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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
as I relate it as plainly appears to him that reads his Writings his drift being only to shew that the Azyme having nothing in it representing the Life which is in Jesus Christ it cannot therefore be used for the Mystery of his Body He himself explains his own meaning in these Terms Saint Peter say's he tells us that we are Partakers of a Divine Nature and not of the Azyme of the Murtherers of God Now what man indued with Reason will call the dead Azyme or the unleavened Bread of the Jews a Divine Nature and yet you offer it to God in Sacrifice and eat it as a Figure of the living Flesh of Jesus Christ How have you Communion with Jesus Christ who is the living God eating dead and unleavened Bread which appertains to the shadow of the Law and not the New Testament If we compare what he say's touching the Azyme to what he say's afterwards concerning the Leavened Bread we shall find his aim is only to shew that one is not proper to represent the living Body of Jesus Christ and to become the Figure and Representation of it th' other on the contrary to be most proper 1. Because 't is Bread which th' other is not 2. Because 't is in some sort living whereas th' other is dead 3. Because it respects Grace and the New Testament whereas the other respects the Jews and Shadow of the Law there is not one word in all this that savours Transubstantiation It appears on the contrary that he takes for one and the same thing to be a Partaker of the Divine Nature have Communion with Christ in the Eucharist and to eat the Bread as a Figure of the living Flesh of Jesus Christ BUT we have had enough of this Illusion let us then pass on to the nineteenth which consists in alledging the Testimony of Lanfranc whereby to prove to us the Greeks believe Transubstantiation What can say's he Mr. Lib. 2. cap. 7. pag. 162. 163. Claude say to this Witness who so clearly affirms the Greeks were of the same Belief as the Church of Rome in the Mystery of the Eucharist I may truly say that Lanfranc looking upon Berengarius his Affair as a cause wherein his own credit was concerned and resolving therefore to vanquish at any rate he was interressed to suppose that all the World was on his side and that therefore his prejudice invalidates his Testimony I may also affirm Mr. Arnaud's word signifies nothing without Proof altho it may be as well taken as Lanfranc's I can shew that Lanfranc does not scruple to offer us a Fabulous History touching what passed in Cyrillus of Alexandria's time and Pope Celestin's and to make thereof a good Proof Whether through Ignorance or want of Sincerity I know not but sure I am we have little reason to trust that man's Testimony who has so grossly deceived us He was say's Mr. Ibid. pag. 162. Arnaud an Italian by Nation where there was a great many Greeks Italy certainly would be a very happy Country if it produced none but faithful Witnesses Had Lanfranc in effect taken care to inform himself by the Greeks which were there what was their Belief touching the Substantial Conversion he would have told us so himself and not left it to Mr. Arnaud's guesses It appears adds he by his way of writing that he was a Person worthy of Credit It appears by his Writings that he was a passionate man and extreamly carried away with vain glory which are not the best marks of Sincerity But after all this I can tell Mr. Arnaud he is deceived in Lanfranc's own Testimony For Lanfranc only say's that all Christians do glory in receiving in the Sacrament the true Flesh and Blood of Christ which he took of the Virgin That this is the Faith of the Greeks Armenians and all the rest of the Christian World Which is grounded only on this expression of the Greeks which bears that the Bread is our Saviour's real Body and that it must not be said he has two Bodies but one alone Now we have already shewed what they mean by this expression namely that the Bread becomes our Saviour's Body by way of Addition as the Food we eat becomes our Body which is very different from Transubstantiation BUT say's Mr. Arnaud the Silence of Berengarius and his Followers seems to me also very considerable I answer this is another of his wilful mistakes For first how can he assure us that Berengarius and those of his Opinion never asserted the Greeks did not believe the Conversion of Substances We have scarcely any of their Writings we have no more of their Arguments and Answers than what their Adversaries have been pleased to give us It is true that Lanfranc say's when they were offered several Passages out of the Holy Scriptures and Saint Austin's Works touching the State of the Church they answered the Church had erred and all its Members perished except themselves But it does not hence follow that they acknowledged the Greeks believed Transubstantiation They might say the Church had erred and was perished from the Face of the Earth meaning the Western Church They might say the same of the Eastern Church upon the account of other Errours besides Transubstantiation And then again who can assure us that Lanfranc gives a faithful account of what they said touching this Subject IN the second place I will grant that Berengarius and his Followers never mentioned the Greeks in their Disputes Can Mr. Arnaud find it strange that People who were every where persecuted and afflicted and had enough to do to preserve themselves should be ignorant of the Doctrine of the Greeks Berengarius say's he was thrice at Rome and had opportunity to Ibid. pag. 164. inform himself and we need not doubt but 't was one of his principal cares Why not doubt of it Because Mr Arnaud say's so Those that are not bound to believe him on his own bare word will still doubt of it For he is not infallible and I my self am one of those that doubt of it till he proves it The Interest Ibid. of his Cause adds he speaking of me is so prevalent in him that he may learn from the Experience of his own Sentiments what were those of his followers I confess the Interest of my Cause is a thousand times more dear to me than my life and Mr. Arnaud does me right here But yet 't is certain that had I not the Book of the Perpetuity to answer I should not much trouble my self about the Opinion of the Greeks for the discovery of Truth which ought to be the aim of us all does not depend on what the Greeks do or do not believe and I should esteem my self in a very miserable condition had my Faith and Conscience no better Grounds than such a pitiful Principle BERENGARIUS had the Word of God which was enough they need no other Weapons to defend themselves that have
