is above Angels 4ly That we cannot without Impiety wish the Gifts a greater Dignity seeing they are the Body of Jesus Christ AS to what concerns the first of these Cabasilas say's only We must not pray that the Holy Gifts be taken away from us but on the contrary that they may remain with us and must believe they do so because it is thus that Christ is with us to the end of the World Hitherto we see neither Transubstantiation nor Cabas expos Liturg. c. 30. real Presence As to the 2d Cabasilas say's That if the Latins acknowledged it to be the Body of Christ they must believe he is with us and that he is above the Heavens seated at the right Hand of the Father in a manner known to him which still supposes neither real Presence nor Transubstantiation For according to the Greeks the Eucharist which is on the Earth being the Growth of the Body of Christ is one and the same Body with that in Heaven So that in manner the same Body is in Heaven and on Earth In Heaven in respect of its natural Substance and on Earth in respect of the Mystery which is its Growth which is far from the Sence of the Latins and does not suppose any Transubstantiation As to the 3d. How say's Cabasilas can that be carried up by an Angel which is above all Principalities and Powers and above every Name But methinks this would be to extend the use of Consequences too far to conclude from hence that the Eucharist is the Body of Christ in propriety of Substance For it is sufficient to establish the Truth of what Cabasilas say's that the Bread is the Body of Christ in Virtue and by way of Growth as we have already observed the Greeks explain it seeing it is true that this Dignity raises it up in some Sence above the Angels themselves not in respect of its Nature or Substance but in respect of the Virtue which accompanies it which is the supernatural Virtue of our Lord's Body As to the 4th It is certain that Cabasilas has had reason to say that if the Latins desired the Gifts might after their Consecration receive some new Dignity and a Change into a better State their Prayer would be impious seeing they acknowledged they were already the Body of Christ For as he afterwards adds to what more excellent or Holy State can we believe they pass into His Reasoning is good but I do not see it includes as Mr. Arnaud tells us the real Presence and Transubstantiation He ought to shew us this and not assert it without Proof for it may very well be said in the Sence of the Greeks that the Bread is capable of no higher a Dignity than that of receiving the Impression of the Virtue of Christ's Body and to be made this Body by way of Growth and Augmentation IT is moreover in Vain Mr. Arnaud endeavours to shew that in the Sence of Cabasilas Christ does not really dye in the Eucharist for we never imputed Lib. 3. c. 8. to this Author so strange a Doctrine Neither have we ween deceiv'd touching the Participles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Mr. Arnaud has imagined For we find that Cabasilas calls the Body of Christ not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Mr. Arnaud supposes this is a Fault in Grammar which has scaped his Pen for want of heed and which we must not impute to a Greek but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we have seen likewise he deny's the Body is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Mr. Arnaud does again assert by a Mistake thro Incogitancy for we are not willing to attribute it to any thing else The Greeks do not say 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in that Sence to say the Sacrificed or Slain Body no more than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is to say that Cabasilas means that the Body has been slain heretofore and not at present But this does not hinder it from being true as I said in my Answer to the Perpetuity that Cabasilas has respect to the Body of Christ in the Eucharist as dead that is to say under a respect or quality of Answer to the 2d Treat c. 8. Death Which appears by what he say's that it is not an Image or Representation of a Sacrifice but a real Sacrifice not of Bread but of the Body of Christ Cabas expos Lit. cap. 32. and that there is but one Sacrifice of the Lamb of him which was once offered Whence it follows that Christ is in the Eucharist as Dead and Sacrificed on the Cross which is precisely what I said MR. Arnaud will say that the Consequence which I draw to wit that Christ is not substantially present in the Eucharist is contrary to Cabasilas his Discourse who assures us That the Bread is changed into the thing Sacrificed altho the Sacrifice is not presently offered But Mr. Arnaud having never well Ibid. comprehended the Hypothesis of the Greeks it is no marvel if he has misunderstood Cabasilas his Sence in this Discourse which he makes of the Sacrifice in his thirty second Chapter The Greeks will have the Bread pass thro all the Degrees of the Oeconomy thro which the Body of Christ has passed that as the Holy Spirit came upon the Substance of the Holy Virgin so does he come upon the Bread that as the Body of Christ was in a corruptible state Crucifi'd and Buried so in like manner the Bread is first Corruptible lifted up as it were upon a Cross and buried in our Bodies as in a Sepulchre That in fine it becomes
incorruptible as the Body of Christ was after his Resurrection which they establish by this Reason that the Bread is an augmentation of the Body of Jesus Christ and that as Nature observes on the Food which nourishes us and augments our Body the same order she kept in the first matter from which we were formed So Grace observes in the Eucharistical Bread the same order she observes in the Natural Body By this means they will have the Bread become first the Body of Christ in asmuch as 't is Mortal and Corruptible that it be afterwards this dead Body and in fine this Incorruptible and Raised Body Cabasilas his Sence then is that when the Bread is mystically sacrificed it is made the dead Body of Jesus Christ as he speaks himself the Lamb slain not that the Body suffers Death in this Moment but because in this Moment the Bread passes thro the Oeconomy of Death And thus the Bread is changed into the dead Body of our Lord not that our Saviour dyes in effect but because the Bread which is the Growth of his Body is then changed into this Body in as much as it suffered Death heretofore And this is Cabasilas his real Sence which is conformable to the Hypothesis of the Greeks and not that which Mr. Arnaud attributes to him HE likewise uses to no purpose several Passages out of Simeon of Thessalonica They say nothing but what I already often answered to wit That the Bread is the real Body of Jesus Christ that it is the very Body of Christ and I shewed in what Sence the Greeks use these Expressions and therefore will not any more repeat it I likewise answered what he alledged touching the Adoration and the unconsecrated Particles AS to Jeremias the Patriarch of Constantinople we may well wonder that he should so confidently offer him us as a Person that teaches Transubstantiation seeing that not only Jeremias holds the same Language as the others but asserts several things which opposes the Roman Doctrine Mr. Arnaud having according to his Custom impertinently related several historical Passages Lib. 4. c. 4. tells us That the Article of the Ausbourg Confession which respects the Sacrament expresly asserting the real Presence but not mentioning Transubstantiation Jeremias answers that Point is handled in it very briefly and obscurely and adds that the Catholick Church holds the Bread is changed into the very Body and Blood of our Lord thro the Holy Spirit So that then Jeremias held Transubstantiation And thus does Mr. Arnaud draw his Consequences But he is too quick Some Protestants in Germany sent the Ausbourg Confession to the Patriarch of Constantinople without any Commentary or Exposition on it The Patriarch examining its tenth Article which runs thus Touching the Lord's Supper they hold the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ are really present in it and are distributed to those that participate thereof and condemn the Opinion of those that hold the contrary He say's This Article treats of the Lord's Supper very briefly and to say the Truth somewhat obscurely For adds he we are told several things of you which we do not approve To say hereupon that the Lutherans understood this Article in the Sence of the real Presence and that the Greeks could not be ignorant of it signifies nothing For it appears that the Patriarch only considered the Expressions of the Article barely as they are laid down and found them obscure And as to those things which were told him of them on this Subject and which he disapproved he does not specify them When then he adds That the Catholick Church holds the Bread is changed into the Body and Blood of our Lord thro the Spirit It is clear his Design is without proceeding any farther into the Examination of their Belief to tell them that of his Church and oppose it against their Article so that we must always return to the Inquiry whether by these Expressions The Bread is changed into the real Body he means Transubstantiation or the other Change by way of Augmentation and Impression of Virtue for 't is certain the Article of the Ausbourg Confession respects neither of these Changes MR. Arnaud tells us This was a proper place wherein to assert the Body and Ibid. p. 361. Blood of Christ are not really present in the Sacrament seeing only their Virtue is in it I answer a presence of Virtue is a real Presence of the Body and Blood of Christ even as the Sun is really present with us by the Efficacy of its Beams so that Jeremias had no reason to oppose the reality of the Presence but 't was better said by him that the Terms of the Confession were Ambiguous and that they ought to acknowledg clearly the Body and Blood are substantially present in it supposing he believed this substantial Presence MR. Arnaud adds That the Patriarch does not say the Bread is changed in p. 362. Virtue Power and Efficacy I answer neither does he say 't is changed in Substance and there is this Difference betwixt Mr. Arnaud and I that I add it was not necessary that Jeremias should explain himself touching this change of Virtue because the Greeks who preceded him had already plainly done it but the same cannot be said touching the change of Substance for not one of the Greeks ever mentioned it any more than he so that he was necessarily obliged clearly to express it if he intended it should be understood BUT Mr. Arnaud further say's The Divines of Wittemberg and Tubinga believed upon the Answer of the Patriarch that he taught the real Presence and p. 370. Transubstantiation When this were true we need not be astonished thereat For it might well be that Divines who held the Consubstantiation should take the Words of Jeremias in a Sence which opposed only one part of their Opinion rather than in another which would wholly overthrow it Their Prejudication signifies nothing to the Exposition which the Greeks make themselves of their own Opinion BUT Mr. Arnaud say's moreover If the Divines of Wittemberg Misunderstood the Patriarchs Sence it lay upon him to rectify their Mistakes I answer there cannot be any Advantage made of Jeremias's Silence in this Respect For it is certain that in these Divines first answer they reckon amongst the Points in which they agreed with the Patriarch this That the Communion or Supper of our Lord unites us to him in as much as we truly partake therein of his Flesh and Blood But these were the proper Expressions which this Patriarch used and so far there was no reason to say they charged him with believing what he did not seeing they only repeated what he said It is likewise true they denyed the Bread was changed therein which they grounded on the Testimony of St. Paul who calls it Bread yet did they make use of the same Term Jeremias did which is that of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without the least mention of a
change of Substance So that so far Jeremias had no cause to tell 'em they mistook his Words Neither does he do it in his Reply or second Answer but still continues to say The Bread is changed without proceeding any farther It is true in fine that the Divines having replyed to Jeremias his second Letter they expresly oppose the change of Substance and seem thereby to suppose they had taken the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Jeremias in the Sence of a real Transubstantiation which might then oblige this Patriarch to explain himself more clearly than he had done in his former Writings But it is also true that he returned them no particular Answer touching the Article of the Eucharist He contented himself with telling them in general concerning the Sacraments That seeing they admitted only some of them and moreover erroneously perverted and changed the Expressions of the ancient and modern Doctrin to obtain their Aim 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They therefore deserved not the Title of Divines Which sufficiently shews his Complaint against them for their misunderstanding of these Terms in understanding them of a change of Substance and at the same time certifying them that for his Part he would not deviate from the general and usual Expressions of his Church IT is certain there is in these Writings of Jeremias such Matters which cannot agree with the Roman Transubstantiation as that which we have already related when we treated on the real Belief of the Greeks That God has given us the Sacraments double that is to say consisting on one Hand of the Grace of the Holy Spirit and on the other of sensible things which are Water Oyl Bread and the Chalice by which our Souls are sanctifi'd For a Man that speaks thus clearly shews he understands the Substance of Bread remains We may likewise reckon in this Rank what he says concerning the Church That she is set forth to us in the Mysteries not as in the Symbols But as the Members are in the Heart and the Branches of a Tree in the Root or as the Branches in the Vine according to our Saviour's Words For here is not only a bare Communion of Name or relation of Resemblance but the Identity of the thing it self For the Mysteries are really the Body and Blood of Christ and they are not changed into our Body but we are changed into them the strongest part prevailing The Iron when put in the Fire becomes Fire it self but the Fire becomes not Iron As then when the Iron is red-hot we perceive no more Iron but Fire the Fire dispelling all the Proprieties of Iron so he that beholds Christ's Church in as much as it is united to him and partakes of his Flesh beholds nothing else but the Body of our Lord. THIS Discourse is taken Verbatim out of Cabasilas as I have observed elsewhere and shews the Change of Bread and Wine must not be urged as if they understood it of a Change of Substance seeing he uses the same Term in respect of the Communicants saying We are changed into the Mysteries They likewise shew us we must not take in a Counter-Sence what he say's concerning the Mysteries being really the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ seeing he tells us the Church is the very Body of our Lord. I alledged these last Words in my Answer to the Perpetuity and say'd That Jeremias speaks of the Church which has received the Impression of the Spirit of Christ Mr. Arnaud accuses me of Falsifying this Passage But this Accusation comes from his being out of Humor The original Words I recited are these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he will perceive nothing else but our Lord's Body And as to what I said that he speaks of the Church which has received the Impression of the Spirit of Christ I affirm this is his Sence and that Mr. Arnaud as prejudiced as he is cannot give it any other For to what relates this Comparison of Fire which changes the Iron but to the Impression of the Spirit of Christ on the Church and this Union of the Church with Christ but to his spiritual and mystical Union It is true he say's That 't is in as much as she is partaker of his Flesh But this does not in any sort change his Sence For 't is from the mystical Participation of his Flesh that comes the Impression of his Spirit and it is the Impression of his Spirit which effects this admirable Change These two things are subalternate but not contrary to one another So that Mr. Arnaud impertinently charges me with falsifying the Passage of Jeremias But it is not the same with this other Passage which Forbesius alledged and concerning which I have complained of the Author of the Perpetuity Mr. Arnaud may say if he pleases That my Complaint is unreasonable yet will it be found both Just and Reasonable Forbesius was a Person who making outward Profession of the Protestant Religion yet wrote in favour of the Church of Rome under the specious pretence of Peace and Agreement To soften what we believe is hard in the Doctrine of Transubstantiation he assures us that almost all the Greeks believe it and instances Jeremias who teaches according to what he say's That the Bread is neither a Figure nor an Azyme but the real Body of Christ contained under the species of leavened Bread The Author of the Perpetuity alledges this Forbesius as a Person whose Testimony ought to be of great weight with us being a Protestant The cause then of my Complaint is that we must have a false Translation of Jeremias imposed upon us under the Name of a Protestant without telling us what kind of Man this Protestant was When we make use of a Witness we ought certainly to consider what he is and if it appears there be just Exceptions against him we must not offer him and when we would use a Passage which he alledges we must take care his Translation be true It is to no purpose to say We are not obliged to justify the Translations of Protestants and that if he be mistaken 't is his Fault This might be indeed alledged supposing the P. 365. Author of the Perpetuity had disputed against Forbesius or were ignorant who this Forbesius was but this Mans Character sufficiently shews it self by the bare reading of his Book Neither does it signify any thing to say That Forbesius is not the Author of this Translation but Transcribed it Verbatim from Socolovius Neither is it less a Deceit in Forbesius himself who ought not to make us Believe that Jeremias said what he did not and when a Person that pretends to be of our Communion deceives us we have right to inveigh against him Let us come then to the Point and inquire whether the Translation of Jeremias be false Mr. Arnaud say's 't is not and I affirm it is The Question will be decided by the reading of Jeremias his own Words The Bread say's he of the Lord's
Body which is administred by the Priests is neither a Type nor an Azyme but it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a leavened Loaf and the very Body of our Lord and the Translation runs Illud ipsum verum Christi corpus sub speciebus fermentati panis contentum The Body it self the real Body of Christ CONTAINED UNDER THE SPECIES OF LEAVENED BREAD Mr. Arnaud affirms that this is not a Falsification because Jeremias his true Sence is represented in it For say's he these Words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are capable of two different P. 366. Sences First This Bread is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Leavened because it remains in effect leavened Bread and that it is only the Body of Christ in Figure or Virtue Secondly It is called by this Name of leavened Bread because it was originally leavened Bread and does still appear so altho it be the Body of our Lord. But the first of these Sences has been several times excluded by Jeremias his own Words wherein he clearly asserted that after the Consecration the leavend Bread is changed into our Lord's real Body that it is not a Figure but our Lords Body that it is this Flesh concerning which he speaks The Bread which I shall give you is my Flesh It is excluded in what follows sundry different ways and by the very Words of that passage which asserts it is our Lord's Body Whence it follows it is not then really leavened Bread I answer that this pretended Sence which Mr. Arnaud attributes to Jeremias is precisely the Point in Question Now whilst a matter is in Dispute we must never translate a Passage according to the Sence of one of the Parties which th' other denies him To deal sincerely the proper and natural Signification of Terms must be kept and every man left at his liberty to judg of them For when men translate according to the Pretention of one Party they are no longer the Words of this Author but the Prejudication of this Party and consequently an Alteration even when the Prejudication of this Party should be just and reasonable in the Main Moreover Mr. Arnaud is mistaken if he believes the other Passages of Jeremias determine a Sence of substantial Reality for according to the Hypothesis of the Greeks the Bread still remains Bread in Substance altho it be changed into the Body of Christ and be the very Body of Christ and not a Figure as we have often already declared whence it follows the Translation in question cannot be justified A Man of never so mean Capacity may perceive that Jeremias his Sence is not that which Mr. Arnaud attributes to him For in the same place where he say's The Bread is changed into the real Body of Christ and the Wine into his Blood and wherein he alledges the Words of Christ which tell us not This is an Azyme or this is the Figure of my Body but this is my Body He adds by way of Explication This is not to say that the Flesh which our Saviour then had was given to be eaten by his Disciples nor his Blood to be drunk nor that now in this sacred Ordinance our Lord's Body descends from Heaven This would be Blasphemy But then and now by Prayers and the Grace of the almighty Spirit which operates in the Mysteries by means of the Holy Orisons the Bread is changed into our Lord's real Body and Blood These Words being applyed to the Hypothesis of the Greeks that the Bread remaining Bread and receiving the Impression of the Holy Spirit is changed into the Body of Christ by way of Augmentation are clear and void of Difficulty But if we apply them to the Hypothesis of the Latins who affirm the Substance of Bread is changed into the natural Flesh of Christ and becomes the Same numerical Flesh which our Lord had when on Earth In what Sence shall we understand that saying of Jeremias namely that the Flesh which Christ had then was not given to be eaten by his Disciples For if we grant Transubstantiation it is certain the Disciples eat the same Flesh which Christ then had and Jeremias his Proposition can not subsist Mr. Arnaud endeavours but in vain to expound Jeremias his Discourse in saying That Christ gave not to be eaten by his Disciples the Flesh which he had in ceasing to have it and to appear before them in his usual manner in cutting his Body into Morsels or having no other place of Abode than his Apostles Stomach To make us receive this Gloss it must be grounded on Jeremias his own Words and not on Mr. Arnaud's Imagination These Corrections and fine Explications hinder not but that the Patriarch's Proposition is absolute and contrary to the Doctrine of Transubstantiation For that which Jeremias denies is not that our Saviour disappeared before his Disciples nor cut his Flesh into Morsels but that he gave them to eat the Flesh he then had The Question respects not the manner in which our Lord gave his Flesh to be eaten but whether he did give it and Jeremias asserts he did not What likelyhood is there that a Man who believes Transubstantiation would thus roughly offer a Negative which is directly opposite to his Belief What likelyhood is there he would offer it in the same place and Discourse wherein he asserts Transubstantiation without explaining and lessening the Offence which might be taken at his Words But in short how is it probable he would treat as Blasphemous the Proposition contrary to his Negative Of these two Propositions Christ gave to be eaten by his Disciples the Flesh he bore and Christ gave not the Flesh he bare to his Disciples to eat The first would be the only true one according to the Letter without Gloss and Commentary supposing Transubstantiation Th' other taken litterally would be false and heretical and to make it tolerable it must have Expositions and Molifications contrary to what the Letter bears Mr. Arnaud is forced to change the first and natural Sence of the Terms and impose on them a forced and unusual one Who can then imagine that a Man who believed Transubstantiation or the real Presence and positively asserted it should be so senceless as to condemn the first of these Propositions which expresly contains his Belief to condemn it I say as Blasphemous and establish the second as the only true one without using any Corrective or Illustration This is wholly improbable AND this is what I had to say concerning Jeremias There remains nothing more of all Mr. Arnaud's pretended Proofs than the Passages taken out of some common Authors wherein there being nothing extraordinary and containing only that the Bread is the Body of Christ and that it is changed into his Body The same Answer being applyed to them will be sufficient CHAP. IX Several Passages of Anastasius Sinaite Germane the Patriarch of Constantinople and Damascene Examined HAVING satisfied Mr. Arnaud's Objections concerning the Greeks since the eleventh Century to this
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
will be perhaps replyed these two Arguments which in respect of Terms are alike yet do differ in Sence For Mr. Arnaud by the Symbol means the Accidents or Species which cover the Body and Mr. Aubertin by the Figure understands a real Substance of Bread So that howsoever alike these Arguments do at first appear one of 'em may be reasonable and th' other Extravagant I grant all this but I say if Mr. Arnaud's Argument be good Mr. Aubertins is so likewise and that if there be any Extravagancy in either of them it must be in the first and not in the second Why must Anastasius rather argue on the State of the corruptible Species than on that of the corruptible Bread His Arguing take we it how we will must be grounded on two Qualities attributed to the Eucharist one That it is a Sign and th' other That it is a corruptible Sign and from hence he will conclude that Christ's Body before his Resurrection was Corruptible as well as its Sign Now these two Qualities of Sign and Corruptible are found as well or rather better in the Bread which Aubertin means than in the Accidents or Mr. Arnaud's Species It will no ways avail to say that Anastasius denies the Eucharist to be a Figure and that thus he would contradict himself saying on one hand that it is not a Figure and supposing on the other that it is one This I say signifies nothing for 't is only changing the Term of Figure into that of Symbol which Mr. Arnaud uses and which he believed not to be comprehended in the Rejection of the Word Figure Neither signifies it any thing to say Anastasius assures us the Eucharist is the real Body which hinders us from understanding by the Term of Symbol contained in his Argument that 't is Bread in Substance For I deny that by the true Body he mentions we must understand the Body in proper Substance It is then certain that if we may attribute Mr. Arnaud's Argument to this Author we may as well attribute to him that of Mr. Aubertin BUT I say moreover that if there be any Extravagancy in either of these two Arguments it will be found to be rather in that which Mr. Arnaud imputes to him than the other Which we shall soon find if we consider what means in Anastasius his Discourse the Term of Eucharist according to Mr. Arnaud's Commentary for it signifies the Incorruptible Body Invisible and Impassible of Christ under the Corruptible Species of Bread and Wine Anastasius then will Reason after this manner The Body of Christ before his Resurrection was immediately Corruptible in it self Why Because now in the Eucharist it is Incorruptible in it self and Corruptible in respect of the Species which cover it Was ever such absurd Arguing known Would not the Heretick Gayanite say the contrary hence followed for seeing our Lord is Incorruptible in himself in the Eucharist this is a Token he was so before his Resurrection And as to the Species being only Appearances of Bread the Corruption which happens to them is no more than an appearance of Corruption which can at farthest but figurate an apparent Corruption in our Lord's Body before his Resurrection which does not differ from the Doctrine of these Hereticks Moreover Anastasius establishes in his Argument this Principle That an incorruptible Nature can neither be Cut nor Wounded in the Side and Hands nor Pierced nor put to Death nor Eaten That it can neither be held nor touched Now is it not a most extream folly to strengthen this by instancing the Eucharist that is to say the real Body of Christ which is Cut Pierced Chewed in respect of the Appearances which cover it and which are yet incorruptible For this is just as if a Man should prove 't is Night in pointing to the Sun shining In effect if we introduce the Heretick defending himself against Anastasius his Proposition by the Example of the Eucharist and saying I distinguish an incorruptible Nature can neither be Hurt nor Cut nor Pierced nor put to Death immediately and really in it self I acknowledg it in respect of the Appearances which cover it and I prove my Negative by the Example of the Eucharist wherein the Body of Christ wholy incorruptible as it is is yet Cut Chewed Pierced in respect of the Appearances which are to it instead of a Vail Should I say the Heretick be brought in Disputing against Anastasiu's Principle in this manner he would make a very just and reasonable Answer whence it appears that this Example of the Eucharist if taken in the Sence Mr. Arnaud gives it is an extravagancy and Folly in Anastasius his own Mouth MR. Arnaud then may be pleased to acknowledg that he cannot rely on this Hypothesis neither justify the other Evasion which is That Anastasius believed this whiteness and other sensible Accidents of the Eucharist to be the Ibid. p. 631. Accidents of the Body of Christ and so that when the Bread is broken it is the Body of Christ that is broken By the Body of Christ Mr. Arnaud understands not the Mystical Body only but the Natural Body in proper Substance Now what greater Extravagancy can we charge a Man with than to impute to him the Belief that the Substance of the Body is in Effect of the same Form and Figure as the Bread in the Eucharist that 't is divided and broken in several Particles as the Bread is divided that each Particle is a part of this Body and that the Substance of this Body has really the Savour and Colour which Bread has And seeing we must believe the Concomitancy in the same manner as the Substance of Bread will be liquid and fluid as Wine in the Cup so that of the Blood will be in the other Species hard and solid as Bread In Truth if Anastasius could have this Sentiment we must say he was a Person unfit to be instanced in this Dispute add Mr. Arnaud cannot render him more contemptible than in attributing to him such kind of Fooleries What he alledges concerning Tertullian that he believed the Divinity had a Body is lyable to be questioned There are abundance of Passages in this Author which will not suffer us to entertain such a Thought of him and which oblige us to expound in a good Sence what he has otherwise expressed a little roughly Theodoret makes the Euthychiens fall into Contradictions it is true but they are different from the Extravagancy with which Mr. Arnaud charges Anastasius for they do not immediately discover themselves whereas th 'others presently manifest themselves In short if Mr. Arnaud cannot make use and advantage of his Authors unless he accuse them first of Extravagancy and afterwards excuse them by Example of the Extravagancies of others Let me tell him he must get better Witnesses and not think to weary us out with the Language of Persons who neither know what they say nor what they believe WAS there ever any thing
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
Chapter which Mr. Arnaud has written touching the Equivocal Expressions of this Author In effect let him say as long as he pleases That the Point here concerns neither Figure nor Virtue that this effect Lib. 7. c. 3. p. 650. 651. which surpasses humane Conception is in Damascen ' s Sence this to wit That the Bread is made the Body of Jesus Christ that it is the Body really united to the Divinity the Body taken from the Virgin because the Bread and Wine are changed into the Body and Blood of God That Damascen speaks of it as if he designed to refute expresly all the Attempts and Shifts of the Ministers some of whom turn his Words into a change of Virtue and others to an Imaginary Union of the Holy Siprit with the Bread remaining Bread That the Fathers have expressed themselves after two different manners that is to say sometimes as Philosophers and otherwhiles as Divines All this signifies nothing considering the Explication which Damascen himself hath given us of his own Sence in his Letter to Zacharias Bishop of Doarus and Homily at the end of it These two Pieces published by the Abbot Billius and which were acknowledged for Authentick by Labbus the Jesuit the learned M. de Marca Arch-Bishop of Paris and Leo Allatius himself Mr. Arnaud's great Author These two Pieces I say end the Difference and suffer us not any longer to dispute about Damascene I shall only say that Mr. Arnaud has not done fairly in relating the Passages of the fourth Book of the Orthodox Faith to leave out this Homily and Letter as he has done CHAP. X. An Examination of the Advantages which Mr. Arnaud draws from the two Councils held in Greece in the eighth Century upon the Subject of Images the one at Constantinople and th' other at Nice IT cannot without doubt but trouble good People to see how Mr. Arnaud suffers his Pen to be guided by his Passion and fills up his Book with Injuries so ill becoming a Man of his Age and Profession making them continually the Subject of his Eloquence Yet in truth are we obliged to him for this way of proceeding not only for that thereby he gives us Occasion to exercise our Christian Patience but does also himself furnish us with an assured means of bringing his Chapters into a lesser Compass And to this end we shall pass by all his personal Reflections as Matters which concern not our Dispute Let us then consider those four terrible Chapters wherein he Treats of the two Councils which were held in the eighth Century the one at Constantinople against Images and the other at Nice for them MR. Arnaud begins with the Council of Nice that is to say with a Writing Lib. 7. c. 5. p. 661. which the Fathers of this Council caused to be read in the sixth Session from whence he forms these five Propositions 1st That the Eucharist was not called by the Name of Image or Figure by the Apostles and Fathers after Consecration 2dly That they have called it the Body it self and the Blood it self 3dly That the Gifts are properly Body and Blood 4ly That they are not Images but Body and Blood 5ly That it is impossible they should be both the Image and Body of Christ so that being the Body they are not the Image He moreover tells us that Anastasius made use of the same Reasoning to shew the Eucharist is not an Image That John Damascen likewise used it and Nicephorus the Patriarch of Constantinople concludes after the same manner that the Eucharist is not the Image of Christ because it is his Body Whereupon Mr. Arnaud cries out These are the very things wherein Arguments are useless and wherein the Impression of Truth appears so plainly that those that deny it are P. 663. to be regarded as Persons no longer to be reasoned with But how clear soever his Motives may be we can assure him this comes from his Prejudice and not from the Truth The Understanding of all these Discourses of the Adversaries of the Iconoclastes depends only on the knowing in what Sence they meant the Eucharist is properly the Body and Blood of Christ For this Point being once dispatched we shall soon perceive why they denyed it was an Image and wherefore they thus reasoned that being an Image it could not be the Body We must observe all these Greeks have followed the Opinion of Damascen and speak as he does that they borrow all his Conceptions and Expressions as appears by the Writing which was read in the second Council of Nice by the Fragment of Theodorus Graptus and Mr. Arnaud's own Author Nicephorus NOW after the Notices Damascen has given us we can no longer doubt but their Sence is that the Bread and Wine are made the Body and Blood of Christ inasmuch as that receiving the Supernatural Virtue of this Body and Blood they are a Growth and Augmentation thereof and therefore are not two Bodies but one and the same Body the proper Body of Christ as the Food becomes our proper Body AND this will appear from the bare reading of a Passage in Nicephorus Allat de Eccles Occid Orient Perp. Consens Lib. 3. cap. 15. which Mr. Arnaud himself has related and taken from Allatius And if it be needful say's he to explain these things by what passes in our selves as the Bread Wine and Water are naturally changed into the Body and Blood of those that eat and drink them and become not another Body so these Gifts by the Prayer of him that Officiates and Descent of the Holy Spirit are changed supernaturally into the Body and Blood of Christ For this is the Contents of the Priest's Prayer and we do not understand they are two Bodies but we believe it be but one and the same Body And this is the Greeks Hypothesis the Bread is made the proper Body of Christ as the Meat we eat becomes our Body to wit inasmuch as it is united to it and receives its Form increases and augments it THE same will appear if we compare the Discourses of the Fathers of Constantinople with the Censure past on them in the Council of Nice The Fathers of Constantinople called the Eucharist a chosen Matter a Substance of Bread Those of Nice were not offended thereat Neither at the others calling the Eucharist Bread filled with the Holy Spirit an Oblation translated from a common State to a State of Holyness a Body made Divine by a Sanctification of Grace So far they agree But when the Fathers of Constantinople call the Bread an Image those of Nice could not suffer it neither could they bear with them in saying it is the Body by Institution Why do they make this Difference but because these first Expressions which are contrary to Transubstantiation and the substantial Presence yet do not contradict their Hypothefis of Augmentation by an Impression of Virtue whereas the others oppose it For they do not say the Food
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
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
for a Proof The Moscovites Consecrate the Bread in Corpus Christi into the Body of Jesus Christ or to be the Body of Jesus Christ They believe then Transubstantiation 'T is evident for the Establishing of this Conclusion there is need of Ibid. something more precise than this But say's he this is a Catholick that speaks thus and who would be understood to speak of the real Body of Jesus Christ that attributes this same Belief to the Moscovites When Sacranus or any other that professes the Roman Religion speaks as from himself and the question concerns his own Faith we can easily believe that in a Discourse of the Eucharist by the Body of Christ he means the proper substance of this Body for we know that this is the Sence and Style of the Roman Church But when he Discourses of the Moscovites and the question concerns their Faith we believe that in saying they Consecrate the Bread in Corpus Christi he pretends no more than to use the same Terms which the Moscovites use without concerning himself with the Sense in which they take these words They must be taken in the Sense the Moscovites give ' em What Sense is that This Sacranus does not determine and to go about to decide it by what Sacranus himself believed concerning the Sacrament is a meer Illusion AS to what John le Ferre Confessor to the Arch-Duke Ferdinand relates Moscovit Religion that the Consecration is performed amongst them by pronouncing our Saviour's words and that they attribute to them so great Vertue that assoon as ever they are uttered by the Priest they believe the Creature gives place to the Creator we must tell Mr. Arnaud that he does not do fairly in offering us a Fabulous relation such as is this le Ferre's This Author assures us that only the Bishops amongst the Moscovites Administer Confirmation that they do it by the laying on of Hands in making the sign of the Cross and anointing the Party Confirmed on the Forehead That one of the chief Offices of the Priest is to Preach the Gospel of Christ to the People which they do not only every Sunday but also on the Festivals of the Blessed Virgin and Apostles That God's Word is Preached and heard with great Devotion That they certainly hold the Doctrine of Purgatory Acknowledge the Supremacy of the Roman Prelate as being Christ's Vicar and St. Peters Successor That they freely assist at Mass with the Latins This is all false as appears by other Relations of these People Possevin Com. 2. de reb Mosc And therefore Possevin has not scrupled to reckon this John le Ferre amongst those Authors which are counted fabulous because say's he they have been mis-informed or did not write with a Design to discover the Venom to apply thereunto a Remedy What signifies then such peoples Testimony NOT to take notice that these Terms The Creature gives place to the Creator are not sufficient to make us conclude from hence Transubstantiation It being a general Expression capable of divers Senses For when we should say with Theodoret that the Divine Grace accompanies Nature or with St. Austin that the Bread becomes of an Aliment a Sacrament or with the Greeks that it is changed into the Vertue of Christ's body the Creature will still give place to the Creator without any Conversion of substance So that howsoever we take John le Ferre's Testimony 't is invalid and does not at all help Mr. Arnaud's Cause But he having made a general Collection of good and bad Authors John le Ferre must have his place amongst the rest I Confess that Lasicius the Polander that relates this Testimony has taken it in the Sence of Transubstantiation and as we need not doubt but that the Design of John le Ferre was to make the World believe that the Moscovites hold this Doctrine so likewise we must not find it strange if those that refer themselves to his Authority as Lasicius has done do take it no otherwise Had Lasicius well examined this Relation of John le Ferre's he would have found it full of false Reports and easily find his Authors main Design was to render the Moscovite Religion as Conformable as he could to the Roman and by this means to deceive his Readers and especially the Protestants whom he had at that time in his Eye He would then have absolutely rejected the Authority of such a Man who has palpably disguised the Truth He might at least distinguish in respect of the Words in question Ferre's Sence from the Sence of the Moscovites themselves supposing they were their own Words But this he has not done altho he ought to have done it and thence it is that on this bare Testimony without any other Proof Lasicius has believed that the Opinion of the Moscovites leaned towards Transubstantiation Whence it follows we ought not lightly to Credit whatsoever a suspected Author shall tell us concerning the Religion of Strangers but it does not follow 't is true in the main that the Moscovites believe the Conversion of Substances WE must then come to the Testimonies of Dannaverus professor of Strasburg and Mr. Olearius the Duke of Holstein's Library-Keeper Persons of greater Reputation Both say the Moscovites hold Transubstantiation They put say's Dannaverus into the Wine contained in the Chalice the Bread broken into pieces they Bless it and believe 't is Transubstantiated They hold Transubstantiation say's Mr. Olearius So that here we have two express Testimonies and against which it seems there can be nothing alledged As to Dannaverus he has only followed Olearius's Authority knowing no more of the Religion of the Moscovites than what he has receiv'd from the reading of Authors as appears by his Treatise But as to Mr. Olearius he is a Person of great Learning and has lived in those Countries and made it his Business to be informed of this Point and who not only gives us this Account in his Book but has likewise Confirm'd it in a Letter written to one of Mr. Arnaud's Friends upon occasion of this present Dispute and Mr. Arnaud has not failed to make thereof a matter of Triumph IT will be no hard matter to reply to Mr. Olearius's Testimony and clear it from all Perplexity And this will be done by considering his own Perpe of the Faith Part 3. C. 8. Words as well in his Book as Letter Those in his Book as the Author of the Perpetuity relates them from the Original High-Dutch are They believe Transubstantiation that is to say that the Bread and Wine are really changed into the Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ Those of his Letter Lib. 5. C. 3. P. 438. related by Mr. Arnaud I wrote expresly in the Relation of my Voyage that the Moscovites hold Transubstantiation that is to say they believe the Bread is changed into the Body of Christ and the Wine into his Blood Distinguish then Mr. Olearius's Testimony from his private
the Russians Sacramentum religiosius Russis venerantur these are also his words Whence I conclude 't is not likely the Russians or Moscovites believe Transubstantiation the reason is sufficiently evident to wit that those that believe the Sacrament to be the proper Substance of the Son of God cannot but shew it more Respect than those that believe it to be a Substanee of Bread IT is to no purpose for Mr. Arnaud to say that my Argument supposes Lib. 5. C. 4. P. 448. according to this Author the Armenians do neither hold the real Presence nor Transubstantiation and that if I do not suppose this nothing can be less reasonable than my Discourse For if the Armenians adds he together with the Substance of Bread do moreover admit the real presence of Christ it is no wise improbable but that they have a greater respect for the Eucharist than those that do not admit this Substance of Bread The respect of the Eucharist comes only from the Presence of Christ and the presence or absence of the Bread contributes not any thing thereunto I hope Mr. Arnaud will not be offended if I tell him that his Authority is not yet great enough in the Church of Rome to counter-ballance that of Thomas Aquinas Now Thomas his Doctrine is directly opposite to his Contrariatur say's this Author venerationi hujus Sacramenti si aliqua Substantia creata esset ibi quae non posset Adoratione latriae adorari 'T would be Thom. Sum. 3. Part. Quaest 75. Art 2. contrary to the Veneration due to this Sacrament were there any created Substance in it to which may not be given the adoration of Latria Now let any man if he can make this agree with what Mr. Arnaud says Mr. Arnaud's Proposition say's that the respect due to the Eucharist proceeds only from the presence of Christ and that the presence or absence of the Bread does not at all contribute thereunto and Thomas assures us on the contrary that if the Substance of bread were present it would hinder the Adoration of this Sacrament whence it follows according to him that those that hold the Substance of Bread ceases to be ought more to reverence the Sacrament than those that believe it remains So that whether the Armenians do or do not believe the real presence this signifies nothing to my Argument 'T is clear according to Lasicius that they do not believe Transubstantiation and consequently 't is clear according to Thomas Aquinas that they hold an opinion which is contrary to the veneration of the Sacrament yet do they adore the Sacrament more religiously than the Moscovites How then can the belief of Transubstantiation be attributed to the Moscovites for if they held this Doctrine they must have a greater veneration for the Sacrament than the others This Argument cannot be otherwise denyed than by opposing the Doctrine of Thomas Aquinas So that with drawing my self out of the Lists I shall offer in my stead either Saint Thomas to be handled by Mr. Arnaud or Mr. Arnaud by Saint Thomas that is to say the Master by the Disciple or the Disciple by the Master MOREOVER our Question touching the Moscovites relating only to Transubstantiation 't is evident it would be a Digression from the Point in hand to discuss the intire passage of Lasicius to know whether he imputes to the Armenians the belief of the real Presence It will appear by what we shall say in the following Chapters what we may judge of them touching this particular The Question now concerns only the Moscovites and what Lasicius says concerning their worshipping less religiously the Sacrament than the Armenians is uncontroulable considering the testimonies we have produced in the second Book of Sacranus a Chanon of Cracovia John de Lasco Arch Bishop of Gnesne and Scarga the Jesuite who expressly depose that the Russians of whom the Moscovites are a part do indeed adore the Bread before its consecration but afterwards shew it no respect nor veneration scattering the Crums thereof on the ground It is to no purpose for Mr. Arnaud to say that that which hinders them from giving the Eucharist after consecration an external honour is that the Consecration is performed in a place separate from the people and that 't is out of respect to the Sacrament that the People are deprived for some time of the sight of this Mystery 'T is evident these are mere Subter fuges Did they worship the Sacrament with an internal adoration they would declare as much themselves and ease Mr. Arnaud of the trouble of searching their Secret thoughts They would shew it by some expression of external Reverence and for this effect expose the Sacrament to the Eyes of the People the People would at least make profession of adoring it before they received it and the Priests would adore it in the Sanctuary when they had consecrated it Yet do these Authors absolutely say that they give it no adoration This says Mr. Arnaud Lib. 5. C. 1. Pag. 432. is not so for Oderbornus tells us that the Priest comes from the Sanctuary and walking leasurely shows the People that which he has consecrated in secret that then the People fall down on their Knees the Priest saying to 'em in the Moscovit Language Behold the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ whom the Jews unjustly put to death But we have shewed in the third Book when we treated of the Adoration of the Sacrament that Oderborn is apparently mistaken having taken a Ceremony which is used before the consecration of the Bread as if it were used after this Consecration The Moscovites even as the Greeks do but once shew the People the Bread and Wine taking one turn round the Church before the Consecration which they call the great Entrance If Mr. Arnaud knows not this he is ignorant of a Matter well known by others and if he does know it he shews little sincerity in designing to prevail over us by means of Oderborn's mistake CHAP. II. Of the ARMENIANS That the Armenians do not believe Transubstantiation First Proof taken from that the Armenians believe the Humane Nature of our Saviour Christ was swallowed up by the Divinity WEE shall not here particularly treat of the Melchites or Syrians Lib. 5. C. 5. as well for that Mr. Arnaud acknowledges they differ not at all from the Greeks in their Religion as that likewise what he alledges concerning them out of the Notes of Abraham Echellensis Maronite on the Catalogue of Caldean Books made by Abed-Jesu a Nestorian Bishop deserves not our consideration The Testimony of Abraham Echellensis is of no credit and I refer my self thereupon to Gahriel Sionita his Country man who has set him forth as an ignorant and impertinent Fellow a Lyer and Impostor These two persons had both of them their Education at Rome in the Seminary of the Maronites both endeavouring to advance the Roman Interest but falling out about the Edition
of the Bible in Syriack Gabriel thought himself obliged to tell Abraham his own and publish his defects he therefore puts forth a small Book which he calls Commonitorium Apologeticum wherein he represents him in the aforementioned manner He reproaches him with his dividing the whole Seminary at Rome for his treachery to the Patriarch of the Maronites imposing on Prince Fachraddin for cheating the Duke of Florence and with his being banished his own Country his Imprisonment at Florence for his Crimes and in fine threatens him for the compleating of his shame to Print those Letters he received from Mount Liban Rome and Florence which give an Account of his Life But besides there is not any thing in these passages but may well agree with the Hypothesis of the Greeks such as we have shewed it to be in the two foregoing Books as will appear to him that shall take the pains to read them in Mr. Arnaud's Book and apply to them the Answers I made to several other such like passages which are needless here to be repeated WEE must come then to the Armenians I shall insist the longer upon them as well for that Mr. Arnaud has discoursed much about them as for that they are a great people and an entire Church by themselves They are long since separated from the Greek Church and there is a deadly fewd betwixt them in reference to Religion Yet are they both extream ignorant of the design of Christianity and the ignorance of the Armenians surpasses that of the Greeks as appears from the Testimony cited in my second Book I will add that of the Bishop of Heliopolis in his relation printed at Paris 1668. I gave say's he a Visit to the Patriarch of the Relat. of Missionarys and Voyage of French Bishops by M. Francis Pallu Bish of Heliopolis Armenians near the City of Hervian in a famous Monastery of Eutychian Hereticks who are no less obstinate than ignorant I found there amongst others a certain Person who having been in Poland had some smatterings of Latine I would have discoursed with him touching the Principal Heresie of Eutichus but he cunningly avoided it I left this Monastery little satisfied with these Religious who show little Piety although they profess much and live austerely So Cyrillus Patriarch of Constantinople describing in one of his Letters to Wytenbogard the four Sects of Eastern Christians with which Epist Viror Eruditor Epist 2. Cyrill ad Wytenbog the Greeks held no communion to wit the Armenians Coptics Maronites and Jacobites say's amongst other things that they live like Beasts and are so prodigiously Ignorant that they scarce know what they believe themselves THE Latins have long since used their utmost power to bring over these Armenians to 'um and submit them to the See of Rome They have for this purpose sent Missions which they have renewed or augmented as Occasion required They have taken the course of Seminaries and from time to time accordingly managed the Interests of Princes and Kings of Armenia and that not seldom with Success So that as there are at present two sorts of Greeks the one called the reunited ones and the other Schismaticks so there are likewise two sorts of Armenians the one that acknowledges the Authority of the Pope called Frank-Armenians for in the East they call all the Latins of whatsoever Nation they be Franks the others those that acknowledge only their own Patriarchs or Catholicks as they term them and are called only Armenians OUR Question only then concerns these last and to know whether they do or do not believe Transubstantiation The first Argument I offer for the maintaining the Negative which I affirm is that Transubstantiation is inconsistent with the Heresie of Euthyches of which the Armenians make profession They hold there is but one single Nature in Jesus Christ which is the Divine that the humane Nature was mixt or confused in the Essence of the Divinity How then is it possible that having this Opinion they can at the same time believe the Substance of Bread to be changed into the Substance of the Body of Jesus Christ For if our Saviour Christ has no longer a Body if the humane Nature do's no longer subsist according to them this would be to charge them with the greatest Absurdity that is to say a manifest contradiction to imagine they believe the change in Question seeing to believe it it must be necessarily supposed not only that our Saviour Christ has a Body but likewise that his Body is distinct from the Divinity MR. Arnaud who saw the Force of this Argument would prevent it Lib. 5. C. 6. P. 454. by two Answers which we must distinctly examine one after another The first amounts to this That supposing the Armenians were real Eutychiens yet do's it not thence follow that their Opinion is inconsistent with Transubstantiation or that they do not admit it after their Fashion For although they say there was but one Nature in our Saviour Christ after the Union and that the Human Nature was swallowed up by the Divine yet do they assert that the Virgin Mary brought forth a Son that appeared to have a Body like other men that the Apostles conversed with our Saviour as a man that the Jews took him for a man that they crucified him as a man Whence he concludes that this swallowing up of the Humane Nature consisted rather according to the Eutychiens in the change of all the Natural proprieties which they called Nature than in the annihilation of Nature it self taken for the Substance and internal being That this manifestly appears by all their Writings who have undertaken to refute the Eutychiens and by the Eutychiens themselves For the Gajanites who are Eutychiens at farthest distance from the Catholick yet acknowledge they receive in the holy Communion the very Body and Blood of Jesus Christ the Son of God and who was incarnate and born of the Virgin Mary the Mother of God APPLYING this afterwards to the Question of the Eucharist he say's that they believe with all other Christians that this same Jesus Christ born of the Virgin seen in the World crucified and risen is really present in the Eucharist that the Bread is really changed into this Jesus Christ. But denying as they do that the Body of Jesus Christ was a distinct Nature from the Divinity so they will not allow the Bread which is transubstantiated into Jesus Christ to be any other Nature than the Divinity that is to say a deified Body a Body mixt and confused with the Divinity by the loss of it's natural Proprieties rather than of its Substance Mr. Arnaud do's likewise promise us that in the Examination of what Theodoret has written he will more distinctly explain wherein consists this swallowing up of the Humane Nature according to the Eutychiens I know not what elucidations he may one day give us but if they be no better then what he now tells us they will