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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 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
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 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
arrived through several Ages to that Degree wherein we now see it Thus were the antient Ceremonies in the administration of Baptism abrogated and other new ones adopted in their places Thus has the Opinion of the absolute necessity of the Eucharist to the Salvation of little Children bin abolished and we have passed over into a contrary Opinion Null us saith St. Austin Qui se meminit Catholicae Epist 106. fidei Christianum negat aut dubitat parvulos non accepta gratia regenerationis in Christo sine cibo carnis ejus sanguinis potu non habere in se vitam ac per hoc poenae sempiternae obnoxios There is no Christian who holds the Catholick Faith that either denys or doubts but that little Children who have not received the Grace of Regeneration in Jesus Christ nor participated of the Nourishment of his Flesh and Blood are deprived of everlasting Life and consequently lyable to eternal Damnation LET Mr. Arnaud inform us how this publick Belief came to be changed St. Austin tells us that 't is an Article of the Catholick Faith he assures us there is no Christian who doubts of it that is it was a popular Opinion And yet at this day the contrary is held in the Church of Rome how comes this Change We might produce several other Instances if they were necessary but at present one Example is sufficient to overthrow this false Principle of Mr. Arnaud's and to establish that which appears to him to be so Unreasonable YET to speak a word on each of these Points he has handled does he think that on the Subject of Episcopacy his Discourses will carry it away from St. Jerom who tells us That before there were partialities in Religion Hier. Com. in Epist ad Tit. C. 1. and that the People cryed out I am of Paul and I of Cephas the Church was governed by a Common-Council of Priests but since every one esteeming them whom he had baptized belonged to him and not to Christ it was ordained throughout the whole World that one alone chosen from amongst the Priests should be set up above the rest and have the Charge of the Church committed to him to take away thereby all Occasions of Schisme DOES he think that in the Point of Praying for the Dead we will abandon the Doctrine of St. Paul who tells us in his second Epistle to the Cor. Chap. 5. That if our earthly House of this Tabernacle were dissolved we have a Building of God an House not made with Hands eternal in the Heavens These Words do not suffer us to doubt but that they who dye in the Faith of Jesus Christ do enjoy his glorious Presence in Heaven whence it follows they have no need of our Prayers That if the Antients have mentioned the deceased in their Prayers it is certain they never designed thereby to deliver them from the Pains of Purgatory which they undergo to satisfy for their Sins which is the end the Church of Rome doth at this day propose in its Prayers We Celebrate saith an antient Author in his Commentaries Com. in Job L. 3. on Job which are thought to be Origens Not the Day of our Birth but that of our Death for the day of our Birth is an Entrance into Sorrows and Temptations but that of Death is on the contrary the end of Sorrows and a Freedom from all Temptations We commemorate then the Day of Death because they who seem to dye do not so And for this reason we celebrate the memory of the Saints and devoutly commemorate our Fathers or Friends who have departed in the Faith as well to refresh our selves by the remembrance of the Felicity which they enjoy as also to desire of God that we may continue in the same Faith DOES Mr. Arnaud expect in that Article of the Church of Rome's touching the Invocation of Saints that we should believe him rather than Origen who speaks in the Name of all the Christians in his time in his Dispute against Celsus who would have them to worship the Sun Moon and Stars seeing they are Celestial Angels We believe saith he we ought not Origen Cont. Col. L. 5. to pray unto Creatures who do themselves pray unto God especially considering they had rather we should offer up our Petitions to him whom they likewise serve than to them not being willing we should after any sort share our Devotions AND as to the abstaining from certain kind of Meats Tertullian who was a Montanist will shew us better than Mr. Arnaud can the Judgment Tertul. de jejun C. 1. of the Catholicks in his time Arguunt nos saith he quod jejunia propria custodiamus quod stationes plerumque in vesperam producamus quod etiam Xerophagias observemus siccantes cibum ab omni carne omni jurulentia uvidioribus quibusque pomis ne quid vinositatis vel edamus vel potemus They censure us because we observe particular Fasts that we make them last till the Evening that we observe Xerophagies using dry Meats without Flesh and Juice and in that we abstain from Fruits which have over much Juice in them to the end we may not eat or drink any thing which hath the quality of Wine And a little farther as to Xerophagies they say that 't is the new Name of C. â—â— an affected Devotion and which comes near the Heathenish Superstitions such as the Mortifications of Isis Apis and the Mother of the Gods which purify by abstinence from certain Meats And this is in few Words what I had to say on those four Particulars WOULD we keep to the exact Rules of Controversy we need not proceed to any farther Examination of the rest of Mr. Arnaud's great Volumn which may be said without breach of Charity equally to offend both in its quantity and quality For having shewed as I have done that the Treatise of the Perpetuity of the Faith ought to be rejected upon the only consideration of its Method it is hence evident I am not obliged to follow Mr. Arnaud in his Voyages to Greece Muscovia Persia Syria Egypt Aethiopia and the Indias Seeing we will never part with our Proofs of Fact what need has he of travelling thro all these Countries Neither the Greeks nor other Christian Nations considered from the eleventh Century or from the seventh will decide the Question touching what has bin believed in the antient Church to the Prejudice of the Fathers and their Testimony Yet shall I make him an exact Answer not out of any Necessity but only out of Condescension and upon condition he will remember that I have proved in this first Book these following Particulars I. That his Censure touching what I said concerning Mr. Aubertin's Book is grounded on an extravagant Fancy That it cannot bear a rational Interpretation nor is made with any kind of Sincerity that it supposeth a great Mistake that we may conclude thence a Prevarication against the Church
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
〈◊〉 Now who knows not that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is of the Neuter Gender which by consequence can neither agree with Jesus Christ nor his Flesh but with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Body which the Vide Damascen de Orthodoxa Fide of Veronnes Impression 1531. and that of Basil Bread is and which we receive in the Communion of which he spake in the beginning of his Discourse He might have found also that these words Honour we him are in the Greek in the Neuter Gender 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which can only refer to the Body and not to Jesus Christ nor his Flesh MR. Arnaud methinks should take more care another time of what he writes and not give us so many of his It is clear it manifestly appears for there is nothing so clear as the contrary of what he say's Damascen speaking of the Bread of the Communion say's that 't is not a Figure but the deified Body of Jesus Christ he would have us honour this Body that is to say that Body which we receive in the Communion with a double purity of Body and Soul externally and internally because 't is double He shews what ought to be our inward disposition to wit a fervent desire he passes to our external Actions which are to hold our arms cross-wise and to hold the Communion we receive on our Eyes Lips and Forehead Afterwards to explain how this Body is double he compares it to the Coal Esaias saw which was not bare wood but wood and fire together Then applying immediately his comparison he adds Thus the Bread of the Communion is not mere Bread being it is united to the Divinity Now a Body united to the Divinity is not one single nature but two one of the Body and th' other of the Divinity which is joyned thereunto Who sees not then that this double Body of which he speaks and which he compared to Esaias Coal is the Bread of the Communion that it is double being Bread united to the Divinity and that the effect of this Union is not to change the nature of the Bread but to make a composition of two Natures Whence it manifestly follows that one of these Natures being the Divinity th' other is the nature of Bread It is then true as Mr. Arnaud has observed that these last words Sit panis communionis non est panis simplex sed unitus divinitati are the exposition of what he said before Duplex est enim for it is double But because duplex refers not to Jesus Christ but to the Body we receive in the Communion it is therefore likewise true that they expound what we must understand by this Body to wit the Bread united to the Divinity BUT I must puruse the other parts of my Proposition The Greeks believe That by the impression which the Bread and Wine receive from the Holy Spirit they are changed into the virtue of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ and made by this means this Body and Blood Which is apparent first from all those Passages of the Liturgies I mentioned in the Fifth Chapter of this Book the result whereof is that the Bread becomes the Body of Jesus Christ in asmuch as 't is made capable of sanctifying us and that this is exactly what the Priest prayes for in the words of Consecration Now what is this but the Bread's being made the Body of Jesus Christ in virtue SECONDLY This appears likewise by what we have seen from Simeon Thessaloniensis who tells us that the unconsecrated Particles being mixed with those that are consecrated and partaking of their Sanctification become in some sort the Body of Christ and are proper for the Communion of the Faithful For this necessarily supposes as I shewed in the Fifth Chapter of this Third Book that the consecrated Particle it self is the Body of Jesus Christ in asmuch as it receives this Sanctification THIRDLY This moreover appears by the Passages of Cabasilas which I alledged in the Sixth Chapter by which we see that he takes for the same thing to receive