suppose without proof It appears on the contrary that they have taken it for the Substance it self with it's Proprieties Gelas Episc Rom. advers Eutych Nest ibid. If the humane Substance say's Gelasius has ceased to be the Humanity having been transfused or intirely changed into the Divinity as they imagine it follows that the humane form having no longer it 's proper Subject has ceased to be likewise And in another place of the same Treatise If they do not deny say's he that Jesus Christ was real man it follows he remained naturally in the Propriety of his Substance for otherwise he would not be real man Vigil Lib. 5. contra Eutych When you say say's Vigilius that the Word and Flesh are but one only Substance it seems that you insinuate there are two Persons in our Saviour Christ And a little farther If the Word and the Flesh are one and the same Substance according to your Opinion there would be two Persons one of the Word and the other of the Flesh who would have one and the same common Nature Theodoret disputes in the same manner against them by supposing they affirmed that the Humane Substance was swallowed up by the Divinity and he concludes his Argument taken Theodoret Dial. 2. from the Eucharist in these words The Body then of Jesus Christ keeps it's first Form Figure Circumscription and in a word it has the Substance of a Body Euthym. Parop Tit. 20. Euthymius hereupon relates a passage of St. Mâ—ximus which expresly asserts that Eutyches confessed the Unity of the two Natures but denyed they differed Du Perron of the Euch. Lib. 2. C. 12. in Essence introducing a confusion of Natures Even Cardinal Perron himself altho a great Zealot for Transubstantiation acknowledged this truth that the Eutychiens held the humane Substance ceased to be in our Lord Jesus Christ For he say's that the Orthodox Christians maintained against the Hereticks that this Substance remained because the Form Figure and Circumscription of Body which could not be in our Saviour Christ without the natural Substance was to be found in him Whosoever believes Mr. Arnaud must acknowledge the World has been grosly mistaken in imagining that the Eutychiens abolished the Humane Substance in our Saviour Christ when they say'd the created Nature was swallowed up in the Abyss of the Divinity whereas according to him by the term of Nature they meant only the Natural Proprieties And it must be moreover acknowledged that the Eutychiens have been to this day very blind in not discovering this mistake in the Orthodox Christians and very uncharitable in not indeavouring to undeceive them by a means which would cost them so little But to speak better It must be acknowledged that Mr. Arnaud is no such great enemy to Equivocations for when he has need of them he can well dispence with them how terrible and dreadful soever he has made them in other occasions wherein he believed it was his interest to establish there could not be any such between the Latins and Greeks IV. AS to what he tells us concerning the Gayanites from the Relation Lib. 5. C. 6. P. 455. of Anastasius Sinaite that they did howsoever acknowledge we receive in the Communion the very Body and Blood of Jesus Christ the Son of God incarnate and born of the H. Virgin Mary the Mother of God there is far greater reason to say that by this Body they meant a Mystery which represented the Body swallowed up by the Divinity than to say they meant his very Substance For if what Mr. Arnaud say's of them be true that they were Eutychiens farthest off from the Catholicks in their Opinions we now saw that the Eutychiens believed not that this Substance subsisted distinct from the Divinity Why then shall we not expound what Anastasius Sinaite makes the Gayanites say by what good and considerable Authors relate of the Eutychiens rather than to give the lye to these Authors and correct what they say by the Discourse of such an impertinent Person as Anastasius whom Mr. Arnaud himself has been forced to despise in citing him as appears by what we have seen in the preceding Book THUS have I refuted Mr. Arnaud's first Answer Let us see whether there be any more Strength in his second It consists in maintaining Lib. 5. C. 6. P. 456. that the greatest part of the Armenians were but half Eutychiens that is to say they did not in any wise admit the confusion of Natures that they condemned Eutyches and that their Error consisted only in their refusing to use the Expression of the two Natures asserting our Saviour had but one THIS is a Question of fact which must be decided by the Testimony of Authors We shall see hereafter who are those that Mr. Arnaud alledges in his favour We must only here observe that he unjustly exclaims against Euthymius Zigabenius a Greek Monk and one Isaac a Catholick of Armenia who have attributed plainly and harmlesly the Error of Eutyches to the Armenians So that at present we shall lay aside the Authority of these two Persons seeing he is pleased to except against them and betake our selves to other Witnesses for the ending of this difference Here are others then which are not to be contemned whether we regard their number or quality The first is a Greek Author named St. Nicon who lived in the seventh Century There is in the Bibliotheca Patrum a Letter or a St. Nicon Epist ad Euchistium Bibl. Patr. Tom. 3. edit 4. Treatise of his under the Title De pessimorum Armeniorum pessima Religione He exactly enough describes in it the Errors of this Nation and amongst others mentions this that they hold the confusion of the two Natures of Jesus Christ in the Union Itidem say's he in duarum Christi Naturarum Unione confusionem decernunt He say's likewise they hold the Divine Nature is passible that being fallen into the Error of the Aphtartodocites they believe the Trinity has suffered and altho they durst not openly explain themselves yet they do plainly intimate it by the things they do for they take three Crosses and fastning them to a Stake call this the Holy Trinity Now here is according to Mr. Arnaud a third Impostor that falsly accuses the Armenians to believe the confusion of Natures He must be excluded as well as Eutychus and Isaac but if Mr. Arnaud continues in this captious humor he will never want exceptions against Authors TO Nicon we must add Nicephorus Callistus a famous Historian amongst the Greeks who speaking of these same Armenians refers the original of their Heresie to one Jacob the Author of the Sect of the Jacobites and adds sometimes they say the word assumed an incorruptible Body uncreated heavenly impassible subtile which is not of the same Substance with ours yet has all the Accidents of Flesh in appearance and after Nicephor Cal. hist Eccles Lib. 18. C. 53. the manner of
Eutyches and Dioscorus and Severus and Timotheus Aylurus and in general all those that have opposed this Council This Discourse plainly shews that this good Patriarch was a little Jesuitical and did not make it a case of Conscience to Act a Deceitful part in his Council much less in his Church But 't is likewise Easy to gather hence that the sentiment which he in the beginning proposed in his Letter to the Emperour and which occasioned all this intrigue was not that of his Church but his own particular for had the difference between the Armenians and Greeks consisted only in the use of some terms as Mr. Arnaud tells us it did there would have been no need of Stratagem to effect this design It would have been sufficient to shew plainly that it was but an Equivocation a mis-understanding or at most but a question concerning words which must not hinder the effects of Christian Charity Neither was there any Necessity of promising the Emperours Deputy that there should be inserted in this new confession of Faith an express Article containing the Condemnation of Eutyches and Dioscorus if in effect the Armenians followed not their Opinions IT appears then from what I have said that Eutymius and Isaac were neither Impostors nor Calumniators when they attributed to the Armenians the Heresie of Eutyches and said their belief was that our Saviour Christ had no real Humane Nature but that his Humanity was swallowed up or changed into the Divine Nature After the deposition of those Authors I mentioned there can be no reason for the calling in question a thing so certain now it hence manifestly follows that the Armenians cannot hold the Transubstantiation of the Latins that is to say the conversion of Bread into the substance of the Body of Christ seeing they hold our Saviour has no longer a Body and all Mr. Arnauds exceptions are vain and to no purpose CHAP. III. The Testimony of some Authors who expresly say or suppose that the Armenians hold not Transubstantiation ALTHO the Proof I already Alledged in the preceding Chapter decides the question and needs not to be confirmed by others yet will we here produce the Testimony of several Authors of good credit that unanimously assert the Armenians do not hold Transubstantiation nor the real presence THE First is Guy Carmus who assures us of it in express terms The Guido Carmel suma de Heres de Her Arm. Cap. 12. Twenty second Error says he of the Armenians consists in their not believing that after the consecration is performed by the words of our Saviour Christ pronounced on the Bread and Wine the Body of Jesus Christ is truly and really contained under the species of Bread and Wine but they hold they are only so by resemblance and figure saying that our Saviour Christ did not Transubstantiate the Bread and Wine into his real Body and Blood but established them only as a resemblance and figure And in another place Arguing against their Opinion The Armenians says he have no Salvo for the truth of these words which they themselves utter in the Canon of their Mass to wit and that they may be made the real Body and Blood of Jesus Christ They thus expound them the true Body that is to say the true resemblance of the Body but this exposition will not pass because the true resemblance of the Body of Jesus Christ is not the true Body of Jesus Christ as the Image of a Man is not a real Man Man is the true Image and resemblance of God but he is not true God by Nature if then this be only the resemblance and not the truth or the true Body of Christ as the Armenians falsly say it cannot be called the true Body The Author of the Perpetuity and Mr. Arnaud reject this testimony ask e'm why they can give you no other reason but this That they believe Guy Carmes was mistaken 'T is indeed my Opinion that we must not decide questions of this importance by the Testimony of some particular Persons who may deceive others or be deceiv'd themselves But as to Guy Carmes what likelyhood is there that a Religious who was all his life time devoted to the interests of the Roman Church and often employed by the Pope upon several Occasions as a most trusty Servant and moreover a Person of good parts and considerable Learning in those Days being Prior General also of his order Inquisitor General of the faith and Bishop of Majorca in the Balearian Isles and wrote of the Armenians in a Book which he made concerning Heresies what likelyhood is there he should write a thing so positively and clearly that the Armenians deny the real presence were he not well assured of it What advantage could he expect by imputing falsly to a whole Church an Opinion which he himself held to be a Damnable Error and that at the same time wherein the Romans that persecuted in the West those who were in this point of the same judgment and why would he give this advantage against Truth to those deem'd Hereticks It is moreover to be observ'd that Guy Carmes flourished under the Popedom of John 22 that is to say in an Age wherein all the East was overspread with Emissarys and especially Armenia Raynald ad ann 13. 18. whose King Ossinius embraced the Roman Religion receiv'd the Preachers which the Pope sent him for the Instruction of his People and set up Schools thoughout all parts of Armenia to teach the Religion and Language of the Latins It was then no difficult matter for a Person in those circumstances wherein Guy Carmes was who undertook to give an account of divers Heresies to inform himself exactly what were the Opinions of the Armenians THE Author of the Perpetuity to get clear from this Testimony bethought Perp. of the faith part 3. Ch. 8. himself to say that Guy Carmes was the only Author that accused them of not agreeing with the Roman Church in the subject of Transubstantiation Despensus Alphonsus de Castro say'd the same before him and 't is likely he grounded himself on their testimony But so confident an assertion deserved well perhaps to be examined before it be taken up and the Authority of two prejudic'd Persons ought not to be of so great weight with him but that he ought to have considered whether what they say be true Mr. Arnaud has bin a little more circumspect than the Author of the Perpetuity I will not dissemble says he that several Authors as well Catholicks as Hereticks have accused the Armenians for not believing the real presence Guy Carmes expresly imputes to them this Error Prateolus says the same thing because he coppys Guy Carmes his Words We shall soon see that Prateolus is not the only Person that has followed Guy Carmes It is sufficient to Remark here that Mr. Arnaud has believed the Author of the Perpetuitys Thesis was not justifyable and therefore has chose rather of his
his own interest and cites the Persons from whom he learnt what he tells us MR. Arnaud has soon forgotten what he wrote on this same subject Chap. 8. first Edition in his first Edition We may well admire say's he that Mr. Claude who is wont to propose slight Objections should omit one which is very considerable in appearance and enough to startle People because the solution of it is so hard to be found that we cannot justly reproach him if he be ignorant of it The Objection is that we meet with this passage in a Translation of Herbert ' s Voyages That the Armenians deny the real presence of the Body of Christ It seems there can be nothing replyed to so clear a passage and that this Author who tells us what he learnt from the Inhabitants themselves of those Countrys as well as Mr. Olearius may at least weaken his Authority WHENCE I pray comes this so manifest a contrariety of judgment As long as the pretended Imposture of the Translator continues in Mr. Arnaud's thoughts Herbert's Authority is weighty and sufficient to startle People the solution of it is difficult and it seems there can be nothing replyed to so plain a passage But so soon as this pretended Imposture vanishes then 't is we matter not the Testimony of Herbert and judicious Persons ought not to credit it Before he was an Author who speaks what he learnt from the Inhabitants themselves thro whose Countrys he passed Now he is a Person that to enlarge his Book has in his Second Edition added what he pleases Before he was an Author who may well weaken the Authority of Mr. Olearius now he is a Calvinist in no wise comparable with a Lutheran such as Mr. Olearius What is this but a sporting with Authors extolling 'um depressing them and making 'um good or bad according as Mr. Arnaud's Occasions require 'T is plain he wants an object to exercise his wâ—ath on if it be not the Translator it must then be the Author and when the living escapes him then the Dead must pay for 't Who told Mr. Arnaud that what Mr. Herbert relates in his Second Edition is not what he Learnt from the Inhabitants themselves thro whose Countrys he travelled but Excerptions from Breerewood He dared not mention say's he from whom he learnt what he relates If this be sufficient to invalidate the Testimony of Travellers we can be certain in nothing they tell us touching the manners of People and their Religions for it seldom happens that Travellers denote the Persons from whom they have bin inform'd and if they be unfaithful in respect of the things they tell us they may be as well so in reference to the naming of Persons MR. Herbert was a Person of Quality deservedly Honourable both for his Learning and Integrity He has viewed whatsoever was worth his Observation both in Asia and Affrica and carefully denoted the manners and Religions of People writing nothing till such time as he was well informed of the Truth of it What means Mr. Arnaud then thus to attack his Memory and tells us that a Person thus qualifyed has copyed out from Breerewood that is to say from a Scholar who perhaps never travelled farther than his own Country CHAP. V. Mr. Arnaud ' s Proofs touching the Armenians examin'd BUT here are say's Mr. Arnaud certain and positive Proofs which shew that the Armenians have ever effectually believed both one Lib. 5. C. 6. p. 457. and the other Point and that there is no reason to accuse them of denying the real Presence or Transubstantiation Which we shall now Examine in this Chapter HIS first Proof is taken from the Testimony of Lanfranc who disputing against Berengarius say's that the Greeks and Armenians and generally all Christians hold the same faith as the Roman Church But Mr. Ibid. Arnaud has not considered that Lanfranc do's not directly impute Transubstantiation either to the Armenians or Greeks he imputes it to 'um only by a Consequence drawn from their glorying all of 'um that they receive in the Sacrament the real Body and real Blood of Jesus Christ taken from the Virgin Now we have seen as well by the Relation of Carmes as from the Information of Benedict that the Armenians gave this expression a sence wholly contrary to Lanfranc's Consequence so that this Proof has bin already invalidated by the Testimony of the Armenians themselves THE Second is taken from the Berengarians never alledging they were of the sentiment of the Armenians or any other Eastern Church Yet was it impossible but they must know what was their Opinion seeing that Persons Voyaged from all parts of Europe into the East and this would have bin a specious pretence to the Henricians and Albingenses to avoid the rigour of those punishments they underwent But to discover the weakness of this reasoning we need only remember that in the 14 Century under John XXII Benedict XII and Clement VI. it was held in the West for an undoubted truth that the Armenians denyed Transubstantiation and the real Presence as we have already seen in the foregoing Chapter That 't was the unanimous Report of the Armenians themselves who were in the Court of Rome and of the Latins which had bin in Armenia Yet altho the Disciples of Berengarius were rigorously persecuted in that age we do not find they ever justifyed themselves by the example of the Armenians nor that the Court of Rome handled them less severely upon the account of this conformity We find on the contrary their adversaries have reproached them with following the Heresie of these Eastern People as appears by what I have already related concerning the disputes of Thomas Waldensis against Wicliff so that that was objected against them as a Crime which Mr. Arnaud would have them make use of for an Apology THE III. and IV. Proof are no more conclusive than the two first Ibid. p. 459. They contain that Gregory VII marking in particular the Errors which the Armenians ought to condemn to the end they might be received into the Communion of the Church makes no mention of any Error against the real Presence and Transubstantiation That in the year 1145. The Patriarch and Bishops of Armenia sent Embassadors to Pope Eugenius II. to render him all kind of Submission and make him judge of the differences which they had with the Greeks That if this Pope had believed they were in the Error of Berengarius he would not have bin contented to instruct them in the Ceremonies of the Church and manner of Celebrating the Sacrifice That Othon of Frisinga who relate this History would never have concealed so important a circumstance I answer that Gregory VII Baron ad con 114. particularizes only four Errors for which he Censures the Armenians I. That they mix no water with their Wine in the Chalice II. That they compound the Chream with Butter and not with Balm III. That they reverence Dioscorus
IV. did in the Council of Florence when he gave his instructions to the Armenians was to oblige them to receive the Symbol with the addition of the Filioque Besides this Gerlac's Patriarch expresly declares he holds the Doctrine of the Ubiquity that is to say of the presence of the Humane Nature in Jesus Christ wheresoever the Divinity is which is not the real belief of the Armenians as we have already sufficiently proved Gerlac adds That they acknowledge the Roman Prelate to be the Head of the Universal Church which is not true as appears as well by the information of Benedict as by the Testimony of several other Authors 'T is moreover apparent that his affirming them to believe the Substantial Presence of the Body of Jesus Christ in the Sacrament is only grounded on this pretended Doctrine of the Ubiquity which grants this Body to be every where and by Consequence in the Sacrament And as to Transubstantiation he do's not absolutely impute it to 'em but say's they seem to admit of it videntur say's he Transubstantiationem probare Let the reader judge whether this Translation be faithful It appears is an expression which gives the idea of a thing clear and evident whereas every one knows that the videtur of the Latins which Answers our English word It seems gives the Idea of a thing which has the likelyhood and colour but which is not absolutely out of doubt of a thing which we may think to be true but of which we have no certainty 'T is likely Gerlac grounded his videntur on the General Term to change which the Armenian Patriarch made use of but in effect this Term do's not signify a Transubstantiation and 't was only Gerlac's prejudice which perswaded him it did THE same prejudice may be observed in Mr. Olearius as appears from his own words I was informed say's he by the Patriarch of Armenia who visited us at Schamachia a City of Media that the Armenians held Transubstantiation Now believing Transubstantiation that is to say the change of Bread and Wine into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ 't is not to be questioned but they hold the true and real Presence His Authority in reference to the Armenians is only grounded on a that is to say as it was in respect of the Moscovites If you deny his explanation his Testimony signifies nothing AS to the attestations which Mr. Arnaud produces of Hacciadour the Patriarch of the Armenians reunited to the Roman Church and who is now at Rome where Mr. Arnaud tells us he has taken care to have him consulted and of Uscanus Vardapet an Armenian Bishop who was not long since at Amsterdam we know very well there 's little heed to be given to these sort of People testimony who never come into the Western parts but upon the Account of some Temporal interest and never fail to Answer as you would have them The Latins and the Popes themselves have bin often deceiv'd and if I may not be believed let Anthony de Goureau an Emissary of the Mission of Hispaham be consulted who in the History he wrote concerning the reduction of the Armenians of Persia tells us that altho in the Union made in the Council of Florence the Armenians reunited themselves and the greatest part of the Greek Church Anthony de Goureau's Relation Book 3. Ch. 3. likewise yet these People proceeded not with that fervour and diligence which was requisit in a matter of that importance on the contrary they were so little mindfull of it thro the malice or negligence of their Prelats that I do not find amongst them the least sign of this reduction nor any thing which this Council decreed nor Obedience thereunto recommended There is no mention of it in their Books and Traditions And I wonder that John Laurens of Anania in his Universal Fabrick should say that the Armenians almost in General have lately received the determinations of the Trent Council seeing not so much as the name of it was scarce ever heard by the Bishops or Patriarch nor have they altered any of their Customs either good or bad for this many Ages But perhaps this Author was informed of this by some Armenians passing throughout Europe or that dwell therein upon the account of Trade who for the most part return answers according to the desires of those that ask 'um and that they may not fail therein do very often speak contrary to truth which the Bishops and Prelates of these Schismaticks who come to Rome often do to gratifie the Pope promising their Flocks shall yield Obedience to him but at their return home they soon forget their engagements Let any one then judge of what weight the attestations of these People are and whether the Discourses of Hacciadour and Vardapet are to be preferred before so many other convincing Testimonies which assert the contrary of what they affirm CHAP. VI. Of the Nestorians Maronites Jacobites Copticks and Aethiopians That they hold not Transubstantiation WEE shall treat in this Chapter of the other Eastern Sects that profess the Christian Religion Mr. Arnaud Lib. 5. C. 10. p. 491. pretends they all of 'um hold the real Presence and Transubstantiation AS to the Nestorians he grounds his Opinion concerning them on the silence of Ancient and Modern Authors who never told us the Nestorians differ from the Church of Rome in this particular He adds that the Emissaries sent by the Pope into these countrys to endeavour their reduction to the Obedience of the Roman See never discovered any thing to make 'um suspect the Faith of the Nestorians touching the Eucharist He say's in fine that when the Nestorians reunited themselves to the Church of Rome they were never required to make any particular declaration of their belief in reference to the Eucharist BUT as to what respects the silence of Authors we have already answer'd in the case of the Moscovits that they do only chiefly observe those points which are expresly controverted between the other Churches and the Roman descending not so far as to particularize all other matters which these Churches do or do not hold THE same may be said touching the silence of the Emissaries The Emissaries have contented themselves in mentioning those Errors from which they have freed the Nestorians without mentioning the new Doctrines which they have taught 'um and this indeed concludes they have not bin obliged to introduce Transubstantiation amongst these People by way of dispute being a Point against which the Nestorians were prejudic'd but this do's not hinder them from being oblig'd to bring it in by way of instruction as being a Doctrine not comprised in their Ancient Religion and which they ought now to receive to the end they may become conformable to the Roman Church WHICH justifies it self by the conduct of the Popes themselves who have sent the Emissaries for they ever recommended to them this profession of Faith which we have so often already mention'd
and which expresly contains the Article of Transubstantiation in these terms Sacramentum Eucharistiae ex azymo conficit Romana Ecclesia tenens et docens quod in ipso Sacramento Panis verè Transubstantiatur in Corpus Vinum in Sanguinem Domini nostri Jesu Christi The Roman Church Celebrates the Sacrament with Unleavened Bread holding and teaching that in this Sacrament the Bread is really Transubstantiated into the Body and the Wine into the Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ THE Popes have ever earnestly recommended to the Missionaries the instructing of the Nestorians and other Eastern Christians according to this Formulary They have sent it to the Nestorian Proselyte Bishops enjoyning 'um to have it continually in their minds and to teach it their People as we may see in Raynaldus In the profession of Faith which Raynaldus ad ann 1445. Timotheus a Nestorian Arch-Bishop of the Isle of Cyprus made in the year 1445. not long after the Council of Florence he was made to say that he confessed and approved of the Seven Sacraments of the Roman Church and Raynaldus ad ann 1445. of the manner after which she holds teaches and Preaches them And in the Reunion made in the year 1583. of certain Nestorian Christians of St. Thomas whom the Portugaises found in the Kingdoms of Cochin Coulan and Cranganor Du Jarric observes their Arch-Bishop was Du Jarric's History of the East Indias caused to profess what the Council of Florence had decreed touching the Doctrine which must be held concerning the Sacraments He means without doubt that which was set down in the Instruction given to the Armenians in which we see the Article of Transubstantiation All which shews us they well knew the Necessity there was of introducing Transubstantiation into the Nestorian Church to make it conformable to the Roman whence 't is not difficult to conclude that this Doctrine was not establisht in it before IN effect had the Emissaries and other travellers into these Countrys found the belief of the Substantial Conversion established in them 't is not to be doubted but they would have proclaimed it to the World and made this a Proof of the Antiquity of that Article Mr. Arnaud would not have bin reduced to the Necessity of drawing a Proof from their silence seeing they would have positively declared they found these People imbued with this sentiment that the substance of Bread is changed into the proper Substance of the Body of Jesus Christ The Popes would have loudly Gloryed in it and certainly there would have bin some Body or other that would have taken Notice of the contradictions of the Protestants in Europe but instead of this neither the Popes nor Emissaries make mention of this pretended conformity and Mr. Arnaud Philosophises upon their not charging the Nestorians with their being Calvinists and upon some passages of their Liturgies which are very uncertain and which at bottom are of no consideration in respect of our difference LEONTIUS of Byzanejus recites a Discourse concerning these Nestorians from whence we may easily gather their Opinion touching the Bread of the Eucharist They were very earnest according to his Relation Leontius Biz advers Nest Eutych Lib. 3. Bibl. patr tom 4. with an Orthodox Christian to communicate with them and this Person telling them he could not have Communion at the same time with the Catholick Church and theirs they answered him that this need not trouble him because the Bread which is proposed as a Type of the Body of Jesus Christ contains a greater blessing than that sold in the market or the Bread which the Philomarianites offered in the name of Mary 'T is apparently seen these are not the expressions of Persons that believe the real Presence which the Roman Church holds This shews they acknowledged no other effect from the Consecration than that of a Vertue of Benediction or Grace and 't is also very Remarkable that in this Discourse they do not give any other title to the Bread of the Sacrament than that of the Type of the Body of Jesus Christ in which they follow the expression of Apud Cyrill alex. contra Nest Lib. 4. Cap. 6. See the Eight Chapter wherein are several passages of the Liturgy of the Nestorians and Indians Lib. 5. C. 12. p. 508. Nestorius himself the Author of their Sect who speaking of the Bread of the Eucharist say's that the Body of Jesus Christ is the Original of it which is as much as to say that the Bread is a figure which represents this Body And thus far concerning the Nestorians AS to the Maronites their profession of Obedience since so long a time to the See of Rome receiving their Patriarchs from the Pope do's evidently exclude them from this dispute Yet we cannot but observe how little exact Mr. Arnaud is when designing to shew that the Maronites believed Transubstantiation and the real Presence even before their Reunion to the Roman Church say's that Thomas a Jesu mentions an extract made by the Popes Legats of the bad Propositions they found in the Books of the Maronites amongst which they comprehend the different Ceremonys such as Comunicating of both kinds giving the Communion to Children Yet in this Catalogue of suspected Propositions there 's not one relating to the Eucharist 'T is certain Mr. Arnaud is mistaken having perused this extract a little carelesly for otherwise he would have observed three Propositions which evidently shew that these People did not believe Transubstantiation nor yet the Substantial Presence The first is That our Saviour Christ dipt the Bread he gave to Judas to ' the end he might thereby take off the Consecration Christus intinxit Panem quem erat Judae porrecturus ad Consecrationem tollendam We have already observed that this Errour must be grounded on this Principle that the Bread is a Subject that receives Grace as a quality which imprints its self in its Substance and which may be effaced in washing the Bread For what likelyhood is there had they believed that the effect of the Consecration was to change the Substance of Bread into that of the Body of Jesus Christ that in dipping the Bread the Substance of the Body of Jesus Christ would be washed off THE II. Proposition which the Legats expunged out of the Maronites Books was That when we receive the Eucharist it Descends not into the Stomach but immediately disperses it self to every member of our Body This Proposition was deem'd Heretical and in effect we cannot believe that the matter of the Sacrament disperses its self to all the Members of our Body without supposing it to be the Substance of Bread there being too many absurdities to make the proper Substance of Christs Body pass into the Substance of our Flesh Yet this Sentiment is grounded on the Doctrine of Damascene who expresly asserts That the Sacrament passes Damascen Lib. 4. de fide Orthodox C. 14 into the Substance of our
express themselves in such a manner much less can they desire of him to send down his Holy Spirit on them for as soon as ever 't is conceived to be the proper Body and Blood of our Lord in the sence wherein the Latins understand it 't is believed there is a fulness of the Holy Spirit in them I cannot but here relate what Mr. Faucheur has observed touching the Egyptian Liturgy commonly called St. Gregory's by which will appear that the complaints we make concerning these pieces are not without cause The Egyptian Liturgy say's he attributed to St. Gregory imports I offer to thee O Lord the SYMBOLS OF MY RANSOM For Faucheur on the Lords Supper Book 3. C. 6. there is in the Egyptian NICYMBOLON that is to say 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as I have bin informed by Mr. Saumaise who has an ancient Manuscript of it and not as Victor Scialach a Maronite of Mount Libanus has Translated it who being of the Seminary at Rome designed by a Notorions falsity to favour the cause of our Adversaries praecepta liberationis meae BUT besides this way of corrupting the Liturgies by false Translations it is moreover true that when these Levantine Christians were Reunited as they often have bin with the Latins the Latins never fail'd to examine their Books and take out of 'um whatsoever they found therein contrary to the Doctrine of the Church of Rome for example there has bin inserted in the Bibliotheca Patrum the Liturgy of the Nestorian Christians of Mallabar but under this title corrected and cleansed from the Errors and Blasphemies of the Nestorians by the Illustrious and Reverend My Lord Alexius Menenses Arch-Bishop of Missa Christian apud Indos Bibl. patr tom 6. ed. 4. Ibid bibl patr tom 6. Goa Victor Scialach in his Letter to Velserus on the Egyptian Liturgies called St. Basil's Gregorie's and Cyril's say's that the new Manuscripts have bin corrected by the order of the Holy Roman Church into whose Bosom as into that of a real Mother the Church of Alexandria has lately returned under the Popedom of Clement VIII THERE 's all the likelyhood in the World that this Clause which appears in the Egyptian Liturgies of St. Basil and Gregory of Victor Schialch's Translation and from which Mr. Arnaud pretends to make advantage is an Addition made thereunto by the Latins in some one of these Reunions for if we examine it well we shall easily find that 't is a confession of the reality of the Humane Nature in Jesus Christ which is a confession directly opposite to the Error of the Copticks who only acknowledge the Divine Nature OBSERVE here the terms It is the sacred and everlasting Body and the real Blood of Jesus Christ the Son of God Amen it is really the Body of the Emmanuel Ibid. our God Amen I Believe I Believe I Believe and will confess till the last breath of my Life that this is the living Body which thy only Son our Lord God and Saviour Jesus Christ took from the most holy and most pure Mary the Mother of God our common Lady and which he joyned to his Divinity without conversion mixture or confusion I make the pure confession which he made before Pontius Pilate he gave his Body for us on the Cross by his own will He has really assumed this Body for us I believe that the Humanity was never seperate from the Divinity no not a Moment and that he gave his Body to purchase Salvation Remission of Sins and eternal life for all those that shall believe in him There needs no great study to find that the design of this whole Prayer is to confess the Truth of the Mystery of the Incarnation and the reality of the Humane Nature in Jesus Christ and that these words without conversion mixture or confusion are precisely those which have bin ever opposed against the Heresy of the Eutichiens with which the Copticks are tainted Whereupon we cannot doubt but that this is an addition of the Latins who in reuniting these People to themselves have inserted in their very Liturgy several Clauses expresly contrary to their old Error that they might the more absolutely bring them off from it LET not Mr. Arnaud then any longer glory in these Eastern Liturgies for if we had 'um pure and sincere I do not question but we should find several things in 'um that do not well agree with the Belief of the Substantial Presence nor with that of Transubstantiation Neither has he reason to brag of the general Consent of all the Churches call'd Schismatical with which pretence he would dazle the Eyes of the World Upon a thro consideration of what we have so farrepresented to him whether in respect of the Greeks or other Christian Churches he must acknowledge he has overshot himself and bin too rash in his Affirmations on this Subject Which I believe I have evidently discover'd and in such a manner as nothing can be alledged against it I dare assure him he will find in this dispute no Sophisms on my part Having proceeded faithfully and sincerely in it I have taken things as they lye in their Natural order I have offered nothing but upon good grounds from Testimonies for the most part taken out of Authors that are Roman Catholicks I have never taken Mr. Arnaud's words as I know of in any other sence than in that wherein he meant them I have followed him step by step as far as good order would permit me I have exactly answered him without weakning his Arguments or Proofs or passing by any thing considerable In fine I have not offered any thing but what I my self before was convinced and perswaded to be true and I am much mistaken if I have not reduced matters to that clearness that others will be no less perswaded of what I say than my self CHAP. VII Mr. Arnaud's 8 th Book touching the Sentiment of the Latins on the Mystery of the Eucharist since the year 700. till Paschasius's time examined THE order of the dispute requires that having refuted as I have done the pretended Consent of all the Eastern Churches with the Latin in the Doctrines of the Substantial Presence and Transubstantiation I should now apply my self to the examination of what Mr. Arnaud alledges touching the Latins themselves from the 7 th Century till Paschasius's time exclusively that is to say till towards the beginning of the Ninth And this is the design of the greatest part of his 8 th Book and which shall be the greatest part of this of mine BUT not to amuse the Reader with fruitless matters 't is necessary to lay aside the first of his Proofs which is only a Consequence drawn from the belief of the Greek Church with which the Latin remain'd United during those Centuries whence Mr. Arnaud would infer that the Latin Church has believed Transubstantiation and the real Presence seeing the Greek Church has held these Doctrines as he pretends to have
the Sacrament of the Eucharist several Passages of the Old Testament which might be easily made to point at it and which several Doctors of the Roman Church at this day do in effect make to relate unto Transubstantiation It will not be found they have taken several Terms in the Sence wherein they must be taken upon the Supposition of Species for Accidents without a Subject of Spiritually to denote an Existence after the manner of a Spirit of the Vail of the Sacrament or Figure of Bread to signifie a bare Appearance of Bread that covers the Substance of the Body of Jesus Christ of Corporeal Presence for a Presence after the manner of a Body by Opposition to the Presence of this same Body after the manner of a Spirit It is plainly seen they have forced and exaggerated the Expressions of the Scripture on the Subject of Baptism the Church the Poor the Gospel at least as vehem ently as those that are to be met with in the Scripture touching the Eucharist We shall not find they have made on the Subject of the Sacrament either the Distinctions Observations or Questions which Persons prepossessed with the belief of the Conversion of Substances ought necessarily to have made without being obliged thereunto by Disputes Nor in a word the proper and inseparable Consequences of this Doctrine but on the contrary several things exactly contrary to it Now this is what I call Analogy or Relation which the parts of a Religion have with one another and against which I say 't is not Rational to prejudicate 'T IS certain we ought not only not to prejudicate against all these things but on the contrary predetermine in their favour seeing the prejudice which all these things form is so strong that we must have on the other side a very great Evidence to surmount it Especially if we examine the Centuries that preceded the seventh whereunto likewise may be applied the same Observations which I now made whence arise the like Prejudices in respect of those Ages and this Pejudice joyning it self to that which we have established touching the Seventh and Eighth Centuries do only fortify it yet more TO all which we may add that there is to speak morally a kind of Contradiction between the parts of Mr. Arnaud's Supposition He would have us imagine the Church of the Seventh and following Ages firmly believed the real Presence and Conversion of Substances altho these Doctrines were never disputed of therein nor so much as questioned But 't is very improbable the Church remain'd Seven or Eight hundred years without any Contest touching this Article supposing she held it There have bin in this Interval of time several Controversies touching the principal Points of the Christian Religion on Articles against which Nature do's less rise than against that of which we speak and which moreover are found clearly established in the Word of God How comes it to pass there has bin none on this There have bin even several Disputes in which there has bin occasion of mentioning the Doctrines of the real Presence and Transubstantiation which could not be without some Contest on this Subject Such were the Controversies of the Valentinians Marcionites Manichees Millenaries Encratites Arians Originists Eutychiens Ascodrupites and of I know not how many others which must unavoidably produce Debates on the Eucharist had the Belief which the Roman Church has at this day bin then introduced into Christianity It being then certain as it is that the Church was in peace in this respect during all these Centuries 't is a token that the Doctrines in question were therein unknown and this very Consideration overthrows Mr. Arnaud's Prejudice and confirms ours MR. Arnaud will say without doubt we must suppose the Church of the seventh and eighth Centuries to be in the same Condition wherein lay that of the eleventh which condemned the Doctrine of Berenger But besides that there are several things which may be alledged concerning this Condemnation it not being true then men believed constantly and universally Transubstantiation nor the real Presence as may be justified by several Inductions there being no likelyhood in the first Condemnations of Berenger Transubstantiation was established seeing 't was established in the Council of Rome held under Nicolas II. wherein he was condemned for the fifth time according to the Authors of the Office of the Holy Sacrament as we have already observed 't is an apparent Illusion to design the grounding of any Prejudication on this seeing we find in the ninth Century a formal Contest which arose on this Subject and that even this makes the principal Point of ouâ— Difference to wit whether there has hapned any change therein Before then the Condition of the eleventh Century can be made to serve for a Principle to conclude from thence the Condition of the seventh and eigth the Question concerning the Change must be first decided for whilst we be in this Contest there can be no Consequence drawn hence It would be a very pleasant thing for a man to prejudicate against the Change which we pretend by the seventh and eighth Century as believing Transubstantiation and at the same time to prejudicate for Transubstantiation in the seventh and eighth Centuries because 't was believed in the eleventh which is to say to draw the Principle from the Conclusion and then the Conclusion from the Principle in saying on one hand that Transubstantiation was believed in the eleventh Century because 't was believed in the Seventh and in the Eigth and on the other that 't was believed in the seventh and in the eighth because 't was believed in the Eleventh LET Mr. Arnaud then if he pleases make another System for all this great preparation of Observations and Propositious falls to the ground assoon as ever we deny him the Supposition he made and shewed him the injustice and unreasonableness of it As to this pretended contrariety of the Language of Sence with that of Faith 't is a thing we have already confuted Should our Senses take upon 'um to tell us the Eucharist was only Bread and Wine or mere Bread and Wine our Faith would not bear this Language This is not the Language of the Church But when our Senses only tell us 't is Bread and Wine this Language is in truth different from that of Faith which tells us 't is the Body of Jesus Christ but 't is not contrary to it for Faith receives and approves it in the manner wherein the Senses conceive it which is to say 't is real Bread and real Wine in a litteral sence and without a figure That which you have seen on the Altar say's St. Augustin and after him Bede an Author of the eighth Contury is Bread and Augus serm ad Infunt Wine and this your Eyes tell you but the instruction which your Faith requires is that the Bread is the Body of Jesus Christ and the Cup his Blood So that here we have
the Church of those Ages pretended when she applyed to the Eucharist the term of the Body of Jesus Christ for she designed only to attribute the name of the thing it self to the sacred sign it represents and there 's no likelihood that Authors of those times that made so scrupulous a profession to follow S. Austin even to the copying out his Writings to insert them in their own in proper terms as appears from Isidor's Books Bede's Alcuinus I say there 's no likelihood they would forget what their Master had said touching this Mystery the Lord scrupled not to say This is my Body when he gave the Aug. contr Adimant c. 12. sign of his Body 'T IS to no purpose for Mr. Arnaud to urge the words of the Liturgy of Illyricus Proesta Domine Jesu Christe fili Dei vivi ut qui corpus sanguinem Ch. 3. p. 749 750. proprium pro nobis datum edimus bibimus fiat nobis ad salutem ad redemptionis remedium sempiternum omnium criminum nostrorum Which he thus translates O Lord Jesus Christ grant to us that having eaten thy proper Body and drank thy proper Blood which have been given for us howsoever unworthy that this Communion may be to us a spring of Salvation an eternal remedy for the redemption of us from all our crimes Corpus sanguinem proprium do only signifie Corpus sanguinem tuum thy Body and Blood not the Body and Blood of another as the ancient Priests caused to be caten the Body of a Sacrifice different from their own Body For the Son of God who gave his own Body and Blood for us gives us them to eat and drink in this Sacrament nor that our mouths receive their proper substance the Liturgy does not say so but because they receive the signs and tokens of 'um whilst our souls receive this Body it self and Blood spiritually 'T IS moreover in vain that Mr. Arnaud would persuade us these passages of the Liturgies which term the Eucharist the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ do naturally imprint the Idea of a Real Presence To prevent says he Ch. 3. p. 751 752. the peoples mistakes by all these terms of the Body of Jesus Christ the Priests must have continually warn'd them to take notice that by the words of the Body of Jesus Christ the proper Body of Jesus Christ they meant only its figure This sense must have been expresly explained in all the Liturgies and an Officer appointed to make it thus understood by the people for otherwise 't is impossible but they must fall into the opinion of the Real Presence And this effect being necessary and inevitable it ought to have been the chiefest care and business of the Fathers to hinder it had they not themselves been of this opinion ALL this discourse has nothing in it but what may be easily answered We have already sufficiently replyed to it 'T is true this term of the Body of Jesus Christ taken separately imprints immediately the Idea of the natural Body of Jesus Christ but this same term applyed to the Eucharist which both sense and reason shew us to be Bread which Religion makes us comprehend as a mystery that represents the Incarnation and Passion of our Saviour does not naturally from any other I dea than that of the Sacrament of the Body of Jesus Christ There needs no Officer appointed on purpose to give notice of this to the people nor sound of Trumpet to publish it as Mr. Arnaud speaks in another place Sense Reason and the common notions of Religion were Officers sufficient to give this Idea and publish this to be the sense of this term when applyed to the Eucharist When the Scripture in an hundred places has called our Saviour the Sun the day Star from on High the light of the World the true light that enlightneth every man that cometh into the world I do not find that it setled Officers on purpose to give notice that it meant not a corporal Light or Sun but a Mystical one I do not find the Jews employed an Officer to give notice to the people that that Lamb commonly called the Passover that is to say the passage was not really a passage but only the commemoration of a passage S. Paul did not make use of one when he wrote that we are buried with Christ by Baptism that we are made the same plant with him by the conformity of his Death and Resurrection that we are new Creatures that there is a new man formed in us and I know not how many other expressions which are easily understood by the bare consideration of the matter to which they are applyed The Fathers have not employ'd an Officer when they called the poor Jesus Christ Jesus Christ himself the same Jesus Christ that shed his Blood for us who was delivered and put to death for us not his Prophets but he himself Neither have they employed one when they called the Church the Body of Jesus Christ the very Body of Jesus Christ the real Body of Jesus Christ properly the Body of Jesus Christ the undoubted Body of Jesus Christ the Flesh of Jesus Christ Jesus Christ himself not his Vestment but himself nor when they said that we are one and the same person with him the same Body the same substance by Faith that we are transformed into him changed into his Flesh changed into his Body Should Mr. Arnaud's Principle take place the world must have a great many Officers for there 's nothing more common than not only the metaphorical use of these terms but even the exaggeration of them 'T IS moreover in vain that Mr. Arnaud has painfully collected into a Chapter for that purpose whatsoever passages he could find here and there not only amongst the Latines now in question but likewise from amongst the Greeks Copticks Ethiopians Armenians Nestorians which bear that the Eucharist is the very Body of Jesus Christ his proper Body or properly his Body his real Body his true Body I shall reply to this heap of passages in two manners first in general and secondly in particular IN general I say there is not one of these expressions which is sufficient from whence solidly to conclude that those which have made use of them believed the substantial Presence which the Roman Church teaches either because there is not one of 'um but is used on other subjects wherein evidently there 's neither Transubstantiation nor the Real Presence because they are all capable of another sense and that they may have been employed in other respects than that which Mr. Arnaud attributes to them To begin by that of the Body it self of Jesus Christ we now see the Fathers have used this term on occasion of the poor God says Chrysostom Hom. 15. in Rom. has given his Son and you refuse to give bread to HIM HIMSELF who was given for you who was slain for you the Father has not
spared him for your sakes altho he was his only Son and you neglect him altho he dies with hunger And in another place When we give Alms let us give it as to Hom. 89. in Matt. Jesus Christ himself for his Word is more sure than our sight When then you see a poor body remember what he has said that 't is HIMSELF whom you feed For altho that which appears be not Christ yet is it HE HIMSELF that receives and asks under this shape And moreover in another place Somebody perhaps will say to me bring me a Prophet and I will willingly entertain him promise me then this and I will bring you a Prophet what say I a Prophet I will bring you the Master HIMSELF Hom. in Eli. vid. Valerian Hom. 7. of the Prophets Jesus Christ our God our common Lord. Know says Valerian that he whom you see naked blind and crooked is Jesus Christ HIMSELF We have already likewise shewed that this expression is used by the Fathers in the subject of the Church We are not enjoyned says De Sacerd. l. 4. Chrysostom to distribute our Corn or Oats nor to take care of Sheep or Oxen or such like things but to take care of the Body IT SELF of Jesus Christ for the Church of Jesus Christ according to the words of S. Paul is the Body of Jesus Christ S. Austin speaks often to the same effect The Body IT Augustin in Ps 87. Serm. 49. De verb. Dom. SELF of Jesus Christ says he cries out in a Psalm They have assaulted me even from my youth And in another place Behold the charity of our Lord He is now in Heaven and yet is in labour here below when the Church is in affliction Jesus Christ is an hungred and a thirst he is naked a stranger sick a prisoner for he has said he suffers whatsoever his Body suffers and at the end of the world when he shall gather together his Body IT SELF at his right hand c. And again in another place You hold an eminent Serm. 53. De verb. Dom. rank in the Body IT SELF of Jesus Christ not by your Merits but by his Grace Jesus Christ HIMSELF says he in another place that is Sedul lib. 5. oper Pas 6. 13. to say his Body dispersed through the whole world preaches Christ They cease not says Sedulius to rend by their Schisms the Lord Jesus Christ HIMSELF Let us worship says Damascen the sign of the Cross for HE HIMSELF Damas l. 4. de fid Orthod c. 12. Alcuin lib. 2. in Joan. Ether Beat. lib. 1. is there where the sign is His Body IT SELF says Alcuinus in the midst of the afflictions of this world glories and says now my head is exalted above mine enemies The Son is man says Etherius and Beatus he is the Head of his Church which is joyned to this Head and so becomes whole Christ that is to say the Head and the Body one only person AS to the terms of proper and properly we shall find them likewise applied to several subjects wherein we cannot literally understand them Origen expounding those words of our Saviour concerning the Eucharist This is my Body Jesus Christ says he receiving always of his Father this Bread Orig. in Mat. hom 35. and breaking it gives it to his Disciples according to what every one of them is able to receive saying to 'um Take eat and when he fed them with this Bread he shewed that 't was his PROPER BODY SO Hesychius expounding these words of Moses If any one has vowed and consecrated to Hesych in Lev. lib. 7. God the Field of his possession it shall be valued according to the measure of the seed No body doubts says he but the Field is the holy Scripture Jesus Christ is PROPERLY the Vine of this Field and the Father is the Vine dresser Despise not the poor whom you behold on the ground says Greg. Nyss Or. 1. 〈…〉 r. am Gregory of Nysse as if they were vile and abject persons consider rather who they are to know their worth They are cloathed with the person of Jesus Christ For this gracious Lord hath given them his PROPER person Good people says S Austin are properly the Body of Jesus Christ We might produce Aug. con Faust lib. 13. cap. 16. a thousand such like instances for there 's nothing more common in the Fathers than the use of these expressions in passages wherein there is no literal sense THE term proper has several significations 'T is true that sometimes it is opposed against metaphorical or figurative an improper or abusive sense as when we say of an expression that it must be understood in a proper sense that is to say in a literal but it is opposed sometimes to that which is foreign to us which is not ours which belongs not to us as when we say every man takes care of his proper business proper house proper family proper person in opposition to the affairs house and family of others And then we scruple not to joyn this term to other metaphorical ones We say for example of a man that misuses his Children that he tears his own Clemens Alex. Strom. lib. 3. Greg. Nyss Orat. 2. in illud faciamus hominem c. Isidor Pelus Epist lib. 1. Epist 397. proper bowels of a Husband that hates his Wife that he hates his own proper flesh It is in this sense Clement Alexander said The Church was the proper Spouse of Jesus Christ And Gregory of Nysse That God formed our bodies with his proper hand And S. Isidor That the Law baptized with simple water but our Saviour Christ iniates or consecrates us by his proper Blood Sometimes this term is opposed to that of common as when we say to a man that 't is of him we properly speak that 't is properly to him to do such a thing or when we say that 't was properly in such a place or in such a time wherein such a thing hap'ned And then moreover we do not scruple to joyn this term to other figurative terms as when Origen said That God Origen Hom. 1. in Mat. Greg. Nyss hom 7. in Cant. the Father is called properly the fountain of life And Gregory of Nysse That those who at this day take upon 'um the office of Prophets in the body of the Church are properly called the eyes It is certain then Mr. Arnaud can conclude nothing from these expressions unless he shews that these two last significations cannot take place in the passages which he alledges and that we must unavoidably take them in the first sense that is to say for that which is literal and not figurative THE terms of true and truly are likewise often used in occasions wherein they cannot signifie either a literal verity or a reality of substance and Mr. Arnaud does himself acknowledg that we find in the Fathers That Jesus Ch. 5. p. 781.
naturally arises in the minds of all men May it not happen that the same expression has been used in divers ages and amongst divers people under different respects and yet have been used for different ends and on different occasions 'T is not good reasoning to conclude there has been an universal and uniform reason in all Ages and amongst all people that has obliged them to make use of a term under pretence that it has been every where and at all times used For how many ancient terms are there which are at this day in use altho the reason of their being at first used no longer subsists The use of terms is a thing unaccountable enough and sufficiently subject to change either in regard of divers People or Ages and the occasions the reasons or principles of this use are no less unaccountable too SUPPOSING this expression has been generally received by a general reason why must this reason be a general doubt that naturally arises in the minds of all men Is it not sufficient that it was a general interest which all Christians had to establish the truth of the Nature and Humane Substance in the Person of Jesus Christ and to make thereof a common confession in the Sacrament it self of his Incarnation I mean in the Eucharist for so the Fathers have called it Is it not sufficient 't was a general interest which they had in all places and in all Ages to receive with a profound respect the words of Jesus Christ who has said of the Bread This is my Body and to acknowledg publickly the truth of them These two interests are general belong to all times and all Nations and are a sufficient reason of this expression in question were it as general as Mr. Arnaud says it was BUT in fine supposing it was a general doubt that occasion'd these terms of true and truly I say 't is sufficient 't was a doubt likely to happen in the minds of weak persons and not necessarily in those of all men For there have been weak Christians at all times and in all places the Church having never been without 'um and of whom there ought always to be a particular care taken Now this doubt touching the virtue of the Eucharist that it can spiritually communicate to us the Body of Jesus Christ that it procures us the remission of our Sins the Grace of Sanctification the hope of Everlasting life that by it we obtain the Communion of our Saviour this doubt I say easily arises in the minds of weak persons who as I have already said are sufficiently puzled at the simplicity of this Sacrament wherein there only appears Bread and Wine Supposing then one should say that the terms of the true Body of Jesus Christ or of truly the Body of Jesus Christ were only used to prevent this doubt to strengthen the weak in this regard and conciliate more respect to the Sacrament what can Mr. Arnaud find in this which is not reasonable and conformable to the sense of the Church WERE there any body now says he tempted with this doubt and Page 783. needed to be strengthened against it does not common sense shew that he would express it in proper terms to make himself understood and disacknowledg it by expressions which are directly contrary to it He will say for example that he doubts whether God works on our souls by means of the Bread of the Eucharist and whether he fills it with his efficacy He will say that he does not doubt but the Eucharist is endowed with the virtue of the Body of Jesus Christ but he will never think of expressing this doubt in these terms I doubt whether the Eucharist be the Body of Jesus Christ nor of rejecting it in these here I believe the Eucharist to be the true and proper Body of Jesus Christ LET Mr. Arnaud tell us if he pleases why these pretended doubters whom he introduces without any occasion or reason would not consult common sense whereby to express their doubt in intelligible terms supposing they doubted of Transubstantiation or the substantial presence Why should they not say We doubt whether the substance of Bread be changed into the substance of the Body of Jesus Christ or we doubt whether the substance of the Body of Jesus Christ be contained under the vail of the appearances of Bread Those that have now their minds possessed with these doubts do they think of proposing them in these equivocal terms which need a Commentary to explain them We doubt whether the Eucharist be the Body of Jesus Christ Clear and proper terms are not so hard to be found had the Church then believed the substance of Bread to be converted into the substance of Jesus Christ and the common opinion it self against which they would form their doubts would have furnished them with requisite expressions Let Mr. Arnaud likewise tell us why this doubt was not repelled in formal terms by saying We must believe that the substance of Bread is changed into that of the Body of Jesus Christ and that under the accidents of Bread is contained the proper substance of this Body Let him shew us from Antiquity his pretended doubt explained in requisite terms according to the sense he gives it and I will shew him that which he finds so ridiculous stated according to my sense in Palladius How are the gifts said a Religious Pallad Hist Laus cap. 75. person able to sanctifie me I will shew him that this is in effect the doubt which was heretofore design'd to be prevented as appears by Cyril of Alexandria God says he changes the things offered into the efficacy of his Flesh Apud Vict. Ant. Miss AND WE NEED NOT DOUBT BUT THIS IS TRUE and by Elias of Crete God changes the things offered into the efficacy of his Flesh Elias Cret in Greg. AND DOUBT NOT BUT THIS IS TRUE Let him shew us the Fathers have said that the Eucharist is the true Body or truly the Body of Jesus Christ in reference to the question of the Conversion and the substantial Presence and I will shew him they have said it in reference to the question touching the virtue For Walafridus Strabo an Author of the 9th Century having given this Title to one of the Chapters of his Book De Virtute Sacramentorum says afterwards in the Text of the same Chapter Valafridus Strabo de rec Eccles cap. 17. Rupert in Mat. cap. 10. by way of confirmation That the Mysteries are truly the Body and Blood of our Lord. And Rupert altho he lived in the 12th Century that is to say in a time wherein Transubstantiation had introduced it self into the Latin Church yet said That the Bread is rightly called and is TRVLY the Flesh of Jesus Christ because in reference to us it effects the same thing as the Flesh of Jesus Christ Crucified Dead and Buried Moreover Mr. Arnaud has no reason to be so positive in affirming
that the doubt was rejected in these terms I believe the Eucharist to be the true and proper Body of Jesus Christ nor to make the world believe that all Nations and Ages spake in this sort The term of true may be met with in some passages which Mr. Arnaud alledges and that of proper in others and both of these are therein used in senses far different from that which he gives them but he must not under this pretence form this proposition That the Eucharist is the true and proper Body of Jesus Christ for there 's a great deal of difference between these terms being separate which offer themselves in divers passages and in divers Authors and these same terms joyned together by way of exageration I confess that Nicephorus according to Allatius's relation joyns together the two terms of properly and truly but besides that Nicephorus is not all Ages nor all Nations we have already shew'd that he speaks only thus upon an Hypothesis far different from that of Transubstantiation or the substantial Presence and therefore Mr. Arnaud cannot make any advantage of what he says AND these are my general answers to Mr. Arnaud's passages Should we descend at present to the particular examination of these passages we must first lay aside those of Anastasius Sinait of Damascen of the second Council of Nice of Nicephorus the Patriarch of Constantinople the profession of Faith made by the Saracens that were Converts of the 12th Century and that of the Horologium of the Greeks for they have been all of 'em already sufficiently answer'd 't is only needful to remember what I have already established touching the real Belief of the Greek Church There must likewise be retrenched those that be taken from the Liturgies of the Copticks and Ethiopians seeing we have already answered them We have also answer'd that taken out of the common Liturgy of the Armenians or to speak better the Armenians themselves have answer'd it IF those of Leopolis call the Bread and Wine the true Body and the true Blood of Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour there is no likelihood for all this that they have another Belief than that of the rest of the Armenians who formally declare as we have already seen that they mean nothing else by these terms than a true mystery of this Body and Blood and in effect it is said in the same Liturgy whence Mr. Arnaud has taken his Quotation that the Priest says in Communicating I eat by Faith O Lord Jesus Apud Cassand iâ— Liturgicis Christ thy holy living and saving Body I drink by Faith thy holy and pure Blood THE passage of Adam the Arch-deacon of the Nestorians mention'd by Strozza is impertinently alledg'd for two reasons First That these are the words of a man that reconciled himself with the Church of Rome who in embracing its Religion wrote in Rome it self under the inspection of Pope Paul V. and from whose words by consequence there can be nothing concluded touching the Nestorian Church Secondly That what he says concerning our eating the true Body of God but of God Incarnate that we drink truly the Blood of a Man but of a Man that is God relates not to our question nor is not said in this respect but in regard of the Error of the Nestorians who will have the Body of Jesus Christ to be the Body of a mere man and not the true Body of God Incarnate What 's this to the question to wit Whether that which we receive with the mouths of our bodies be the substance it self of the Body of Jesus Christ WHAT he alledges touching the Liturgy of the Indian Christians that added to the saying of our Saviour these words In veritate saying Hoc est in veritate corpus hic est in veritate sanguis meus is a thing very doubtful 'T is not likely Alexis Menesez the Arch-bishop of Goa who laboured to reduce these Indians to the Faith of the Roman Church would have retrenched from their Liturgy these words in veritate had he in truth found them in it Those that wrote the actions of this Arch bishop say this addition was made by a Bishop that came from Babylon Mr. Arnaud tells us we must not much heed what they relate This is a mere Chaos wherein a Book 5. Ch. 10. p. 500. man can comprehend nothing The Deacon says he sings still in their Mass Fratres mei suscipite corpus ipsius filii Dei dicit Ecclesia But what consequence can be drawn from these words 'T is certain that this corpus ipsius filii Dei is a clause added by Menesez against the Error of the Nestorians who would have it to be no more than the Body of a mere man for every one knows this was the Heresie of the Nestorians There remains still in this Liturgy as correct as 't is several passages that do not well agree with the Doctrine of the Roman Church as what the Priest says Jesus Missae Christ apud Indos Bibl. patr tom 6. Christ our Lord the Son of God that was offer'd for our salvation and who commanded us to Sacrifice in remembrance of his Passion Death Burial and Resurrection receive this Sacrifice from our hands Were the Sacrifice Jesus Christ in his proper substance there 's no likelihood they would offer it to Jesus Christ himself Having read the passage of S. Paul That whilst we are in this Body we are absent from the Lord that we desire to be out of the body to have his presence that we desire to please him whether present or absent c. rehearsed the Creed the Priest says This Sacrifice is in remembrance of the Passion Death Burial and Resurrection of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ Then praying for the Consecration O Lord God says he look not upon the multitude of my sins ' and be not angry with us for the number of our Crimes but by thy ineffable Grace Consecrate this Sacrifice AND INDUE IT WITH THAT VIRTUE AND EFFICACY THAT IT MAY ABOLISH THE MULTITUDE OF OUR SINS to the end that when thou shalt at last appear in that humane form which thou hast been pleased to take on thee we may find acceptance with thee On one hand he restrains the Consecration to the virtue or efficacy which God gives to the Sacrament for the abolishing of our sins and on the other formally distinguishes the Sacrament from the Humane Nature of Jesus Christ in which he will appear ar the last day Immediately after he calls the gifts the Holy Sacraments of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ And then beseeches God they may be made worthy to obtain the remission of their sins by means of the Holy Body which they shall receive by Faith Again he says That he Sacrifices the Mystery of the Passion Death Burial and Resurrection of Jesus Christ and prays to God That his Holy Spirit may come down and rest on this Oblation and sanctifie it to
the end it may procure them the remission of their sins He says not to the end it may change the substance of it and convert it into that of the Body of Jesus Christ which yet must have been said or something equivalent thereunto were this the formal effect of the Consecration Having recited our Lords words This is my Body this is my Blood he adds This shall be a pledg to us to the end of the world And a little further Esay touched a live coal his lips were not burnt with it but his iniquity pardon'd Mortal men receive a fire IN THE BREAD IT self and this fire preserves their bodies and consumes only their sins 'T is easie to perceive that by this fire which is in the Bread it self he means the Holy Spirit which he had already prayed for to come down and rest on the Oblation Explaining afterwards what this Mystery is Approach we all of us says he with fear and respect to the Mystery of the precious Body and Blood of our Saviour and with a pure heart and a true Faith call we to remembrance his Passion and Resurrection and let us clearly comprehend them For for our sakes the only Son of God has assumed a mortal Body a spiritual reasonable and immortal Soul and by his holy Law has reduced us from error to the knowledg of the truth and at the end of his Oeconomy offered on the Cross the first fruits of our nature he is risen from the Dead ascended up into Heaven and has left us his Holy Sacraments as pledges to put us in mind of all the favours which he has bestowed on us Was not here a fitting place to make some mention of his corporeal Presence in the Eucharist and having said that he is ascended up into Heaven does it not seem that instead of adding he has left us his Holy Sacraments he should have said he yet presents himself on the Altars in the substance of his Body Let Mr. Arnaud himself judg whether this Liturgy favours him AS to the ancient Liturgy of France which bears that Jesus Christ gives us his proper Body I have already answer'd that these terms of proper Body signifie only his Body and I apply the same answer to the passages which Mr. Arnaud alledges of S. Ireneus Juvencus Gaudencius and of S. Chrysostom who likewise use the same term of proper 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 proprium corpus signifies suum corpus his Body not that of another but his own for this is often the sense of this term as we have already shew'd S. Hilary says There 's no reason to doubt of the truth of the Flesh and Blood of our Lord. I acknowledg he speaks of this Flesh inasmuch as 't is communicated to us in the Sacrament but I say also he means the spiritual Communication which Jesus Christ hath given us in the act it self of the Sacramental Communion and that Hilary's sense is we must not doubt but this Flesh is really communicated to us inasmuch as our Souls are made really partakers of it EPHRAM of Edesse speaks likewise of the Spiritual Communion which we have with Jesus Christ God and Man when he says that we eat the Lamb himself entire WE may return the same answer to the passages of Gelazius of Cizique Hesychius and the History of the Martyrdom of S. Andrew GELAZIVS of Cizique says very well That we truly receive the precious Body and the precious Blood of Jesus Christ not only because the Spiritual Communion is a real reception of this Body and Blood but likewise because this Communion consider'd in opposition to the Sacramental Communion is the only true one HESTCHIVS says That the Mysteries are the Body and Blood of Jesus Chhist secundum veritatem according to truth because that in effect the mystical object represented and communicated to our Souls in this holy action is the Body and Blood of our Lord and this is what he understands by the truth or virtue of the Mystery as we have already observed elsewhere The Author of the relation of the Martyrdom of S. Andrew makes this Saint say not what Mr. Arnaud imputes to him That he Sacrific'd every See E the and Beatus who relate this passage Bibl. patr tom 4. day to God the immaculate Lamb but that he Sacrificed every day to God ON THE ALTAR OF THE CROSS the Immaculate Lamb. Where I pray is Mr. Arnaud's fidelity thus to eclipse these words on the Altar of the Cross to make the world believe this Author means the Sacrifice which is offered every day in the Eucharist whereas he means only that every day he Immolates Jesus Christ on the Cross to wit in meditating on this Cross and preaching it to the people He adds That all the people who are Believers eat the Flesh of this Lamb and drink his Blood and yet the Lamb which was sacrific'd remains whole and alive and altho he be truly sacrific'd and his Flesh truly eaten and drank yet he remains whole and alive This is an allusion to the ancient Lamb of the Jews which was first sacrific'd and afterwards eaten by the people which was a figure of our Saviour the true Lamb of God that was sacrific'd on the Cross and whose Flesh was eaten and Blood spiritually drank by those that believe in him by Faith The Lamb being divided and not rising again after he was slain our Saviour Christ has this advantage over him that he is alive after his being sacrific'd and eaten without suffering any division But whether we consider this manducation absolutely in it self or by comparing it to that of the ancient Lamb it is true For on one hand it is neither false nor illusory and on the other it is the truth figured by the manducation of the Lamb of the Jews THE passage of S. Leo which says We must in such a manner draw near to the Divine Table as not to doubt in any wise of the truth of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ is very impertinently alledged Mr. Arnaud is not to learn that Leo discourses against the Eutychiens who denied our Saviour had a real Body and his sense to be that when we partake in the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of our Lord we must not doubt but our Saviour has in himself in his proper person a real Body and Blood and is real man 'T IS now plainly seen that this heap of passages which Mr. Arnaud has pretended to make of the consent of all Nations and Ages is but a meer illusion and that his design in wand'ring thus ftom his subject was only to colour over the weakness of his proofs touching the 7th and 8th Centuries now in debate He had so little to say concerning these Centuries that he thought it necessary to take the field and circuit about to amuse his Readers and fill up his Chapters But his subject matter is so little favourable to him on what side soever he turns
who has without doubt taken 'em from Isidor for 't was the common custom of the Authors of those days to copy out one from another He says moreover in another place expresly That no Infidel can eat the Flesh of Jesus Christ and that all those whom he has redeem'd by his Blood must be his slaves circumcised in reference to Vice and so eat the Flesh of Jesus Christ And as Bede and Alcuinus made a particular profession to be S. Austin's Disciples so they have not scrupled to transcribe into their Books several passages taken word for word out of the Writings of this great man which confirm the same thing Bede amongst others has taken this out of the Book of Sentences collected by Prosper He that is not of the same mind as Jesus Christ neither eats his Flesh nor drinks his Blood altho for the condemnation of his presumption he receives every day the Sacrament of so great a thing And he and Alcuinus Beda in Cor. 11. Beda Alcu. in Joan. 6. have borrow'd from his Treatise on S. John these words Jesus said to them this is the work of God that you believe in him whom he has sent This is then what is meant by eating the meat which perishes not but remains to life everlasting Why prepare ye your teeth and belly believe and ye have eaten it this is the Bread which came down from Heaven to the end that he which eats of it may not die This is meant of the virtue of the visible Sacrament He that eateth internally not externally that eateth with the heart not with the teeth And a little further our Saviour explains what 't is to eat his Body and drink his Blood He that eateth my Flesh and drinks my Blood dwelleth in me and I in him To eat then this meat and drink this drink is to dwell in Jesus Christ and to have Jesus Christ dwelling in us So that he that dwells not in Jesus Christ and Jesus Christ in him does not eat spiritually his Flesh altho he sensibly bites with the teeth the Sacrament of his Body and Blood but rather eats and drinks to his condemnation the Sacrament of so great a thing And again The mark by which a man may know he has eaten and drank is that he dwells in Jesus Christ and has Jesus Christ dwelling in him We dwell in him when we are the Members of his Body and he dwells in us when we are his Temple And a little lower The words which I tell ye are spirit and life What is the meaning of that They are spirit and life That is they must be understood spiritually If ye understand them spiritually they are spirit and life if carnally this hinders not but they are spirit and life but not to you IN short we find these Authors of the 7th and 8th Centuries acknowledg no other Presence of Jesus Christ on Earth than that of his Divinity of his Grace or Providence and in no wise that of the substance of his Body Jesus Christ ascending up into Heaven says Isidor has absented himself Isidor lib. 1. sentent cap. 14. as to the flesh but is ever present in respect of his Majesty according to what he has said I am with you to the end of the world THE passages of Bede on this subject are too many to be mentioned Beda Expos allegor ipsam lib. 1. cap. 12. here I shall only relate some of ' em The Lord says he having performed the duties of his Oeconomy returned into Heaven where he is ascended in respect of his Body but visits us every day by his Divine Presence by which he is always every where and quietly governs all things There is his Flesh which he has assumed and glorified for our sakes Because he is God and man says he again he was raised up into Heaven where he sits as to his Humanity which he assumed on Earth Yet does he remain with the Saints on Earth in his Divinity by which he fills both Heaven and Earth Elsewhere he says that the man mention'd in the Parable of the Gospel who leaving his house went a journey into a far Country is our Saviour Christ who after his Resurrection Idem Comm. in Mare c. 13. ascended up to his Father having left as to his bodily Presence his Church altho he never suffered it to want the assistance of his Divine Presence Interpreting mystically in another place the words concerning Ann the Daughter of Phanuel who was a Widow and aged 84. years This Ann Idem in Luc. lib. 1. cap. 2. says he signifies the Church which is as it were a Widow since the Death of her Lord and Spouse The years of her widowhood represent the time in which the Church which is still burthened with this body is absent from the Lord expecting every day with the greatest impatience that coming concerning which it is said We will come to him and make our abode with him 'T was to the same effect that expounding these words of Job I have comforted the heart Idem Exposit alleg in Job lib. 2. c. 14. of the Widow he says that this Widow is the Church our Mother which our Saviour comforts and that she is called a Widow because her Spouse has absented himself from her as to his corporeal Presence according to what himself tells his Disciples The poor ye have always with you but me ye have not always IN one of his Homilies he acknowledges no other presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist than a Presence of Divinity and Grace For having exactly denoted how many times the Lord appeared to his Disciples after his Resurrection He designed says he to shew by these frequent appearances Idem Hom. ast de temp feria 6 Paschal that he would be spiritually present in all places at the desire of the faithful He appeared to the women that wept at the Sepulchre he will be likewise present with us when we grieve at the remembrance of his absence He appeared whilst they broke bread to those who taking him for a stranger gave him entertainment he will be likewise with us when we liberally relieve the poor and strangers He will be likewise with us in the fraction of Bread when we receive the Sacraments of his Body which is the living Bread with a pure and chast heart We find here no mention of any other presence in the Sacrament but that of the Divinity ALCVINVS teaches the same Doctrine for expounding these words of our Saviour The poor ye have ever with you but me not always He shews says he we must not blame those that communicated to him their good Alcuin in Joan. lib. 5. cap. 28. things whilst he conversed amongst 'em seeing he was to remain so short a a time with the Church bodily He introduces our Saviour elsewhere thus saying to his Church If I go away in respect of the absence of my Flesh I will
of Jesus Christ Mr. Arnaud pretends that by this Mystery or Sacrament we must understand the Body it self in substance his reasons are First That 't is the Body of Jesus Christ which is represented by the types in the Old Testament Now this Sacrament is according to the Author of the Book in question that which was represented by these ancient figures Secondly That 't is the Body of Jesus Christ which is the truth opposed to Images Now according to this Author this Sacrament is not the image of it but the truth in opposition to the image Thirdly That the reason why he will not have it to be an image is that our Saviour did not say This is the image of my Body but this is my Body Fourthly That 't is of the Eucharist we must understand what he says That our Saviour did not offer for us an image but himself BUT 't is no hard matter to answer these objections The Sacrament of the Eucharist may be considered in two respects either in opposition to the thing it self of which 't is the Sacrament or in conjunction with this same thing In the first respect 't is a sign or a figure of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ Charlemain himself calls it so in one of his Epistles to Alcuinus as we have already seen and Bede gives it several times this title But in the second respect Charlemain denies we ought to give it the name of image or figure because he would distinguish it from the legal figures which were only bare representations and shadows which did communicate the Body or reality of that which they represented whereas our Eucharist communicates the Body and Blood it self of Jesus Christ sacrificed for us on the Cross and represented by the ancient figures He would have us call it then the Mystery or Sacrament of this Body and the reason which he alledges for it is that 't is not a bare representation of a thing to come as were those of the ancient Law 't is the Mystery of the Death of Jesus Christ of a Death I say that was really consummated and moreover 't is not a bare representation of this Death but a Mystery which communicates it to us This is the sence of the Author of the Book of Images from whence it does not follow that the Eucharist is the Body of Jesus Christ in substance as Mr. Arnaud would hence conclude For for to consider the Sacrament in conjunction with the thing of which it is the Sacrament 't is not necessary that the thing be locally and substantially therein contained It is sufficient that it be really and truly communicated therein to us in a mystical and moral manner Now 't is certain that this communication is made therein to the Faithful and altho the manner of it be spiritual and mystical yet is it real and true This is sufficient for a man to say as the Author of that Book does That the mystery of the Body and Blood of our Lord is called now not an image but the truth not a shadow but a body not a figure of things to come but the thing represented by the figures Because that in effect we receive therein the body and truth of the legal shadows For this reason a man may say that this mystery is the truth in opposition to the images of the ancient Testament because that in effect God gives us actually in it that which the Law contained only in types This is sufficient whereon to ground this remark That our Saviour did not say this is the image of my Body but this is my Body that is given for you Because that in instituting this Sacrament he never design'd to communicate to us only a prefiguration but his Body In fine this is sufficient for a man to say with reason and good sense and with respect too to the Eucharist That our Saviour did not offer for us an image but himself in sacrifice because that which he offer'd once for us to God his Father on the Cross he offers and gives it us in the Eucharist In a word Mr. Arnaud's perpetual error is in imagining that our Saviour Christ and his Body and Blood cannot be communicated to us unless we receive corporeally in our hands and mouths the proper substance of them I say this is a mistake exceedingly distant from the Doctrine of the Fathers who tell us we receive Jesus Christ himself eat his Body and drink his Blood in the word of the Gospel in Baptism as well as in the Eucharist CHAP. X. An Examination of the Consequences which Mr. Arnaud draws from the pretended Consent of all the Christian Churches in the Doctrines of Transubstantiation and the Real Presence Reflections on the 1. 2. 3. and 4. Consequences WE may justly lay aside Mr. Arnaud's tenth Book seeing it consists only of Consequences which he draws from the consent of all Churches in the Doctrines of the Real Presence and Transubstantiation by supposing he has proved this consent since the 7th Century to this present For having overthrown as we have done his Principle we need not much trouble our selves about its consequences Yet that we may not neglect any thing I shall make some Reflections on the principal things contained in this Book and that as briefly as I am able The first Consequence THE first Consequence bears That the consent of all Churches in the Book 10. ch 1. Faith of the Real Presence explains and determines the sense of our Saviours words To establish this Proposition he says that the Ministers endeavour to stretch these words This is my Body to their sense by an infinite number of metaphysical Arguments which have only obscure and abstracted principles That they use long discourses to expound separately each word as the term this the word is and the word Body That by this means that which yields no trouble when a man follows simply the course of nature and common sense becomes obscure and unintelligible That supposing in like manner a man should philosophise on these words Lazarus come forth it 's no hard matter for a man to entangle himself with 'em for this Lazarus will be neither the Soul nor the Body separately nor the Soul and Body together but a mere nothing Now a mere nothing cannot come out of the Grave That our Saviour did not speak to be only understood by Philosophers and Metaphysicians seeing he intended his Religion should be followed by an infinite number of simple people women and children persons ignorant of humane learning That we must then judg of the sense of these words by the general and common impression which all these persons receiv'd without so many reflections That to find this simple and natural impression we must consult the sense wherein they have been effectually taken for the space of a thousand years by all Christians in the world which never had any part in our Disputes That our Saviours intention was rather
to express by these words the sense in which they have been effectually taken by all Christians in the world which was not unknown to him than that in which they have been understood in these latter days by a few Berengarian Calvinistical Philosophers That he has right to suppose as a thing certain that since the 7th Century all Christians throughout the whole earth have held the Doctrine of the Real Presence and Transubstantiation and that this consent of all people for a thousand years is sufficient to shew what the simple impression is and consequently the real sense of Christs words This is the summary of his first Chapter The first Reflection THE design of this whole discourse tends to cast men into horrible confusions I grant our Saviour intended not to speak so as to be understood only by Philosophers but on the contrary that his Religion should be embraced by infinite numbers of ignorant people women and children and persons uncapable of deep reasoning But if the sense of these words must be sought in the consent of all Churches these women and children and ignorant people will be hard put to it to find it How few persons are there capable of themselves to make this inquisition for which they must have skill in Languages read two hundred Volumes or more attentively examine 'em distinguish the times places and occasions consider the circumstances of passages and drift of Authors compare the various interpretations and do in a word a thousand things necessary to prevent their taking one thing for another And as for those that shall take this task upon 'em under the guidance of another how many cheats are they to beware of How shall they be certain that they shall have no false Authors imposed upon 'em for true ones forged Writings attributed to Authors or false Passages corrupt Translations and false Explications to give them another sense than the natural one that they shall not be imposed on by captious Arguings or frivolous Answers yet well coloured that they shall not be tired with fruitless discourses to wear out their patience and attention and by this means make 'em fall into the Net All this has been hitherto done and I do not find such as be guilty of this do amend whatsoever complaints have been made I grant one may find the true sense of our Saviour's words in the consent of all Churches But is it not a more short sure and easie way to seek it by considering the words themselves by comparing them with other Sacramental Expressions by the nature of the Ordinance which our Saviour instituted by the circumstances that accompanied it the design he proposed in it by his ordinary ways of expressing himself by the other words he added by the sense wherein according to all probability his Disciples understood him by the explanations which S. Paul gives of it and in short by the genius and universal Spirit of the Christian Religion Whether a man makes this inquisition by himself or under the direction of another 't is certain that the way which we offer is far less troublesome and dangerous easier and better accommodated to the capacity of the common people than that of the consent of all Churches Mr. Arnaud supposes this consent from the 7th Century to this present because he believes he has proved it But were this supposition as certain and true in the main as 't is false and imaginary it can reside no where but in the imagination of those that have read his Book And how many are there in the rank of the simple people that never read it Of those amongst 'em that have read it how few have been capable to understand and Judg of it Are they able to discern whether his citations be true or no whether his Passages be faithfully translated his Arguments conclusive his Attestations allowable and whether he has not concealed several things which ought to be known on this subject for a man to be throughly informed in it After all reason requires 'em to suspend their judgments till such time as they have seen my Answer And supposing my Answer does not satisfie 'em how know they but that my weakness or ignorance has prejudiced the Cause I defend In the mean time what will become of the Faith of these simple persons if they will make it depend on the consent of all Churches touching the sense of our Saviours words Mr. Arnaud under pretence of searching short ways throws men into such labyrinths out of which 't is impossible to get out Second Reflection I grant that the true sense of our Saviours words must be the simple and natural one We dispute touching this simple and natural sense Mr. Arnaud will needs have it to be that of Transubstantiation and the Real Presence we affirm 't is the Sacramental or figurative one Supposing we could not on either side find out this simple and natural impression which these words do of themselves make in the minds of men by reason of our Dispute and that we must go search it amongst those that be free from these prejudices it is not reasonable we should stop at those that lived since the 7th Century till now to the prejudice of the first six ages We must on the contrary begin from the six first Tradition said one not long since In the Remarks on the request of M. D' Ambrun 9th Remark whose word ought to be regarded must begin from the Apostles and pass on till this present by an uninterrupted succession The first then that are to be consulted for the finding this simple impression must be the Apostles that heard immediately these words from our Lords own mouth We must search the History of the Gospel to see whether there be any thing that discovers they took 'em in the sense of Transubstantiation whether they have been surpriz'd by any astonishment or ravished with admiration or troubled with some doubt whether 't is likely they were imbued with principles on which this sense is established as that a body should be in several places at once and accidents subsist without their substance c. And whether they were not on the contrary imbued with some maxims very opposite to this sense as for instance that to drink Blood was a crime strictly forbidden by Moses's Law that the signs were called after the name of the things which they signifi'd and whether it appears from any of their words or actions that they adored the Eucharist And 't is here I think we ought to begin and afterwards come to S. Paul and examine whether in what he has said on this subject or any others there be any thing that shews he believed Transubstantiation We must afterwards discuss age after age what the Fathers of the six first Centuries have written on it consult the Commentaries which they have expresly made on these words and in short endeavour by an attentive meditation throughly to discover their
these two reasons whereon Mr. Arnaud grounds his pretension is invalid and the second resides only in his own imagination I say the first is invalid for if the Doctors of the Roman Church do propose several passages wherein they stop at the literal signification of the terms as be those which call the Eucharist the Body of Jesus Christ and some few others that say the Bread is changed we also on our parts alledg an infinite of others wherein we likewise stop at the literal signification of the terms such as be all those that call the Eucharist after the Consecration Bread and Wine and which say that this Bread and Wine are made the signs the symbols the figures of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ So far matters are equal and the prejudice cannot favour either side MOREOVER who told Mr. Arnaud we must ever prejudicate in favour of the literal signification of terms We oft prejudicate on the contrary in behalf of the metaphorical signification by considering the matter to which the terms are applied when 't is likely they are used figuratively as when in matter of Books we speak of Plato and Aristotle or in reference to Images we speak of S. Stephen and S. Christopher It is not enough to say the Catholicks stop at the literal signification of terms This is not enough to establish a prejudice nor for the obtaining a right to suppose without proof it must be moreover shew'd that the subject or matter in question does not oppose it self against this prejudice Mr. Arnaud must proceed farther and shew that there 's not any thing absolutely that is able to form a contrary prejudice But Mr. Arnaud was unwilling to enter into this discussion because of its difficulty and difficulties are not proper for a man to meddle withal that writes in a domineering stile THE second reason has less strength than the first For first 't is not true that the expressions which those of the Roman Church alledg in their own favour have been taken in the sense wherein they employ 'em for near a thousand years by all the Christians in the world Mr. Arnaud must not be so hasty to make us receive this proposition till he has heard what I have to say Now that things are cleared up in this respect every man may judg of 'em and I hope they will make a just judgment of them Secondly there 's a great deal of difference betwixt the Fathers of the first six Centuries and those of the later Ages who take these expressions we are speaking of in a sense of the Real Presence and Transubstantiation We find in these last other expressions which clearly manifest their thoughts They plainly say that the substance of Bread is changed into the substance of Christ's Body and that this Body is substantially present under the vail of accidents but we do not find any thing like this in the Fathers Now this difference overthrows Mr. Arnauds prejudice for had the Fathers meant by their general expressions the same thing which these last do they would have spoke like them but this they have not done 'T is not then likely they had the same sense and it will signifie nothing to say that that which has hindred them from doing so was because there was no contest in the Church all that time touching this point for the Doctrine of Transubstantiation does of it self form without the help of any contest the distinct idea of a real conversion of the substance of Bread and Wine into the substance of our Lords Body and Blood This Doctrine naturally makes a particular and determinate sense where the term of substance enters There 's no need of a disputation for this Whence it follows that had the Fathers thus meant it they would have explained themselves in the same manner as these last It does not appear to us they have done it It is not then reasonable to prejudicate they held this Doctrine THE better to acknowledg the unreasonableness of Mr. Arnaud's pretensions who will suppose at any rate oppose we against him a contrary pretension which is that we have right to suppose without any other proof that the passages of the Fathers which are offered us must not be understood in a sense of Transubstantiation nor Real Presence and that if Mr. Arnaud will establish the affirmative he is obliged to do it by evident demonstrations sufficient to vanquish this prejudication This here is our pretension it remains only now to be observed how we prove it and having seeen how Mr. Arnaud has proved his it will be easie to compare proof with proof and judg which of the two propositions is the most just and reasonable FIRST there ought to be remembred here what I said in the 7th Chapter of this Book touching the 7th and 8th Centuries that we must ever prejudicate in favour of nature and common sense which regulate the judgments of men till the contrary does evidently appear Now the state of nature is not to believe the Doctrines we speak of and it must be granted me that common sense does not teach ' em We have then right to suppose without proof that the Fathers did not believe them and consequently that their expressions must not be taken in this sense And 't is Mr. Arnaud's part to shew so clearly the contrary that his proof may surmount the prejudication Which if he does not do reason obliges us to let the Fathers alone in the state of nature and common sense SECONDLY The matter in debate does of it self form our prejudice The point in hand is touching a Sacrament and in Sacramental expressions we commonly give to the signs the names of the things which they represent as may be verified by numberless instances We then have right to suppose without any other proof that those of the Fathers concerning the Eucharist being of this number must be taken in the same sense as the others till it be shew'd us ftom the Fathers themselves that they otherwise understood them IN the third place our right is grounded on the nature of the Doctrine it self about which we dispute For the substantial conversion makes of it self a particular sense it answers to a very distinct question which is whether the change which happens in the Eucharist be a change of substance or not it says that 't is a change of substance It is impossible but those that have this Doctrine in their thoughts must conceive it in this determination that is to say in applying their conceptions precisely to the substance and 't is not likely they have thus conceived it without explaining themselves sometimes in a manner that answers exactly to their opinion It is then reasonable to suppose without any other proof that they have not thus conceived it till such time as it shall please Mr. Arnaud to convince us of the contrary from their own declarations not from general expressions but by expressions which are formal
tell him my Answer will be no less good in the main when he shall shew that the Hereticks mention'd by Ignatius did absolutely reject the Eucharist I may moreover oppose against him Cardinal Bellarmin who expresly says touching this passage That these ancient Hereticks combated not so much the Bell. de Sacram. Euchar. l. 1. c. 1. Sacrament of the Eucharist as the mystery of the Incarnation for as Ignatius himself insinuates the reason of their denial of the Eucharist to be our Lords Flesh was because they disown'd our Lord assumed true Flesh Mr. Arnaud will not I hope pretend to understand more of this matter than Bellarmin THE same thing may be said touching the Answer I return'd to a passage Answer to the Perpetuity p. 2. ch 2. of Justin which says That we take not these things as mere Bread and Drink but that this meat being made the Eucharist with which our flesh and blood are nourished by means of the change becomes the Flesh and Blood of Jesus Christ incarnate I answer'd not barely what Mr. Arnaud makes me answer That this food is made the Body of Christ by a Sacramental union to the Body of Christ but that in effect the Eucharist is not common Bread and Drink but a great Sacrament of our Lords Body and Blood which is celebrated in remembrance of his taking on him our nature it being honored with the name of Body and Blood of Jesus Christ according to the very form of our Lords own expressions I at the same time grounded this Answer on Justin's very words and 't is moreover established on the proofs which I had already alledged touching the sense of the Fathers when they call the Eucharist the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ Yet has Mr. Arnaud been pleased to say That my sence is without proof and Authority contrary to the Letter and Experience Lib. 10. cap. 5. p. 34. and consequently not worth considering And this is Mr. Arnaud's way of solving matters HE does the same in reference to the answers I returned to the passages of Gelazus Cyzique and Cyril of Jerusalem for whereas I have backt them with arguments drawn from the passages themselves and that they have moreover their foundation on the proofs I offer'd in the beginning of my Book Mr. Arnaud recites of 'em what he pleases and separates that which he relates of 'em from their true Principle Whosoever shall take the pains to read only what I wrote touching these two passages in the second Chapter of my Answer to the second Treatise and the second Part and especially touching that of Cyril in the sixth Chapter of the aforesaid second Part and compare it with all these Discourses which Mr. Arnaud here gives us that is to say in the fifth Chapter of his tenth Book I am certain will not like his proceedings finding so much passion and so little solidity in his Discourses The fourth Reflection Mr. ARNAVD's passion does yet more discover it self in his sixth Chapter Wherein he makes a very bad use of his Maxim He would extend it so far as to hinder us from supposing there is no express declaration of the Doctrines of Transubstantiation and the Real Presence in the Scripture and that they are not distinctly asserted therein He says every Book 10. ch 5. pag. 34. Ch. 6. pag. 38 39. body knows that the first notion of the Evangelists words concerning the institution of the Eucharist is most favourable to the Catholicks that the evidence of it ever appeared so considerable to Luther that notwithstanding his great desire to vex the Pope he could never resist the perspicuity of them That Zuinglius could not immediately find the solution of these words of our Saviour and needed to be instructed in them by the revelation which a Spirit made to him of them of whom he himself writes that he knew not whether he was a black or a white one which has says he all the lineaments of a diabolical Revelation whatsoever passages out of Cicero and Catullus are alledged to justifie this expression He adds That these words This is my Body do far more naturally signifie that the Eucharist is effectually the Body of Jesus Christ than that 't is the figure of it and this the consent of all Nations who have taken them in this sense shews us in a convincing manner He adds to this the sixth Chapter of S. John wherein there 's mention of eating the Flesh and drinking the Blood and what S. Paul says in the 11th Chapter of the Epistle to the Corinthians that those that eat and drink thereof unworthily are guilty of our Lords Body and Blood Whence he concludes That if it be lawful to make suppositions without any proof the right thereof belongs to the Catholicks that it appertains to them to say their Doctrine is clearly apparent in the Scripture in the sixth Chapter of S. John ' s Gospel in the three Evangelists and in S. Paul ' s Epistles But that equity and reason oblige the Calvinists to be very scrupulous and modest on this point SEEING Mr. Arnaud is so kind to people as to prescribe 'em after what manner they shall present themselves before him without doubt he expects they will henceforward obey him in this particular Yet must I tell him I have reason to suppose without any other proof that there is not in the Holy Scripture any formal declaration touching the Doctrines of Transubstantiation and the Real Presence nor are they distinctly asserted in them Every body knows in what terms formal declarations must be conceived and in what manner Doctrines must be clearly and distinctly exprest If Mr. Arnaud has discovered in the Scripture any particular matter in relation to this subject let him communicate it to us But if he knows no more than we have seen hitherto we shall still have reason to say that the Doctrines in question are not formally declared in them IT cannot be denied but these words This is my Body are capable of the sense which we give them Whether it be the true one or no I will not here dispute 't is sufficient the words will bear it to conclude they are not a formal distinct declaration of Transubstantiation nor the Real Presence seeing what we call a formal declaration cannot be capable of a sense contrary to that which we pretend it formally establishes 'T is to no purpose for Mr. Arnaud to say that Luther found them evident for besides that he found no evidence in them for Transubstantiation but only for the Real Presence with which he was much prepossessed One may oppose against Luther's prejudice the judgment which Cardinal Cajetan made of them who has found no Cajetan in 3. Thoma quest 75. art 1. Lugduni apud Stephanum Machaelem 1588. evidence in them neither for the one nor th' other of these Doctrines but only by adding to 'em the declaration of the Church Neither I suppose is Mr. Arnaud ignorant that
the most able Divines of his own Communion as well ancient as modern do freely acknowledg that Transubstantiation cannot be inferred thence and that there is nothing which obliges 'em to believe it but the Churches determination AS to the words of the 6th Chapter of S. John so far are they from being formal declarations touching Transubstantiation and the Real Presence that a great many of the Doctors in the Roman Church have not stuck to affirm that these words do not at all relate to the Sacrament of the Eucharist Bellarmin reckons up six besides others namely Biel Cusanus Cajetan Bellarm. de Euch. l. 1. c. 5. Albertin de Sac. Euch. l. 1. c. 30. Tapper Hesselius and Jansemius but Mr. Aubertin has computed 'em to be about thirty three which is in my mind sufficient to make Mr. Arnaud comprehend that this Chapter is not so formal nor evident for these Doctrines as he imagines I shall not here take notice of what he alledges concerning those words of S. Paul That such as eat of this Bread and drink of this Cup unworthily are guilty of our Lords Body and Blood If he takes these words for an evident declaration it is yet more evident that he is mistaken To be guilty of our Lords Body and Blood signifies according to the Fathers to be a murderer of our Saviour to be of consent with the Jews that crucifi'd him This is not very formal for Transubstantiation WHAT he says touching Zuinglius is not at all to the purpose Zuinglius was not ignorant of the sense of our Saviours words but he was ignorant of the examples of like phrases which are in Scripture Mr. Arnaud mentions this only that he might bring in again this black or white Spirit of which we have already discoursed not only from passages out of Cicero and Catullus but also out of Apuleus and S. Jerom himself so that this must be lookt upon as impertinent and tiresome Mr. Arnaud's passion herein appears in that Zuinglius having only said that some body appear'd to him in a dream to advertise him visus est monitor adesse he will needs have this monitor to be a Spirit Neither is there less ignorance in raising from a proverbial way of speaking in the Latin tongue ater fuerit an albus nihil memini which signifies that we know not a man we never saw his face rhis proposition That he knew not whether 't was a white Spirit or a black one Cannot Mr. Arnaud better spend his time than in hunting after these trifles BUT says he The first idea of our Saviours words touching the Eucharist is very favourable to the Catholicks It is favourable by an effect of prejudice I grant But let a man take off this vail from his mind and represent to himself our Saviour in his natural Body on one side and the Eucharistical Bread on the other two visible objects really distinct and locally separate from one another and judg in this case whether the first idea of these words rather refers to a Transubstantiation of one of these objects into the other or to a Sacramental sense The first idea from words does not always arise from the literal signification of them but from the matter in question and circumstances of a discourse And this is that which forms the first idea as may be justified by infinite instances should Mr. Arnaud question it Now 't is certain that in respect of our Saviours words all these things do joyntly concur to give them naturally a mystical or figurative sense ALL Nations says he have taken them in this sense All Nations that is to say the Latins since Gregory VII and Innocent III. and yet not all of them neither This is a supposition which Mr. Arnaud will have right to make when he can better prove it But supposing it were true as he would make the world believe that since a thousand years all Nations took them in this sense it will not hence follow that this was the first idea of these words nor that the Roman Church has right to suppose without any other proof that her Doctrine is clearly contained in the Scripture For it is possible for all Nations to fall into an error touching the sense of certain words be engaged in it through surprizal and afterwards remain therein by prejudice and interest And in this case every man sees that this pretended clearness which Mr. Arnaud boasts of cannot be justly supposed IN fine supposing 't were true the first idea of these words was very favourable to the Church of Rome and that all Nations since a thousand years followed this first idea Mr. Arnaud could not hinder me from saying there is not in the Scripture any formal declaration touching Transubstantiation and the Real Presence And this he well knew himself But that he might take his full carier he imagin'd 't was his best way in reciting the passage of my Answer on which he grounds his invective to eclipse these expressions from it by some formal declaration of his word because 't would appear that my sense in 'em is that the Doctrines of the conversion and substantial Presence are not taught in express terms in the Holy Scripture nor are to be drawn thence by necessary consequences which is most true Who Answer to the second Treatise of the Perpituity part 1. ch 3. will believe said I if they be of God that he would leave them as a prey to the contradictions of reason and sense which he himself has armed against them without strengthening them with his protection by some formal declaration of his word Who will believe that the Divine Wisdom c. And here observe how Mr. Arnaud cites them Who will believe that if they be of God he would leave them as a prey to the contradictions of reason and sense which he himself has armed against them without strengthening them with his protection Who will believe that the Divine Wisdom c. Mr. Arnaud has not only the right of supposing without proof what he pleases but that of maiming such passages as seems good to him to alledg that which precedes and that which follows and suppress betwixt both whole clauses because they take from him all pretence of declaiming 'T is by virtue of the same right that he thought he might lay aside that which I added towards the end of this passage Say what you will of it I cannot believe but this silence disquiets you especially if you consider that there is in the New Testament four different occasions wherein according to all appearances Transubstantiation and the Real Presence were to be found DISTINCTLY ASSERTED This distinctly asserted not well relishing with Mr. Arnaud he has ended his citation in these words Say what you will of it I cannot believe but this silence sufficiently perplexes you This privilege of curtailing and suppressing is insupportable in another But what ought we not to yield to Mr. Arnaud especially considering