Sanctification and to receive the Body of Jesus Christ Which likewise necessarily supposes that the Bread becomes the Body of Christ only in Sanctification and virtue FOURTHLY Euthymius Zigabenius a Greek Monk that lived in the Euthym. Comment in Matthe cap. 64. Twelfth Century confirms the same thing We must not say's he consider the nature of things which are offered but their virtue For as the word deifies if it be lawful to use such an expression the Flesh to which it is united after a supernatural manner so it changes by an ineffable operation the Bread and Wine into his Body which is a Spiring of Life and into his precious Blood and into the virtue of both one and the other MR. Arnaud nibbles at this Passage Euthymius say's he say's that Jesus Lib. 24. cap. 12. pag. 216. Christ changes after an ineffable manner the Bread into his own Body This signifies say's Mr. Claude that he changes it not into his Body but into the virtue of his Body Euthymius say's that he changes the Wine into his Blood This signifies say's Mr Claude that he changes it not into his Blood but into the virtue of his Blood Euthymius adds that he changes them into the virtue of both one and the other in gratiam ipsorum This Addition has perplexed Mr. Claude and therefore he has thought good not to mention it But in adding it because 't is there in effect the whole expression of Euthymius expounded in the Calvinists sence will be that Jesus Christ changes the Bread into the virtue of his Body and the Wine into the virtue of his Blood and into the virtue of both one and the other Who ever heard of such a folly to joyn together the Metaphorical Term and the exposition of the Metaphorical Term as two distinct and separate things Do we say for example that the Stone is Jesus Christ and the Sign of Jesus Christ that the Ark was the Church and the Figure of the Church that the Paschal Lamb was Christ and the representation of Christ that Anger changes men into Beasts and into the fury of Beasts ALL this is but vain Rhetorick Euthymius say's We must not consider the nature of the things offered us but their virtue This is not the Language of a man that would say that the nature of Bread and Wine ceases to be and that we must consider the proper Substance of Jesus Christ under the Vail of Accidents This Expression on the contrary supposes that the nature of these things subsists altho we must not consider it but raise up our minds to the Consideration of the supernatural virtue they receive When then he adds that Jesus Christ changes the Bread and Wine into his own Body and Blood it is true that this signifies according to my Interpretation that he changes them into the virtue of his Body and Blood and not into their
Wax imprints its Character thereon which does moreover represent this impression of virtue we now speak of VIII IN the Fifth Century lived Cyrillus Alexandriensis and Victor of Antioch which latter relates these Words of Cyrillus not to contradict but to approve them Lest we should conceive horrour at the sight of Flesh Victor Antioch Com. MS. in Marc. and Blood on the Holy Table God in regard to our weakness indues the things thereon offered with a VIRTUE of life and changes them into the efficacy of his Flesh to the end they may be to us a vivifying Communion and that the Body of life may be found in us as a living Seed IX IN the Fourth Century Saint Epiphanius held the same Language Epiph. Serm. de Fide Eccles in Anacephal They that come say's he to the Baptism receive the virtue which Jesus Christ brought to it when he descended into it and are illuminated by the communication of his light Thus is the Oracle of the Prophet accomplished which say's that there shall happen in Jerusalem a change in the virtue of Bread and Water and there shall be given to them a saving virtue For here to wit in Jesus Christ the virtue of Bread and force of Water are made strong not that the Bread is thus powerful to us but the virtue of the Bread For as to the Bread it is indeed an Aliment but there is in him a VIRTUE to inliven us X. GREGORY of Nisse in this same Century spake to the very same Greg. Niss in Bapt. Chr. effect You see say's he that Water is made use of in the Holy Baptism but you must not therefore despise it for 't is of great virtue and marvellous efficacy Do you see this Holy Altar where we attend As to its nature 't is a common stone which differs in nothing from others with which we build our Houses But when it has been sanctified by the Divine Service performed thereon and received the blessing it becomes a Holy Table an impolluted Altar which all the World cannot touch the Sacred Ministers alone touch it but yet with respect So the Bread is at first common Bread but after the Mystical Consecration it is called and is the Body of Jesus Christ I affirm the same concerning the Mystical Oyl and Wine these are things of small value before their Consecration but when bless'd by the Holy Spirit both the one and th' other operate after an excellent manner His Design is to shew how mere Water such as is used in Baptism comes to have such great virtue and produces such admirable effects For this purpose he alledges divers Examples of mean and despicable things in themselves which by their Consecration acquire an excellent virtue and efficacy Amongst which he especially reckons the Bread and Wine in the Eucharist As to the Wine he makes use of the Term of operate but as to the Bread he say's 't is the Body of Jesus Christ which plainly shews that in his sence to be the Body of Jesus Christ and to have an excellent operation is but one and the same thing XI WE find at the end of Clement Alexandrinus his Works a Treatise Epitome Theodot in calce oper Clem. Alex of a Greek Author named Theodotus who lived in the Third Century wherein he