distinction it must be attended by these following observations 1. That the arguments drawn from the consequences of congruity have more or less force according as the consequences themselves have more or less natural coherence with the Doctrine in question 2. That when a consequence seems to be natural and is confirmed moreover by experience it is not enough for the refuting the Argument drawn thence barely to say that 't is only a consequence of congruity which has not an absolute necessity We must either oppose against it contrary proofs that are stronger and which cannot be confuted by these sort of Arguments taken from consequences how natural soever they may appear to be or oppose against them a contrary experience or give a reason why these consequences cannot take place and by this means discover the obstacles which have impeded them 3. That the Argument becomes very strong when 't is drawn from a great number of these consequences it being very unlikely but nature has produced her effect in respect of some of ' em 4. That when the natural consequences of a Doctrine do not appear at certain times or in certain places there must therein at least appear other equivalent ones which are instead of those it being scarcely possible for nature to remain absolutely without effect TO apply now these observations to the Ministers way of arguing I I say that 't is a natural consequence of the Doctrine of Transubstantiation to find contradictions in mens minds and produce Disputes and Controversies amongst them experience confirms it since the 11th Century to this present We may then draw a great proof that the ancient Church held not this Doctrine in that she remained in peace concerning this subject till Paschasius's time altho there were otherwise Controversies touching almost all the Articles of the Creed 'T is not sufficient for the relating of this Argument to answer as Mr. Arnaud does that this is only a consequence of congruity and that 't is natural enough for people not to rise up against this Doctrine when the custom of Faith has suppled mens minds into docility towards this mystery I will answer him that 't is not at all natural to suppose this docility in all mens minds for eight hundred years together in relation to this Doctrine of Transubstantiation that 't is on the contrary very natural not to suppose it to be in all and that that which he calls the custom of Faith does not usually incline mens minds to this docility till after several contradictions and repugnancies as appears by the example of all the Articles of the Christian Religion which have this difficulty He must then offer against this Argument strong and convincing proofs by which it may appear that the ancient Church held this Doctrine or instance in some Doctrines as difficult as Transubstantiation that were never controverted or in fine give a reason why this consequence which seems to be such a natural one yet has had no place during eight hundred years 'T IS also a consequence natural enough of Transubstantiation that 't is endeavoured to be established by sensible Miracles for Miracles are one of of the chief instruments by which mens minds may be mollified towards this docility of Faith which Mr. Arnaud mentions Experience confirms this since Paschasius his time to this present We may then very well argue in this manner and conclude that these Miracles appearing only since the 9th Century 't is most probable that was the time wherein Transubstantiation came into the world And 't is not sufficient for the confuting of this Argument to say this is not a consequence absolutely necessary for altho this be true yet that is a consequence natural enough being grounded on experience IT is moreover a consequence natural enough of Transubstantiation and confirm'd by experience not to expose the proper substance of Christ's Blood to the inconveniencies which attend the custom of communicating of both kinds and consequently not to admit people indifferently to the participation of the Cup. As we find not this consequence in the first Centuries and it appearing in the latter we may make hence a probable conjecture concerning the change that has been introduced in respect of this Doctrine For 't is not likely that during so long a time men were not troubled with these inconveniencies which are so ordinary and resolved at length to remedy them To say hereupon that they communicated of both kinds to imprint more deeply the Death of Christ in the minds of the Communicants by the representation of the separation of the Body and Blood is as much as amounts to nothing for the reason of the inconveniencies is far stronger than this other contrary reason as appears by the example of the Roman Church since the Council of Constance A MAN may likewise strongly argue from the common practices of the Roman Church by which she shews that she adores the Sacrament with an adoration of latria hereby to declare that the Greek Church does not adore it seeing she has none of these customs For altho each of these practices had only a link of simple congruity with the Doctrine of the Adoration yet is it no ways likely but the Greek Church would practise some of 'em or at least others equivalent to 'em that are as significant to testifie openly the acts of Adoration This then is no satisfactory answer but a mere evasion to say that these are only consequences of congruity The second Reflection AS fast as we establish the solidity of these Arguments drawn from consequences it will not be amiss to observe Mr. Arnaud's illusion We make use of these proofs on the question Whether the ancient Church believed Transubstantiation to shew she did not believe it or on the question which respects the Schismatical Churches to shew that they hold not Transubstantiation neither nor adore the Sacrament Mr. Arnaud has shunned to touch on these proofs whilst he treated on these questions he has reserved himself to refute them by way of consequence in his 10th Book wherein he supposes the consent of all Nations since the 7th Century to this present Whereas we say for instance That the Greeks do not believe Transubstantiation because we find not among them the consequences of this Doctrine Mr. Arnaud perverts this order and says That our Arguments drawn from these consequences are invalid because the Greeks who believe Transubstantiation according to the supposition which he makes of 'em admit not these consequences I confess this circuit is a very dexterous one but by how much the greater art there is in it by so much the more plainly does he discover the strength of our Arguments seeing Mr. Arnaud is forced to elude them in this manner The seventh Consequence Mr. ARNAVD's seventh Consequence is That the Doctrine of the Chap. 8. Real Presence and Transubstantiation does not of it self lead a man to the discoursing of Philosophical Consequences nor upon explaining the
otherwise 't is very possible that people will suffer themselves to be deceived when told the Church has ever believed such a Presence especially when they shall hear several passages out of the Fathers on this subject alledged in a counter sense Moreover if Mr. Arnaud imagins I meant to acknowledg of my own head that one may call the disposition of these persons who believe Jesus Christ corporally present in Heaven without considering what has been said since of his Presence in Heaven and on Earth at the same time there visibly here invisibly believing the Real Absence he is grosly mistaken For what I said was out of condescention and supposition and not absolutely which is to say that in case the Author of the Perpetuity pretended only this I would not dispute with him about an expression In effect if we are agreed touching the thing I 'll never make war with him upon the account of terms Mr. ARNAVD is no less mistaken when he accused me for making an illusory answer to the Author of the Perpetuity The business is that this Author said that if the change which we pretend were true There First Treatise of the Perpetuity page 37. must have been of necessity a time wherein the belief of the Real Presence has been so mixt with that of the Real Absence that there were half of the Bishops Priests and People who held the one and the other half that held the other To this I answer'd That in the times of the greatest ignorance even Answer to the first Treatise page 12. in the 11th Century I doubted not but there were four or five ranks of persons in the Body of the visible Church the one profane and worldly persons who kept themselves at a distance from these Disputes others ignorant ones who contented themselves with knowing in general the Eucharist to be the memorial of Christs Passion and that they receive therein his Body and Blood these holding the true Faith in a degree of confused knowledg The third of those that held the true Faith in a degree of distinct knowledg and rejected the substantial Presence And the fourth of those that had embraced the Opinion of this Presence And this is what Mr. Arnaud calls an illusion Whereas I affirm this answer is pertinent for if there have been four ranks of men in the Church 't is ill done of the Author of the Perpetuity to reduce them to two But says Mr. Arnaud the Author of the Perpetuity speaks of the time before Berenger and you speak of the time that followed him I answer that the Author of the Perpetuity speaks of the time of the chimerical Lib. 6. ch 5. pag. 560. growth through which the belief of the Real Presence hath necessarily passed according to the imagination of the Calvinists And thus doth he formally explain himself And I speak of the time wherein Error made its greatest progress in the greatest progress of error These are my words So far there 's nothing mis-understood we speak both of us concerning the same time But this time according to us is that in which Berenger began to oppose the Real Presence But says moreover Mr. Arnaud the whole Church Page 562. had already passed over into the belief of the Real Presence before Berenger ' s time and Aubertin himself acknowledges as much Which is what I deny and Mr. Arnaud ought not to affirm it without proof The greatest progress of the Real Presence was then when Berenger declaring himself against it Paschasius his Disciples maintain'd it by Disputes so that this is precisely the time about which the Author of the Perpetuity and I debated THESE are the first objections of Mr. Arnaud after which he divides what he calls my System into three parts or times The first says he comprehends Page 563. the first eight Ages and the five ranks whereof it consists The second contains two Centuries and an half which a man cannot better name than the unaccountable time of the Ministers And the third contains the time which follow'd Berenger 'T is certain that of these three times there was only the second as I already said to speak properly necessary to be examin'd touching the question Whether the change which we pretend was possible or impossible For altho I do not grant that all the Faithful of the eight first Centuries have had a distinct knowledg either of the Real Presence or Real Absence in the sense wherein the Church of Rome takes these terms yet did I acknowledg there was then light enough in the Church whereby to reject the Opinion of this sort of Presence had it appear'd so that it does not seem 't was greatly necessary to dispute concerning these Ages wherein we do not say the change was made and which we suppose to have been different from those which followed Yet seeing Mr. Arnaud will needs have 'em brought into the Dispute I am willing to treat of them I THEN reckon'd in the Church five sorts of persons who had no distinct Answer to the second Treatise part 2. chap. 3. knowledg of the Real Presence neither to reject nor admit it without comprehending therein the prophane or worldly minded persons and grounded my division on this reason That 't is not possible in this great diversity of conditions and humors of men to reduce them all either to one and the same measure of knowledg or to the same form of action THE first rank is of those who conceiv'd these two terms the Sacrament and the Body of Jesus Christ the Sacrament under the notion which their senses gave them for whether 't was call'd Bread or by any other name the idea they form'd thereof was such as their eyes represented them with They conceiv'd the Body of Jesus Christ after the manner which the Gospel speaks of it as a body and flesh like unto that which we have born of a Virgin united to the Eternal Word hanging on the Cross risen and taken up into Glory and in a word under the idea which Religion gives us of it The idea of the Sacrament served to make them pass on to that of the Body but they stopt there and made not a particular reflection thereon how the Sacrament was the Body of Jesus Christ Their devotion being content with the use which they made of the Sacrament unto which they were assisted by this formulary of Communion Corpus Christi they proceeded not so far as that question THE second rank is of those who proceeded to the question How this visible Bread this subject call'd Sacrament is the Body of Jesus Christ but finding a great deal of inconsistency in the terms their minds stopt at the single difficulty without undertaking to solve it THE third is of those who going as far as the question proceeded as far as the solution but their minds stopt at general terms as that Jesus Christ is present to us in the Sacrament and that we
receive his Body and Blood therein without searching after greater satisfaction THE fourth is of those who having been disgusted at the inconsistency of these terms the Bread and the Body of Jesus Christ found at length the real knot of the question I mean that the Bread is the Sacrament the memorial and pledg of the Sacred Body of our Redeemer THE fifth in fine is of those who at the hearing of these propositions The Bread is the Body of Jesus Christ The Bread is chang'd into the Body of Jesus Christ the Bread is made the Body of Jesus Christ went immediately to their true and natural sense without perplexity or difficulty and without so much as thinking on the inconsistency of the terms well understanding that the Bread remaining Bread is consecrated to be a Sacrament which represents and communicates to us the Lords Body and these had a more clear and distinct knowledg of the truth and a greater disposition to understand the stile and usual expressions of the Church HERE' 's says Mr. Arnaud what Mr. Claude calls the happy days of the Lib. 6. ch 5. pag. 560. Church and the time of the distinct knowledg And yet of these five ranks there are three who knew not what the Eucharist was and understood not the sense of the expressions which form this Doctrin The fourth sought and happily found it says he after a long search and the fifth found it without searching it I ACKNOWLEDG that what has been said of these five ranks may be understood of all the time which preceded the change but yet we may divide this time into two and distinguish that wherein the Pastors took a more particular care to instruct the people and that of ignorance wherein the mysteries of the Gospel were neglected and the people ill instructed For as ignorance was never so great nor universal but that there were ever some persons knowing enough to understand distinctly that the Bread is call'd the Body of Jesus Christ because 't is the Sacrament of it so knowledg never so generally overspread the Church but there were always some weak and ignorant persons in it When we distinguish a time of knowledg from a time of ignorance we do not mean there were no ignorant people during the time of knowledg nor enlightned persons during the time of ignorance We do not thus understand it But we take the denomination from the party that most prevail'd and call a time of light and knowledg that wherein we see appear more learning and clearness a time of darkness and ignorance that wherein we find on the contrary appear much more thickness and stupidity When then I said that I reckon'd these five ranks of persons in the Church I understood that this was true in both the two times that is to say both in that which I called the Churches happy days the time of a distinct knowledg and in that of ignorance and confusion but I likewise meant that this was true in these two times diversly according to the difference which distinguishes them so that when the sense of my proposition is distributed reason requires that the proportion of each time be kept We must not doubt but that in the first six Centuries there were persons to be found of these three first ranks which I denoted but far fewer than in the following Ages AFTER this first remark Mr. Arnaud makes another which is that I do not prove what I offer touching these five orders This is says he an Lib. 6. ch 6. pag. 563. History no where extant These are news which he alone knows and for which he can bring no more proof than for worlds in the Moon But this is Mr. Arnaud's usual course when he cannot answer an Argument he requires proofs for it and so when he cannot invalidate an Answer he bethinks himself of saying prove it The Author of the Perpetuity affirms that the change which we pretend is impossible I affirm 't is possible and to shew that it is so I suppose by way of explication and illustration five ranks of persons in the Church during the time which preceded the change If I suppose a thing impossible or absurd it lies upon Mr. Arnaud to shew the impossibility or absurdity thereof and not to require proofs of me I suppose nothing but what lies within the terms of probability and is conformable to the manner of mens thoughts which appears by their every days actions in like occasions as this altho not recorded in History Howsoever if Mr. Arnaud will have the Authors Argument of the Perpetuity to remain in force he should solidly attack my Answer and lay aside those fooleries of worlds in the Moon which do not well agree with the importance of our subject AND this he seems to be sensible of for he does not much insist on this demand of proofs but comes to a particular examination of these diverse ranks and to make it the more pleasant he gives each of 'em a nick-name and title the first he calls the rank of Contemplative Ignoramus's the next that of Lazy Ignoramus's the third that of Catholicks the fourth of Considerate Calvinists the fifth that of Inconsiderate ones In discoursing on the first rank he gives us a touch about Mental Prayer of being snatcht up immediately into Heaven concerning our meditation on the Body of Jesus Christ in abstracto and standing upon our guard against the terms which express the essence of the Mystery and he uses the same pleasant method about the rest which shews he can be frolicksome sometimes and has his hours of creation as well as other folks BUT laying aside these fine words let us come to things The Author of the Perpetuity intending to prove that the Faithful ever had a distinct knowledg of the Presence or Real Absence offer'd the formulary of Communion Refutat part 2. chap. 2. Corpus Christi which was used in the ancient Church saying that these terms represented the Body of Jesus Christ present on the Altar and thence he concluded they had a distinct belief that it was thereon if they follow'd the sense of these words or if they rejected them they had a distinct belief of the Real Absence TO this I answer'd that the first impression which things make on our minds and words design'd to any use is that of their use that 't is thus every morning that we conceive of the light not as being under the notion Answer to the second Treat part 2. ch 2. of a body or accident or motion of air but under the notion of a thing which is useful to us and serves to lead us to our labors which I farther illustrated by several other examples Then applying this remark to my subject I said that this formulary Corpus Christi was a formulary of use design'd according to the intention of the Church to raise up the minds of Communicants to the meditating on the Body of Jesus Christ dead
in an insulting manner What likelihood says he is there people should proceed to reflections on this mystery t' inform themselves whether it be really Jesus Christ or not I answer the question here concerns the eight first Ages and what he alledges I said was meant of the time of the most gross ignorance as 't will appear to him that shall take the pains to see my words in the proper place whence he has taken them He has not done fairly in this matter For altho it be acknowledged that in the time wherein the Pastors took care to instruct their Flock there might be some persons who proceeded not to the question how the Sacrament was the Body of Jesus Christ yet would we not be understood to speak generally of the people of that time as if there were no difference between them and those that lived in the time when ignorance most prevail'd BVT says Mr. Arnaud further There 's nothing more wonderful than the alliance which Mr. Claude makes in this imaginary order of two qualities the most irreconcilable in the world Every body knows that an high Contemplation does ordinarily suppose a higher knowledg of Mysteries than is to be expected in the common sort of the Faithful Yet it seems the persons of which this rank consists were on one hand so stupid that they comprehended nothing in the most ordinary expressions amongst the Christians altho their ears were struck with 'em in a thousand manners and yet so spiritual on the other that at the sight of the Sacrament or upon the least mention of it they had immediately their whole hearts so fixt on the Body of their Saviour that they could not reflect on the words used in the celebration of the mystery or popular instructions EVERY body knows that to raise up one's devotion to our Saviour Christ who died and rose again for us 't is not necessary to have a very high knowledg of Mysteries As the Death of Jesus Christ and his Resurrection are the most necessary notions of Christianity so are they likewise the first and if a man be not spiritual enough to send up his Devotions to our Saviour 't is certain he is no Christian Neither need a man be very knowing to comprehend that the Sacrament is design'd for this use The whole action of the Eucharist leads the most simple to this and the sursum corda which they understood put them in mind of it But to make reflections on the expressions of the Fatherr when they call the Eucharist the Body of Jesus Christ or said the Bread was the Body of Jesus Christ this requires greater ability and curiosity As to the first which is the lifting up our hearts to our Saviour Christ dead and risen it needs only be supposed that the persons of this first rank now before us had learned their Creed that they were not ignorant our Saviour died and rose again for us and knew the Eucharist was intended to make us remember him Now there are few Christians but know this But as to the second which is to make reflections on the expressions of the Fathers 't is to be supposed they had retain'd the common expressions which their Pastors used in their Sermons or Books and because they were many and very different from one another some having no difficulty and others on the contrary being hard to be understood we may imagin they precisely applied themselves to the difficult ones without contenting ' emselves with the others 't is likewise to be supposed they had compared together these two ideas that of the Sacrament and that of the Body of Jesus Christ and remarkt the differences by a formal act of Meditation Now all this requires some application of mind without which 't is very possible that simple people may remain in the Christian profession Thus we see what 's become of Mr. Arnaud's first Remark and whether my supposition touching the persons of the first rank ought to be respected as an extravagant and sensless distinction Mr. ARNAVD's second Remark contains That 't is false the use of this expression Corpus Christi which was spoken to those who Communicated was according to the intention of the Church to make them meditate on the Body of Jesus Christ in abstracto that 't is certain on the contrary that this formulary Corpus Christi was design'd to instruct them in the truth of the mystery and exact from 'em the confession of it so that 't was a formulary of Instruction and a profession of Faith and not of Practice and Action THIS discourse has all the characters of a person that finds himself intangled What means he by meditating on the Body of Jesus Christ in abstracto Is it meditating on his Death Resurrection and sitting on the right hand of the Father 'T is certain that this was the intention of these words according to the design of the Gospel as appears by the testimonies which I alledged from the Author of the Commentaries attributed to S. Hierom Primasus an African Bishop and S. Basil and this may be confirm'd by several other passages and by these words of S. Augustin We call Aug. lib. 3. de Trin. cap. 4. Bread and Wine that which being taken from the Fruits of the Earth and consecrated by the mystical Prayer is received by us for the Salvation of of our souls in remembrance of the Death which our Lord has suffered for our sakes And by these of Tatianus Jesus Christ having taken the Bread and Tatian in Diacess Wine testified they were his Body and Blood and commanded his Disciples to eat and drink thereof in remembrance of his approaching Sufferings and Death But for this purpose 't were better to read the words of S. Paul Every time ye eat of this Bread and drink of this Cup ye declare 1 Cor. 11. the Lords Death till he comes If by meditating on the Body of Jesus Christ in abstracto he means the meditating on it without conceiving it present on the Altar 't is not sufficient to say 't is false that this was the design of this formulary Corpus Christi according to the intention of the Church he must prove that the Church meant by these words to represent this Body present in its proper substance in the Eucharist which is what he must prove if he designs to uphold the Author of the Perpetuity's Argument and does not think it sufficient to say This is most false THIS formulary says he was design'd to instruct them in the truth of the mystery Who doubts it It was a formulary of use and instruction both together as I plainly intimated in my answer to the Author of the Perpetuity It behoves us only to know what is this truth of the mystery in which it instructs men 'T was says he moreover a formulary and profession of Faith and not of Practice and Action And I say 't was both the one and the other I have proved 't
was a formulary of Practice I acknowledg 't was a formulary of profession of Faith But that this Faith of which it required the profession was the substantial Presence of Jesus Christ in the Sacrament is what I deny and what Mr. Arnaud ought to prove I prove it says he by the word Amen which the Communicants answered The Amen which the Communicants pronounced signifies nothing less than this Presence of substance The Book of the Initiated attributed to S. Ambrose draws thence only this conclusion vere carnis illius Sacramentum est It is Ambros de iis qui myst init cap. 9. lib. 4. de Sacr. cap. 3. Aug. Serm. ad infr Serm. de quarta feria truly the Sacrament of the Flesh of Jesus Christ The Author of the Book of Sacraments wrongly cited by Mr. Arnaud under the name of S. Ambrose refers it to the Spiritual Communion of Jesus Christ himself which we have in the Sacrament S. Austin refers it to our selves being made the Body of Jesus Christ and his Members The Author of the Treatise of Dressing the Lords Field refers it to the Faith of the Death of Jesus Christ and effusision of his Blood Pope Leo refers it to the reality of the humane Nature of Jesus Christ against the Error of the Eutichiens And it signifies nothing for Mr. Arnaud to offer so earnestly what this Pope says Hoc ore sumitur quod fide creditur frustra ab illis Amen respondetur à quibus contra id quod accipitur disputatur for 't is clear enough that these terms signifie nothing else but that the Sacrament which we receive with our mouths is a declaration and confirmation of what we ought to believe to wit that Jesus Christ has assumed a real humane Nature because 't is the Sacrament of his real Body which we receive and that the Amen which is answered is the Seal of this truth so that when the Hereticks dispute against it they dispute against the very Amen which they pronounce And this is the sense of Leo in all which there 's no substantial Presence AS to what remains Mr. Arnaud takes a strange liberty I told the Author of the Perpetuity that this formulary Corpus Christi was a formulary of use and action designed for the stirring up of the Communicants to meditate on the Death of Jesus Christ and prov'd it very clearly by these words of the Author of the Commentaries attributed to S. Hierom. Our Saviour has given us his Sacramen to the end that by this means we should always remember THAT HE DIED FOR US AND THEREFORE WHEN WE RECEIVE IT FROM THE HAND OF THE PRIEST WE ARE TOLD THAT 'T IS THE BODY AND BLOOD OF JESUS CHRIST and by those of Primasus Every time we do this we ought to remember THAT JESUS CHRIST DIED FOR US AND THEREFORE WE ARE TOLD 'T IS THE BODY OF CHRIST to the end that remembring what he has done for us we may not be ungrateful What does Mr. Arnaud hereupon He conceals these passages and concludes from his own authority That these notions of use and this extasie of the Soul immediately transported by these words Corpus Christi to the meditation of the Body of Jesus Christ in abstracto are Mr. Claudes Dreams exactly opposite to the sentiments of the Fathers and the Churches intention and that there 's small likelihood the faithful would depart from them to dive immediately into these kind of Meditations 'T IS certain Mr. Arnaud can conquer when he pleases he suppresses my Arguments recites my words in a contrary sense turns things into ridicule and flourishes all this over with passionate expressions But proceed we to his third remark IT affirms I conclude nothing tho the false Principle on which I ground Page 573. my Arguments were supposed a true one Altho says he 't were true that these words Corpus Christi were not designed by the Church to instruct the Faithful but only to excite in them certain inward motions and set them on meditating upon the Body of Jesus Christ yet this intention of the Church hindred 'em from understanding the sense of these words and 't would be still ridiculous to suppose that these ignorant persons should so immediately enter upon the practice of these inward motions that they could not understand the terms which the Church made use of to excite them I ANSWER Mr. Arnaud charges me with two things unjustly the first That I affirm this Formulary was not design'd by the Church to instruct the Faithful but only to excite internal motions in them which I never imagin'd I affirm'd expresly rhe contrary as may be seen by whosoever shall consult that part of my answer noted in the Margin There 's Answer to the second Treatise of the Perpetuity part 2. ch 2. page 259. In Quarto Edit little sincerity in this imputation and as little in charging me with a conclusion which I do not draw and in suppressing that which I do I do not conclude the intention of the Church which design'd these terms Corpus Christi to excite inward motions in the Souls of the Communicants should hinder them from understanding the sense of these words I know that as the use which is made of things does not hinder but we may consider the nature of 'em if we will so that which is made of words does not hinder a man from examining their sense But I say there are several persons who stop at the bare notion of use without going farther and thence I concluded it may be well supposed that in the ancient Church there were several persons who hearing the words Corpus Christi when they Communicated applied themselves only to the practice of the inward affections of devotion which these terms excited without going any farther and making reflection on what the terms being applied to the Sacrament signifi'd Let any man now judg whether my supposition be ridiculous extravagant and sensless as Mr. Arnaud would make people believe or whether 't is not rather by a spirit of contradiction that Mr. Arnaud has taken upon him to refute it IT may also be here confider'd by the way whether he has had reason to call absurd the notion I instanc'd touching light when I said our conceptions about it every morning are not under the idea of a body or accident or motion of air but under the idea of a thing which serves us and leads us forth to labour And this I think is the sense of the greatest part of the world and perhaps of Mr. Arnaud too if he would speak his mind there being few persons who think when the day begins to appear or withdraw of conceiving the light under the notions which Philosophy offers be they what they will At least I have the anonimous Author of the Discourse containing several reflections on the modern Philosophy of Mr. Des Cartes on my side for he freely acknowledges That this idea is such in
and by those they every day gave to the people concerning this mystery 'T is true they might be freed from it by a thousand expressions of the Fathers which denoted the Bread and Wine are called the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ by an exchange of names which is made between the signs and the things signifi'd But we are not wont to do every thing immediately which we can do and 't is not to be deny'd but several were freed from it by this means but this does not hinder but that we may reasonably conceive a rank of persons who had not of ' emselves sufficient knowledg to clear this difficulty Mr. ARNAVD earnestly demands of us Why these people did not Page 577 578. understand the Bread to be the Body of Jesus Christ in a sense of Transubstantiation or in a sense of Consubstantiation rather than to take them in this sense that the Bread remaining Bread was the Body of Jesus Christ seeing the sense of Transubstantiation has been follow'd by all Christians since six hundred years and that of Consubstantiation has been embraced by the Lutherans whereas the last sense has been follow'd by no body and as yet never entred into any mans thoughts I answer in two words 't was because neither Transubstantiation nor Consubstantiation were then found out and that these persons we speak of had not Philosophy enough to invent 'em themselves They follow'd nature which will not suffer us to take otherwise this proposition if we understand it literally than by conceiving the ordinary idea of real Bread and the common notion of a real Body that is to say two inconsistent ideas Moreover not to insist upon what Mr. Arnaud says that the sense of Transubstantiation has been follow'd by all Christians for this six hundred years after what has been seen hitherto we may judg what truth there is in this proposition Neither do I at present mind what he says that the last sense has been follow'd by no body this is as little ture as the rest Rupert held the assumption of the Bread John of Paris has openly asserted it not to mention here that the true opinion of the Greek Church since Damascen is that the Bread remaining Bread is the Body of Jesus Christ by the union of the Divinity and by way of augmentation of the Body of Jesus Christ But when there 's occasion to deny or affirm things Mr. Arnaud is always at his liberty I SAID that these persons of the second rank of whom we now speak finding great inconsistency in these terms Bread and Body of Jesus Christ found no sense in this proposition The Bread is the Body of Jesus Christ and that it appear'd to them unintelligible Mr. Arnaud says hereupon That when two inconsistent notions are affirmed one of another we learn three things 1 These two notions affirm'd that is to say the notion of each one of the terms 2. The affirmation which is made of ' em 3. The falsity and impossibility of this affirmation and that if this proposition is of a person to whom we cannot attribute a falsity we have a fourth knowledg which is that this impossible affirmation is not the sense which the Author of the proposition had in his mind I grant this But I grant not the consequence he would draw hence that one knows an inconsistent sense for that which he calls an inconsistent sense is not a sense We know an inconsistency a mutual repugnancy of terms which cannot be reconcil'd but we do not conceive a sense Mr. Arnaud says That this Philosophy surpasses his understanding and seems to him to contain a manifest falsity We must then endeavour to explain it to him and make him acknowledg the truth of it And for this effect it must be supposed that we speak here of an affirmative proposition The Bread is the Body of Jesus Christ that we speak of persons who respected the three terms of which this proposition consists according to their literal signification conceiving the common idea of Bread the common idea of a human Body and taking the term est in a sense of being real This being supposed I say that in respect of an affirmative proposition a sense is a notion which unites two ideas and in which a mans mind may acquiesce either in deceiving or not deceiving it self if it be not deceiv'd 't is a real sense if it be 't is a false sense The knowledg of an inconsistency is on the contrary a notion that so separates two ideas that it makes them oppose and overthrow one another and declares them irreconcilable Now 't is not to be imagin'd that a man can reconcile in his mind two ideas which his understanding judges to be absolutely repugnant To conceive a sense is to conceive a thing possible to conceive an inconsistency is to conceive that there is therein an impossibility to conceive a sense is to conceive a state wherein the mind or understanding may subsist whereas to conceive an inconsistency is to conceive that there is not there a state wherein the mind can subsist It is then certain as I said that an inconsistency is not a sense and that 't is to speak abusively to say an inconsistent sense for this is as much as to say a sense which is not a sense a sense is a notion which unites two ideas and an inconsistency disunites them All Mr. Claudes subtilty Page 580. or rather deceit says Mr. Arnaud lies in that he does not distinguish between a conceiv'd and an expressed sense and a sense believ'd and approv'd of 'T is certain that those who find a proposition includes an inconsistency according to the letter and see no other sense therein do approve no other but 't is not true that they conceive no other sense therein for they conceive an inconsistent sense which is to say that they conceive only inconsistent terms are therein affirmed and therefore disapprove of 'em and conclude from the inconsistency of this sense that this is not the sense of the proposition of the Scripture and the Church BUT Mr. Arnaud's Philosophy has given here a false stroke for fot to say that a man conceives an inconsistent sense is to speak absurdly We must distinguish between those that offer an inconsistent proposition and these that judg it inconsistent Those that offer it do not always see the inconsistency of the terms either because they conceive them under respects wherein th' inconsistency does not discover it self or because they conceive them confusedly and in such a manner wherein they hide from themselves the contradiction and then those that judg of their proposition enter into their thoughts and conceive the sense which the others have imagin'd to be possible altho in effect it be not They suspend a while their own judgments to put themselves in the place of others and by this means conceive this apparent possibility which has deceiv'd them But this is not to conceive
present or not but we know that the Body of Jesus Christ is of a sensible nature th' object of our sight and feeling Had then any one said to Toby This man whom you see is an Angel perhaps Toby had taken this proposition in Mr. Arnaud's sense because he would have been led to it by what I now come from representing touching th' appearance of Angels But suppose as we ought to suppose in this place of our dispute a man that knows not as yet the Doctrin of Transubstantiation nor that of Consubstantiation that knows not the Principles of it that never heard of it nor of an appearance of Bread without its substance nor of a humane Body impalpable invisible and existent in several places at a time and moreover knows that the Body of Jesus Christ is in Heaven Let this man be told the Bread is the Body of Jesus Christ 't is certain that the light of reason will never lead him to this violent explication That that which appears Bread and is not is the very Body of Jesus Christ in substance As to the rest Mr. Arnaud ought not to abuse several passages of Calvin Beza and Zuinglius disputing against those called Lutherans Their sense is that if these words this is my Body may be literally understood we must rather admit the sense of the Roman Church than that of the Lutherans But it does not hence follow that the sense of the Roman Church is the most natural one nor that the people must find it of themselves this consequence does not any ways follow SO that here are two of the ranks of persons which I asserted delivered from the unjust pursuits of Mr. Arnaud The third says he is less troublesome Book 6. ch 8. pag. 586. than the others Why Because adds he it consists only of persons that believed the Real Presence and had a distinct Faith of it This rank is of those who going as far as the question How the Sacrament is the Body of Jesus Christ proceeded also to the solution of it but their minds stopt at general terms as that Jesus Christ is present to us in the Sacrament and that we receive therein his Body and Blood without searching a greater light 'T is certain says Mr. Arnaud there might be in effect faithful persons in the ancient Church that penetrated no farther into this Mystery than barely to believe that Jesus Christ is therein present and that we receive therein his Body and Blood God be praised that we have at length once said something which Mr. Arnaud does not contradict And to return him the same kindness do tell him that what he grants here does not at all displease me For this plainly shews there were faithful people in the ancient Church that knew nothing of Transubstantiation but conceiv'd only a Presence of Jesus Christ in the Sacrament and a reception of his Body and Blood under a general notion yet Mr. Arnaud pretends that this notion how general soever it might be was distinctly the Real Presence Which is what I deny and must examin The question is then only whether these persons believ'd distinctly the Real Presence he pretends it and I deny it THEY knew says Mr. Arnaud neither the key of Figure nor the key of Page 587. Virtue according to the Hypothesis it self So that neither the presence of Virtue nor the presence of figure came into their thoughts I grant it What presence then could they conceive but the Real Presence but the Real Reception And why must they have given to these words another sense than that which they naturally have This is ill concluded They would have conceiv'd a confus'd and general idea of Presence without descending to a particular and precise distinction I confess 't is very hard for persons that have their sight and never so little of common sense not to acknowledg that the Body of Jesus Christ is not in the Eucharist in this ordinary and corporeal manner by which a body is naturally in one place and I am sufficiently persuaded that those persons in question could not come so far as to enquire how the Eucharist is the Body of Jesus Christ without conceiving the idea of his visible and sensible Presence to reject it but we shall suppose nothing that is unreasonable in saying that in carrying off their thoughts from this corporeal Existence they conceiv'd it present under a very confused notion for 't is a usual thing with persons that are unlearned to consider things in a confused manner and therefore we commonly see they cannot express themselves otherwise than in certain obscure and general terms which do never well shew what they have in their minds It cannot be deny'd but this kind of confused ideas are usual among people But Mr. Arnaud must not imagin that these persons of whom we speak believed the substantial Presence of the Body of Jesus Christ in the Sacrament for rejecting the idea of the corporal Presence as 't is likely they did by the very instinct of nature to maintain they believ'd a substantial Presence we must suppose either that they had the idea of another manner of substantial presence of a body than the corporeal one or at least that they knew there was some other which was not less a substantial Presence than the corporeal one altho they knew it not Now of these two suppositions the first is acknowledged to be false by Mr. Arnaud himself and the second is wholly contrary to reason for who should inform them there was another manner of a substantial presence of a body than a corporeal one Nature shews us no other the expressions of their Pastors mention'd no other whence then must they have it It must then be said they had a confused idea of another manner of presence than the substantial one they beheld it in the expressions of their Pastors felt it in the motions of their Consciences but to denote precisely what that was was what they could not otherwise do than by general terms of presence reception and such like Now this was in effect to believe not a substantial Presence but a Presence of union a Presence of salutary efficacy in reference to the Soul altho they comprehended it not in its full distinction THE fourth rank is of those who after they had been puzled with the inconsistency of the terms of Bread and Body of Jesus Christ found the real knot of this difficulty to wit that the Bread is the Sacrament the memorial and pledg of the holy Body of our Redeemer They found it says Mr. Arnaud because it pleases Mr. Claude to suppose so but 't was after a long search My supposition contains nothing but what we see happens every day in the world 'T is certain there are persons who be full of doubts this is no wonder and we find 'em not so easily freed from them they esteem themselves happy when after a long search they get them resolved
What extraordinary matter is there then in this supposition BVT whilst they were in search of it and could not find it adds Mr. Arnaud dares Mr. Claude say their minds were not smitten with any idea of the Real Presence by all the passages and instructions of the Fathers They never knew of any key of Virtue or Figure how then understood they the words of the Fathers which assured them that the Lamb of God is present on the Eucharistical Table that the Bread appearing Bread was not so but the Body of Jesus Christ that we drink the immortal Blood of Jesus Christ that the Blood of Jesus Christ is added to ours that it enters into us that this single Body which is distributed to so many thousands is entire in each of 'em that 't is the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ in truth that we must not doubt of it seeing he has said so himself that altho what we see has nothing like to a human body yet none refuse to believe what Christ himself has asserted to be true that the Bread is changed into the very Body of Jesus Christ that the Bread is made the Body of Jesus Christ by the ineffable operation of the Holy Spirit that we must not look for the usual course of nature in the Body of Jesus Christ Mr. Claude cannot defend himself from these passages but by applying to 'em his keys of Virtue and Figure and enduring a thousand vexatious oppositions Now these persons being strangers to these inventions conceived the literal idea of these words they conceived that Jesus Christ entred into us that 't was not Bread but the Body of Jesus Christ that 't was not to be question'd that they ought to give their senses the lye and thus during all the time of this search they had maugre Mr. Claude the Real Presence still in their minds TO make this arguing good there must be several things supposed which Mr. Arnaud himself will not approve to be reasonable First we must suppose that those of this fourth rank now in question had either heard a great part of the Fathers preach which the Roman Church alledges in her own favour as well Greeks as Latins of several Ages or read almost all their Writings concerning the Eucharist for what Mr. Arnaud now recited to us is a rhapsody of several expressions to be found here and there in Gelasius of Cyzique Cyril of Jerusalem Chrysostom Cyril of Alexandria Gregory of Nysse Hesychius Gaudencius Epiphany Damascen and Ambrose Secondly We must suppose they made an exact collection of all these expressions of the Fathers which Mr. Arnaud abuses and put them altogether to make a better survey of them and grounded thereupon their difficulty Thirdly We must suppose that those of this fourth rank did all the same thing or at least communicated this rhapsody to one another to behold therein all of 'em the Real Presence during the time of their doubting Fourthly We must suppose they took care to collect nothing that might carry off their minds from rhe Real Presence or offer 'em contrary objects LET Mr. Arnaud consider if he pleases that those of this fourth rank now in question are a middle sort of people whom we suppose to be persons of small reading or study who were not capable of making either for themselves or fellows collections of difficult passages but only heard their Pastors say that the Bread of the Eucharist is the Body of Jesus Christ or is made the Body of Jesus Christ For when we suppose persons that knew all these expressions of the Fathers proposed by Mr. Arnaud and that have collected 'em 't will be just to suppose likewise they were not ignorant that the Fathers taught also That what we see on the Altar is Bread and Wine creatures and fruits of the Earth that they are signs and mystical symbols of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ that these symbols leave not their own nature but remain in their first substance that our Saviour Christ has honored them with the name of his Body and Blood not in changing their nature but in adding grace to their nature that Jesus Christ as he is God is every where but as Man is in Heaven that his Body must be in one place that when his Flesh was on Earth it was not in Heaven and that being now in Heaven it is not certainly upon Earth that the Bread is not properly his Body nor the Wine his Blood but so call'd inasmuch as they contain the mystery of 'em that our Saviour has made an exchange of names having given to his Body the name of Symbol that he has called the Bread his Body to the end we might know that he whose Body the Prophet had anciently figured by Bread has now given to Bread the figure of his Body By this means when Mr. Arnaud pretends the former passages gave the idea of a Real Presence I may pretend likewise that these last mention'd carried the same persons off from it and led 'em to a Sacramental sense But as I said it is not needful to put them of this fourth rank upon collecting passages out of the Fathers on either hand seeing we suppose they were only meanly instructed in points of Religion TO finish this Chapter and the defence of the second third and fourth ranks of persons which I supposed were in the ancient Church we have only to answer in few words an objection which Mr. Arnaud has proposed in his tenth Chapter which respects these three ranks in general I mean the second third and fourth which objection consists in this That there being two sorts of doubts the one in which a man understands and conceives a thing but knows not whether it be or be not whether 't is possible or impossible as when a man doubts whether Beasts think whether our blood circulates in the body others wherein a man knows not what makes the doubt as when one doubts of the causes of the flux and reflux of the Sea or of the sense of a passage of Scripture when the sense which appears is false and yet a man sees no other there is this difference between these two ways of doubting that in the first there 's no need to have the thing explained to us 't is sufficient we have proofs given us of it But the second which includes an ignorance of the manner necessarily requires an explication That the doubt or ignorance which Mr. Claude attributes to three of the ranks which compose his system is of this second kind that is to say one of these doubts which have need of information and explication of the manner of the thing being the persons in question were offended at the inconsistency of these terms Bread and Body and knew not how it could be true that the Bread was the Body of Jesus Christ or chang'd into the Body of Jesus Christ so that their ignorance could not be cured but by shewing 'em the
Saviour did not scruple to say This is my Body when he gave the sign of his Body that he made Bread his Body in saying This is my Body that is to say the figure of my Body that we must distinguish between the Bread of our Lord and the Bread which is the Lord himself that the consecrated Bread is honored with the name of our Lords Body altho the nature of Bread remains that the nature or substance of Bread ceases not to be and that that which we celebrate is the image or resemblance of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ who knew that the humanity of Jesus Christ is local absent from Heaven when on the Earth and left the Earth when it ascended up into Heaven that to eat the Flesh of Jesus Christ is to believe in him that this locution is figurative and must not be taken according to the letter signifying we must communicate of our Lords Passion and call to remembrance that his Flesh has been Crucified for us 'T IS such kind of persons as these who are well instructed in the sense of the Fathers that are to be consulted to find the natural sense of these other expressions which Mr. Arnaud alledges in his favour What likelihood is there that with these preparatives which they receiv'd daily from their Pastors they should stick at these expressions they heard 'em use That the Bread is the Body of Jesus Christ that 't is made the Body of Jesus Christ changed into the Body of Jesus Christ that the Body of Jesus Christ enters into us that we are refresh'd with his Blood and nourish'd with his Flesh and other expressions of this nature what likelihood is there they should hesitate at 'em or see any other sense in 'em than the Sacramental or figurative one Now these are the persons whereof my fifth rank consists whom I supposed to have a knowledg of the truth more distinct and clear than the others and a mind better fitted to understand the stile and ordinary expressions of the Church Let the same instructions the same expositions be given now to the people which the Fathers gave them let neither Transubstantiation nor the Real Presence nor the conversion of the substance of Bread into the very substance of Christs Body nor the Body of Jesus Christ concealed under the vail of accidents without a subject nor th'existence of these accidents without a subject nor the real existence of the Body of Jesus Christ in several places nor his double Presence that is to say his visible and invisible one nor his Sacramental state after the manner of a Spirit be mention'd let 'em not be enjoyn'd t' adore the Sacrament of the Eucharist with that Sovereign adoration which is due to Jesus Christ alone and in a word let all things be suppress'd which we find the Fathers did not speak or do and let the impressions and prejudications which these novelties have introduc'd into mens minds be lost let the same instructions and expositions I say be given to the people now which the Fathers gave them and then let 'em be told as long as you will that the Bread is the Body of Jesus Christ that 't is chang'd into the Body of Jesus Christ for I am persuaded and believe every reasonable man will be so too that the people will never conceive from these expressions either Transubstantiation or Consubstantiation but understand 'em without difficulty in a Sacramental sense Where Where 's then this great noise which the Real Presence made knocking as the Author of the Perpetuity words it millions of times at the gate of the hearts of all the Faithful Is not this clatter a mere dream and has Mr. Arnaud any reason to reproach me with the deafness of my ears BUT 't will perhaps be question'd whether persons of mean capacity whom we do not suppose to have this knowledg of the style and sense of the Church did not receive by these words th' impression of the Real Presence I answer we shall do 'em no wrong by supposing they did not understand them You have commanded us to believe said they in S. Austin Serm. ad inf explain to us then how the Bread is the Body of Jesus Christ to the end we may understand it They did not understand it then before the explication In effect the greatest part of the Fathers words taken literally are void of any natural sense Philosophy must give 'em one for how can we understand naturally that the Bread is the Body of Jesus Christ according to a literal sense or chang'd into the Body of Jesus Christ seeing we behold it still to be Bread I confess there are some of these expressions which are apt to offer to ignorant people the idea of a Real Presence but not of the real invisible and incorporeal Presence touching which we contend but on the contrary the idea of a corporeal Presence for a mans mind especially that of an ignorant man does not imagin th' existence of a human invisible insensible and impalpable Body I moreover say that this idea of the corporeal Presence would be immediately rejected as false by the most stupid and ignorant from the testimony of their own senses which they could not but consult supposing at least they knew Christ's Body was a human one But supposing they did not 't is likely their simplicity would lead them to believe that the natural Body of Jesus Christ was really upon Earth in the form of Bread such as they saw in the Eucharist and this is what S. Austin says little Children would do were they earnestly and gravely told 'tis the Body of Jesus Christ AS to the passages of S. Hilary and Gregory of Nysse which Mr. Arnaud alledges as offering the idea of the Real Presence I confess the first is able to surprize th' ignorant and make 'em conceive a corporeal Presence seeing it has these words that Jesus Christ is in us in reality of nature and not by a simple consent of will and then again that Jesus Christ dwells in us naturally which literally signifies that our Lords Flesh exists in us in such an ordinary and corporeal manner as the flesh of animals exists in us when we eat 'em which was the sense wherein the Capernaits took the words of Jesus Christ Mr. Arnaud himself seems to have acknowledg'd this seeing he believ'd himself oblig'd to add in his Translation a corrective that mollifies or explains this term naturally Naturally says he that is to say really But this that is to say really ought not to be written in Italick as if 't were S. Hilary's own explication and if the fault be the Printer's and not Mr. Arnaud's he should at least have set it in the Errata because it causes two illusions at a time on one hand it makes a man believe S. Hilary taught the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in us in proper terms seeing he says that he remains in us naturally that is
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