asserts this same change of virtue The Bread and Oyl say's he are sanctified by virtue of the Holy Spirit They are no longer then what they were before notwithstanding their outward appearance but are changed INTO A SPIRITUAL EFFICACY WE have here then the Doctrine of the Greeks cleared up by express Testimonies both from Modern and Ancient Authors So that methinks Mr. Arnaud has no reason to turn into sport and raillery as he has done this change of virtue in calling it our Key of Virtue Every man sees 't is no invention of ours and that we alledge nothing concerning it but what is authoriz'd by good and real Passages and by the Sentiments and proper expressions of the Greeks of greatest account in all Ages When Mr. Arnaud shall produce as many and solid Testimonies for his change of Substance we will give him leave to deride our change of virtue as he is pleased to term it But till then I have reason to desire him to stop his Laughter I should now pass on to the proving my Proposition That the Greeks believe the Bread and Wine only thus become the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ to the Faithful but having already established this Article in the Sixth Chapter and drawn from thence an Argument to shew they believe not Transubstantiation I shall therefore for the avoiding needless Repetitions refer the Reader to it I come then to the last Article which contains that the Greeks hold the Bread is made the proper and real Body of Jesus Christ by means of the addition of his Natural Body This Point calls for a particular consideration for not only it will further discover to us what the real Opinion of the Greeks is but likewise shew us whence come these emphatical expressions which they sometimes use in saying 't is the very Body of Jesus Christ and no other Body than that which was born of the Virgin Mary and likewise shew us in what sence we must understand them I. I say then among other Comparisons the Greeks use for the explaining the manner of this change which happens to the Bread and Wine they especially imploy that of Food which being received by us is changed into our Bodies Now every man knows that the Matter or Substance of Food is not changed into the first Substance which we had before we take it in such a manner that the one must be absolutely the other and by a Numerical Identity on the contrary each substance conserves its proper being and that of the Food is joyned to that of our Body and receives its Form it augments it and by way of Union Augmentation and Assimilation as they speak becomes ours and makes but one and the same Body and not two with that which we had before And this is the Comparison the Greeks do most often urge whereby to express their Conceptions touching the Holy Sacrament Theophilact in his Commentaries on Saint John's Gospel having told us the Bread we eat in the Mysteries is not an Antitype of the Flesh of Jesus Christ but the very Flesh it self immediately adds these Words The Bread is changed into the Flesh of Christ by the Ineffable Words the Mystical Theophil 1. Joan 6. Benediction and coming of the Holy Spirit No man ought to be troubled in being obliged to believe that Bread becomes Flesh For when our Lord was conversant on Earth and received his nourishment from Bread this Bread he eat was changed into his Body being made like unto his Flesh and contributed to augment and sustain it after a humane manner And thus now is the Bread changed into our Lord's Flesh THEODORUS Abucara
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
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
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
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
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
incorruptible as the Body of Christ was after his Resurrection which they establish by this Reason that the Bread is an augmentation of the Body of Jesus Christ and that as Nature observes on the Food which nourishes us and augments our Body the same order she kept in the first matter from which we were formed So Grace observes in the Eucharistical Bread the same order she observes in the Natural Body By this means they will have the Bread become first the Body of Christ in asmuch as 't is Mortal and Corruptible that it be afterwards this dead Body and in fine this Incorruptible and Raised Body Cabasilas his Sence then is that when the Bread is mystically sacrificed it is made the dead Body of Jesus Christ as he speaks himself the Lamb slain not that the Body suffers Death in this Moment but because in this Moment the Bread passes thro the Oeconomy of Death And thus the Bread is changed into the dead Body of our Lord not that our Saviour dyes in effect but because the Bread which is the Growth of his Body is then changed into this Body in as much as it suffered Death heretofore And this is Cabasilas his real Sence which is conformable to the Hypothesis of the Greeks and not that which Mr. Arnaud attributes to him HE likewise uses to no purpose several Passages out of Simeon of Thessalonica They say nothing but what I already often answered to wit That the Bread is the real Body of Jesus Christ that it is the very Body of Christ and I shewed in what Sence the Greeks use these Expressions and therefore will not any more repeat it I likewise answered what he alledged touching the Adoration and the unconsecrated Particles AS to Jeremias the Patriarch of Constantinople we may well wonder that he should so confidently offer him us as a Person that teaches Transubstantiation seeing that not only Jeremias holds the same Language as the others but asserts several things which opposes the Roman Doctrine Mr. Arnaud having according to his Custom impertinently related several historical Passages Lib. 4. c. 4. tells us That the Article of the Ausbourg Confession which respects the Sacrament expresly asserting the real Presence but not mentioning Transubstantiation Jeremias answers that Point is handled in it very briefly and obscurely and adds that the Catholick Church holds the Bread is changed into the very Body and Blood of our Lord thro the Holy Spirit So that then Jeremias held Transubstantiation And thus does Mr. Arnaud draw his Consequences But he is too quick Some Protestants in Germany sent the Ausbourg Confession to the Patriarch of Constantinople without any Commentary or Exposition on it The Patriarch examining its tenth Article which runs thus Touching the Lord's Supper they hold the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ are really present in it and are distributed to those that participate thereof and condemn the Opinion of those that hold the contrary He say's This Article treats of the Lord's Supper very briefly and to say the Truth somewhat obscurely For adds he we are told several things of you which we do not approve To say hereupon that the Lutherans understood this Article in the Sence of the real Presence and that the Greeks could not be ignorant of it signifies nothing For it appears that the Patriarch only considered the Expressions of the Article barely as they are laid down and found them obscure And as to those things which were told him of them on this Subject and which he disapproved he does not specify them When then he adds That the Catholick Church holds the Bread is changed into the Body and Blood of our Lord thro the Spirit It is clear his Design is without proceeding any farther into the Examination of their Belief to tell them that of his Church and oppose it against their Article so that we must always return to the Inquiry whether by these Expressions The Bread is changed into the real Body he means Transubstantiation or the other Change by way of Augmentation and Impression of Virtue for 't is certain the Article of the Ausbourg Confession respects neither of these Changes MR. Arnaud tells us This was a proper place wherein to assert the Body and Ibid. p. 361. Blood of Christ are not really present in the Sacrament seeing only their Virtue is in it I answer a presence of Virtue is a real Presence of the Body and Blood of Christ even as the Sun is really present with us by the Efficacy of its Beams so that Jeremias had no reason to oppose the reality of the Presence but 't was better said by him that the Terms of the Confession were Ambiguous and that they ought to acknowledg clearly the Body and Blood are substantially present in it supposing he believed this substantial Presence MR. Arnaud adds That the Patriarch does not say the Bread is changed in p. 362. Virtue Power and Efficacy I answer neither does he say 't is changed in Substance and there is this Difference betwixt Mr. Arnaud and I that I add it was not necessary that Jeremias should explain himself touching this change of Virtue because the Greeks who preceded him had already plainly done it but the same cannot be said touching the change of Substance for not one of the Greeks ever mentioned it any more than he so that he was necessarily obliged clearly to express it if he intended it should be understood BUT Mr. Arnaud further say's The Divines of Wittemberg and Tubinga believed upon the Answer of the Patriarch that he taught the real Presence and p. 370. Transubstantiation When this were true we need not be astonished thereat For it might well be that Divines who held the Consubstantiation should take the Words of Jeremias in a Sence which opposed only one part of their Opinion rather than in another which would wholly overthrow it Their Prejudication signifies nothing to the Exposition which the Greeks make themselves of their own Opinion BUT Mr. Arnaud say's moreover If the Divines of Wittemberg Misunderstood the Patriarchs Sence it lay upon him to rectify their Mistakes I answer there cannot be any Advantage made of Jeremias's Silence in this Respect For it is certain that in these Divines first answer they reckon amongst the Points in which they agreed with the Patriarch this That the Communion or Supper of our Lord unites us to him in as much as we truly partake therein of his Flesh and Blood But these were the proper Expressions which this Patriarch used and so far there was no reason to say they charged him with believing what he did not seeing they only repeated what he said It is likewise true they denyed the Bread was changed therein which they grounded on the Testimony of St. Paul who calls it Bread yet did they make use of the same Term Jeremias did which is that of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without the least mention of a
Body which is administred by the Priests is neither a Type nor an Azyme but it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a leavened Loaf and the very Body of our Lord and the Translation runs Illud ipsum verum Christi corpus sub speciebus fermentati panis contentum The Body it self the real Body of Christ CONTAINED UNDER THE SPECIES OF LEAVENED BREAD Mr. Arnaud affirms that this is not a Falsification because Jeremias his true Sence is represented in it For say's he these Words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are capable of two different P. 366. Sences First This Bread is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Leavened because it remains in effect leavened Bread and that it is only the Body of Christ in Figure or Virtue Secondly It is called by this Name of leavened Bread because it was originally leavened Bread and does still appear so altho it be the Body of our Lord. But the first of these Sences has been several times excluded by Jeremias his own Words wherein he clearly asserted that after the Consecration the leavend