no more any express and determined thought on the Articles of the Christian Faith and that Jesus Christ is God and Man that he was born of a Virgin died for us rose again and ascended up into Heaven and that there is an Eucharist but meaning that they had only a very small knowledg of them such as is common to persons unlearned and who rarely apply themselves to meditate on matters of Religion who go indeed for Christians but trouble themselves with no more knowledg than barely to learn the Creed and receive some other general Instructions 'T is easily perceived that this was my sense and that the ignorance I attribute to these persons of the 10th Century from the concurrent Testimony of all Historians was not so great as to keep 'em absolutely from all knowledg of the principal Points of Christian Religion as if they were become Pagans or Atheists or bruit Beasts but that it hindred them from having that clearness of apprehension and distinct knowledg which comes by study and pains and the hearing of able Preachers Which will evidently appear upon consulting the particular places of my Answer wherein I treat of the 10th Century for I attribute to it a confused knowledg of the Mysteries of Religion Now a confused knowledg is moreover a formal knowledg Elsewhere I compare their knowledg to that of a Child who is wont to see First Answer near the end his Nurse ill drest lean and sick which still supposes he sees her altho he sees her not in her usual condition In another place I say the Pastors grew Answer to the second Treatise Part 2. ch 3. and Part 3. ch 7. careless of instructing the People and the People likewise of informing themselves in matters of Religion that there were few persons that applied themselves to the meditating on the Christian Mysteries that the Pastors extremely neglected th' instructing of the People and that the People grew as careless as they in matters of their salvation Now the meaning of all this is not that they wholly lost all kind of knowledg but that it was very scanty In fine 't will appear this is my sense to him that shall cast his eyes on the use I pretend to make of the obscurity of the 10th Age which was to shew that the people of it had not light enough to discern whether the Doctrin of the Real Presence was an innovation in the Christian Religion or whether 't was a Doctrin of the Fathers Now this does not oblige a man to suppose an absolute ignorance of the Christian Mysteries but that the knowledg of them was very confused Which Mr. Arnaud could have well enough seen if he pleased but he thought 't were better to betake himself to Sophisms imagining they would not be laid open and that he might so disguise the subject that few persons should be able to understand it And 't is on this Principle which is neither true nor sincere that he has grounded this reasoning the common Mysteries held at this day by both Parties and contained in the ancient Symbols were not unknown in the 10th Century therefore they of that Age had a distinct knowledg of the truths of the Christian Doctrin WHATSOEVER follows in his fourth Chapter turns upon the same equivocation Did they leave off says he reading the Holy Scripture Page 892. in the Churches and Cloisters Did they give over explaining of it to the People and teaching it in the Schools Do not the writings of those Authors which we have that lived in that Century such as those of S. Odon and Raterius Bishop of Verone make it appear that the Scriptures and Fathers were studied Why does he say that the people had concealed from 'em the clear and solid expositions of the Fathers Was not the Eucharist therein called the Sacrament of the Body of Jesus Christ the Mystery of the Body of Jesus Christ Bread and Wine But all these interrogations are needless A man may say they did not absolutely give over the reading of the holy Scripture and expounding it Perhaps Odon and Raterius were a little studious Perhaps the Eucharist was called a Sacrament a Mystery Bread and Wine and yet it may not follow the People had a distinct knowledg of the points of Religion The Greeks Armenians Moscovites Ethiopians Jacobites Nestorians did not wholly lay aside the reading of the Holy Scripture and of some Fathers in their Church and Cloisters and yet is it true that all these people yea their very Monks and Prelates lived in a very confused knowledg of the mysteries of the Gospel WHAT he adds touching some Historians and Bishops that wrote Books is built on the same foundation Besides that there appears not any thing in these Authors but what is very mean their small number does well warrant our saying this Age was void of Learned men and that people had but a very confused knowledg of the mysteries of the Gospel 'T IS false saith he that in this Age open War was denounced against the senses If this be false how does he himself understand they taught Transubstantiation in it For can this Doctrin be taught without opposing the testimony of our senses seeing they shew us it is Bread and Wine BUT these small objections are very inconsiderable in comparison of Mr. Arnaud's grand pretension which is that this confused knowledg which I attribute to the 10th Century is but a mere empty sound whose sense I my self do not understand In searching his Book says he in what sense he took it I found that confused knowledg and distinct knowledg are one and the same thing in his language which is to say that the knowledg which he calls confused is every whit as clear as that which he calls distinct This discovery would be a very fine one indeed were it not merely imaginary 'T is grounded on that describing some-where the instructions of the Fathers of the eight first Centuries I say that they taught therein the Sacrament to be Bread and Wine that this Bread and Wine were the signs and Figures of the Body of Jesus Christ that they lost not their natural substance but were called the Body and Blood of Christ because they were the Sacraments of ' em He hence concludes that 't is in these Articles wherein consists according to my way the distinct knowledg of the Mystery of the Eucharist He afterwards observes that in another place speaking of the trurh of the Eucharist which have been always popular I say That the Mystery of the Eucharist has been always popular in the outward form of its celebration and in the general acts which Christians ought to perform in it To take Bread to drink Wine in remembrance of the Death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ our Lord to receive these things with a religious frame of mind as a great Sacrament which the Lord has ordained to raise up ones Faith to the Body and Blood of our Saviour to
find therein the consolation of our Souls this without doubt is popular It is popular to hearken to the testimony of sense which tells us that 't is Bread and yet to hear that 't is the Body of Christ the Sacrament of the Body of Christ its pledg its memorial It is popular to know that Jesus Christ is in Heaven and that from thence he shall come to judg both the quick and dead Whence he concludes with Authority that the distinct knowledg which I give to the first Ages and the confused one which I attribute to the 10th are but one and the same thing IT must be allowed that never any consequence was more violently drawn than that of Mr. Arnaud's First It is not true that the Articles which I give of the distinct knowledg are the same with those of the popular knowledg Among the first is found That the Bread and Wine lose not their natural substance That they are called the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ because they are the Sacraments of 'em which is not found in the Articles of the popular knowledg How will he have this to be then one and the same thing There is a great deal of difference between harkning to the testimony of ones proper senses which shew the Eucharist to be Bread and Wine and learning from the instructions of Pastors that the Eucharist is Bread and Wine The first induces a man to believe that to judg of it by sense 't is real Bread and Wine but the second goes farther for it shews this very thing which the senses depose to be the true belief of the Church Now these two things are wholly different as any man may see The first does not dispose men to reject Transubstantiation as a novelty contrary to the Faith of the Church for it remains still to know whether the Faith of the Church be not contrary to the testimony of sense The second does dispose 'em to it for it shews that the Doctrin of the Church is according to the deposition of the senses Now the first is according to my rule belonging to the popular knowledg and the second belongs to the distinct knowledg What reason is there then in having these two knowledges to be the same Thirdly Mr. Arnaud has not observed that when I spake of the distinct knowledg of the eight first Centuries I did not pretend exactly to denote all the Articles of it this was not my business in that place But only t' observe some of the principal ones which were sufficient to make known the sense of these Propositions The Bread is the Body of Jesus Christ it is changed into the Body of Jesus Christ But it does not hence follow but that there were therein some others very considerable ones which may be gathered from the passages of the Fathers which I produc'd in my first part as that the change which happens in the Eucharist is not a change of Nature but an addition of Grace to Nature that Jesus Christ as to his human Body or human Nature is so in Heaven that he is no more on Earth that the manducation of the Body of Jesus Christ is spiritual and mystical that we must not understand it literally it being a figurative expression that the Sacrament and the verity represented by the Sacrament are two distinct things and several others which are not necessary to be related Supposing it were true that the Articles of the popular knowledg were the same with those I mark'd of the distinct knowledg which is evidently false yet would it not follow that these two knowledges according to my sense would be the same thing seeing I never pretended to make an exact enumeration of all the points of the distinct knowledg nor exclude them which I now denoted which are no wise popular In fine Mr. Arnaud has not considered that of the same Articles whether popular or not popular a man may have a distinct knowledg and a confused one according as he makes a greater or lesser reflection on them according as they are respected with more or less application according as each of those that has the knowledg of 'em has more or less understanding natural or acquired so that supposing we attributed to the distinct knowledg of the eight first Centuries only the Articles which I specifi'd supposing these Articles were the same as those I attribute to the popular knowledg which is not true supposing again there were no difference in 'em as there is in respect of some of these Articles between the knowing of 'em popularly that is to say either by the help of the Senses or by the natural motion of the Conscience and to know them by the instruction of the Pastors as a thing which the Church believes and from which a man must not vary it would in no wise thence follow that the confused knowledg were according to what I laid down the same thing the object of these two knowledges would be the same but the knowledges would be distinct And thus have we shewed Mr. Arnaud's subtilties CHAP. VI. Mr. Arnaud's Objections against what he calls the Machins of Mollification and the Machins of Execution Examin'd The state of the Twelfth Century MR. ARNAVD will not suffer me to say in my Answer to the Answer to the second Treatise Part 2. chap. 7. Author of the Perpetuity That Error does not insinuate it self by way of opposition or a formal contradiction of the truth but by way of addition explication and confirmation and that it endeavours to ally it self with the ancient Faith to prevent its immediate opposition And this is what he calls my Machins of Mollification which he pretends to overthrow in his fifth Chapter The inventions says he of Mr. Claude are Book 9. ch 5. page 899. usually attended with very considerable defects To which I have no more to say but this that the pretensions of Mr. Arnaud are commonly very high but generally very ill grounded well offer'd but ill defended 'T IS false says he that Paschasus did not teach his Doctrin by expresly condemning those that were of a contrary Opinion Mr. Arnaud hides himself under a thin vail pretending not to understand what he does very well We do not say that Paschasus did not propose his Doctrin by condemning those of a contrary Opinion This is not the point in question The question is Whether he did not propose his Doctrin as the Doctrin of the Church which was not sufficiently understood and which he therefore more clearly explain'd Now Paschasus himself decides this difference as I have shewed in my Answer to the Perpetuity For speaking in the beginning of his Book touching his design he says That all the Faithful ought to understand the Lib. De Corpore Sang. Dom. cap. 2. Sacrament of our Lords Body and Blood which is every day celebrated in the Church and what they ought to believe and know of it That we must seek the
virtue of it and instruct our Faith under the Discipline of Jesus Christ lest we be esteem'd unworthy if we do not discern it enough not understanding what is the dignity and the virtue of the mystical Body and Blood of our Saviour And lest it should be imagin'd this was only a way of speaking to excite the Faithful to instruct themselves in this Mystery yet without supposing that in effect they were ignorant of the exposition he was going to make of it we need only call to mind what he says in his Letter to Frudegard wherein speaking of the success his Book met with I am informed says he that I have moved several to understand this mystery which shews Epist ad Frud that according to him his Book was a more clear and express exposition of the Churches sentiment and that he had actually brought over several persons from an obscure to a clear knowledg of this Mystery But without going any further we need only read a passage of Odon Abbot of Clugny which Mr. Arnaud himself has produc'd for it expresly justifies what I say Paschasus says he has wrote these things and several others to learn us Book 9. ch 6. page 913. the reverence we owe to this mystery and make us know the majesty of it and if those who pretend to be knowing would take the pains to read his Book they will find such great things in it as will make 'em acknowledg they understood little of this mystery before After this testimony of one of Paschasus his principal Disciples who lived in the 10th Century I think it cannot be deny'd that Paschasus proposed his Doctrin by way of explication He wrote says he to teach us what reverence we owe to this mystery and to make us know the majesty of it He will have also the learned before the reading of this Book to be in a manner ignorant of this mystery and seeing he is pleased the learned should be no better qualified I hope he will pardon the ignorant by a stronger reason AND thus do we see on what design Paschasus and his Disciples taught their Opinion to wit as an illustration of the common Faith an explication of what was known before but obscurely and not as a Doctrin directly opposite to an Error with which men were imbued I acknowledg that this design proved not successful to 'em in respect of all and there being several who regarded this opinion as a novelty which ought to be rejected and as to them I doubt not but Paschasus and his Disciples proceeded with 'em by way of opposition and contradiction as we are wont to do against profest enemies but how does this hinder them from proposing their Doctrin by way of explication and even this to wit whether it was an exposition of the ancient Doctrin or not was in part the subject of the contradiction IT is not possible says Mr. Arnaud that a Doctrin should be approv'd of Book 9. ch 5. page 900. immediately by all those to whom it was proposed There must certainly be some who reject it and warn others against it I grant it but that it hence follows as Mr. Arnaud would have it believed that my pretension is impossible is what I deny and that with reason for a man may well propose a new opinion by way of an explication of the ancient Faith and defend it afterwards by way of contradiction against adversaries who reject it and respect it as a novelty IN fine adds Mr. Arnaud this means will not serve the end for which Ibidem Mr. Claude designs it which is to hinder men from rising up against this Doctrin and make the change insensible to those which suffered it We never told Mr. Arnaud that this means absolutely hindred the insurrection he mentions but in effect the contrary to wit that several did rise up against Paschasus but we pretend likewise 't was easie to cheat several by making 'em receive this novelty under the title of an explication and that in their respect they conceiv'd therein no other change than that which ignorant people do conceive when they imagin a greater illustration of the Faith of the Church and what those learned persons could conceive of it mention'd by Odon who by reading Paschasus his Book acknowledg'd they had hitherto but small knowledg of this mystery All the effect which this could produce was to excite them against their former ignorance and to esteem themselves obliged to Paschasus for his good instructions Now we know that these kind of insurrections make no great noise BUT says moreover Mr. Arnaud others must be surpriz'd in a contrary Page 901. manner they must needs deride the absurdity of this new Doctrin They must be astonish'd at the boldness of Paschasus and his Disciples proposing of it as the Faith of the Church They must be mightily offended at their being accused of ignorance and infidelity for not believing that which no Body ever did believe Who told Mr. Aruaud there were not in effect several in Paschasus his time who had these kind of sentiments touching his Opinion Pascasus himself acknowledges that several called in question his Doctrin he says he was reprehended for taking our Saviour's words in a wrong sense he endeavours to answer some of their objections seems to intimate he was accused for writing his Book by an Enthusiastic rashness and pretended Revelation And in effect John Scot Raban and Bertram wrote against his novelties and opposed them But this does not hinder its being true that he proposed his Doctrin as an explication of the common Faith and that this way might procure him many followers And so far concerning the Machins of Mollification I come now to the pretended Machins of Execution Mr. Arnaud immediately complains that I sometimes make the Real Presence to be established by the noise of Disputes and otherwhiles acknowledg there was no Dispute in the 10th Century wherein I pretend this was effected I think Book 9. ch 6. page 902. says he we had best leave him to his choice and that by choosing one of these chimerical means he may acknowledg he has rashly and falsly offer'd the other Were Mr. Arnaud's request reasonable we would not stick to grant it notwithstanding the sharpness of his expressions But 't is unjust and unwarrantable for 't is certain that the change in question has hapned and that with and without Disputes There was a contest in the 9th Century during the time wherein Paschasus lived as I now said We do not find there was any in the 10th but in the 11th 't was very hot So that any man may see there is no contradiction in what I offered let Mr. Arnaud say what he pleases Which I hope he will grant me when he considers First That what I said concerning the senses that were attackt by the noise of the Dispute and th' Authority of the Court of Rome must be referred to the 11th
Century and that 't will not be found I attributed it to the 10th Secondly That when I spoke precisely of the 10th I did not suppose any Disputes in it but on the contrary a gross ignorance which hindred 'em from disputing Mr. ARNAVD cannot comprehend that there were or that there were not any Disputes The means says he that they proposed the Doctrin of the Real Presence to so many persons that never heard of it or had an aversation to it and that they have been persuaded immediately so that they made no resistance And so far for the Disputes The means likewise that so many Disputes should produce no Writings that the Paschasits should publish nothing to satisfie the doubts proposed to ' em That the Bertramits in rejecting the Doctrin of the Real Presence should never publish the reasons for it And here we have something against the Disputes BUT people must never argue against matters of fact 'T is certain there were Disputes against Paschasus his Doctrin in the 9th Century we learn as much from Paschasus himself 't is also certain there were likewise in the 11th on the same subject We are informed of this by the History of Berenger It appears that the Doctrin of Bertram had likewise its course in the 10th We learn this from the Paschal Homilies and Sermons of that time which are extant 'T is also certain the Real Presence was taught therein We know this by th' example of Odon Arch-bishop of Canterbury who made use of Miracles to persuade the world of the truth of it Yet does it not appear there were any Disputes rais'd on this point nor Writings on either side It seems to me we ought to stop here and argue not against these matters of fact seeing they cannot be denied but on these facts to draw notices thence which may clear our principal Question which is whether Paschasus was the Innovator or whether th' innovation must be attributed to John Scot to Bertram to Raban or any other adversaries of Paschasus his Doctrin THIS is the Point to be dispatched for what signifies the marking one by one of the Authors that have written the lives of the Saints of the 10th Century What matter is it to us who wrote the life of S. Radbodus or that of S. Godart or S. Remacle We do not see says Mr. Arnaud in any of these Book 9. ch 6. page 907. lives that either of 'em busied himself to instruct the people in the Doctrin of the Real Presence and to refute the contrary opinion Were this observation true what good would redound from it Did these Historians design to learn the world the sentiments of their Saints on every particular Article of Religion or to inform us what was the subject of their Sermons and instructions which they gave their people Moreover who supposes all these Bishops were Preachers of the Real Presence It is sufficient there were some that have authoris'd this Doctrin William of Malmsbury as Mr. Arnaud himself acknowledges relates of Odon th' Arch-bishop of Canterbury That he confirm'd several in the Faith that doubted of the truth of our Lords Ibidem Body having shewed them by a miracle the Bread of the Altar changed into Flesh and the Wine of the Chalice changed into Blood Whether these doubters were the Disciples of John Scot or not 't is not necessary to enquire 't is sufficient that this relation shews us there were several persons that withstood the Doctrin of the Real Presence and that these persons were neither inconsiderable for their number nor fame seeing a Primate of England th' Arch-bishop of Canterbury was forced to make use of a Miracle for their Conversion Mr. Arnaud likewise tells us from the Life of S. Dunstan Page 9 8. that he preached the Real Presence and we have seen already what he himself alledges touching Oden the Abbot of Clugny who exhorted those that thought themselves learned to read Paschasus his Book telling 'em they might learn such great things in it as would make 'em acknowledg they had hitherto but small knowledg of the mystery of the Eucharist This methinks is sufficient to shew there were endeavours in the 10th Century to establish the Real Presence For what could these great things be which the Learned had no knowledg of and in which they were to be instructed by Paschasus his Book but the mysteries of the Real Presence 'T would be absurd to say that by these great things we must understand only the Devotion and Piety with which we ought to receive the Sacrament For 't is to be supposed these Learned folks mention'd by Odon were not ignorant that Jesus Christ is on the Altar by the proper substance of his Body neither could be ignorant that it ought to be received with all the Respect and Devotion we are able and therefore there was no need to send 'em to Paschasus his Book to discover therein this consequence seeing it discovers it self sufficiently enough by the bare idea which the Gospel gives us of Jesus Christ MOREOVER he that desires to see the strange effects of prejudice need but read the 7th Chapter of Mr. Arnaud's 9th Book He pretends to shew therein as the title of the Chapter bears That the mixture of the Page 914. two Doctrines which Mr. Claude is obliged to admit in the 10th Century is a thing the most contrary imaginable to common sense He exerts all his parts to shew this mixture is impossible he cannot endure there should be therein either ignorant or prophane persons nor Paschasists nor Bertramists and argues thereupon till he has lost both himself and his Readers YET is this a real matter of fact against which all Mr Arnaud's subtilties will not prevail That the two Doctrines have been mixt in this Century I already proved it in my Answer to the Perpetuity but Mr. Arnaud has thought good to suppress my proofs and pass 'em over in silence to make way for his reasonings But let him argue as long as he will he cannot hinder its being true that in the 10th Century th' English were taught this Doctrin that as we consider two things in the same creature as for instance in the Lib. Catholicor Serm. ad Bed Hist l. 5. c. 22. Abraham Veloci water of Baptism the one that it is naturally true 't is corruptible Water and th' other that according to the spiritual mystery it has a saving virtue so likewise if we consider th' Eucharist according to our natural understanding we see it to be a corporeal and elementary creature but if we regard the spiritual virtue then we understand there is life in it and that 't will give immortality to those that shall partake of it with Faith That there is a great deal of difference between the invisible virtue of this holy Eucharist and the visible species of nature that in respect of its nature it is corruptible Bread and corruptible Wine and that by
10th Century and that as to his part he has made use neither of Cheats nor Artisices to hinder this change 's being made with noise THE first of these Answers is already refuted We have nothing to do either with Greeks or Egyptians Moscovites Ethiopians Nestorians Jacobites Armenians nor Indians in the affair of Transubstantiation Mr. Arnaud puts questions to us about them without their consent or order The Doctrin of Transubstantiation has been a long time insinuating of it self amongst 'em which when effected we shall have the Emissaries and Scholars of the Seminaries to be Witnesses of th' Innovation THE second Answer is frivolous We neither accuse Mr. Arnaud nor his Friends personally for having done any thing to deprive us of the knowledg of the manner in which the change hapned whatsoever they have thereunto contributed consists only in the false Citations and Sophisms in their Books but of these we will not here complain We only complain here of their drawing advantage from the ill means that have been used by other persons on their side whose Successors and Defenders they are to deprive Posterity of the knowledg of th' Innovation in question and I believe there 's a great deal of Justice in this complaint A Council has caused John Scot's Book to be burn'd there are none to be had of 'em at this day We have lost the Writings of Heribald Bishop of Auxerre the Letter of Raban to Egilon Eriger's Book against Paschasus Berenger's Works their Books who wrote in his favour in the 11th Century We know no more of this long History than what we can gather here and there in suspected Authors Adversaries to Berengarius and his Doctrin Moreover there have been given the publick under the name of the Fathers false and supposed Books their real Works have been alter'd and false pieces inserted in them to make the world believe there were no Innovations in their Doctrin I say Answer to Noüet nothing but what may be easily justified and which I have already clearly proved elsewhere If I complain of Mr. Arnaud's injustice who makes advantage of these frauds put upon us and which he knows to be such in like manner as what the Emissaries have done in the East whence he would make us believe they of those parts have ever held Transubstantiation and the Real Presence This is I think a complaint for which no rational person will condemn me I likewise proposed some examples of insensible changes which have hapned in the Latin Church whence I concluded 't was not impossible one should have hapned by the introduction of the Doctrins of Transubstantiation and the Real Presence Mr. Arnaud to extricate himself out of the perplexity which these examples caused him has devised some distinctions some of 'em imaginary and others unnecessary by means whereof he has pretended to invalidate the change in question and they are these differences which we must now examine IT cannot be denied but that the custom of communicating of both kinds that of giving the Communion to little Children and that of Fasting till the Evening and some others have been chang'd in the Latin Church Mr. Arnaud does not gain-say it but tells us these customs are still used in the Eastern Churches so that the change has not been vniversal whereas if that of the establishment of Transubstantiation were true we must suppose it hapned at the same time throughout all the world and all Christian Churches This is his first difference which he amplifies and exaggerates after his manner But the answer is not difficult to wit that there is not any Transubstantiation or Real Presence such as the Roman Church holds in the Eastern Churches or if there be 't is brought in by the Emissaries and Scholars of the Romish Seminaries besides that a change is not ever the less insensible in respect of those that have admitted it for its being less universal THE second difference is that in the greatest part of th' expressions which I propose the point concerns some establish'd custom whereas here the question is touching a new Doctrin universally establish'd which is says he extremely different a general inconveniency may universally abolish a custom but when the question is touching the remedying of an abuse every man follows his particular judgment in the choice of remedies And this especially shews us th' impossibility of the change in the subject of the Eucharist For this must be said to be an universal establishment of an extraordinary Doctrin which cannot subsist with the infinite diversity of judgments respects and inclinations which happen in so many different Churches which being divided in such small matters cannot be expected to unite in a Doctrin so offensive that 't is strange it has found any followers neither could it had it not been authoriz'd by an universal consent I confess there 's a great deal of difference betwixt an ancient custom that is abolish'd and a new Doctrin that is establish'd But this difference does Mr. Arnaud more hurt than good For ignorant people are more earnest to conserve their customs which they know than they are to reject a Doctrin which they know but imperfectly and concerning whose novelty they cannot judg When an ancient publick and perpetual custom is abolish'd th' innovation is more manifest than when a new Doctrin is introduc'd for the novelty of it is conceal'd 't is offer'd as being the ancient Faith and they that offer it pervert for this effect some ordinary expressions turning 'em into another sense Customs are of themselves popular and when they are changed people are apt to imagin their Religion is about being taken away from 'em but as to Doctrinals the people are wont to suffer those that have greatest authority in the Church to preach what they please and obediently receive it without any examination As to the rest 't is certain there has hapned something in reference to the Eucharist which is like what Mr. Arnaud observes that when we leave an ancient custom every man takes a different course and follows his own particular judgment For the Latins and Greeks in departing from the plain and genuine explication of the Ancients which was that the Bread and Wine of the Eucharist are figures and images of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ have faln upon different sentiments the Greeks having taken the party of the union of the Bread with the Divinity and augmentation of the Body of Jesus Christ and the Latins that of Transubstantiation But we must not pass over in silence what Mr. Arnaud confesses that the Doctrin of the Latins is so offensive that 't is strange it has found any followers had it not been authorised by an universal consent This acknowledgment must at least shew the world how important it is to prevent being abused by this pretended universal consent and engaging in a sentiment which moreover is so offensive But as the discussion of this question touching the universal
that I said in some places of my answer That the expressions of the Fathers were not of themselves capable to give rise to this opinion and therefore the idea of it must come from elsewhere That supposing these expressions and a thousand such like were every day uttered by the Fathers they could never form in the peoples minds the idea of a Transubstantiation or a Real Presence such as the Roman Church teaches unless they were propossessed with it by some other means That there 's no likelihood that before Paschasus made this first explication men abandoned their senses and reason to conceive the Real Presence and that certainly no place but the solitary and idle Convent of Corbie could bring forth such an extravagant fancy Let a man upon this judg says Mr. Arnaud what kind of blade this Book 8. ch 8. p. 839. Paschasus must be according to Mr. Claude seeing that on one hand he was able to invent an opinion which could never come into any bodies head but his own and further had the power and good luck to persuade the whole world into the belief of it with circumstances which are yet more admirable Certainly this is beyond the reach of man I ANSWER that Mr. Arnaud draws his consequences always ill We said that the people who usually follow the lights of nature and common sense and whose meditations are not strong enough of ' emselves to invent this pretended manner of making the Body of Jesus Christ to exist in Heaven and on Earth both at a time could not raise the idea of this from the expressions of the Fathers and Mr. Arnaud hence concludes 't is impossible that Paschasus has invented this opinion or been able to persuade others to embrace it This consequence is absurd for we have examples of such kind of persons as Paschasus who have wandred from the true lights of nature and faln into remote imaginations which no body ever had before 'em and which the people were certainly never capable of I confess that in some respect one may marvel at these figuaries of human invention because they are irregularities it being likewise astonishing to see men capable of so many disorders but it must not be hence concluded that these disorders are more than human or that 't is impossible for a people who did did not invent an opinion themselves to follow it when 't is well contrived and coloured We see this happens every day and Mr. Arnaud should propose something more solid THE true way to know whether Paschasus was an Innovator or not is to enquire whether those that went before him taught the same Doctrin for if they did we are to blame in charging him with an innovation but if on the contrary we find their Doctrin different from his we cannot doubt but he innovated And this is the course Mr. Aubertin has taken for he offers not the history of the change of which he makes Paschasus the first Author till he shew'd by an exact discussion of each particular Century that till Paschasus his time no body ever spake like him whence it follows of necessity that he was an Innovator It belong'd therefore to Mr. Arnaud and the Author of the Perpetuity had they design'd to deal sincerely to take this course and shew that Paschasus said nothing but what others said before him This would have been an easie and direct method supposing Paschasus had not been an Innovator but Mr. Arnaud does not like the engaging in these kind of discussions HE thought it more for his purpose to fall upon a fruitless criticism by which he pretends to conclude That no body publickly declared himself Book 8. ch 8. p. 841. against Paschasus his Book all the time he lived That no body wrote against him That no Bishop no Abbot of his Order reproached him with it That there were only some persons who shew'd in secret they were frighted at these truths and said not in writing but in particular discourses that he had gone too far and yet this was not till three years after he had publish'd his Book SUPPOSING this remark to be as certain as Mr. Arnaud has made it what advantage will he pretend hence Will Paschasus be ever the less an Innovator for his not finding any thing publish'd against him during his life All that can be concluded hence is that his Book was but little known at first and afterwards but of small esteem with great men and that if they believed themselves oblig'd at length to write against his Doctrin 't was only because they saw several follow'd it whom 't was necessary to undeceive For to imagin that John Scot Bertram and Raban shunn'd the opposing him during his life that they might not bring upon 'em so terrible an Adversary must proceed from th' ignorance of what these three great men were who had another kind of esteem amongst the learned than Paschasus 'T is also a ridiculous conjecture to imagin they lay quiet during his life because his Doctrin was then the common Doctrin of the Church which they dared not oppose For if this reason hindred 'em from writing against Paschasus during his life why did it not do the same after his death seeing the common Doctrin of the Church was still the same and Paschasus carried it not away with him into his Grave BUT at bottom there 's nothing more uncertain than this remark of Mr. Arnaud For as to John Scot there 's not the least reason to guess he wrote since Paschasus his death We know he wrote of the Eucharist by the command of Charles the Bald and consequently whilst he was in France whether this was before or after the year 852 't will be in my opinion hard to determin As to Raban we cannot be certain whether this Egilon to whom he wrote his Letter against Paschasus was either Egilon Abbot of Fuldad who died in the year 822 or another Egilon Abbot of Prom who succeeded Marquard in the year 853. For as to what is said by the anonimous Treatise which Father Celot publish'd which is that Raban was Archbishop of Mayence when he wrote this Letter is very weak It 's true it terms him Raban of Mayence but upon another occasion to wit when the Author accuses him to have taught that the mystery of the Body and Blood of our Lord is exposed to the common condition of aliments whereas when he mentions the Letter which he wrote against Paschasus he calls him only Raban and hence can be nothing certain gather'd As to Bertram Mr. Arnaud alledges no other reason but this That there 's little Book 8. ch 8. p. 842. likelihood he would write against his Abbot whilst he was under his Jurisdictiction and that Paschasus who believed his Doctrin could not be attack'd without a crime must have complain'd of this attempt But is Mr. Arnaud ignorant of what the President Maugin has written touching Bertram that he was not only a very
learned but a very honest man a bold defender of the Dissert c. 17. Catholick Faith against all Innovators and that he wrote against Hincmar his own Bishop altho he was upheld by the Kings Authority What likelihood is there that a man who scrupled not to write against his Metropolitan and such a man as Hincmar who was countenanced by the King would stick to write by the Kings order too against Paschasus altho he was his Abbot IT signifies nothing for Mr. Arnaud to say That Paschasus clearly testifies that his Doctrin was only attack'd by private Discourses and not by Books For this cannot be collected from his expressions unless we read 'em with glosses and interpretations of Mr. Arnaud Let those says Paschasus in his Commentary on the 26th of S. Matthew that will extenuate the term of Body hear me those that say that 't is not the true Flesh of Jesus Christ which is now celebrated in the Sacrament in the Church and that 't is not his true Blood imagining they know not what that 't is in this Sacrament the virtue of the Flesh and Blood and make the Lord a lyar saying that 't is not his true Flesh nor his true Blood by which we declare his true death whereas truth it self says This is my Body And a little lower I am astonish'd at some peoples saying 't is not the real Flesh and Blood of Jesus Christ in the same thing but that it is Sacramentally so a certain virtue of his Flesh and not his Flesh the virtue of his Blood and not his Blood the figure and not the truth the shadow and not the Body And in another place a little further I spake of these things the more largely and more expresly because I understand that some rereprehend me as if I would in the Book which I wrote concerning the Sacraments of Christ attribute to these words more than the truth it self promises And in his Letter to Frudegard Sed quidam says he loquacissimi magis quam docti dum hoec credere refugiunt quaecunque possunt ne credant quoe veritas repromittit opponunt dicunt nullum corpus esse quod non sit palpabile visible hoec autem inquiunt quia mysteria sunt videri nequeunt nec palpari ideo corpus non sunt si corpus non sunt in figura carnis sanguinis hoec dicuntur non in proprietate naturoe carnis Christi sanguinis quoe caro passa est in cruce nata de Maria Virgine Ecce quam bene disputant contra fidem sine fide It appears from these passages that Paschasus his opinion was contradicted That he was accused for taking Christs words in a wrong sence That he had several clear and solid objections offered him whether by word of mouth or writing or by Books or bare discourses he does not inform us But one may well conclude hence that this opposition consisted not in secret discourses as Mr. Arnaud would have us believe Are we wont to call private discourse a formal opposition by way of objection dispute censure and clear and precise explication of the contrary opinion Opponunt says he quoecunque possunt Ecce quam bene disputant dicunt non in se esse veritatem carnis Christi vel sanguinis sed in Sacramento virtutem carnis non carnem Audivi quosdam me reprehendere c. Do men thus express themselves when they would represent private discourse But says Book 3. ch 8. p. 843. Mr. Arnaud Paschasus in his Letter to Frudegard assures that altho some are deceived thro ignorance yet there is no body that dared openly contradict what the whole earth believes and confesses of this mystery I answer that the sense of Paschasus is that no body dared contradict openly what the whole Earth believes and confesses of this mystery to wit that 't is the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ according as 't is express'd in this clause of the Liturgy which he alledges Vt fiat Corpus Sanguis dilectissimi filii tui Domini nistri Jesu Christi and by the words of Christ This is my Body Now what he says is true in the sense which we suppose must be given to the words of Christ and to the terms of the Liturgy but it does not hence follow that those that opposed the sence which Paschasus gave to these very words of the Liturgy and to those of Christ explain'd themselves very plainly against him for there 's a great deal of difference between acknowledging the truth of these words and acknowledging the sense which an Author would give 'em They confessed that the words were true and could not be question'd without a crime but yet this hindred 'em not from setting ' emselves against the sense of Paschasus Paschasus pretends to draw advantage against 'em by their acknowledging the words imagining the words were plainly for him but he does not at all say they dared not to dispute openly against him nor against the sense he gave these words This is a delusion of Mr. Arnauds just as if any one having said that there 's no body yet amongst the Protestants that has openly denied the Eucharist to be the Body of Jesus Christ Mr. Arnaud would thence conclude that there 's none of 'em then that has yet openly contradicted the sense in which the Roman Church understands it and that they explain themselves about it only in secret discourses But pray why must these be secret discourses during Paschasus his life seeing Mr. Arnaud is obliged to confess there were after his death publick Writings which appeared against his Doctrin Is not this a silly pretension which at farthest can only make us imagin Paschasus as a formidable man who held the world in awe during his life and against whom no body dared open his mouth till after his death BUT laying aside this imagination of Mr. Arnaud come we to the principal question to wit whether Paschasus was an Innovator Mr. Arnaud to defend him from this charge has recourse to the Greek Church which gives says he such an express testimony to his Doctrin of the Real Presence Book 8. ch 9. in the 7th 8th and 9th Centuries that it must needs shame those who out of a rash capricio have the boldness to affirm that Paschasus was the inventer of it He adds That all the principal Authors of the Latin Church of the same time who clearly taught it in such a manner as they ought to teach it according to the state of their time do overthrow this ridiculous Fable To pass by Mr. Arnauds expressions which are always stronger than his reasons we need only send him to th'examination of the Greek Authors of the 7th 8th and 9th Centuries and Latin Authors of the 7th and 8th for he will therein find wherewithal to satisfie himself above his desires Let 's only see whether he has any thing better to offer us HE has recourse next
to his great common place of moral impossibilities and supposing that according to us none of the Clergy or Laity imagin'd that Jesus Christ was really present in the Eucharist that they all took the Eucharist for Bread and Wine in substance that they knew the Bread and Wine were signs and Sacraments of the Body of Jesus Christ by which we obtain his Graces and that we must meditate on the Passion of Jesus Christ in receiving them that Paschasus very well knew that his opinion was opposite to that of the Church and that he remain'd in her external Communion only out of a carnal motive lest he should find himself too weak if he departed out of it supposing I say this he thus reasons Let us imagin a Religious under a Regular Discipline and him so young that he calls himself a Child and who thinks he has discovered this marvellous secret that Jesus Christ is really present on Earth in infinite places that all Christians receive him really every time they partake of the Eucharist but that by a deplorable blindness they are ignorant of this happiness do not know the Saviour whom they have often in their hands and which they receive into their mouths and take his real Body for an image and simple figure that he is the only man that knows the truth of this Mystery and is destin'd to declare it to the world This conceit is already very strange and contrary to the idea which a man necessarily forms on Paschasus from his Writings there being nothing more remote from the humility and simplicity appearing in 'em than this prodigious insolency with which Mr. Claude charges him so that we may truly say he could not worse represent the character of his mind He afterwards says that this enterprise of Paschasus of instructing all people in this new opinion was the greatest enterprize that ever any man undertook far greater than that of the Apostles when they determin'd to Preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ throughout all the world For in fine they were twelve they wrought Miracles had other proofs than words they made Disciples and establish'd them Doctors of the truth which they preach'd Paschasus had nothing of all this He triumphantly fills five great pages with this discourse TO answer this with somewhat less heat we 'l reply that these arguings would have been perhaps of some use had Mr. Arnaud liv'd in Paschasus his time and was oblig'd to make an Oration before him in genere deliberativo to dissuade him from making his Book publick But who told him at present that Paschasus must necessarily have all these things in his mind and studied 'em neither more nor less than Mr. Arnaud has done in his Closet Who told him that all those who teach novelties think throly on what they do When Arius a simple Priest of Alexandria troubled the Church by teaching this dreadful novelty that the Son of God was but a Creature there 's no great likelihood he proposed to himself at first the changing of the Faith of the whole world for instructing the people and every where overthrowing what the Apostles had establish'd or compared his design with that of the Apostles and examin'd what there was more or less in it 'T is the same in reference to Eutychius and other teachers of new Doctrins their first thoughts were presently to set forth what they imagin'd most consonant to truth leaving the success to time and mannaging themselves afterwards as occasion required The greatest affairs do usually begin after this manner men enter upon 'em without much reflection and afterwards drive 'em on thro all that happens unforeseen 2. TO discover the vanity of Mr. Arnaud's arguings we need only apply them to John Scot or Bertram Suppose we then as he would have us that in their time the whole world believed firmly and universally the Real Presence and Transubstantiation and all the Faithful had a distinct knowledg of it knew all of 'em that the substance of Bread and Wine no longer subsists after their Consecration that what we receive in the Communion is the proper substance of the Body of Jesus Christ the same numerical substance which was born of the Virgin dead and risen and is now sate at the right hand of God that the same Body is in Heaven and on Earth at the same time John Scot a simple Religious undertakes to disabuse all the people to persuade them that what they had hitherto taken for the proper substance of the Son of God was a substance of Bread that thro a deplorable error they had hitherto worship'd an object which deserv'd not this adoration and that henceforth by his Ministry and at his word all the Earth should change its Faith and Worship Does this design appear less strange to Mr. Arnaud than that he imputes to Paschasus upon our supposition All the difference I find is that Scot's enterprize would be greater and harder than that of Paschasus for 't is difficulter to root ancient and perpetual Opinions out of mens minds than to inspire them with new ones to make 'em lay aside their Rites Altars th' object of their supreme Adoration and Piety than to make 'em receive new Services in reference to a subject for which they have already a great respect Howsoever 't is certain that John Scot wrote a Book against the Real Presence and according to Mr Arnaud's Hypothesis this Book was an innovation contrary to the common Faith of his Age. A thousand Arguments will never hinder but that according to him this is true Why then will he have it to be impossible for Paschasus who wrote a Book touching the Real Presence to advance any novelty with which the Church before that time was unacquainted Why must there be in Hypothesis's which are alike facilities on the one side and impossibilities on the other Paschasus and John Scot wrote one for the Real Presence and the other against it This is a fact which is uncontroulable One of 'em must necessarily have offered a new Doctrine contrary to the general belief and consequently one of 'em must be an Innovator If it be possible that 't was John Scot it is yet more probable 't was Paschasus if it be impossible that 't was Paschasus it is yet more impossible to be John Scot. Mr. Arnaud then need not so warm himself in his consequences seeing 't is his interest as well as ours to acknowledg the nullity of 'em and we may truly affirm without doing him wrong that never man spent his pains to less purpose than he has done in this occasion 3. ALL that can be reasonably said of Paschasus is that being yet young and imagining the substances of Bread and Wine did not subsist in the Eucharist but were chang'd into the substance of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ he thought this marvail was not enough known and that 't was necessary to explain it And therefore he undertakes to instruct his
Disciple Placidus in it to whom he dedicates his Book and the rest of his Scholars This appears from the reading of his Preface and second Chapter Placuit says he in his Preface ea quoe de Sacramento Sanguinis corporis tibi exigis necessaria quoe tui proetexantur amore ita tenus perstringere ut coeteri vitoe pabulum salutis haustum planius tecum caperent ad medelam nobis operis proestantior exuberaret fructus mercedis pro sudore And in the second Chapter Tanti Sacramenti virtus investiganda est disciplina Christi fides erudienda ne forte ob hoc censeamur indigni si non satis discernimus illud nec intelligimus mysticum Christi Corpus sanguis quanta polleat dignitate quantaque proemineat virtute ideo timendum ne per ignorantiam quod nobis provisum est ad medelam fiat accipientibus in ruinam There cannot be gathered any more than this touching the first design of Paschasus His designs without doubt extended not so far as the whole Universe they only respected Placidus and some other Scholars which he taught and the end he proposed was to give 'em the knowledg of this mystery which he had obtain'd believing 't was not sufficiently known His Book which was design'd only for young people was yet read by many others it excited the curiosity of several as he himself tells us in his Letter to Frudegard Ad intelligentiam says he hujus mysterii plures ut audio commovi I have stirred up several people to understand this mystery 'T is likely several became of his mind and 't is certain others condemned his opinion Audivi says he quosdam me reprehendere and that others in fine remain'd in suspense and uncertainty Quoeris says he to Frudegard de re ex qua multi dubitant and lower Multi ex hoc dubitant quomodo ille integer manet hoc Corpus Christi Sanguis esse possit This first success so little advantageous obliged him to write his Commentary on the 26th of S. Matthew where he urges the words of Christ This is my Body and argues as strongly as he can against those that say 't is the Body of Jesus Christ in a Figure in a Sacrament and in Virtue In fine Frudegard having offered him a passage of S. Austin out of his third Book De Doctrina Christiana wherein this Father says that to eat this Flesh and drink this Blood is a figurative locution which seems to command a sin but which signifies to meditate on the Death and Passion of Jesus Christ for us he thence takes occasion to write the Letter to Frudegard wherein he endeavours by all means to defend his Doctrin pressing again the words of Jesus Christ and relating some passages of the Fathers and Liturgy which he imagin'd were on his side And this is all that can be said historically touching Paschasus his fact in which I think there 's nothing that hinders us from believing he was an Innovator that is to say that the Doctrin he offered was not that of the Church as will be made plain by what we shall alledg anon Mr. Arnaud should argue from these matters of fact and not from imaginary suppositions PASCHASVS says he proposes immediately his Doctrin without Book 8. ch 8. p. 848. any Preface or insinuating address without supposing any other Principle than that God can do what he pleases His Doctrin then was not new This consequence is too quick He does not mention that horrid blindness wherein he must suppose the world Altho he does not speak of it what can be thence concluded those that propose novelties as the perpetual Faith of the Church are cautious of absolutely acknowledging that in this respect the world lies in an error Yet does Paschasus insinuate in his Book that this mystery was unknown that is to say that men knew not yet his Doctrin as I have already shew'd and in his Letter to Frudegard he formally acknowledges that several were ignorant of it Quamvis says he plurimi ignoraverint tanti mysterii Sacramenta He does not trouble himself adds Mr. Arnaud to confirm what he says by proofs sufficient to dissipate this error What follows hence He proves it as well as he can that is to say ill yet does he advertise his Placidus in his Preface that he took what he offer'd out of the principal Authors of the Church and he names S. Cyprian Ambrose Hilary Augustin Chrysostom Jerom Gregory Isidor Isychius and Bede Now here are I think great names enough Mr. Claude adds further Mr. Arnaud would persuade us that a young Religions Page 850. having taught in a Book a Doctrin unheard of contrary to sense and reason and having taught it without proofs living in a great communalty having commerce with a great number of Religious Abbots and Bishops was yet advertised by none of 'em that he offered an error contrary to the Doctrin of the Church and that not only he escap'd unpunish'd but for thirty years together no body testifi'd any astonishment at his Doctrin so that he only learn'd from other peoples report and that thirty years after he wrote his Book that there were some persons who found fault with it Mr. Arnaud's prejudice puts him upon strange things Does he not see we need only turn his reasoning on John Scot and Bertram to expose the weakness of it They wrote against the Real Presence who told them they offer'd an error contrary to the Doctrin of the Church who punish'd 'em for it what Popes what Councils condemn'd ' em who setting aside Paschasus stood up against those that affirm'd the Eucharist was not the Body of Jesus Christ otherwise than Sacramentally figuratively and virtually and not really Non in re esse veritatem carnis Christi vel Sanguinis sed in Sacramento virtutem quandam carnis non carnem virtutem Sanguinis non Sanguinem Supposing no body did address themselves to Paschasus himself to charge him with the publishing in his Book a new Doctrin what can be rationally inferred hence but that his Book was at first but little known by learned men who were fit to judg of it because a Book design'd for Scholars does not usually make any great noise or because perhaps that it was despised seeing that in effect there was little in it to the purpose But says Mr. Arnaud at least the Monks of the Convent of Corbie must oppose him Had they done it they had done no more than they ought But Paschasus was their Master that taught 'em and the Disciples are not wont to contradict their Masters Paschasus had immediately won to his interests Placidus who was a person of Quality and a Dignitary in this Convent as appears by the terms of Paschasus himself for thus does he bespeak him Dilectissimo filio vice Christi proesidenti Magistro Monasticae Disciplinoe alternis successibus veritatis discipulo Again who told Mr.