Bread is changed into our Lord's real Body that it is not a Figure but our Lords Body that it is this Flesh concerning which he speaks The Bread which I shall give you is my Flesh It is excluded in what follows sundry different ways and by the very Words of that passage which asserts it is our Lord's Body Whence it follows it is not then really leavened Bread I answer that this pretended Sence which Mr. Arnaud attributes to Jeremias is precisely the Point in Question Now whilst a matter is in Dispute we must never translate a Passage according to the Sence of one of the Parties which th' other denies him To deal sincerely the proper and natural Signification of Terms must be kept and every man left at his liberty to judg of them For when men translate according to the Pretention of one Party they are no longer the Words of this Author but the Prejudication of this Party and consequently an Alteration even when the Prejudication of this Party should be just and reasonable in the Main Moreover Mr. Arnaud is mistaken if he believes the other Passages of Jeremias determine a Sence of substantial Reality for according to the Hypothesis of the Greeks the Bread still remains Bread in Substance altho it be changed into the Body of Christ and be the very Body of Christ and not a Figure as we have often already declared whence it follows the Translation in question cannot be justified A Man of never so mean Capacity may perceive that Jeremias his Sence is not that which Mr. Arnaud attributes to him For in the same place where he say's The Bread is changed into the real Body of Christ and the Wine into his Blood and wherein he alledges the Words of Christ which tell us not This is an Azyme or this is the Figure of my Body but this is my Body He adds by way of Explication This is not to say that the Flesh which our Saviour then had was given to be eaten by his Disciples nor his Blood to be drunk nor that now in this sacred Ordinance our Lord's Body descends from Heaven This would be Blasphemy But then and now by Prayers and the Grace of the almighty Spirit which operates in the Mysteries by means of the Holy Orisons the Bread is changed into our Lord's real Body and Blood These Words being applyed to the Hypothesis of the Greeks that the Bread remaining Bread and receiving the Impression of the Holy Spirit is changed into the Body of Christ by way of Augmentation are clear and void of Difficulty But if we apply them to the Hypothesis of the Latins who affirm the Substance of Bread is changed into the natural Flesh of Christ and becomes the Same numerical Flesh which our Lord had when on Earth In what Sence shall we understand that saying of Jeremias namely that the Flesh which Christ had then was not given to be eaten by his Disciples For if we grant Transubstantiation it is certain the Disciples eat the same Flesh which Christ then had and Jeremias his Proposition can not subsist Mr. Arnaud endeavours but in vain to expound Jeremias his Discourse in saying That Christ gave not to be eaten by his Disciples the Flesh which he had in ceasing to have it and to appear before them in his usual manner in cutting his Body into Morsels or having no other place of Abode than his Apostles Stomach To make us receive this Gloss it must be grounded on Jeremias his own Words and not on Mr. Arnaud's Imagination These Corrections and fine Explications hinder not but that the Patriarch's Proposition is absolute and contrary to the Doctrine of Transubstantiation For that which Jeremias denies is not that our Saviour disappeared before his Disciples nor cut his Flesh into Morsels but that he gave them to eat the Flesh he then had The Question respects not the manner in which our Lord gave his Flesh to be eaten but whether he did give it and Jeremias asserts he did not What likelyhood is there that a Man who believes Transubstantiation would thus roughly offer a Negative which is directly opposite to his Belief What likelyhood is there he would offer it in the same place and Discourse wherein he asserts Transubstantiation without explaining and lessening the Offence which might be taken at his Words But in short how is it probable he would treat as Blasphemous the Proposition contrary to his Negative Of these two Propositions Christ gave to be eaten by his Disciples the Flesh he bore and Christ gave not the Flesh he bare to his Disciples to eat The first would be the only true one according to the Letter without Gloss and Commentary supposing Transubstantiation Th' other taken litterally would be false and heretical and to make it tolerable it must have Expositions and Molifications contrary to what the Letter bears Mr. Arnaud is forced to change the first and natural Sence of the Terms and impose on them a forced and unusual one Who can then imagine that a Man who believed Transubstantiation or the real Presence and positively asserted it should be so senceless as to condemn the first of these Propositions which expresly contains his Belief to condemn it I say as Blasphemous and establish the second as the only true one without using any Corrective or Illustration This is wholly improbable AND this is what I had to say concerning Jeremias There remains nothing more of all Mr. Arnaud's pretended Proofs than the Passages taken out of some common Authors wherein there being nothing extraordinary and containing only that the Bread is the Body of Christ and that it is changed into his Body The same Answer being applyed to them will be sufficient CHAP. IX Several Passages of Anastasius Sinaite Germane the Patriarch of Constantinople and Damascene Examined HAVING satisfied Mr. Arnaud's Objections concerning the Greeks since the eleventh Century to this
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
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