hoc quidam de ignorantia errent He was then far from vaunting that his Doctrin was undeniably the common Faith of the Church of his Age. I say in the second place that whatsoever design Paschasus had to make people believe that he taught nothing but what was according to the Doctrin of the Church yet did he never alledg for this effect the men of his time nor ever said the Bishops which then governed the Churches the Abbots Priests Religious and all learned men held the same language as he did and all of 'em unanimously confess'd that the substance of Bread was changed into the Body of Jesus Christ born of the Virgin according to the propriety of his nature Neither did he ever aver he held his Doctrin from Masters that taught it Paschasus was far from asserting this HE keeps to three things to some passages of the Fathers to the words of Jesus Christ This is my Body to a clause of the Liturgy which says Vt fiat Corpus sanguis dilectissimi filii tui Domini nostri Jesu Christi And as to the passages of the Fathers having proposed 'em he concludes That from thence one may know that what he wrote was not an effect of Enthusiastical rashness nor a young man's vision but that he offered these things to those who were desirous of 'em from the authority of the Word of God and the Writings of the Holy Fathers Now seeing adds he it appears that all men have not Faith yet if they cannot understand let 'em learn to believe with the Fathers that there 's nothing impossible with God and acquiesce in the Divine words without the least doubt of ' em For we never as yet read any have erred in this point unless those that have erred touching the person of Jesus Christ himself altho several have doubted or been ignorant of the Sacraments of so great a mystery Is this the language of a man that loudly glories in the consent of the whole Church Were he assur'd he wrote nothing but what was according to the common belief what need he justifie himself from the suspicion of Enthusiasm and pretences to Visions Are we wont to suspect people in this sort who say only what the whole world says and believes And designing to justifie himself why must he rather betake himself to some passages of the Fathers whose sense and terms he may justly be said to have corrupted than to the testimony of persons in his own time and to say if he was an Enthusiast or Visionary all the Bishops Abbots Priests Religious Doctors and Christians in general were so too seeing they all believ'd and spake as he did But instead of this he complains that his Doctrin which he term'd that of the Fathers was not kindly received Nunc autem says he exinde quia claruit quod non omnium est fides He exhorts those who reprehended him to believe with the Fathers that nothing is impossible with God and to acquiesce in the words of Jesus Christ Discant quoeso cum talibus credere si adhuc nequeunt intelligere quod Deo nihil est impossibile discant verbis divinis acquiescere in nullo de his dubitare WHEN then he adds that hitherto 't was not heard that any person erred on this subject unless 't were those who had erred touching Jesus Christ himself Quia usque ad proesens nemo deerrasse legitur nisi qui de Christo erraverunt He would say that till then no body had contradicted the Doctrin of the Fathers leaving it to be understood that then 't was contradicted because they contradicted his which he maintain'd was that of the Fathers So far we do not find him boasting of the consent of the Church in his time for we see on the contrary several things which sufficiently denote that he was far from doing it AS to the passages of the Liturgy and words of Christ he says that the Priest prays in the Canon in these terms Vt fiat Corpus Jesus Christi that all the People cry Amen and so the whole Church in every Nation and Language confesses that 't is this she desires in her Prayer Whence he draws this consequence Vnde videat qui contra hoc venire voluerit magis quam credere quid agat contra ipsum Dominum contra omnem Christi Ecclesiam Nefarium ergo scelus est orare cum omnibus non credere quod ipsa veritas testatur ubique omnes nniversaliter verum esse fatentur Let those then that had rather contradict this than believe it consider what they do against the Lord himself and his whole Church It is then a great fault to pray with all people and not to believe what the truth it self attests and what all do universally and every where confess to be true His Argument is a Sophism which amounts to this Our Saviour Christ says 't is his Body and the whole Church confesses the same But they that at this day deny that 't is his Body in propriety of nature deny that 't is his Body Therefore they contradict Jesus Christ and his Church Who sees not but there is a great difference between reasoning in this manner and positively assuring that the whole Church believes 't is his Body in propriety of nature I will have this says Mr. Arnaud Page 852. to be only a consequence Are not Authors persuaded of the truth of the consequences which they draw and do they not offer them for true as positively as their principles Mr. Arnaud gives an exchange The question is not whether Paschasus was persuaded of the solidity of his consequence or not but whether we ought to be persuaded of it our selves and take it for a testimony touching the publick belief of his time Mr. Arnaud should know that when a man testifies of a matter of fact and afterwards draws thence by way of argument and consequence another fact he is no farther credible in respect of this latter but only as his argument or consequence appears just to us If I say for example that Mr. Arnaud confesses in the first edition of his Book That 't is possible the faithful knew not always so expresly Book 6. ch 1. and universally whether the Bread did or did remain in the Sacrament and I from hence draw by way of argument and consequence this proposition That Mr. Arnaud acknowledges Transubstantiation was not anciently an Article of Faith in the Church My testimony in respect of the latter fact will be no farther credible than my consequence will be good 'T is the same here Paschasus assures us that the whole Church in his time called the Eucharist the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ saying these words Vt fiat Corpus dilectissimi filii tui So far he acts as a witness we must believe him Whence he draws this consequence That those that do not believe it to be the Body of Jesus Christ in propriety of
a man ought to approach to 'em the greatness of their crime who profane the Lords Body and the rest of those things which are explained in Paschasus his Book All this is contained under the word intelligence and he comprehends it therein himself in explaining afterwards what he means by this term and by making an abridgment of his whole Book without marking in particular the Real Presence The question then is whether in Paschasus his sense the ignorance and consequently the intelligence he speaks of do not extend as far as the Real Presence Now this is what will be soon decided if we examin the passages themselves of this Author without suffering our selves to be blinded by Mr. Arnaud's illusions At the entrance of his second Chapter wherein he declares his design to dissipate this ignorance and remedy the evils it caused he describes it in this manner Sacramentum Dominici Corporis Sanguinis quod quotidie in Ecclesia celebratur nemo sidelium ignorare debet nemo nescire quid ad fidem quidve ad scientiam in eo pertineat Will you then know what kind of ignorance this was Paschasus tells you immediately Nescire quid ad fidem Paschas de Corp. Sang. Dom. cap. 2. quidve ad scientiam pertineat Here are precisely the two parts of Mr Arnaud's distinction contained in the definition which Paschasus gives of it For nescire quid ad fidem pertineat is not to have this knowledg which makes me believe the mysteries without much reflection and nescire quid ad scientiam is not to have this other clearer knowledg which Mr. Arnaud calls particularly intelligence So that Paschasus and his Commentatator are not at all agreed Paschasus extends the ignorance he speaks of to the things which relate to Faith which is to say according to him the Real Presence and Mr. Arnaud restrains it to other things But let us hear Paschasus further Fides says he est erudienda ne forte ob hoc censeamur indigni si non satis discernimus illud nec intelligimus mysticum Christi Corpus sanguis quanta polleat dignitate quantaque proemineat virtute We must instruct our Faith lest for want of doing it we be reputed unworthy in not sufficiently discerning this Sacrament and understanding the excellent virtue and dignity of it Can any man explain himself more clearly The ignorance consists in not well understanding the great dignity of the mystical Body of Jesus Christ which in his sense signifies not to know that 't is the proper substance of the Body of Jesus Christ born of the Virgin and th' intelligence on the contrary consists in knowing it But to take away from Mr. Arnaud all pretence of the validity of his distinction observe here what Paschasus adds afterwards He receives the Sacrament ignorantly who is wholly ignorant of its virtue and dignity and knows not the circumstance of it and does not truly know that 't is the Body and Blood of our Lord according to truth altho it be taken in the Sacrament by Faith Mr. Arnaud will not deny that in the stile of Paschasus to be the Body and Blood of our Lord according to truth is to be it substantially and really Now the ignorance consists in the not knowing this and by the reason of contraries the intelligence consists in knowing it according to Paschasus Mr. ARNAVD will say without doubt that Paschasus in all this whole second Chapter intended only to shew the necessity there is of instructing persons before they come to receive the Communion but that he does not suppose this ignorance was actually in the Church and that on the contrary this necessity of instruction in the manner which he exaggerates denotes that they took a great care in those days to teach the Communicants the Doctrin of the Real Presence But this evasion will not serve turn For besides that Paschasus says expresly That he receives the Sacrament ignorantly that knows not 't is the Body and Blood of our Lord according to truth which is an expression of a man which acknowledges there are actually persons that thus receive the Sacrament Besides this a man needs only read the passages of his Letter to Frudegard where it cannot be denied but he speaks of ignorant persons which were then actually in the Church I say there needs no more than the reading 'em to find he understands this same ignorance which he had describ'd in the second Chapter of his Book For having immediately proposed as from the part of Frudegard the objection taken from a passage of S. Austin That the Sacrament is called the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ by a figurative locution Quod tropica locutio sit ut Corpus Christi Sanguis esse dicatur which respects as Epist ad Frud every one sees the Article of the Real Presence and having endeavoured to satisfie it he passes over to another objection which respects the same Real Presence Multi says he ex hoc dubitant quomodo ille integer manet hoc Corpus Christi Sanguis esse possit Several doubt because they cannot comprehend how Jesus Christ remains entire and yet the Sacrament to be his Body and Blood He answers this Objection as well as he can then immediately adds Here you have dear Brother what came into my thoughts at present and because you are one part of my self I believe I ought not to conceal any thing from you altho I cannot express my mind in this particular as 't is necessary As to your self I desire you would read over again my Book touching this matter which you say you have heretofore read and if you find therein any thing reprehensible or doubtful refuse not the labor of reading it again For altho I have not written any thing worth the Readers pains in a Book which I dedicated to young people yet am I inform'd that I have stirred up several persons to the understanding of this mystery Who sees not that in all this his whole scope is the Real Presence His whole preceding dispute was on this Article and these terms If you find in my Book any thing reprehensible or doubtful can only relate to the same Article for there was no question of any thing else When then he adds That he has stirr'd up several persons to the understanding of this mystery 't is clear that he has respect to the same thing and means he has rescued several from th' ignorance wherein they lay touching the Doctrin of the Real Presence BUT to leave no room for contradiction and cavil I need only represent what he writes towards the end of this same Letter where having said he has confirm'd his Doctrin by the testimonies of Pope Gregory the Council of Ephesus S. Jerom and some others he adds Et ideo quamvis ex hoc quidam de ignorantia errent nemo tamen est c. Altho some do err thro ignorance in this point What can be
several places that those who introduce new Opinions by way of addition or explication of the ancient ones do not openly declare 'em to be new but on the contrary endeavour to make 'em slip in by means of received expressions besides this I say this humility of Paschasus relates not to the things themselves which he wrote nor his sentiment for he could not term them scarcely worth his Readers perusal whether they were new or not But this relates to the manner of writing 'em according to what he says to Frudegard Celare non debui quoe loqui ut oportuit minime potui BUT pass we on to the second proof which shews Paschasus to be an Innovator 'T is taken from the effect which his Doctrin produced in several persons minds which was that they opposed him I have discoursed Comment in Matth. 26. says he of these things more at large because I am informed some people have blamed me as if in the Book which I publish'd of the Sacraments of Christ I would give more to his words than they will bear or establish something else than the truth promises These censurers proceed further for they opposed a contrary Doctrin against that of Paschasus to wit that 't was the Body of Jesus Christ in figure in Sacrament in virtue Which Paschasus himself tells us Let those says he that will extenuate this term of Body hear Ibid. They that tell us 't is not the true Flesh of Christ which is now celebrated in the Sacrament in the Church nor his true Blood They tell us or rather feign I know not what as if 't were a certain virtue of the Flesh and Blood He afterwards repeats two or three times the same thing They proceeded so far as to accuse Paschasus of Enthusiasm twitting him with having a young mans vision as we remark'd in the foregoing Chapter For this is what may be justly collected from these words to Frudegard You have at Epist ad Frud the end of this Book the sentiments of the Catholick Fathers which I briefly marked that you may know that 't is not thro an Enthusiasm of rashness that I have had these Visions being as yet a young man Supposing Paschasus taught nothing but what the whole Church believ'd and commonly taught the Faithful whence I pray you came these Censurers The whole world lived peaceably during eight hundred years in the belief of the Real Presence all the Preachers taught it all Books contain'd it all the Faithful believ'd it and distinctly knew it there not having been any body yet that dared contradict it and yet there appear persons who precisely oppose it as soon as Paschasus appeared in the world But who so well and quickly furnish'd 'em with the Keys of figure and virtue which Mr. Arnaud would have had all the world to be ignorant of and th' invention of which he attributes to the Ministers Why if we will believe him they were people that dared not appear openly that whispered secretly in mens ears and yet were so well instructed that they knew the principal distinctions of the Calvinists and all the subtilties of their School But moreover what fury possessed them to attack thus particularly Paschasus who said nothing but what all the world knew even the meanest Christian and what all the world believ'd and who moreover had no particular contest with them They could not be ignorant that the whole Church was of this opinion supposing she really did hold it for as I already said the Doctrin of the Real Presence is a popular Doctrin It is not one of those Doctrins which lie hid in Books or the Schools which the learned can only know 'T is a Doctrin which each particular person knows if he knows any thing Why then must Paschasus be thus teas'd If they had a design to trouble the peace of the Church why did they not attack its Doctrin or in general those that held it which is to say according to Mr. Arnaud the whole world Why again must Paschasus be rather set upon than any body else Does Mr. Arnaud believe this to be very natural Are people wont to set upon a particular person to the exclusion of all others when he has said no more than what others have said and what is taught and held by every body Is such a one liable to reproaches and censures Are we wont to charge such a one with Enthusiastical rashness and pretence to Visions It is clear people do not deal thus but with persons that have gone out of the beaten road and would introduce novelties in the Church 'T is such as these whom we are wont to accuse to censure and call Enthusiasts and Visionaries and not those that neither vary from the common terms or sentiments TO elude the force of this proof Mr. Arnaud has recourse to his Chronology Lib. 8. Ch. 10. p. 861 862. He says that the last eight Books of Paschasus his Commentaries on S. Matthew were not written till thirty years after his Book De Corpore Sanguine Domini That he speaks therein of his Censures as persons that reprehended him at the very time he wrote this Commentary Miror quid volunt nunc quidam dicere and that it does not appear he was reprehended before seeing he did not attempt to defend himself Whence he concludes That this Book which Mr. Claude says offended the whole world as soon as 't was made was publish'd near thirty years before 't was censur'd by any body I have already replied to this Chronology of Mr. Arnaud Supposing there were in effect thirty years between Paschasus his Book and the Censures of his Adversaries 't will not hence follow that his Doctrin received a general approbation during these thirty years for perhaps this Book was not known or considered by those that were better able to judg of it than others Printing which now immediately renders a Book publick was not in use in those times and 't is likely Transcribers were not in any great hast to multiply the Book of a young Religious of Corbie which he at first intended only for his particular friends Supposing this Book was known it might be neglected thro contempt or some other consideration as it oft happens in these cases altho a Book may contain several absured and extraordinary Opinions because it may not be thought fitting to make 'em publick till it afterwards appears there are persons who be deceiv'd by it and that 't is necessary to undeceive them Moreover what reason is there to say that the censures of these people hapned not before the time wherein Paschasus wrote his Commentary on S. Matthew 'T is because says Mr. Arnaud he says Miror quid volunt quidam nunc dicere But this reason is void for this term nunc according to the common stile of Authors does refer it self rather in general to the time in which Paschasus lived than precisely to that in which he wrote
with another conjecture from the manner in which he explains his sentiments on this subject of the Eucharist For he keeps as much as he can the Sacramental expressions endeavouring to accommodate them to his sense and proceeds sometimes so far that he seems to conserve the substance of Bread which appears by several passages which I remark'd in my answer to the Perpetuity and which is not necessary to repeat here Mr. Arnaud answers That the only conclusion which reason draws from hence is that these Sacramental Page 866. expressions do perfectly agree with the Faith of the Real Presence But if they do agree 't is by constraint and in doing violence to the nature and signification of the terms When Paschasus says for example In pane vino sine ulla decoloratione substancioe hoc mysterium interius vi potestate divina peragitur What violence must not be offered these terms to accommodate them to the change of the substance of Bread For to say that the substance of Bread loses not his colour is an expression which naturally includes this sense that the substance remains with its colour What violence must not be offered these other terms Caro Sanguis per Spiritum Sanctum consecratur alioqui mihi nec caro est nec sanguis est sed judicium quod percipio quia sine donante spiritu nullum male proesumentibus donum ex Deo proestatur What violence I say must not be offered them to accommodate 'em to the sense of Transubstantiation For naturally these terms signifie that 't is the Holy Spirit dwelling in the Faithful which makes the Bread and Wine be to 'em the Flesh and Blood of Jesus Christ for which reason the Wicked who have not the Holy Spirit do not receive this Flesh and Blood This language then of constraint shews that Paschasus strove still to conserve the common expressions altho that in effect they were contrary to him whence we may easily conclude that he was an Innovator A seventh proof may be taken from the testimonies of Bellarmin and Sirmond both Jesuits which I have already mention'd in my Answer to the Perpetuity The one says that Paschasus was the first Author that wrote seriously and at large of the truth of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist and the other assures us that he was the first that explain'd the true sentiment of the Catholick Church in such a manner that he has opened the way to others The first idea which these words present us with is that Paschasus was the first Author that proposed the Doctrin of the Real Presence clearly and in plain and precise terms for this is what is meant by the Serio of Bellarmin and especially the Explicuit of Sirmond And 't will signifie nothing to answer as Mr. Arnaud does that these passages mean only that Paschasus was the first who collected into one Book what lay scattered in Book 8 ch 10. page 867. several of the Fathers Writings according as Athanasius was the first who wrote expresly Treatises on the Trinity and S. Cyril the first who largely wrote of the Incarnation and Vnity of persons in our Lord and Saviour as S. Augustin is the first who has largely and seriously treated of Original Sin and that as Paschasus had good success in this labor and in effect well collected the true sentiments of the Fathers so he has been follow'd by all that came after him This answer is an illusion for 't is far from completely answering Sirmond's words Genuinum says he Ecclesioe Catholicoe sensum ita primus explicuit Invita pasch ut viam coeteris aperuit qui de eodem argumento multa postea scripsere He means not that Paschasus was the first who collected in one Book what lay here and there in the Writings of the Fathers but that he first explain'd the true sense of the Catholick Church Before him according to Sirmond this true sentiment which is to say the Doctrin of the Real Presence for this is what he means was a confused and hidden matter Paschasus was the first who brought it to light and he did it in such manner that he opened the way to all that came after him Till his time this way lay hid he found it first entred into it and by his example moved others to do the same Now this is the honestest confession imaginable that Paschasus was the first Author of this Doctrin for in fine this explication of the true sentiment of the Church and this way are nothing else but the Real Presence and he was the first discoverer of it There cannot be any thing said like this of S. Athanasius in respect of the Trinity nor of S. Cyril in respect of the Incarnation nor of S. Augustin in respect of Original Sin It may be indeed said that they have treated more amply of these matters than what was done before that they have more firmly grounded them by disengaging them from the objections of Hereticks but it can never be said they were the first that explain'd the true sentiment of the Catholick Church for it was explain'd and distinctly known before them The Church worship'd before Athanasius his time three distinct persons in the Godhead acknowledged two Natures and one only person in Jesus Christ before S. Cyril's time and S. Austin's and also believ'd that all the Children of Adam came into the world infected with his corruption THESE are the seven proofs of Paschasus his Innovation which Mr. Arnaud has cited from me and which he has endeavoured to answer But besides these there are also some others which he has past over in silence and of which 't will not be amiss to put him in mind I draw then an eighth from the testimony of Berenger which makes Paschasus precisely as we do the Author of the Opinion which asserts the real conversion of the substances of Bread and Wine Sententia says he imo vecordia vulgi Paschasi Apud Lanfranc lib. de Corp. Sang. Dom. atque Lanfranci minime superesse in altari post consecrationem substantiam panis vini The opinion or rather folly of the Vulgar of Paschasus and Lanfranc that the substance of Bread and Wine remains not after the Consecration Lanfrac who cites these words says a little after that when the Letters of Berenger were read at Rome 't was known that he exalted John Scot and condemned Paschasus intellecto quod Joannem Scotum extolleres Paschasium damnares This moreover appears by Berenger's Letter to Richard injustissime damnatum Scotum Joannem injustissime nihilo minus assertum Paschasium in Concilio Vercellensi And his Letter to Ascelin You are Tom. 2. Spic in not advitam Lanfran ad Luc. D' Actery says he of a contrary opinion to all the laws of Nature contrary to the Gospel contrary to the sentiment of the Apostle if you are of Paschasus his opinion in what he ALONE has fancied or forged in
be rendred to the Faithful and not for the Faithful and for this I alledged some reasons This is a thing says Mr. Arnaud which I could willingly grant him did he ask it with a better meen for either translation is indifferent to me But seeing he 's resolv'd to carry it away by force I think I 'm oblig'd to tell him that he is unjust So that here Mr. Arnaud has a quarrel with me for my carriage Si natura negat facit indignatio versum Truly I 'm sorry I cannot make my self agreeable to him I do what I can as much as reason and truth will permit but there are some persons so unhappy that they cannot give content do what they can I am to Mr. Arnaud what Sabidus was to Martial I cannot help it But had he been pleased to take his eyes off my person and considered the reason he had seen that these two translations are not in effect indifferent because that which says for the Faithful seems simply to denote that the Eucharist is naturally design'd for the use of the Faithful and not for that of the wicked whereas the other denotes that 't is the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ only to the Faithful and not to the wicked which is wholly different Secondly That that which says to the Faithful is more conformable to the Rules of Grammar according to which commonly fidelibus signifies to the Faithful and pro fidelibus for the Faithful Thirdly That the sequel of Florus his discourse denotes his sense to be that the Eucharist is not the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ but only to the Faithful because he immediately adds that as we eat Jesus Christ by pieces in the Sacrament he is wholly entire in our heart which can only respect the Faithful to the exclusion of the wicked and because he says that we see in the Sacrament one thing and understand by it another which has a spiritual fruit which moreover appertains only to the Faithful What he alledges from Remy of Auxerre who explains this clause Vt nobis Corpus Sanguis fiat dilectissimi filii tui by these words id est ad nostram salutem fiat Corpus Sanguis is invalid because we may tell him that had Florus design'd to say the same thing as Remus he would have explain'd himself like to Remus which he has not done besides that the explication of Remus is not contrary to that of Florus for it does not follow from the Sacraments being made the Body of Jesus Christ for our Salvation that it be made his Body and Blood to the Wicked All the difference there is between these two Expositions is that that of Florus is more clear and express than the other We can conclude very clearly from that of Florus that the Eucharist is the Body of Jesus Christ only to the Faithful but not to the wicked but one cannot draw this consequence from that of Remus neither can one draw a contrary one THIS conclusion which I draw from the passage of Florus offends Mr. Arnaud By the like argument says he he will prove that Paschasus did Book 8. ch 7. p. 822. not believe the Real Presence for this Author says as well as Florus that Jesus Christ grants us by his grace that the Eucharist be to us his Body and Blood He will prove adds he That all the Catholick Priests do no more believe Transubstantiation seeing they say this Prayer in the Canon of the Mass Quam Oblationem tu Deus in omnibus quoesumus adscriptam ratam rationabilem acceptabilemque facere digneris ut nobis Corpus Sanguis fiat dilectissimi tui filii Domini nostri Jesu Christi I answer there is a great deal of difference between Florus and Paschasus Paschasus formally teaches the Doctrin of the Real Presence and conversion of substances Florus does not do any thing like this When then we judg of Florus his expression reason requires us to judg of it according to the sense which it naturally has but when we judg of that of Paschasus we must judg of it according to the forced and violent sense which is given to this expression to make it agree with Transubstantiation and the Real Presence because it appears to us elsewhere that Paschasus believed these Doctrins When Paschasus speaks of what the Wicked receive in the Eucharist he speaks of it in a manner so intricate and confused that it visibly appears he affects to be obscure Explaining these words He that eats my Flesh and drinks my Blood Lib. de Corp. Sang. Dom. cap. 6. dwells in me and I in him he introduces our Saviour saying If he does not first dwell in me and I in him he cannot eat my Flesh nor drink my Blood And what then is it which men do eat Do not all indifferently take the Sacraments of the Altar They take 'em without doubt but one eats spiritually the Flesh of Jesus Christ and drinks his Blood and the other not altho he seems to take the morsel from the Priests hand And what does he then receive there being but one Consecration if he does not receive the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ Truly because the Wicked receive unworthily they eat and drink their own damnation acccording to the saying of the Apostle for they do not try themselves before they come nor discern the Lords Body And this is what the Wicked eat and drink They do not profitably receive the Flesh and Blood but their own damnation This plainly appears to be the discourse of a man that hides himself and durst not say openly the wicked receive the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ and seems to insinuate the contrary but yet still contains himself within these terms of spiritually and profitably that he may save himself by distinctions Paschasus then is not to be offered as an instance As to what Mr. Arnaud alledges out of the Canon of the Mass I acknowledg it cannot be concluded thence that the Priests of the Roman Church in our times do not believe Transubstantiation because as I have already said it clearly appearing elsewhere that they believe it we must not judg of the terms of the Canon according to their natural sense But a man may conclude thence that those who at first made this Liturgy had not the same belief with those at this day for they spake then naturally and according to the common belief of their Church Now it is certain that on the Principle of Transubstantiation one must desire of God not that the Bread be made to us the Body of his Son but that it be made the Body of his Son absolutely There is a great deal of difference between these two for if the Bread be transubstantiated it is made the Body of Jesus Christ in it self to all respects and beyond all respects but if it be only made to us the Body of Jesus Christ it is made so only in our respect
which is to say that 't is to us instead of the Body of Jesus Christ and communicates the virtue and efficacy of it 'T is in this sense that the Faithful say in the 84. Psalm That God is to 'em a Sun and a Shield And David in the 119. Psalm That the Statutes of God have been to him as so many musical songs And in the 41. Psalm according to the vulgar Translation Fuerunt mihi lachrymoe panis die ac nocte This way of speaking is very usual amongst the Latins as appears by these examples of Virgil Erit ista mihi genetrix eris mihi magnus Apollo erit ille mihi semper Deus Mens sua cuique Deus Dextra mihi Deus And so far concerning Florus WE must now pass on to Remy of Auxerre to whom as Mr. Arnaud Book 8. ch 7. page 824. says is attributed not only the Exposition of the Mass which goes under his name but also the Commentary of S. Paul which others refer to Haymus Bishop of Alberstat They that will take the pains to examin the Doctrin of this Author not in the declamations of Mr. Arnaud but in the passages themselves wherein 't is found explain'd will soon find that he held the Opinion of Damascen and the Greeks which is the union of the Bread with the Divinity and by the Divinity to the natural Body of Jesus Christ and that by means of this union or conjunction the Bread becomes the Body of Jesus Christ and is made one and the same Body with him Which does manifestly appear by what I have related of it in my Answer to the Perpetuity The Flesh says he which the Word has taken in the Womb of the Virgin Comment in 1 Cor. 10. in unity of person and the Bread which is consecrated in the Church are the same Body of Christ For as this Flesh is the Body of Christ so this Bread passes to the Body of Christ and these are not two Bodies but one Body For the fulness of the Divinity which was in that Body fills likewise this Bread and the same Divinity of the Word which is in them fills the Body of Christ which is consecrated by the Ministry of several Priests throughout the whole world and makes it one only Body of Christ He does not say as Paschasus that 't is entirely the same Flesh born of the Virgin dead and risen nor that 't is the same Flesh because it pullules or multiplies But he makes of this Flesh and Bread the same Body by an unity of union because that the same Divinity which fills the Flesh fills likewise this Bread And elsewhere Altho this Bread be broken in pieces and Consecrated all over the world yet Ibid. in c. 11. the Divinity which fills all things fills it also and makes it become one only Body of Christ It lying upon him to give a reason why several parts of the same Bread and several loaves consecrated in divers places were only one Body of Jesus Christ there was nothing more easie than to say on the hypothesis of Transubstantiation that 't was one and the same numerical substance existing wholly entire under the species in each part and on every Altar where the Consecration is perform'd But instead of this he falls upon enquiries into the reason of this unity in the Divinity which fills both all the Loaves of the Altars and all the parts of a Loaf Again in another place As the Divinity of the Word which fills the whole world is one so altho In Exposit Can. this Body be Consecrated in several places and at infinitely different times yet is not this several Bodies nor several Bloods but one only Body and one only Blood with that which he took from the Virgin and which he gave to the Apostles For the Divinity fills it and JOYNS it to it self AND MAKES THAT AS IT IS ONE SO IT BE JOYN'D TO THE BODY OF CHRIST and is one only Body of Christ in truth To say still after this that the Doctrin of Remy is not that this Bread is one with the natural Body of Jesus Christ because 't is joyn'd with it and that 't is joyn'd with it because one and the same Divinity fills them this is methinks for a man to wilfully blind himself seeing Remus says it in so many words He teaches the same thing a little further in another place As the Flesh of Jesus Christ which he took of the Virgin is his true Body which was put to death for our Salvation so the Bread which Jesus Christ gave to his Disciples and to all the Elect and which the Priests Consecrate every day in the Church with the virtue of the Divinity which fills it is the true Body of Jesus Christ and this Flesh which he has taken and this Bread are not two Bodies but make but one only Body of Christ We may find the same Doctrin in his Commentaries on the 10th Chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews This Host says he speaking of the Eucharist is one and not many as were the ancient ones But how is it one and not many seeing 't is offered both by several persons and in several places and at several times A person that had the hypothesis of Transubstantiation in his mind would not have stuck to say that it is in all places and at all times one and the same numerical substance the same Body which pullutes or multiplies it self as Paschasus speaks Whereas Remy betakes himself to another course without mentioning a word either of this unity of substance or this pullulation We must says he carefully remark that 't is the Divinity of the Word which being one filling all things and being every where causes these to be not several Sacrifices but one altho it be offered by many and is one only Body of Christ with that which he took of the Virgin and not several Bodies IT cannot be denied but this Opinion of the unity of the Bread with the Body of Jesus Christ by way of conjunction and by means of the Divinity which fills the one and the other got some footing in the Latin Church even since Damascen's time We find it in the Book of Divine Offices falsly attributed to Alcuinus almost in the same terms wherein we have seen it in Remus so that it seems that one of these Authors only copied out from the other As the Divinity of the Word says this supposed Alcuinus is one who fills the whole world so altho this Body be Consecrated Cap. 40. in several places and at an infinite number of times yet are not these several Bodies of Christ nor several Cups but one only Body of Christ and one only Blood with that which he took of the Virgin and which he gave to his Apostles For the Divinity of the Word fills him who is every where which is to say that which is Consecrated in several places and makes that as it
same habitation of the Divinity in the Water of Baptism and the use which God makes of it to communicate his graces would render it likewise the Body of Jesus Christ and give occasion to say that altho there be different Waters to Baptize in yet these Waters make but one and the same Body of Jesus Christ that they are changed into the Body of Jesus Christ that they pass into the Body of Jesus Christ that altho they appear to be Water yet in truth they are the Body of Jesus Christ Besides that it does not follow that Authors have not had a sentiment that one may form objections to the contrary there being no opinion so clear against which we may not raise difficulties One may moreover answer him from the part of Remy and others that the habitation of the Divinity does not always produce this effect in all the material things which it makes use of whereby to communicate the graces merited by the Body of Jesus Christ to unite them to the Body of Jesus Christ and to make them become this Body by way of conjunction and addition 'T is an habitation and a particular union of the Divinity to the Bread of the Eucharist which produces in it alone this effect which must not be extended to other things which Jesus Christ did not say were his Body as he said of the Bread All that can be hence concluded then is that according to these Authors there must be some difference allowed between the habitation of the Divinity in the Bread and the habitation of this same Divinity in other things as there is between the habitation of the Divinity in the Faithful and Saints and the habitation of this same Divinity in the human nature of Jesus Christ seeing this difference appears in the difference of the effects which they produce Now this is a thing which these Authors would gladly allow One may say the same thing touching the Soul and Body of Jesus Christ which are filled with the same virtue of the Divinity and yet of which it cannot be said that one is the other For altho the same Divinity dwells in the Body and Soul of Jesus Christ yet this is another kind of habitation design'd to produce not the above-mention'd effect but another The Divinity dwells in all things and fills them with its virtue but in a different manner and this difference discovers it self only by the difference of the effects which it produces in the things themselves THIS is near what these Authors would have answer'd had any body offered them these objections But I am persuaded they would never have approved of this new Philosophy by which Mr. Arnaud endeavours to accommodate their expressions to the sense of the Roman Transubstantiation Remy says he tells us that the Divinity which is in the Body of Jesus Christ P. 832. and in the Bread joyns them together but not by a simple habitation for it would thus joyn all the creatures where it resides but by a true operation which renders them not distant but immediately united And this union does not determin it self to a simple conjunction but makes that the Bread passes into the Body of Jesus Christ that it becomes the Body of Jesus Christ as wax becomes fire according to the comparison of S. Chrysostom and as the Bread eaten by Jesus Christ became the Body of Jesus Christ according to the comparison of other Fathers This union then is only the way to Transubstantiation Remy and other Authors who have followed this opinion explain the manner how the Bread is the Body of Jesus Christ and they say that 't is inasmuch as 't is joyn'd to this Body 'T is says Remy one only Body and Blood with that which he took of the Virgin for the Divinity fills it and joyns it to it self and makes that as it is one so it must be joyn'd to the Body of Jesus Christ and be one Body of Jesus Christ in truth The Divinity of the Word says the pretended Alcuinus fills this Body which is every where which is to say that which is Consecrated in an infinite of places adding it to self and makes that as it is one it be also joyn'd to the Body of Jesus Christ and be one only Body in truth These words do not put us upon imagining they thought of laying open a certain way to Transubstantiation nor a preambulatory or preparative union to the conversion as Mr. Arnaud would have us believe This is a mere illusion 'T is clear they teach in what manner the Bread is the same Body with that which he took of the Virgin and settle here to wit inasmuch as 't is joyn'd to it by the link of the same Divinity which fills both the one and the other Which is what appears from the bare reading of their passages and especially that of Ascelinus Berenger had told him that if he follow'd the opinion of Paschasus he went contrary to all the laws of nature And Ascelinus answers him that 't is neither a subject of admiration nor a subject of doubt that God can make that which is Consecrated on the Altar to be united to this Body which our Saviour took of the Virgin which shews he made the ground of his sentiment to consist in this union and that he respected it not as a way to Transubstantiation but as that which formally made the Bread the Body of Jesus Christ The examples which he adds of the Soul and Body which are joyned together and of the two natures united in Jesus Christ confirm the same thing for the union of the soul and body and the union of the two natures are not in any wise ways and preparations to any Transubstantiation they are on the contrary unions wherein the two things united subsist and on which the mind settles What Mr. Arnaud says that this union does not terminate it self to a simple conjunction but makes the Bread pass into the Body of Jesus Christ is equivocal For if he means that the formal effect of this union is that the Bread remaining what it was becomes the Body of Jesus Christ we will grant him that this was in effect the sentiment of these Authors but if he 'll have the Bread ceasing to be what it was to become really the same numerical substance which was the Body of Christ before this change we deny that these Authors have taken it in this sort The comparisons which he alledges of Wax which becomes Fire and Bread eaten by Christ which became his Body do contradict this last sense for the Wax devoured by the Fire becomes not the same substance of Fire in number that it was before and the Bread which our Saviour aet became not likewise so properly the same substance in number which was before his Body So what he says afterwards That to joyn the Bread to the Body of Jesus Christ p. 842. and to make it to be the Body of
because an addition made to the natural Body becomes the true Body And these are not two Bodies but one only Body because that according to the argument of Damascen an augmentation or a growth of a Body does not make another but the same Body When this Bread is broken and eaten Jesus Christ is immolated and eaten to wit in this Bread which is joyn'd to him and yet he remains entire and living to wit in his natural Body This Bread is offered for our Redemption inasmuch as 't is a commemoration of it and an application made to us of the price of our Redemption on the Cross And in this sense 't is a true Sacrifice which expiates us because it does represent and apply to us the true Sacrifice of the Cross of Jesus Christ as Remy thereupon formally explains himself in these words Do this that is to say Consecrate this Body in remembrance of me to wit of my Passion and your Redemption for I have redeemed you by my Blood Here are the objections which Mr. Arnaud has made on Remy let any one judg whether he has had reason to make such a bustle with this Author and say That it appears strange any man should question the sentiment of an Author which speaks in this sort For in fine a body would think the license of contradicting every thing should have its bounds 'T were well if Mr. Arnaud would accustom himself to judg of things with less prejudice WE must now pass on to Christian Drutmar of whom I had alledged a very considerable passage taken from his Commentary on the 26. Chapter of S. Matthew that is to say from an explication which he makes precisely of th' institution of the Holy Sacrament The Author of the Perpetuity had cavil'd on this passage as much as 't is possible sometimes saying that the translation which I made of it was not faithful sometimes that the Text it self was corrupted sometimes that the words of which it consists had no coherence sometimes that the passage was question'd by Sixtus of Sienne and that there was a Manuscript of Drutmar in the Convent of Grey-Friers at Lyons which instead of this explication Hoc est Corpus meum Id est in Sacramento contain'd these words Hoc est Corpus meum Hoc est in Sacramento vere subsistens And I know not how many other frivolous evasions which may be seen fully refuted in my answer to the Perpetuity Mr. Arnaud did Answer to the second Treatise part 3. ch 2. not think it necessary again to engage himself in this dispute He only tells us that 't is the direct attention to the Sacrament and external vail which makes Drutmar to explain these words Hoc est Corpus meum by these id est in Sacramento For when a man directs his mind to the Sacrament and that Book 8. ch 4. p. 797. which strikes our senses one cannot say strictly that 't is the Body it self of Jesus Christ It is apparent Bread 't is the sign the similitude the Sacrament of this Body which is the Body of Jesus Christ only in Sacrament as Drutmar says This is not the point in question But the question is to know in what sort the people of those days believed the Body of Jesus Christ was joyn'd to this Sacrament and Vail 'T is by this we must supply Drutmar ' s expression for nothing can be more unjust than to judg of his sentiment by a word which he spake cursorily and by an abridged expression IT must be acknowledg'd no easie matter to sound the bottom of these Gentlemens minds who ever could imagin that after so many attempts to elude the passage of Drutmar Mr. Arnaud finding his labour in vain should betake himself to the direction of attention Drutmar writes an express Commentary on the institution of the Eucharist He explains these words of our Saviour This is my Body in this sense that is to say Sacramentally And Mr. Arnaud comes and tells us by his own Authority that he minded directly only the vail and appearances of Bread which cover the Body of Christ as if Drutmar did not design to give the true sense of our Saviour in the explication of these words or as if our Saviour meant only by these words that the appearances of Bread signifie his Body or as if a Commentator were not obliged to direct his attention to the principal natural and essential sense of the words he explains without falling into forein and fantastical senses which no body could imagin but himself For I do not believe it has ever yet entred into any man's thoughts that these terms This is my Body signifie that the accidents of Bread or the vail of the appearances of Bread which cover the Body of Jesus Christ are this Body only in sign and Sacrament Neither must Mr. Arnaud tell us that this is a word which Drutmar spake transiently and for brevity sake for 't is an express and formal explication of our Saviours words Supposing people commonly believed Transubstantiation and the Real Presence as Mr. Arnaud would have it what likelihood is there that in an age wherein people could not be ignorant that this Doctrin met with much contradiction in the person of Paschasus that Drutmar who was a Religious of the Convent of Corbie which is to say of the same Convent as Paschasus was Abbot of would deceive the world betray the publick Faith of the Church favour those that opposed it scandalize his own proper party and give way to an heretical explication of Christs words and this by the rule of direct attention and by the means of abbreviated expressions In truth Mr. Arnaud shews what kind of opinion he has of us when he supposes such kind of answers as these will satisfie us CHAP. XI Of other Authors in the Ninth Century Amalarius Heribald Raban Bertram and John Scot. AFter Drutmar we must examin Amalarius If we believe what Andrew du Val the Sorbonist Doctor says of him in his Notes on the Treatise of the Church of Lyons entituled De tribus Epistolis the question will be soon decided For having related on the testimony of Florus a passage of Amalarius he concludes in these terms Ex quo conjecturae locus relinquitur Amalarium istum una cum Joanne Scoto fuisse Berengarii praecursores veluti ante signanos Hence we may conjecture that this Amalarius with John Scot were Berenger ' s fore-runners If we believe M. the President Maugin Amalarius was only a Stercoranist of whom we shall speak hereafter If we will believe the Author of the Perpetuity Amalarius was Paschasus his Adversary for he strongly assures us That Bishop Usher was Perpetuity of the Faith page 83. mistaken when he thought Amalarius ' s error consisted in holding the Doctrin of the Roman Catholicks not only because this supposition is without any ground but also because the Epitomy of William of Malmsury joyns Amalarius with Heribald
is not the stile of a man that believed the Real Presence BUT before we leave Amalarius we must joyn him to Heribald and Raban for they stand all three accused by several Authors with Stercoranism which is to say they believ'd that what we receive in the Sacrament is digested and subject to the necessity of other food which passes into Excrements William of Malmsbury in his epitomis'd Manuscript as the Author of the Perpetuity acknowledges attributes to all three of 'em this opinion The President Maugin affirms the same thing of Amalarius and Mr. Arnaud says his proofs be good And the anonymous Author publish'd by Cellot the Jesuit attributes the same sentiment to Heribald and Raban without any mention of Amalarius Et his quidem says he qui dixerunt secessui obnoxium quid nunquam antea auditum est id est Heribaldo Antisiodorensi Episcopo qui turpiter proposuit Rabano Moguntino qui turpius assumpsit turpissime vero conclusit suus ad respondendum locus servetur Thomas Tom. 2. cap. 19. Lib. 8. cap. 12. p. 874. Waldensis attributes it in like manner to Heribald and Raban Heribaldus says he Altisiodorensis Episcopus Rabanus Moguntinus posuerunt Euchariristoe Sacramentum obnoxium esse secessui Mr. Arnaud endeavours to substract Raban from this number The single testimony says he of an Author so little judicious as this anonymous is not sufficient to impute this sentiment to Raban there being elsewhere nothing in his works but what may receive a good sense But has he so soon forgotten what he himself wrote eight lines above Raban is accused of the error of the Stercoranists by an anonymous Author and by William of Malmsbury This anonymous is not the only Author that gives this testimony William of Malmsbury asserts the same why then does Mr. Arnaud say eight lines after The single testimony of this anonymous Author is not enough If his single testimony be not sufficient that of William of Malmsbury will confirm it and if these two be not sufficient Thomas Waldensis will give 'em his suffrage as I now mention'd Even Raban himself sufficiently explains his own sentiment without any need of other witnesses for observe here what he writes in his fifth Book De naturis rerum The Lord would have the Sacraments of his Body and Blood to be received by the mouths of the Faithful and serve 'em for food in pastum eorum redigi others read in partem eorum redigi to the end this visible effect should represent the invisible effect For as material food nourishes and strengthens the Body so the Word of God inwardly nourishes our souls And in his Book of the instruction of Ecclesiasticks he formally In instit Cleric c. 31. teaches that the Sacrament is taken with the mouth reduced into nourishment for our Bodies and converted or changed in us when we eat it There is no explication can shift the force and consequence of these terms THE question is now whether the opinion of these persons who have been since odiously called by way of reproach Stercoranists be consistent with the Real Presence or whether it supposes that the substance of Bread remains in the Eucharist If we consult Durand of Troarn to know what these Stercoranists were he will tell us that in his time they were accounted the same persons who maintain'd that the substances of Bread and Wine remain'd after the Consecration They say says he that the gifts of Bread Durand de Corp. Sang. Dom. part 1. and Wine which are laid on the Altar remain after the Consecration what they were before and are yet in some sort the true Body and true Blood of Jesus Christ not naturally but in figure And that the substances of the Divine Oblation are corruptible and digested with other meats He says the same thing afterwards in two or three several places and calls these people Stercoranists without mentioning several kinds of 'em as that some of 'em are for having the substance it self of Christ's Body to be subject to these accidents and others who understood it of the substance of Bread IT also appears from the Dispute of Guitmond that this was the sentiment of Berenger and his followers for he introduces 'em thus arguing 'T is absurd t' expose the Body of Jesus Christ to the necessity of Excrements Guitmund de verb. Euchar. lib. 2. Yet whatsoever enters into the mouth as our Saviour says descends into the stomach and is cast into the draught From this visible and corporeal manducation in the Sacrament says Algerus has sprung the filthy Heresie of the Alger de Sac. lib. 2. cap. 7. Stercoranists For they say that so great a Sacrament being eaten corporally is likewise subject to Excrements Which they endeavour to strengthen by several arguments and especially by the words of Jesus Christ who says in the Gospel Whatsoever enters into the mouth descends into the stomach and is cast forth into the draught 'T WILL be said it hence plainly appears that the Berengarians were Stercoranists seeing they believ'd that the substance of Bread remain'd after the Consecration but that it does not hence follow that all the Stercoranists and especially Heribald and Raban held in like manner the subsistence of the Bread and Wine I answer It belongs to Mr. Arnaud to shew us that there were two sorts of Stercoranists the one who held the Real Presence and others that did not believe it For why must we be led by his authority we show that those who were accused of Stercoranism are the same as were opposed for not believing Transubstantiation If Mr. Arnaud will needs have that there were two sorts 't is his part to prove it for as long as he supposes this without proof we have right to deny it him Yet will it be no hard matter to convince him that this same Stercoranism which Authors attribute to Heribaid and Raban is nothing else than the belief of the subsistence of the Bread and Wine in the Eucharist which is to say in a word that 't is exactly the opinion of Berenger and that 't was only to render it odious that their adversaries exposed it under this idea or representation of Stercoranism Which is what justifies it self from the testimony of Thomas Waldensis who tells us that a subtil Doctor of his time said We should interrogate the Priests whether they did not think that this thing Thom. Valdens tom 2. cap. 52. which they believ'd to be the Flesh of Christ was tasted with ones bodily mouth and whether being received into the stomach it went into the draught according as adds he the vile Sect of the Heribaldiens and Lollards taught for they say ALL that this Bread which they imprudently call THE NATVRAL BREAD is the august Sacrament and consecrated Host Here I think we have the Heribaldiens who formally say that the Sacrament the consecrated Host which according to them passes into Excrements is The natural
Bertram Now Bertram does not any where name Paschasus and not only he does not attack him openly but shuns to appear contrary to him so that it cannot be concluded from the testimony of this Author that Raban was an adversary to Paschasus his Book Why can it not be concluded from the testimony of this Author seeing this Author formally says it Can Mr. Arnaud that never saw this Letter to Egilon better judg of it than this Author that did see it Supposing Raban did not name Paschasus it will not follow that he did not attack his Book for a man may write against a Book and yet not name the Author of it 'T was a sufficient attacking the Book to combat precisely and directly the fundamental and essential proposition which Paschasus came from establishing in it which was that what we receive in the Communion is the same Flesh of Jesus Christ which was born of the Virgin THIS anonymous Author says moreover Mr. Arnaud is the only person Ibidem that speaks of this Letter of Raban to Egilon 'T was never cited either by Berenger nor by any other Author 't was unknown to all the Writers of the 11th Century Supposing what Mr. Arnaud says were true yet would it not be sufficient for the calling in question the sincerity of this anonymous Author who speaks of this Letter as of that which he saw But besides this Mr. Arnaud hazards himself too much when he positively affirms that this is the only Author who speaks of this Letter of Raban to Egilon He may be convinced of the contrary by Raban himself who acknowledges it and makes express mention of it on the same subject of Paschasus his Doctrin and in the same sense which the anonymous does excepting the name of Paschasus which he does not express which plainly defends the sincerity of this nameless Author Quidam nuper de ipso Sacramento Corporis Sanguinis Poen Rab. c. 33. Domini non rite sentientes dixerunt hoc ipsum Corpus Sanguinem Domini quod de Maria Virgine natum est in quo ipse Dominus passus est in cruce resurrexit de Sepulchro cui errori quantum potuimus ad Egilum Abbatem scribentes de corpore ipso quid vere credendum sit aperuimus BVT supposing 't were true says Mr. Arnaud that Raban did in effect Page 875. contradict Paschasus this will be but of small advantage to Mr. Claude Which he endeavours to prove afterwards by the example of several great Wits and famous Bishops who have attack'd the Divinity of Jesus Christ He adds That Raban was as other men are as appears by one of his Letters which the Church of Lyons refuted that it cannot appear strange he should fall into an error touching the Eucharist and that the qualities of a Philosopher Rhetorician Astronomer and Poet could not render him incapable of being deceived Supposing we had only Raban to oppose against Paschasus the advantage would not be inconsiderable Paschasus was only a mean Religious when Raban was Abbot of Fulde and when Paschasus came to be Abbot of Corbie Raban was Arch-Bishop of Mayence whence it follows that the authority of the one was far greater than that of the other As to knowledg it cannot be denied but Raban infinitely excelled Paschasus not in the mere qualities of a Philosopher Rhetorician Astronomer and Poet altho these qualifications do much set off a Scholar but by the Epithet which Baronius gives him Audi says he quid vertex hujus temporis Baron ad ann 847. Theologorum Rabanus decreverit Mr. Arnaud cannot propose Paschasus but only as the single person of his Party now were it the same with us in respect of Raban 't is certain that the presumption would be wholly for this last and that 't is apparently better to bring the Church on Raban's side than on Paschasus's But we are not in these Circumstances The Doctrin of Raban agrees very well with that of other Authors his Contemporaries that of Paschasus agrees with none of ' em The Doctrin of Raban has disturb'd no body but that of Paschasus set several persons against him of his own time There 's not the least reason for accusing Raban of Innovation but there are very strong proofs whereby to conclude that Paschasus was an Innovator It signifies nothing to say that Raban was as other men are as appears by one of his Letters which the Church of Lyons has refuted for should a man rigorously examin Paschasus his Writings he will find more marks of human weakness than in those of Raban besides that from this very thing that Raban had the Church of Lyons for his Adversary one may hence conclude according to Mr. Arnaud's way of reasoning that his Doctrin on the Eucharist differed not from that of his time for otherwise 't is likely that the Church of Lyons would not have spared him on such an important Article and yet instead of this we find on the contrary that when this Church her self spake of the Eucharist it has been in terms which do not at all favour the Real Presence When our Saviour Christ says she gave Lugd. Eccles de tenend ver Script to his Disciples the Sacrament of his Body and Blood he says Take eat this is my Body which is given for you which insinuates that she understood these words This is my Body in this sense This is the Sacrament of my Body And a little further The Oblation of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ which is to say the mystery of his Passion and Death The example of these great Wits and Bishops that have attackt the Divinity of Jesus Christ does indeed shew that 't was not impossible for Raban to fall into error which is what we do not at present dispute for there 's no body infallible no not Mr. Arnaud himself but this example concludes the same thing of Paschasus who was no more infallible than others So far they stand upon equal ground both men and both liable to error It remains to know which of the two actually fell into error and that this example of the Bishops does not decide IT signifies nothing adds Mr. Arnaud to say that no body ever reproach'd Book 8. ch 12 p. 875. him with this error for it does not appear that any other Author save the Anonymous saw this Letter to Egilon so that the only person that had knowledg of it has condemned it Raban did not keep this Letter secret seeing he has himself made mention of it in his Penitentials and says he did it against the error of those who say that the Sacrament was the Real Body and Blood of Jesus Christ born of the Virgin Those who saw not his Letter might easily comprehend by these words the substance of it and for what end he design'd it if they have not condemned it 't was their fault Yet do we not pretend to draw hence any great
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
yields us a demonstrative proof that Paschasus was an Innovator for the rest do not speak like him there are two of the famousest of 'em viz. Raban and Bertram who have expresly applied themselves to the refuting of his Doctrin TO these two we may add a third which is John Scot who wrote also by the command of Charles the Bald against the novelties of Paschasus His Book was burnt in the Council of Verseil and we understand from the testimony of Ascelinus in his Letter to Berenger that the end which he proposed was to shew in this Book that what is Consecrated on the Altar is neither the true Body nor the true Blood of Jesus Christ Toto nisu totaque intentione ad hoc solum tendere video ut mihi persuadeat hoc videlicet quod in Altari Consecratur neque vere Corpus neque vere Christi Sanguinem esse hoc autem astruere nititur ex Sanctorum Patrum opusculis quae prave exponit The Author of the Dissertation which Mr. Arnaud has inserted in his 12th Book pretends that the Book which we have under the name of Bertram and that of John Scot are the same He endeavours likewise to lessen as much as in him lies the authority of this Adversary to Paschasus and I had not finish'd this Work without examining his Conjectures had not one of my Friends inform'd me that he had eas'd me of this pains as well as this Author has help'd Mr. Arnaud I hope this friend of mine will soon publish his Piece which will or I am greatly deceived fully satisfie every unprejudic'd man that seeks the truth CHAP. XII Of Personal Differences which Mr. Arnaud has treated of in his Eleventh Book HAving satisfied whatsoever respects the matter of this Dispute my design wherein I am engaged of returning an exact answer to Mr. Arnaud's volume seems to require I should now pass to the discussion of his eleventh Book which he has entituled personal differences between the Author of the Perpetuity and me The interest also of my defence against Mr. Arnaud's injustices obliges me to this Yet can I not wholly keep within this Province for there are several reasons hindering me which I hope judicious persons will not disallow FIRST these personal differences are handled in so sharp and hot a manner so full of animosities that 't were better a thousand times to pass 'em over in silence and offer 'em as a Sacrifice to Piety Patience and Christian Charity than to endeavour to treat of 'em exactly and repel Mr. Arnaud's outrages which cannot be well done without sometimes exceeding the bounds of Christian moderation MOREOVER altho I do not doubt but Mr. Arnaud and the Author of the Perpetuity have reason to believe that the publick will take part with what respects their persons yet I cannot pretend 't is the same with me These Gentlemen have made a noise in the world they have drawn upon 'em the expectations of all France Spain and Italy Whereas I am person obscure enough and whose name is only known by my interest in this Dispute so that 't will be a presumption in me to believe the publick will concern it self in my respect Should I then here begin with a long discussion of our complaints and reciprocal defences the readers might well say to one another that they have nothing to do with this and that 't is an abuse of their patience after a long discourse of things which relate to the cause to engage them further in a tiresom discourse of Personal Differences IN the third place Mr. Arnaud has introduced amongst his Personal Differences several things to which 't is impossible to answer without engaging in tedious prolixities in matters which of ' emselves have no coherence with that of the Eucharist I place in this rank the defence which he makes of a cruel invective of the Author of the Perpetuity against the first Reformers which yet Mr. Arnaud maintains in a more fierce manner grounding it on Facts and Principles some of which are false others taken in a wrong sense and others invidiously perverted How can we handle in a few words so important a subject when the question concerns the justifying the innocency of several great men and to shew at the same time the justice and necessity of our separation from the Roman Church 'T is plain this cannot be done in one or two Chapters and that this is matter for a great Volume I reduce under this head these passionate expressions which begin the 9th Chapter of this 11th Book and which I design to relate here that the world may judg of ' em We demand justice says Mr. Arnaud speaking of me for the excesses of which he has been guilty contrary to all rules of honesty and truth which even Pagans would blush to violate We would gladly know of him whether his morals will give him this license We are already satisfied that the Maxims of their new Divinity promise impunity to all manner of crimes provided they be of the faithful Calvinists who commit them and we do not question him whether he fears to be damn'd by calumniating his Adversaries We know the solutions of his Doctors deliver him from this fear contrary to what S. Paul says who tells us that slanderers shall not enter into the Kingdom of God But that which we desire to know is whether they have of late taken away from Crimes the name of Crimes and stript them of the general infamy which accompanies 'em whether the name of a Slanderer be no longer odious amongst Calvinists and whether they have sanctified this name which is so horrible amongst men that they could not find a blacker to shew their detestation of it than to call such Devils I design not to repel these discourses to be met with scattered throughout his whole Book any otherwise than by reciting 'em or at most by censuring 'em as excesses which do not at all become a person who pretends to correct our morals and teach us virtue and moderation I shall not retort upon him several things in my turn which a just and natural defence seems to permit and enjoyn me to tell him But I pretend to justifie so well our Morals as will make Mr. Arnaud blush for shame that he has attackt them with such an outragious and malicious air And this we cannot do here transiently nor by way of answer to ten or twelve hot periods which like lightning have more fire than matter 'T is necessary for this purpose to be disengaged from all other subjects for there needs more time to remedy an evil than to do it to cure a wound than to make it AND these are the reasons which withhold me from entring into an exact discussion of Mr. Arnaud's eleventh Book But because there are in these Personal Differences some Articles which I cannot wholly pass over in silence having too near a relation to the things which we treat of the Readers
in which he asserts the conversion of the substances of Bread and Wine into those of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ with the subsistence of accidents without a subject and uses the very term of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If Mr. Arnaud has meant by the Greek Church the persons of that Party I have already declared to him and again tell him that I have not disputed against him We do not pretend to dispute the Conquests of the Missions and Seminaries let him peaceably enjoy 'em we mean only the true Greeks who retain the Doctrin and ancient expressions of their Church And as to those we are certain of two things the one that they hold not the Transubstantiation of the Latins which I believe I have clearly proved and the other that they alone ought to be called the true Greek Church altho the contrary Party were the most prevalent and possessed the Patriarchates Mr. Arnaud himself has told us that these Seats are disposed of by the sovereign authority of the Turks to those that have most money and we know moreover the great care that has been taken to establish the Roman Doctrins in these Countries thro the Neglect and Ignorance of the Prelates Monks and People whether by instructing their Children or gaining the Bishops or filling the Churches with the Scholars of Seminaries and other like means which I have describ'd at large in my second Book Mr. Arnaud perhaps will answer that he likewise maintains on his side that this Party which teaches Transubstantiation is the true Greek Church and the other but a Cabal of Cyril's Disciples I answer that to decide this question we need only examin which of these two Parties retains the Doctrin and Expressions of the ancient Greeks for that which has this Character must be esteem'd the true Greek Church and not that which has receiv'd novelties unknown to their Fathers Now we have clearly shew'd that the conversion of Substances Transubstantiation and the Real Presence are Doctrins and Expressions of which the Greeks of former Ages have had no knowledg whence it follows that the Party which admits these Doctrins and Expressions are a parcel of Innovators which must not be regarded as if they were the true Greek Church Let Mr. Arnaud and those who read this Dispute always remember that the first Proposition of the Author of the Perpetuity is that in the 11th Century at the time of Berenger's condemnation the Greeks held the Real Presence and Transubstantiation that this is the time which he chose and term'd his fix'd point to prove from hence that these Doctrins were of the first establishment of Religion and consequently perpetual in the Church Which I desire may be carefully observed to prevent another illusion which may be offered us by transferring the question of the Greeks of that time to the Greeks at this and to hinder Mr. Arnaud and others from triumphing over us when it shall happen that the Missions and Seminaries and all the rest of the intrigues which are made use of shall devour the whole Land of Greece For in this case the advantage drawn hence against us will be of no value 't will neither hence follow that the Doctrins in question have been perplex'd in the Church nor that the Greek Church held 'em in the time of Berenger's condemnation and what I say touching the Greeks I say likewise touching the other Eastern Churches over which the Roman Church extends its Missions and Care as well as the Greeks AS to what remains let not Mr. Arnaud be offended that in the refutation of his Book in general I have every where shewed the little justice and solidity of his reasonings and especially in the refutation of his first sixth and tenth Book I acknowledg he has wrote with much Wit Elegancy and polite Language and attribute to the defect of his subject whatsoever I have noted to be amiss either in his Proofs or Answers but 't is very true the world never saw so many illusions and such great weakness in a work of this nature and all that I could do was to use great condescentions in following him every where to set him strait I have only now to beseech Almighty God to bless this my Labor and as he has given me Grace to undertake and finish it so he will make it turn to his Glory and the Churches Edification AMEN AN ANSWER TO THE DISSERTATION Which is at the end of Mr. Arnaud's Book Touching the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord Publish'd under the name of BERTRAM AND OF THE Authority of John Scot or Erigenus LONDON Printed by M. C. for Richard Royston Bookseller to the King 's most Excellent Majesty 1683. Advertisement THOSE that shall cast their eyes on this Answer will be at first apt to think these Critical Questions belong only to Scholars Whereas we have here several important matters of fact which are in a manner necessary to the full understanding of the Controversie of the Eucharist The Church of Rome pretends we have forsaken the Ancient Faith and that Berenger was one of the first who taught our Doctrin in the beginning of the 11th Century We on the contrary maintain 't is the Roman Church that has departed from the Ancient Belief and that 't was Paschasus Ratbert who in the beginning of the 9th Century taught the Real Presence and the Substantial Conversion And to this in short may he reduced the whole Controversie which was between Mr. Claude and Mr. Arnaud Mr. Claude has strenuously and clearly shewed that as many Authors as were of any Repute im the 9th Century have opposed the Doctrin of Paschasus and that consequently Paschasus must be respected as a real Innovator Now amongst these Writers Mr. Claude produces John Scot or Erigenus and Bertram or Ratram a Religious of Corby two of the greatest Personages of that Age and shews they wrote both of 'em against the Novelties which Paschasus had broach'd that one of 'em Dedicated his Book to Charles the Bald King of France and the other likewise wrote his by the same King's Order That the first having lived some time in this Prince's Court died at last in England in great reputation for his holiness of Life that the other was always esteem'd and reverenced as the Defender of the Church which seems to be decisive in our favour Mr. Arnaud on his side finding himself toucht to the quick by the consequence of these Proofs has used his last and greatest Endeavours to overthrow or weaken ' em And for this purpose has publish'd at the end of his Book two Dissertations the one under his own name and the other under the name of a Religious of St. Genevieve whose name is not mention'd In the first which is under the name of the Religious he does two things for first he endeavours to persuade that the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord is not in effect Ratram ' s but
John Scot ' s And in the second place he endeavours to decry John Scot and deprive him of all Esteem and Authority In the other Dissertation Mr. Arnaud pretends that whosoever was the Author of this Book Mr. Claude has not rightly comprehended the sense of it and that this Book does not combat the Doctrin of Paschasus And thus Mr. Arnaud pretends to discharge himself of Mr. Claude ' s proof so that to take away from him this last subterfuge and re-establish this part of Mr. Claude ' s proof it is necessary to shew clearly that the little Book of our Lords Body and Blood is in effect Ratram ' s and that this Book is directly opposite to the Doctrin of Paschasus and that John Scot is an Author whose Testimony is of great weight and authority which is what I have undertaken to do in this Answer And I hope these kind of Elucidations will not be deemed unprofitable or unpleasant Moreover I did not think my self oblig'd to enter into a particular Examination of the second Dissertation touching Bertram ' s Book because the History which I make of this Book the judgment which those of the Church of Rome have made of it at several times with what Mr. Claude alledges concerning it in the 11th Chapter of his sixth Book are sufficient to shew clearly that this Author has directly combated the Doctrin of Paschasus without offering to tire the Readers with troublesom repetitions Moreover we hope to give the Publick in a short time a translation of Bertram ' s Book which being but a small Treatise requires only an hours reading in which every one may see with their own eyes what 's his true sense without a more tedious search after it in Mr. Arnaud ' s Arguments or mine AN ANSWER TO THE DISSERTATION Which is at the end of Mr. Arnaud's Book Touching the Treatise of Our Lords Body and Blood Publish'd under the name of Bertram and touching the Authority of John Scot or Erigenus THE FIRST PART Wherein is shew'd that the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord Publish'd under the name of Bertram is a work of Ratram a Monk of Corbie and not of John Scot. CHAP. I. An Account of the several Opinions which the Doctors of the Roman Church have offered touching this Book to hinder the advantage which we draw from it THE Book of Bertram of the Body and Blood of our Lord having been Printed at Cologn in the year 1532. the Doctors of the Roman Church have judg'd it so little favourable to 'em that they have thought themselves necessitated to deprive it of all its authority and to cry it down either as an Heretical Book or a forged piece or at least as a Book corrupted by the Protestants IN the year 1559. those that were employed by the Council of Trent Book 1. of Euch. c. 1. Indic Quirog Ind. Clem. VIII Indic Sandov An. 1612. Praefat. in Bibl. Sanct. for the examining of Books placed this in the rank of Heretical Authors of the first Classis the reading of which ought to be forbidden Their judgment was publish'd by Pius IV. and follow'd by Cardinal Bellarmin and Quiroga and by Pope Clement VIII and Cardinal Sandoval SIXTVS of Sienne treats this Book no better in 1566. he tells us 't is a pernicious piece wrote by Oecolampadus and publish'd by his Disciples under the name of Bertram an Orthodox Author to make it the better received Possevin the Jesuit and some others followed the opinion of Sixtus and carried on the same accusation against the Authors of Proleg in appar the impression of this Book BUT besides that the Bishop of Rochester cited it against Oecolampadus himself in the year 1526. which is to say six years before 't was Printed the several Manuscripts which have been since found in Libraries have Joan. Rosseus proleg in 4. lib. adv Oecolamp Artic. 2. shewed that this accusation was unjust and rash which has obliged the Author of the Dissertation which I examin to leave it and confess that this Impression was true IT was without doubt from the same reason that in 1571. the Divines of Indic Belgic voce Bertramus Doway took another course than that of the entire proscription of the Book Altho say they we do not much esteem this Book nor would be troubled were it wholly lost but seeing it has been several times Printed and many have read it and its name is become famous by the Prohibition which has been made of it the Hereticks knowing it has been prohibited by several Catalogues that moreover its Author was a Catholick Priest a Religious of the Convent of Corbie beloved and considered not by Charlemain but by Charles the Bald That this Writing serves for an History of all that time and that moreover we suffer in ancient Catholick Authors several Errors extenuating them excusing them yea often denying 'em by some tergiversation invented expresly or giving them a commodious sense when they are urged against us in Disputes which we have with our Adversaries we therefore see no reason why Bertram should not deserve the same kindness from us and why we should not review and correct him cur non eandem recognitionem mereatur Bertramnus lest the Hereticks should scoffingly tell us we smother Antiquity and prohibit enquiries into it when 't is on their side and therefore we ought not to be troubled that there seems to be some small matters which favor them seeing we Catholicks handle Antiquity with so little respect and destroy Books as soon as ever they appear contrary to us We ought likewise to fear lest the Prohibition which has been made of this Book should cause its being read with greater greediness not only by Hereticks but also by disobedient Catholicks that it be not alledged in a more odious fashion and in fine do more hurt by its being prohibited than if 't were permitted THUS do the Divines of Doway ingeniously declare their opinion how Books ought to be dealt with that do not favour their belief They would not have Bertram's Book prohibited but corrected GREGORY of Valence and Nicholas Romoeus follow the sentiment of Lib. 1. de Praes Chr. in Euch. c. 2. p. 10. the Doway Divines but this expedient is become wholly impossible since there have been several Manuscripts found in places unsuspected and that these Manuscripts appear wholly conformable to the Prints as we are inform'd In Calvini effig spect 3. Col. 21. Spect. 8. col 72. Book 2. of Euch. Auth. 39. p. 666. and Usher de success Eccl. c. 2. p. 41. by Cardinal Perron and several others after him Thus the Doctors of the Roman Communion finding ' emselves faln not only from their hopes of making the world believe this was a false piece but also of persuading 'em 't was corrupted have been forced to have recourse to fresh Councils to elude the advantage we make of it THE President Mauguin seeing then on
one hand the Book could not Dissert Hist c. 17. p. 134 135. be denied to be true and acknowledging moreover that this Bertram to whom 't is attributed is no other than Ratramnus whom he lately mention'd with such great Elogies as being the defender of the Doctrin of the Church concerning Divine Grace he I say believ'd 't was best to attempt the justifying him by any means from the crime of Heresie touching the Eucharist And for this effect has bethought himself of maintaining that Ratramnus in the Book in question defends the same Doctrin which Paschasus Ratbert defended in that which he wrote on the same subject that both one and the other to wit Ratramnus and Paschasus had to deal with the same Hereticks to wit certain Stercoranists who according to Cardinal Perron appeared in the 9th Century that they both of 'em admirably well agree in defending the Catholick Church so that there can be no charge of Heresie brought against Bertram as they of his Communion had hitherto done without any reason Mr. HERMAN Canon of Beauvais has approved of this sentiment of Mr. Mauguin in a Letter to Mr. De St. Beuve Printed in 1652. under the name of Hierom ab Angelo forti and 't is by this means he endeavours to defend Jansenius his Disciples against Mr. Desmarests Professor in Divinity at Groningue who argued against Transubstantiation from the authority of this same Ratramnus whom the Gentlemen of the Port Royal quoted as one of the most famous Witnesses of the Belief of the Church against the novelties of Molina IT seems also that Mr. De St. Beuve does not disapprove of this opinion of Mr. Mauguin and Mr. Herman in his Manuscript Treatise of the Eucharist as we may collect from the Preface of D' Luc d' Achery on the second Tome of his Spicilege Yet by a strange kind of injustice after the testimony of Cardinal Du Perron and others who have seen Bertram's Manuscript he still suspects it to have suffered some alteration Howsoever he would have us remember that Ratramnus died in the bosom of the Church and bear with his offensive expressions This is the part which these two Gentlemen have taken for the preservation of Ratramnus his authority whose testimony is useful to 'em in other matters CELLOT the Jesuit on the contrary designing in his History of Gottheschalc and in his Appendixes to oppose the sentiments of Mr. Mauguin in the subject of Grace and to discredit its Champions has attackt the person of Ratramnus He does indeed acknowledg him for the true Author of the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord but he does all that he is able to discredit it and bereave it of all the Authority which these other Gentlemen attribute to it Howsoever he yields it to the Protestants as being for them and maintains with Possevin that altho this Book may be read with corrections yet Pope Clement VIII has done well in prohibiting it OTHERS of better judgments in the Romish Communion have clearly foreseen that if what Cellot the Jesuit offers against Ratramnus is of use to him against the Disciples of Jansenius and if his way of proceeding be advantageous against the Adversaries which he had at his back 't was not the same in respect of us For as fast as he deprived his Adversaries of so famous an Author as Ratramnus in decrying him for an Heretick on the subject of the Eucharist he yielded him to us without any dispute and by this means does himself furnish us with a very authentick Author against Transubstantiation and the Real Presence They have believed then that to prevent the falling into this inconveniency they must invent some other new means which on one hand might be less bold and more likely than is that of Mr. Mauguin which cannot reasonably be maintain'd and which on the other would not give us so great advantage as Father Cellot has given us in placing Ratramnus absolutely on our side AND this is what Mr. Marca the deceased Arch-Bishop of Paris has seem'd to have done when he offered as a new discovery that the Book in question is of John Scot or Erigenus For by means of this opinion he pretended to secure to Ratramnus his whole authority and reputation and attribute at the same time to the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord the infamy of an heretical piece according to the Decree of the Roman Censurers We may charge Mr. De Marca with inconstancy seeing that in his French Treatise of the Eucharist which was publish'd since his death by the Abbot Faget his Cousin-german he acknowledged that Bertram and Ratram were but one and the same Author and that the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord is truly of Ratramnus HOWSOEVER Mr. De Marca affirms in his Letter to De Luc d' Tome 2. Spicil Achery wrote in 1657. First That the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord is not of Ratramnus as the learned have thought Secondly That 't is John's surnamed Scot or Erigenus Thirdly That John Scot acknowledging this Book was contrary to the Doctrin of the Church publish'd it under the name of Ratramnus by a famous Imposture to give it the more weight Fourthly That this Book is then the same which was condemned in the Council of Verseile by Leo IX as Lanfranc reports and was at length burnt in the Council of Rome under Nicholas II. in 1059. And thus does he reject his former opinion thro human weakness from which the greatest Wits are not exempt and wherein a man easily falls when 't is his interest to be of another mind Mr. De Marca well perceiv'd what a troublesom thing it was to the Roman Faith to say that Paschasus which is as it were the head of it according to the Hypothesis of the Protestants was opposed by all the learned and famous men which were then in the Church He also well foresaw that those who would reflect on the person of Ratram would be extremely surpriz'd to see that upon the contests to which the Doctrin of Paschasus gave birth Charles the Bald having consulted Ratram this great man took part with Paschasus his Adversaries He knew likewise that 't was this same Ratram who was consulted on the subject of Grace by the same Charles the Bald and who shew'd himself so zealous for the truth that he feared not to withstand three times Hincmar his Arch-Bishop as Mr. Mauguin has Dissert Hist c. 17. p. 135. observ'd That this Ratram was so famous in his time that after these bickerings with Hincmar Hincmar himself and the other French Prelates commission'd him to answer in their name the objections of the Greeks in the dispute which arose between them and the Latins There was no likelihood of making such a one pass for an Heretick Moreover Mr. Marca could not deny but that the Book of our Lords Body and Blood ought to be attributed to Ratram should we
corrupt the Catalogue of S. Hildephonsus his works by inserting in 'em these words which are to be found in the Edition of Miroeus as well as in the Manuscript He wrote a little Book of the Virginity of the Holy Virgin against three Infidels We know likewise that Paschasus his Book touching the Eucharist was father'd on the famous Raban as appears from the Cologn Edition in 1551. and from the Manuscripts of which the Author of the Dissertation says he has another of 'em in his hands altho it be certain that Paschasus is the Author of this Book and that Raban was of a contrary opinion to Paschasus But without such appearance and without any ground proof or Witnesses we must be gravely told that Berenger or his Disciples who were not convinced nor accused of any such thing have fathered on Bertram the Book which was condemned at Verseil and Rome and which is in effect John Scots and that six hundred years after we must be informed of this pretended supposition which no body before ever imagin'd what is this but imposing on the Readers credulity THE second change which the Author of the Dissertation makes of Mr. De Marca's sentiment is a mere cavil that has no foundation as I shall shew hereafter In effect Mr. De Marca as well before as since his new conjecture has acknowledg'd that Bertram and Ratram are but one and the same AND as to what that Author imagins in the third place that Mr. De Marca was mistaken in his maintaining that Bertram's Book is plainly against Transubstantiation and the Real Presence whereas it ought only to pass for an obscure and perplex'd Writing 't is evident this was to save the Author of the Perpetuity's reputation In effect if he had not this consideration how could he content himself with barely treating this Book as obscure and perplex'd seeing he himself supposes that 't is John Scots First Does he not know that Scot's Book was condemned by the Synod of Verceil as an Heretical piece Secondly That 't was so before at Paris by a kind Durand Troar de Corp. Sang. Chr. part 9. De Praedest cap. 31. Epist ad Berenger in Lanf oper of Synod who censured it in the same terms Thirdly That another Council at Rome caused it to be burnt six years after the Council of Verceil Fourthly That John Scot's Book was composed on this platform That the Sacrament of the Altar is not the true Body nor true Blood of our Lord but only a memorial of his true Body and Blood as Hincmar and Ascelin say Fifthly That Berenger has taken the Book of John Scot for an authentick testimony of his Faith and Lanfranc also for an avowed adversary of Paschasus Sixthly That in the 12th Century Cellot's anonymous Author testifies the Author of this Book was respected as an adversary to Paschasus in the same manner as he had been in the preceding Century Seventhly That supposing Bertram's Book be John Scot's whatsoever I now mention'd must be referred to him Eighthly That in effect Bertram's Book was attributed to Oecolampadius Ninthly That it was proscribed by I know not how many expurgatory Indexes Tenthly That the Divines of Doway and others with 'em not being able to admit the Doctrin have affirm'd it has been altered In fine that the Author of the Dissertation himself acknowledges that Berenger or his Disciples considered this Book as a Buckler for 'em which 't was their interest to preserve at the expence of the greatest fraud and treachery DARE the Author of the Dissertation say that Hincmar has understood the sentiment of John Scot better than John Scot himself that the Councils of the 11th Century have rashly condemned a Writing which at most was but an obscure and perplex'd one That Pope Leo IX Nicholas II. and the 113 Bishops which constrained Berenger to burn John Scot's Book were deceived in it that Berenger nor his Adversaries nor his Disciples have not comprehended what made for 'em or against 'em during several years Dispute and that in fine the 12th Century remain'd in as great an ignorance I wonder how the Author of the Dissertation or Mr. Arnaud can speak of this Book as they do which is to say that it is obscure and perplexed in supposing John Scot to be the Author of it I can scarcely believe that if these Gentlemen do satisfie themselves they can also satisfie the ingenuous of their own party that have read it But that I may handle more fully this point I intend to establish clearly two things First That this Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord publish'd under the name of Bertram is in effect Ratram's and not John Scot's Secondly That the authority of this Book will not cease to be very considerable supposing John Scot were the Author of it I hope I shall commodiously reduce under these two heads whatsoever the Author has treated of greatest importance in his Dissertation CHAP. III. That Ratram is the Author of the Book of our Lords Body and Blood publish'd under the name of Bertram TO confirm this truth I shall first bring as convincing proofs as can be brought for these kind of Facts Secondly I shall produce the acknowledgment of the most learned Romanists who have acknowledged this verity even since some of 'em have question'd it Lastly I shall shew that this is not a discovery which Vsher first made and that whatsoever the Author of the Dissertation brings against that Prelates proofs cannot overthrow them See here the proofs FIRST Sigebert a Monk of Gemblou attributes in his Catalogue of Ecclesiastical Writers the Book of our Lords Body and Blood to the Author of the Book of Predestination Now this Book of Predestination is acknowledged to be Ratram's And in effect altho Suffridus Petrus who caused Sigebert's Catalogue to be Printed has inserted the name of Bertram in his Edition he does himself remark that two Manuscripts one of the Abby of Gemblou the other of the Priory of Vauvert had distinctly the name of Ratram and not that of Bertram This testimony of Sigebert is considerable for three reasons First Because he was one of the most inquisitive Historians of his time as appears by his Chronicle Secondly Because he did not write his Catalogue till he had spent the greatest part of his life in the reading of the Authors of which he speaks in his Catalogue Thirdly Because that having lived a great while in the 11th Century for he died but in the year 1113. he had a particular knowledg of what passed in the Disputes between Berenger and his Adversaries and the Authors which were alledged on either hand AS Trithemius in his Catalogue has followed Sigebert excepting that he spoke more particularly of the Author of the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord and of Predestination it is plain that altho it has likewise the name of Bertram or Bertramnus he design'd Ratramnus and that the rather that 't
is undeniable First That there was no Author of Bertram's name in the 9th Century Secondly That the Elogies which he gives to Bertram are suitable only to Ratramnus by the consent of all learned men That 't would be a wonderful thing for neither Trithemius nor Sigebert to mention a word of Ratramnus one of the most famous Authors of the 9th Century SECONDLY an anonymous Author who apparently wrote since Algerus which is to say about the year 1140. formally attributes to Ratram to have wrote a Treatise of the Body and Blood of our Lord against the sentiments of Paschasus Ratbert and dedicated it to the French King Charles the Bald. Now this is what agrees precisely with the Book which bears the name of Bertram For first he directly decides against the Doctrin of Paschasus altho he does not name him Secondly It is dedicated to King Charles Thirdly The arguments which the anonymous Author relates as being common to Raban and Ratram are sound in the Book publish'd under the name of Bertram THIRDLY The style and Hypothesis of this Book of Bertram are wholly the same with those of other Writings of Ratram as I shall make appear But before we come to this behold another proof which alone is sufficient to decide our question FOURTHLY There are Manuscripts of the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord which bear the same name of Ratram First Those that in 1532. caused this Book to be Printed at Cologn expresly observe that they preferred the name of Bertram before any other name of the same Author which appeared to them less known Let the Reader know say they that altho the name of this Author is to be met with elsewhere express'd in another manner yet this name to wit of Bertram being most common and familiar ought to be preferred before any other This other name can be none but that of Ratramnus which appear'd to them less known than that of Bertram only because that in 1531. which is to say a year before the Edition of the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord the Catalogue of the Ecclesiastical Writers of Trithemius was publish'd at Cologn it self and therein mention made of this Author under the name of Bertram and not under that of Ratram Secondly The Divines of Doway had without question some Manuscripts of the Book of Our Lords Body and Blood under the name of Ratramnus without which they could not say of Bertram what they have said Thirdly Cardinal Perron attests he saw at In Indic 〈◊〉 voce Bertram 〈◊〉 lib. 2. de 〈◊〉 Aut. 39. p. ◠6. Mr. Le Fevre's the Prince's Tutor an ancient Manuscript of the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord under the name of Ratramnus THESE proofs be convincing to rational men the only thing which has rais'd any scruple is the name of Bertram which some Transcribers and those that have publish'd it from these Copies have put in instead of the true name which was Ratramnus but this signifies little For first 't is certain that Bertram's Book was written in the 9th Century in which time there was no Author named Bertram so that this must needs be a corrupted name thro the ignorance of some Transcribers It is then fitting to attribute this Book to one of the Authors of those times whose name comes nearest to that of Bertram Now 't is certain there is none which comes nearer than Ratram Theophilus Raynaud the Jesuit has acknowledged this truth How easie has it been says he to confound Bertram and Ratram in so great Erotem page 132 133. an affinity and resemblance of names We may alledg two causes of this confusion which are very probable First 'T was the custom to give the name Beatus to illustrious men in the Church instead of Sanctus which has been since affectedly given 'em of which there are thousands of instances in Manuscripts and Printed Books 'T is then very likely that some Transcribers finding in Manuscripts the Title of this Book B. Ratrami or Be. Ratrami which signifies Beati Ratramni they have imprudently joyn'd all these Letters and made thereof but one name Thus in the Edition of Aldus instead of reading P. Cornutus which signifies Publius Cornutus they have joyn'd the Letters of the Manuscript which should be separate whereof they have made the barbarous name of Phornutus Secondly It is likely that the conformity of the letter B with the Letter R which in the ancient Impressions and Manuscripts differ only in one stroak may have given way to this Error The likeness of Capital Letters has produced like changes the Author of the Dissertation himself tells us that in two Manuscripts of the Abby of S. Victor the Transcribers have written Babanus instead of Si◠medit Tho. Waldensis an 1521. Paris Labbe de Script p. 205. T. 2. Rabanus And thus do we read in some Manuscripts of Haimon of Halberstat Raymo for Haymo SECONDLY It is certain that in respect of the Book it self there are none of the Authors of the 9th Century to whom we can attribute this Book but to Ratram This Book supposes in its Preface that there hapned a terrible division between the Subjects of Charles the Bald touching the Eucharist and that this Prince according to his Piety searching the means to reduce to the purity of the Faith those that had changed it engaged the Author of the Book of our Lords Body and Blood to tell him his thoughts on this subject Now this time is exactly that wherein Ratram lived and the esteem which Charles the Bald shews this Author is precisely the same which he paid to Ratram in an occasion like this For his Subjects being divided on the matter of Grace and Predestination he consulted Ratramnus on this difference and shewed how greatly he valued his judgment in Theological Questions ALL these reasons taken together do so well prove that the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord is of Ratramnus that those who have not consider'd 'em all have yet yielded to the evidence of those they were acquainted with We may moreover say that if they have not been explain'd they have been at least acknowledg'd before Vsher by the Divines of Doway whether they have seen Manuscripts of the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord which bore the name of Ratram as 't is likely they did or believ'd with Raynaud that this corruption of the name of Bertram did not hinder but that Ratram must be acknowledg'd to be the Author of it In effect whence could they divine these three things First That Bertram was a Monk of Corby as well as a Priest Trithemius and Sigebert having never said so and the Title of the Book bearing Presbyteri and not Monachi Secondly That this Book was not dedicated to Charlemain but to Charles the Bald altho the Edition runs Ad Carolum magnum Thirdly That the Author was a Catholick Is not this a fair
acknowledgment that Bertram is no other than Ratram an Author in whom these three things meet if we compare the Title of the Book with what Authors say that have spoken of this Religious This is the judgment of the Divines of Doway whom Vsher has only followed AFTER the Divines of Doway and Bishop Vsher who discovered this truth more distinctly Mr. De Marca was one of the first who lent his hand to it as appears from his Treatise in French of the Eucharist wrote before the year 1640. and publish'd by Monsieur the Abbot Faget his Cousin Theophilus Raynaud the Jesuit has since likewise follow'd the same sentiment Erotem p 132. Dissert Hist p. 134. in his Treatise of good and bad Books Mr. Mauguin acknowledges it likewise in his famous defences of Grace wherein he has been follow'd by Mr. Hermon a Canon of Beauvais under the Title of HIERONYMVS AB ANGELO FORYI Cellot the Jesuit agrees in this point with Mr. Epist 3. S. xxiii seq opp ad hist Goth. p. 569. col 2. Herman and Mr. Mauguin altho he elsewhere opposes the later in several things De Luc d' Achery and Mr. De S. Beuve have equally testifi'd they were of the same opinion the one in his Preface on the first Tome of his Spicilege th' other in his Manuscript Lectures on the Eucharist 'T IS true that since the late conjecture of Mr. De Marca became publick to wit that John Scot is the Author of the Work of our Lords Body and Blood and not Ratram De Luc seems to yield to this novelty and has Praefat. in T. 2. Spicil Part 3. c. 5. T. 1. de Script Eccl. p. 53. T. 2. p. 06. Triumph of the Euchar. p. 18 63 66 68 94 95 96 97. since been followed by the Author of the Perpetuity who speaks of it in a doubtful manner and by the Author of the Dissertation which I examin But a while after the learned Jesuit Labbeus opposed this conjecture of Mr. De Marca as handsomly as he could in a Book which he dedicated to him For in this Book he takes indifferently Bertram and Ratram for one and the same Author Mr. Pavillon also ingenuously acknowledges in his Book against Mr. Daillé that Ratram and Bertram are but one and the same person citing always Ratram of the Body and Blood of our Lord. The famous Presence of Jesus Christ in the Sacrament book 5. ch 2. p. 264. Jesuit Noüet against Mr. Claude shews in this matter the same sincerity as Mr. Pavillon and Mr. Arbusti has follow'd them in his declaration HOWSOEVER it be after the reasons which I have alledged I believe I may affirm with all these learned men of the Church of Rome that Bertram and Ratram are but one and the same Author It only then remains that I refute in a few words what the Author of the Dissertation offers most considerable against some of these reasons TO one of these reasons viz. that the Religious of Corby being named Artic. 2. of the Dissert on John Scot. Ratram and Cellot's anonymous Author saying that Ratram wrote a Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord known under the name of Bertram is then Ratram's to this reason I say our Author answers that altho Cellot caused the name of Ratramnus to be Printed in the two places of his Anonymous wherein are mention'd Paschasus his Adversaries yet 't is not thus found in two Manuscripts of the Abby of S. Victor but in the first there 's Intramus and in the second Ratramnus Cellot having caused the name of Ratramnus to be Printed contrary to what the Manuscripts bear BUT this answer is not sufficient First Cellot has caused his Anonymous to be Printed from Father Sirmond's Copy who had taken it from a Manuscript of Corby and not from the Manuscripts of the Abby of S. Victor Secondly These two Manuscripts which are apparently false are not so considerable as the Manuscripts of the Anonymous mention'd by Vsher and others which have all of 'em the name of Ratramnus nor as the Manuscript De Success Eccles p. 39. c. 2. Du Perron Book 2 Auth. 39. p 666. of the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord which bears the name of Ratramnus nor as the Manuscripts of the Catalogue of Sigebert of which we have spoken The Intram of the Manuscripts of the Abby of S. Victor is the Transcribers fault who has disfigured the name of Ratramnus just as his Babanus is the famous Raban TO another reason drawn from Sigebert who makes the Author of the De Success Eccl. c. 2. Book of Predestination to wit Ratramnus the Author of the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord and of whom in effect two Manuscripts represent the name of Ratramus instead of Bertramus to this reason I say the Author answers First That the work of Bertram of Predestination is different from that of Ratramnus because that according to Trithemius the work of Bertram contain'd only one Book and was not dedicated to Charles the Bald whereas that of Ratram is dedicated to him and contains two Books Secondly That all the Editions of Sigebert having constantly the name of Bertram we may believe that a fault has slipt into the Manuscripts of Gemblou and of Vauvert where we have the name of Ratramnus BUT these two Answers are not satisfactory As to the first Trithemius as well as Sigebert says positively in two places that the Book of Bertram of Predestination is dedicated to Charles the Bald and brings such reasons for the proof of what he says that there 's no way to avoid the force of his testimony Secondly Either our Author supposes that Trithemius saw a Treatise of Predestination under the name of Bertram which contain'd only one Book or he will have him not to have seen it as he believes that Trithemius has not seen the Book of our Lords Body and Blood If Trithemius has seen this Treatise of Predestination what is become of it since Trithemius his time How comes it to pass no body ever heard of it but this our Author If Trithemius never saw it why will our Author give credit to his testimony when the question concerns this Book of Predestination and yet will not have us believe what he says of the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord. Thirdly Our Author abuses the passage of Trithemius Trithemius has follow'd Sigebert and by librum seems to understand opus a work without having respect to the number of the parts of which it is composed unless we will suppose that one number has escaped the Printer and that instead of these words de Predestinatione j. we should read de Predestinatione jj which is very possible and of which there are an hundred examples in the Catalogue of Trithemius now in question OUR Author's second Answer is something worse than the first I
know but two Editions of Sigebert that of Suffridus Petrus and that of Miroeus which in my opinion has been publish'd from that of Suffridus Now as far as one can judg of 'em the Manuscripts of Gemblou and Vauvert ought to be preferred to these Editions because the Manuscript of Gemblou perhaps is the original of Sigebert's own hand who wrote and died at Gemblou We know very well how great a difference there is between the Edition of the Chronicle of Sigebert by Miroeus from a Manuscript of Gemblou and the other Editions publish'd from Manuscripts See Labb de Script Eccles in Sigiber which have been corrupted But supposing this were not Sigebert's own Hand-writing 't is certain the Monks of an Abby know best the hands of Transcribers who have preceded them in the same place It is likely then that this Manuscript was more correct than those to be met with elsewhere This Manuscript of Gemblou is moreover confirm'd by the Manuscript of the Priory of Vauvert and in fine by the Manuscripts of the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord which bear the name of Ratramnus as I have represented OUR Author acquits himself not much better in another Argument which one may draw from this that in the Book of the Birth of Christ Ratramnus defends the same Doctrin which is taught in the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord. He tells us that Bishop Vsher is he that has made this judgment on the Book of the Birth of Christ but that this Treatise being at present publick this conjecture of Vsher can only serve to discover the insincerity of this Protestant because there 's not to be found one word of the mystery of the Eucharist in the Book of the Birth of Jesus Christ He adds hereunto other things which do not belong to our subject and which I do not refute as I might lest I turn aside the Readers mind from the point in hand BUT he is to blame in accusing Bishop Vsher of deceit For what he says of this Book de Nativitate Christi is comprehended in a Parenthesis and there is neither affectation nor heat in producing it It appears that this is a new discovery which he made since he wrote his Treatise of the Succession and State of the Christian Churches wherein this remark had been proper When he made this observation on the Book of the Birth of Jesus Christ he handled a quite different subject to wit the History of Gotthescalc The Manuscripts which he cites were not in his hands alone neither did he suppress them he carefully denotes the places where they were and they may be easily found out After all says he we are so far from reading the Doctrin of Bertram in the Book of the Birth of Christ that we find not one word of the mystery of the Eucharist therein Supposing this be true must therefore Bishop Vsher be an Impostor unworthy of credit That Prelate only says that the same Doctrin is to be found in the Book of the Birth of Jesus Christ which is in that of the Body and Blood of our Lord. He does not make a particular mention of the Eucharist But if he meant so we need only cast our eyes on some places of this Book of the Birth of Jesus Christ to approve of his judgment We know that the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord combating the substantial Presence of the Body of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist rejects likewise as an absurdity the opinion which asserts that the Body of Jesus Christ may be in several places and the Book of the Birth of Jesus Christ distinctly asserts that the Body of Jesus Christ is so determin'd by its nature to be in one Tom. 1. Spicil p. 323 324. c. 3. place that 't is impossible for it to be in two places at once altho our Lord is every where in respect of his Divinity And thus does it combat the natural consequences of Paschasus his opinion which certainly suffices to justifie Vsher if he respected this matter AS to the reason which we draw from the conformity which there is between the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord and the works of Ratram the Author answers that this conjecture might have some force were the question whether the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord was written by Ratram or Oecolampadius but at present when 't is doubted whether it be the work of Ratram or of some other Author of the same Century it is useless most Authors of the 9th Century finishing or beginning their Books with acknowledgments of their own weakness and inabilities like to those which are to be met with in the undoubted Writings of Ratram and in that of Bertram for which he alledges some examples taken out of two Treatises of John Scot. BUT he pitifully eludes this reason It is taken from the whole style and genius of the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord compared with the style and genius of the works of Ratram and not from some sentences which seem conformable therein Cellot and Mr. Claude were of this opinion And certainly th' Inscriptions of the Books are alike the Book of Predestination is adscribed Domino glorioso proecellentissimo principi Carolo T. 1. Mauguin p. 29. Microp p. 512. T. 1. Maug p. 109. Ratramnus and that of the Body and Blood of our Lord begins Gloriose Princips whereas John Scot calls Charles Seniorem He is treated with the Title of Magnificent in Ratram's Book of Predestination and in that of the Body and Blood of our Lord in like manner Ratram being engag'd by the Kings Command to write of Predestination shews great modesty in obeying which also appears in the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord. Ratram commends the King's Piety for his enquiries into Religion and submits to his Censures All which is seen in the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord. Ratram follows the holy Fathers with such zeal that in the first Book of Predestination he brings into every line almost the sayings of S. Augustin Prosper Salvien Gregory upon which he makes reflections And thus does he likewise in the second wherein he only cites Orthodox Authors and the same method he uses in the second part of the Book of the Body and Blood There can be nothing more regular than the method of T. 1. Maug p. 30. Ratram in his Books of Predestination he descends to the foundation and divides his whole subject into two questions we find the same regularity Microp p. 513 514. T. 1. Maug p 61. T. 1. Maug p. 13. in the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord the recapitulations are in a manner the same We see therein the same modesty in not naming those against whom he wrote in conserving the glorious quality of the Moderator of Charles the Bald we meet with the same thing in the Book of
the Body and Blood of our Lord. WE might confirm the same truth by comparing the Treatise of the Body and Blood of our Lord with the other works of Ratram were that trouble any way necessary But I believe this is sufficient to persuade those who weigh things IT is certain that our Author produces a reason to shew that Ratram is not the Author of the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord. He draws it from the silence of Hincmar This silence says he discovers so evidently th' injustice which has been done to Ratram in attributing the Book of Bertram to him that supposing we had no other proofs to justifie him this here will be more than sufficient to take away all suspicions which within these few years have been entertain'd touching his integrity in the Faith There is no likelihood if we believe our Author that Hincmar who on one hand was animated against Ratram and wrote against him a great Book concerning Predestination and this expression Trina Deitas and who on the other condemned as an error and novelty contrary to the Faith the Opinion of John Scot who said that the Eucharist was not our Lords true Body but only its figure and memorial would not have reproached Ratram on this subject had he believed him the Author of this Book which goes under the name of Bertram seeing this Book yielded occasion enough to a passionate enemy as Hincmar was to charge him with this Heresie BUT this reflection is but a silly one First from one word which Hincmar has uttered against John Scot in favour of Paschasus we must not conclude that Hincmar was at full liberty to write against Ratramnus and t' encounter him as an Heretick Secondly I do not see why Hincmar should be so mightily transported against Ratram who spake without heat and mentioned not any of those against whom he wrote If Hincmar was transported against Ratram on another subject it does not hence follow he must be always in the like passion on all subjects which he had to debate with this Religious Thirdly This our Author supposes without reason that Hincmar was in a condition to insult over Ratram on the question of the Eucharist as he did in that of Predestination and there is herein a great deal of difference When Hincmar was so greatly transported against Ratram 't was because he had the Council of Cressy on his side 't was because Maug Dissert Hist p. 141. John Scot declared himself for him against Gothescalc and Ratram 't was because the famous Raban had prejudicated in his favour in a Council held at Mayence in 848. but there was nothing like this in the question of the Eucharist John Scot had declared himself against the sentiments of Paschasus the King knew it and kept him in his Palace which was a sufficient prejudice against Hincmar The famous Raban consulted by Heribold Bishop of Auxerre and Arch-Chaplain that is to say great Almoner had clearly taken part against the sentiments of the same Paschasus and the learned Church of Lyons who had persecuted John Scot whilst he defended the opinions of Hincmar touching Predestination ceased molesting him when he combated the sentiments of Paschasus on the Doctrin of the Eucharist Fourthly Our Author supposes with the same rashness that Hincmar believed this Controversie to be as important as it is at this day which is contrary to all probability For First Hincmar contents himself with criticising on the opinion of John Scot in very soft terms he does not call it Heresie but novelty of words whereas Raban and Hincmar term'd the opinion of Gotthescalc on the Divine Grace Heresie and Schism Secondly If we come to compare what Hincmar says against Ratram on the trina Deitas shall we not find that what he says against John Scot contains nothing so outragious Hincmar was a friend of Raban's who wrote a Letter to Egilon Vide Dissert Hist Maug p. 357 358. Penit. cap. 33. Abbot of Prom and afterwards Arch-Bishop of Sens against the Doctrin of Paschasus he was a friend of this Raban who had opposed him in his answer to Heribold publish'd by Stewart Hincmar always mentions Heribold T. 1. Maug p. 21. with a great deal of respect even after his death altho Heribold was so far from being of Paschasus his opinion that in the later ages the name of Heriboldiens was given to the Disciples of Berenger as we find in the Writings of Tho. Waldensis Fifthly If this silence of Hincmar proves T. 2. de Sacra c. 61. that Ratram did not write the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord because Hincmar would have reproached him with it what judgment must we make of this Authors affirming that John Scot wrote this Book of Bertram's altho the Church of Lyons which wrote so fiercely against him has not reproached him with it Why did not also Prudentius do it in his Treatise against Hincmar and Pardulus Was not this the ready way to decry these two Bishops to reproach them that they made use of the Pen of a profest enemy to the Real Presence and Transubstantiation Why did Nicholas the first suffer this Heresie growing in the bosom of Charles the Bald without warning this Prince of it That same Nicholas who concerned himself so much in the affairs on this side the Mountains and used all means to inform himself of ' em Nicholas the first shall bestir himself in the affair of Rothadus of Soissons in that of Hincmar of Laon where the point was only about Discipline and remain unconcerned in the business of John Scot altho he erred in the Eucharist He shall take notice of the affairs of Ebbon of Reims and those whom he had ordain'd and not take any notice of a question agitated at the Court of Charles the Bald in which this Prince did interest himself He shall know that Raban had opposed the Real Presence by publick Writings that he to whom Raban wrote was become Arch-Bishop of Sens that an Arch-Chaplain had erred in this matter and all this without being concerned The fault which our Author commits in this reflection on the silence of Hincmar proceeds from his not minding two things the one is that we must not always ground our selves on peoples proposing their sentiments in advantageous terms and speaking the opinion of their adversaries with disdain and contempt This is particularly the stile of Hincmar in every malter he treats of as it has been already observ'd by Mr. Mauguin and Mr. De la Motte which cannot be unknown to our Author Dissert Hist p. 357 358. Apol. for the Holy Fathers part 5. p. 297. For example he always treats Gotthescalc as an Heretick altho it be believ'd at Port Royal that Gotthescalc defended only S. Austin's Doctrin on the matter of Grace THE other is that our Author has conceiv'd that the censure of Hincmar against John Scot imports that Hincmar believ'd the Real Presence
with its consequences as the Adoration the Sacrifice c. which has made him judg that Hincmar must respect the opinion of John Scot as a detestable Heresie Now 't is certain that the consequences of the Real Presence were then unknown to the whole Earth and were not received into the Latin Church till some Ages after Hincmar But this last remark respects the main of the question which does not belong to me to handle CHAP. IV. A Refutation of what the Author of the Dissertation offers to persuade that the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord Publish'd under the Name of Bertram is of John Scot. HAVING hitherto firmly enough establish'd that the Book of our Lords Body and Blood is of Ratram I might pass by whatsoever the Author of the Dissertation alledges to fortifie the Conjecture of Mr. De Marca and truly seeing that before Mr. De Marca no man of learning nor any of Berenger's enemies either in the 11th Century or in the following made this discovery seeing that the Author of the Perpetuity of the Faith entertain'd at first the opinion of Mr. De Marca with mistrust that he might handsomly leave it if he were forced It thereupon seems I have right to despise whatsoever our Author alledges to make the world believe that the Book of Bertram is the Book of John Scot under a forein Title Nevertheless I will shew that the proofs which he offers have no solidity THESE proofs are 1. That the Book of Bertram is entirely conformable Art 3. of the Dissert on John Scot. to what we read in ancient Writers concerning that of John Scot. 2. That the proper character of John Scot is therein to be met with But at bottom he establishes neither one nor the other AS to the first our Author relates a passage of Ascelin in a Letter to Ibid. sect 1. Berenger whence he believes one may gather that the work of John Scot contain'd only one Book and that small enough that a man cannot presently perceive in John Scots Book what was his opinion on the mystery of the Eucharist that maugre the dissimulations of John Scot yet Ascelin found therein his whole design was to persuade the Readers that what is Consecrated on the Altars is not truly the Body and Blood of our Lord that to compass his drift John Scot made use of several passages of the Fathers and at the end of each passage added some gloss to bring the sense of 'em to his purpose that amongst others John Scot recited at length an Orison of S. Gregory which begins with these words Perficiant in nobis and having trifled with some places of S. Ambrose S. Jerom and S. Austin whom he principally made use of as Berenger insinuates he forms his conclusion in these terms Specie geruntur ista non veritate And these are the things which as our Author thinks agree with Bertram's Book BUT these reflections which our Author pretends one may also make on the Book of Bertram are either uneflectual for his design or want a foundation 1. Nothing hinders that two works touching the Eucharist may have been short enough to be equally treated as small Books 2. I have shew'd that our Author is mistaken when he calls Bertram's Book an obscure and intricate piece Even Ascelin does not scruple to treat John Scot as an Heretick by reason of his sentiment on the Eucharist and our Author has not well enough comprehended the Text of Ascelin 3. Two Authors who hold the same opinion should likewise aim at the same mark They must if they are endued with common sense from the same reflections in substance on the passages of the Fathers which they would have to serve their designs These two Characters then are too general and wide And for the two last considerations 1. Who doubts that two Authors one of whom has apparently read the Book of the other as Ratram may have read that of John Scot may not cite the same authorities Ratram and Raban have done it as we are inform'd by the Anonymous of Cellot 2. 'T is not true Berenger has insinuated that John Scot cited principally S. Ambrose S. Jerom and S. Austin Berenger says John Scot cannot be respected as an Heretick without throwing this ignominy on these Fathers and several others But he does not say that John Scot cited particularly these three holy Doctors and should he have said it this character would be too general there having been scarcely any of the Authors of the 9th Century who have not affected to follow chiefly these three Doctors 3. Our Author ought not to propose as a character of identity that Bertram has drawn the same conclusion from the Orison Perficiant in nobis as John Scot has done for to speak properly this conclusion Specie geruntur ista non veritate is not of Bertram nor of John Scot but the Text it self of the Prayer which bears Vt quoe nunc specie gerimus veritate capiamus now it is apparent that they were equally obliged to conserve these terms in their conclusion and that they could neither of 'em do it in a more natural manner than in forming it thus Specie gerunter ista non veritate We must also observe and that as Ascelin relates that John Scot cited this Orison under the name of S. Gregory whereas Bertram cites it as the common Service of the Church and that how great soever the conformity has been between the conclusion of these Authors in respect of the sense and words it is not so great in respect of the construction of ' em Bertram having these words In specie geruntur ista non in veritate and John Scot these Specie geruntur ista non in veritate which proves that these are two different Authors THE second witness which our Author produces is Berenger who informs us that the Book of John Scot was wrote at the intreaty of a King of France and that this King was Charlemain Our Author pretends that these two particulars are to be met with in the Book of Bertram which is dedicated to Charlemain and was written by his order BUT these conformities conclude nothing not the first because 't was very possible that Charles the Bald had at the same time obliged two learned men to write on the same subject one who dwelt in his Palace to wit John Scot and the other whose name was so illustrious in his Kingdom that he had already oblig'd him to write on the questions of Predestination to wit Ratramnus This Character is too general Not the second for it does not seem that the Book of our Lords Body and Blood nor that of John Scot of the Eucharist were inscribed Ad Carolum magnum Imperatorem but only Ad Carolum Regem which is what one may recollect from Sigebert from the Abbot Trithemius from John Bishop of Rochester and the De Script Eccl. catai c. 95. Catal. fol. 57. Prolog in
head seeing that when he will he most clearly explains his notions without contradicting himself but that these are only stratagems of a Philosopher who was more a Pagan than a Christian he affirms the same may be found in Bertram's Book which seems in twenty places to deviate from the Doctrin of the Real Presence and which yet seems in as many places to approve of it so that a man does not know where to have him BUT the two parts of our Authors remark contradict and oppose each other For if John Scot had naturally a confused and perplexed mind how comes it that he clearly explains his thoughts when he will and keeps firm when he pleases without contradicting himself This is not the character of a confused and perplexed head Secondly We ought not to believe that as soon as an Author falls into contradiction which has sometimes hapned to the Fathers themselves as every body knows and especially in matters which have perplexed John Scot and wherein he has contradicted himself he then makes use of the stratagems of a Philosopher that is more a Pagan than a Christian Thirdly Our Author impertinently feigns that Bertram has affected obscurity and ambiguous expressions This Bertram be he who he will was certainly upheld by King Charles the Bald and Heribold the chief person of the Gallican Church was of his sentiment as well as Raban and what is more remarkable it appears that he defended the publick Doctrin of the Church Fourthly Our Author should not alledg the judgment of the Centuriators of Magdebourg to shew this Book to be obscure in the judgments of those of our own party If the Centuriators have suspected some expressions of Bertram's Book we know that from 1537. Bulinger cited it with Elogies Moreover that some of the Doctors of the Roman Communion have mention'd Bertram's Book as if it made Commentar in 1 ad Cor. 10. p. 190. for them This is purely th' effect of this prejudice which has made them produce the writings of Raban as if Raban had been of their opinion altho 't was well known in the 12th Century that Raban wrote against Paschasus The Censurers who condemned Bertram's Book and who are publick persons are sooner to be believed than private men OUR Author remarks again a second character of the genius of John Scot which he believes is in Bertram's Book to wit these arguments put in form this crowd of Syllogisms and Enthymemes heapt up one upon another these Maxims and these Principles drawn from the Philosophy of Aristotle For as he shews by the testimony of S. Prudencius Bishop of Troy and Florus Deacon of the Church of Lyons this is the way of John Scot in Disputes he pretends that all this form of reasoning is to be met with in the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord of which he produces three instances BUT this other conformity is as ill grounded as the preceding ones I confess that the way of John Scot is very argumentative One may observe it in his Books of Predestination as Prudencius and Florus have reproach'd him But I do not see that because there are some Philosophical Arguments in Bertram's Book our Author produces but three and those also contain'd in the same Period he must immediately draw this conclusion therefore the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord is John Scot's Nor yet had Bertram named any where Aristotle which John Scot failed not to do as appears in several places of his Manuscript Treatise of Natures But Bertram has not so much as the name of this Philosopher YET seeing our Author puts us upon considering the genius of these Authors let us shew a little what is the genius of John Scot and that of Bertram's whence it will clearly appear there 's nothing so absurd as to make John Scot Author of the Book of Bertram Here are some of their Characters BERTRAM follows the holy Scriptures and the Fathers as he protests De Nat. l. 1. p. 56. lib. 4. p. 167. in the beginning and John Scot prefers reason before any Authority He makes this a Maxim whence he particularly esteems Philosophy and sends us at every moment to the Writings of Aristotle He does thus in his Treatise of Predestination as Prudencius and Florus justly upbraid him BERTRAM follows closely his subject without letting it go out of sight and John Scot makes frequent Digressions as we see particularly in his Manuscript Treatise of Natures BERTRAM seems to stick to certain Authors as S. Hierom S. Augustin S. Fulgencius Isidor S. Gregory and John Scot affects others as S. Basil S. Gregory Nazianzen whom he confounds with S. Gregory of Nysse S. Ambrose the counterfeit Denis the Areopagite Boetius S. Maximus So that a body may say one of 'em apply'd himself to the Latin Fathers and the other to the Greek ones whom he preferred before the Latin ones as he himself affirms in his Treatise of Natures BERTRAM's Latin style is polite enough for the Age he wrote in and I find but one Greek word in his whole Treatise and which he alledges only because 't is found in a passage of S. Isidor which he cited Whereas Epist ad Card. Calv. in Syll. Epist Hiber De Honest dis l. 24. c. 11. John Scot affects a Greek phrase and manner of speaking and intermixes his Latin with a great many Greek words which render his style very singular and difficult as it has been observed by Anastasius the Library Keeper and Petrus Crinitus BERTRAM has no barbarous words whereas John Scot seems to affect them BERTRAM makes use only of Authors known for Orthodox John T. 1. Maug â— 109. 111. Ibid. p. 112 113. Scot declares that he will not scruple to borrow Arms from heretical Books BERTRAM pertinently cites all along the holy Fathers whereas the other quotes them with much less coherence BERTRAM has a particular deference for S. Augustin as may be seen at the end of the Book of our Lords Body and Blood whereas John Scot De Natur. l 5. p. 343. does not so much matter his Authority but that he often prefers the Greek Fathers before him refuting S. Augustin by their Authority BERTRAM might have combated the opinion of Paschasus by an infinite number of Arguments taken from Philosophy which he does not do whereas John Scot makes use every where of Philosophical Arguments even T. 1. Maug p. 111 112. 182. to the mixing of 'em with matters which seem to claim an exemption from ' em THAT which distinguishes 'em yet more is that Bertram delivers himself in a most plain manner on the verity of the human nature of our Saviour since 't was exalted up into glory by the Resurrection He teaches that his Body was visible and palpable whereas John Scot in his Book of Natures defends the impalpability of our Lords Body so that one may say Lib. 2. p. 75 76. 99. he fell into
the error of Origen on this question I might moreover shew that John Scot according to his genius and hypothesis must without doubt have written in a quite different manner from what Ratram has done and this is a remark which I made on an hundred places in his Manuscript Dialogue of Nature when I read it For he rejects Lib. p. 17 18. 20 21 22 23 24. 2â— 30. 35. 37 38 39. 42. 46 47 50. 56. Lib. 2. p. 76. Lib. 2. p. 162. 178. Lib. 4. p. 292. 297. 300. 306 3â—7 Lib. 5. p. 343. 345. 348 350. 364. therein almost all the consequences of Paschasus his Doctrin in a very convincing manner but yet very different from the method of Bertram Here is an instance thereof he maintains from the authority of S. Maximus that bodies have no Blood when they are glorified which does accommodate it self with the hypothesis of John Damascen but not with those of the Real Presence and Transubstantiation as every body knows Who doubts but he would have used this argument on this question I might produce several others but since this matter would carry me off too far and that I have not the Manuscript by me I shall therefore content my self with the remarks which I have made believing them sufficient to shew that the genius of John Scot was wholly different from Bertram's CHAP. V. Other Difficulties which the Author of the Dissertation forms on the Name of Bertram Examin'd SEEING that the Book of our Lords Body and Blood is a piece of Ratram's and not of John Scot we shall not be apt to suppose as the Author of the Dissertation does that Berenger or his Disciples first publish'd this Writing under the name of Bertram And truly it is a hard matter to know the commendations which Hildebert Bishop of Mans and since Arch Bishop of Tours has given Berenger and to fall into a suspicion so injurious to the memory of this great man Hildebert describes Berenger as a person Cujus cura sequi naturam legibus uti Et mentem vitiis ora negare dolis Virtutes opibus verum proeponere falso A man that follows these Maxims and those who are taught by him are far enough from all manner of deceit I need only then shew that supposing Bertram's Book were John Scot's the effect would not cease to be near upon the same because John Scot has been a man of great note and authority in the 9th Century But because our Author imagins that the name of Bertram under which this Book has first appeared proves clearly that it is not Ratram's it is fitting before this to consider his Observations THE first of which amounts to this that Sigebert Trithemius and Dissert Art 3. sect 3. Cellot's Anonymous which are the only Authors who have spoken of Bertram attribute to him no other works than those of the Body and Blood of our Lord and of Predestination of which these two first Authors make no mention in speaking of John Scot altho it be most certain that John Scot has written two Books on these same subjects whence he concludes that Bertram is a fictitious Author which at bottom is no other than John Scot. Thus does the Author of the Dissertation argue BUT there is nothing solid in this remark First The Book of John Scot of Predestination is dedicated to Hincmar and Pardulus whereas Sigebert remarks expresly that that of Bertram or of Ratram was dedicated to Charles the Bald as we see in effect in the Impression of this Book of Ratram which Mr. Mauguin has publish'd Secondly Trithemius confirms in two places the Text of Sigebert altho in another place he says also that Bertram's Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord was dedicated to Charles which Sigebert was silent in Thirdly It is false that Cellot's Anonymous had the name of Bertram he has always Ratram's in the Manuscript of Corbie and in the two Manuscripts of the Abby of S. Victor we find that in one place this Anonymous gives for adversaries to Paschasus Rabanus and Intramus and in the following page Babanus and Ratramnus neither in one nor in the other of these two places has the Transcriber the name of Bertram which would be strange if the Title which this Book has had since the 11th Century were that of Bertram and not that of Ratram as we affirm Fourthly It is false that Authors speak but of two pieces attributed to Bertram Trithemius says in two places that Bertram De Script Eccl. fol. 57. in chron Hirsaug wrote several other Books Fifthly The silence of the Anonymous is impertinently alledged touching the other works of Bertram seeing he has not the name of Bertram and should he have had the name his drift would not carry him to speak of any other Writing of Bertram but that of the Eucharist Sixthly If Sigebert mention'd not the Book of the Eucharist which John Scot wrote by the order of Charles the Bald there can be nothing concluded hence unless it may be affirm'd by the same reason that his other works as that of Natures have been attributed to other Authors Seventhly There is nothing more natural than to say that Trithemius has comprehended the Books of Predestination and of the Eucharist of John Scot when he says Joannes dictus Erigena scripsit quoedam alia Ibidem THE second remark of this Author is that those who speak of Bertram Dissert ibid. do not know him particularly nor agree about his true name that Sigebert who in some Manuscript Copies calls him Ratram does not denote the quality he had which he is wont to do in speaking of other Authors that the Abbot Trithemius who speaks of Bertram in three places could not say in what Diocess nor in what Monastery he made himself so famous altho he always made these kind of remarks in speaking of th' Illustrious men of the order of S. Bennet so that there 's reason to believe that he too lightly made the Elogium of Bertram whose works were apparently unknown to him in fine that the Anonymous who designs the other Authors by their qualities as Raban Heribold Paschasus Egilon speaks of Ratram as of an unknown person Ratramnus quidam denoting that he knew nothing of him but that his name was Ratram or Intram as speak the Manuscripts of the Abby of S. Victor BUT our Author is mistaken in his suppositions First It is not true Sigebert gives constantly to the Writers of which he speaks the Ecclesiastical qualifications they had the contrary appears from the 84. 91. 93. 94. 103. and other Chapters of his Catalogue Secondly I know not what Trithemius was wont to do in his second Book of Writers of the Order of S. Bennet I never saw this work Yet the little certainty which I found in the judgment of our Author on the custom of Sigebert makes me believe that he has not judged better of that of Trithemius In the main I
am not greatly solicitous whether Trithemius has seen or not seen the Writings which he attributes to Bertram Yet I cannot but observe here the vanity Hieron ab ang Forti Epist 3. p. 63. of mens judgments In 1652. the Elogies which Trithemius gives to Bertram oblige Mr. Herman to believe that the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord is the most Orthodox piece in the world And in 1669. these same commendations which Trithemius gives to Bertram oblige the Author of the Dissertation to affirm that Trithemius never read it and so prais'd Bertram without any consideration Thirdly It seems to me that the manner after which Cellot's Anonymous has treated Ratram not knowing him but by his Book makes him not an Author unknown to others For supposing Ratram were entirely unknown to this Anonymous who lived in the 12th Century we know that Florus the famous Deacon of the Guil. Malmsb. A. 883. Sim. Dunelm p. 148. Math. Westm ann 889. apud Baron A. 1118. sect 29. Church of Lyons was likewise treated no better than a quidam by the Historians of the 12th and 13th Century and Paschasus himself was so little known by Gaudefredus the Monk of Claravod at the end of the 12th Century that Gaudefredus confounds him with Paschasus Deacon of the Roman Church who lived about the year 500. Amalarius was very famous in the 9th Century and well known by Lewis the Debonnair by whose order he See Labb of Writ Eccles in Amalar. wrote The Transcribers have corrupted his name in the Catalogue of Sigebert and turned it into Attularius Trithemius speaks of him in his Catalogue under the name of Hamularius and after an hundred Disputes he remains still in a manner unknown Fourthly It is surprizing enough to see the Author of the Dissertation attributing to the Authors themselves the faults of the Transcribers who have written the name of Ratram He tells us that Sigebert gives to Bertram the name of Ratram in some Manuscript Copies that Trithemius speaks of him under three different names of Bertram of Bertramnus and of Bertrannus that the Anonymous Author calls him Ratramnus or Intram I know not whether he speaks in good earnest or to deride us But if he speaks seriously that those who according to his supposition changed the Title of the Book of John Scot made it pass on purpose under these different names in different Copies 't would have been good before a conjecture of this kind was offered to undertake the confirming of this discovery by the Authority of some Manuscripts of the Body and Blood of our Lord wherein might be seen these different names THE last mark of the supposition which the Author of the Dissertation Ibidem offers is that if we will not acknowledg Bertram for a feign'd Author and the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord for the work of John Scot we shall find our selves forced to admit such strange consequences and which approach so near to impossibilities that the like cannot be parallel'd by all Antiquity BUT we need only to run thro the principal difficulties which our Author proposes to find that all this is nothing First It is not an absurdity to pretend that in the 9th Century there were two Authors one named John Scot known of all the world for the Author of the first Translation of the Hierarchy of the feign'd Denys into Latin The other called Ratramnus whose name thro the ignorance of Transcribers was corrupted into that of Bertram or Bertramnus or Bertran as that of Amalarius has been into Attularius that of Aimoinus into Aumoinus Ammonius and Annonius under which this Author was first publish'd at Paris in the year 1514. Secondly Neither is it any more an absurdity to say they were both of 'em adversaries to Paschasus not sercet as our Author affirms but open ones in writing against his Doctrin The Anonymous Author mentions several adversaries of Paschasus as Raban and Ratramnus Thirdly It is not so monstrous an impossibility to maintain that Ratramnus and John Scot wrote both of 'em on the subject of the Eucharist and on Predestination There were in their times two Disputes on these subjects and in effect we have their two Treatises of Predestination publish'd by Mr. Mauguin We know that in the 11th Century the Popes burnt John Scot's on the Eucharist and without doubt their partisans who suppressed all Berenger's Books and those of his Disciples have likewise exterminated with the greatest care the Copies of that of John Scot. By good hap that of Ratramnus who is mention'd in the 12th Century as an adversary to Paschasus is yet extant under the corrupted name of Bertram Fourthly Neither is there any absurdity to conceive that the Writings of these two Authors touching the Eucharist have been the one dedicated to King Charles the Bald and the other composed by his Order Ratramnus and John Scot were both of 'em particularly known and esteem'd by this Prince Ratramnus has written by his Order the Book of Predestination and John Scot in obedience to his Commands has translated the Hierarchy of the pretended Denys and was always greatly esteem'd by him Fifthly It is not absurd to believe that John Scot was oblig'd to write on the same subject as Ratramnus their judgment was so considerable in their time that Hincmar and Pardulus two famous Bishops oblig'd John Scot to write on Predestination and an Assembly of Bishops oblig'd Ratramnus to write against the objections of the Greeks which Pope Nicholas had sent them Sixthly It is an imaginary difficulty to say they have both of 'em had the fancy to give to Charles the Bald the Title of Charlemain I have shewed that they have not done it but that Berenger has been mistaken in explaining this Title Ad Carolum Regem and that it is very possible those who Printed the Book of Bertram have understood this Title as Berenger did in a like subject and in the same dispute Seventhly It is not an impossibility for two Books of the Body and Blood to contain each of 'em but one Book of a very indifferent size Eighthly There is no more difficulty to believe that two Writers who treat on the same subject have used the same Witnesses the same Orison which was said every day in the Service than that they have drawn the same conclusions and in terms perhaps not absolutely the same but very near one another Paschasus bragged in his Letter to Frudegard that this Orison was made for him which caused all his Adversaries to examin it and urge the proper terms of it against him without changing any thing therein Neither do I any more believe that after what I have represented of the genius of these Authors any body will imagin they were both of 'em equally addicted to Aristotle's Philosophy and were both wont to illustrate the mysteries of Religion by Arguments put in form by Enthymemes by Maxims and Principles drawn from
Philosophy I have shew'd the difference which there is between the genius of Bertram and that of John Scot. Tenthly It is equally false that neither of 'em dared to discover their minds touching the Real Presence Our Author himself will have Bertram's Book to be John Scot's and John Scot's Book was burn'd in a full Council because it opposes it Eleventhly There is no great matter of wonder that after the question was moved and the Book of John Scot burn'd there should be more diligent search made after the Books which respected a Dispute touching which Berenger maintain'd that Paschasus gave the occasion by his novelties and thus the Book of Ratram has appear'd since that of John Scot has disappear'd IN fine twelfthly There are no rational people that will be perplexed with this imaginary difficulty of the Author of the Dissertation to wit that of one of these Authors which is Bertram there should remain nothing that is certain to posterity neither in respect of his quality nor his name altho his Book has remain'd and that the quality of the other to wit John Scot should be well known altho his Book be lost It is apparent enough who Ratramnus was and that Bertram is but a name corrupted thro the ignorance of the Transcribers But what I now represented is sufficient to dissipate the illusion which the name of Bertram had produced and all reasonable people will be fully convinced that Ratram is the Author of the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord and not John Scot. We have only then to shew that the authority of this Book will be of no less weight supposing John Scot were the Author of it For which purpose I have design'd the second part of this Answer THE SECOND PART That the Authority of the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord Publish'd under the Name of Bertram will be never the less considerable supposing John Scot were the Author of it CHAP. VI. That John Scot was in great esteem both in his own and succeeding Generations THERE are so many things which advance the repute of John Scot that one may well wonder Mr. Arnaud and the Author of the Dissertation should mention him with such lessening terms and persuade themselves that to diminish the credit of the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord they needed only to attribute it to John Scot. For he was a person who by his merit had gain'd the esteem and affection of Charles the Bald which is to say of a judicious Prince who took to heart the interests of Religion as Ratramn praises him in his Book of Predestination These two things says he exalt your Majesty in a manner really illustrious T. 1. Maug p. 29. That you seek after the secrets of the heavenly Wisdom and burn with Religious Zeal And indeed this Prince deserv'd the Title of Orthodox which Concil apud Vermer T. 2. Nov. Bibl. Mss. p. 735. was given him by a Council held in 869. Henry a Monk of Auxerre praises him also for his knowledg and piety as we see in the Epistle Dedicatory in the Life of S. Germain of Auxerre related by Du Chene and Baronius But Hist Fr. T. 1. p. 470. Annal. 876. sect 3. 39. T. 3. A. 886. sect 10 11. amongst other things he commends him for having drawn over into France Learned Ireland meaning thereby John Erigena that is to say John the Irish man according to the Observation of Alford the Jesuit in his English Annals HE that wrote the lives of the Bishops of Auxerre describing the advantages which Heribald had in his Youth reckons for a great happiness that he was brought up under the tuition of John Scot. He applied himself T. 2. Nov. Bib. Mss. p. 4â—5 says he to John Scot who in that time imparted to the Gauls the Rays of his Wisdom He was a long time his Disciple and learn'd from him the art of knowing divine and human things and to judg rightly of good and evil THE Authority of John Scot was so considerable in the 9th Century that Hincmar Arch-Bishop of Reims and Pardulus Bishop of Laon who found themselves engaged in sharp Disputes touching Predestination and Grace with Gotthescalc believ'd they could not do better for their party than to oblige John Scot to write on these two subjects He did so in effect and T. 2. Maug 132. altho the choice which he made of the worst side drew on him the censures of the Councils of Valence and Langres and that Hincmar himself defended him but weakly yet did he keep up his credit and Charles the Bald set him upon translating the works which bear the name of Denis the Areopagite HIS Reputation maintain'd it self not only in France but passed over into Italy and Rome it self Anastasius the Popes Library-keeper gives him particular Commendations in a Letter which he wrote to Charles the Bald. I speak says he of John Scot of whom I have heard say that he is a Saint Syll. Epist Hyber n. 33. p. 64. seq It is a work of the Spirit of God to have made this man so zealous as well as eloquent WE may likewise here add the kindness which Alfred King of England had for him and the Employs which this Prince gave him but of this I shall discourse hereafter I shall only say that John Scot was in effect worthy of the esteem and affection which the world shewed him his Wit was lively and piercing he was not only a profound Philosopher but also very well read in the Fathers and especially the Greek ones which was very rare in the 9th Century wherein the learning of the greatest men was bounded by the knowledg of S. Hierom S. Augustin Gregory the Great Isidor of Sevil and their skill lay in copying out these Authors word for word IN fine we may moreover observe in favour of John Scot that altho his Book of the Eucharist was condemned in the Councils of the 11th Century yet the reputation of the Author was perpetuated in the following Ages as appears from the authentick Testimonies which all Historians give him I shall not relate here what Ingusphus William of Malmsbury Simeon of Durham Roger de Hoveden Matthew of Westminster and Florent of Worcester have said of him we may find this in the Answer to the first Part 3 ch 3. Treatise of the Perpetuity WE need only add to these testimonies First that of the Manuscript of the Library of S. Victor which has for Title Memoriale Historiarum Tempore eodem fuit Joannes Scotus vir perspicacis ingenii mellitoe facundioe qui rogatu Caroli Calvi jamdudum verbo ad verbum Hierarcham Dionysii de Groeco in Latinum transtulerat post super eundem librum fecit commentum fecitque librum de naturoe divisione librum de Eucharistiâ qui postea lectus est condemnatus in Synodo Vercellensi â Papa Leone celebrata eodem
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