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 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
sense But to lay aside the Apostles and the first six Centuries to begin this enquiry after the simple and natural impression which these words have made in mens minds by the 7th and 8th following ones 'T is as if a man should go out of Paris to learn the news of France in the furthermost parts of that Kingdom But 't will be reply'd these Centuries were not prepossessed by our Disputes I grant it But they may have had other prejudices which have disturbed this simple and natural impression which we seek What likelihood is there of finding it pure according as we desire it in Greece since the fancies of Damascen have been in vogue whom the Greeks esteem as another S. Thomas according to Mr. Arnaud but whom Mr. Arnaud durst not follow himself no more than we whether Damascen believed the assumption of the Bread or only the union of it to the Body of Christ in the manner I have proved and explained How can it be expected to be found pure amongst the Copticks Armenians Jacobites Nestorians Egyptians since these people have fallen into ignorance gross Errors and Superstitions wherein they still remain A man that is acquainted with the History of the Emissaries sent from the Latins into all these Countries since the 11th Century till this time without intermission may not he justly suspect that the Emissaries have troubled the purity of this Impression Howsoever it cannot be denied but it was more pure in the six first Ages than in the following ones and consequently that we ought not to begin our inquiries since that time The third Reflection Mr. ARNAVD unjustly accuses the Ministers for embroiling the sense of these words This is my Body But we may with greater reason charge the Scholasticks and Controvertists of the Roman Church with it who have made I know not how many glosses and formed I know not how many opinions on the word This. We know what Ambrose Catarin has written of it Let the Reader consider says he the labour and anguish which Ambros Catâ—â—r Tract de verb. quibus conficitur c. almost all Writers have undergone when we demand of 'em the signification of this Pronoun This for they write such a multitude of things and those so contrary to one another that they are enough to make a man at his wits end that too closely considers ' em The Ministers give these words a sense very plain and natural which neither depends on obscure and abstracted Principles nor metaphysical notions If they argue either to establish their sense or shew that these words can suffer no other their arguings lie in observations which are clear and intelligible as for instance the word this cannot signifie any thing else but this Bread and that the whole proposition must be taken as if our Saviour had said this Bread is my Body and to make this proposition intelligible we must necessarily give it a figurative sense for one and the same subject cannot be literally both Bread and Body I grant we must not Philosophise on these words Lazarus come forth Neither is there ever a one of us that sets himself to Philosophise on 'em we understand simply by Lazarus a person whom our Saviour raised from the dead in the very moment he called him as God made light at that very instant wherein he said Let there be light The difficulties which Mr. Arnaud finds in our Saviours expressions are affected difficulties But those which arise from the sense of Transubstantiation attributed to our Saviour's words are real ones not by abstracted and metaphysical arguments but because never man said this is such a thing to signifie that the substance of the thing which he held was imperceptibly changed into the substance of another humane language will not suffer it The fourth Reflection Mr. ARNAVD in vain opposes the sense of Philosophers and Doctors to that of simple persons and such as are not capable of any deep reasoning to find out the true natural impression which our Saviours words make on the minds of men without study and reflection This natural impression since a thousand years to judg thereof only by History is a thing absolutely unknown and undiscernable to us for two reasons the first that the simple are not guided by the most natural impression they are led by that which their Doctors and Philosophers give them for we know very well that in matters of Religion the people usually believe what their guides teach 'em and not what their first sense dictates to ' em The other reason is that whatsoever we can know of the belief of Churches since a thousand years depends on the Writings which are come to our hands Now these Books were wrote by Doctors and Philosophers who may have given us their Speculations and those of the same opinion with them what they have learn'd in the Schools or what they themselves have imagin'd rather than the simple and natural impression of people The fifth Reflection 'T IS ill reasoning to say that the sense which seems to have prevail'd since the 7th Century be it what it will for I examine not at present what that is must necessarily be the true sense of our Saviour under pretence that he was not ignorant of the manner in which they would take his words in this Century and in the following ones The mysteries of his prescience and those of his providence touching the errors wherein he suffers men to fall are unknown to us Neither is it permitted us to pry into them He has suffered men to understand in the three first Centuries what is said in the Revelations touching his reign of a thousand years in the sense of a terrestial Kingdom He has permitted men in the 4th and 5th Centuries to understand commonly these words If ye eat not the Flesh of the Son of man nor drink his Blood ye will have no life in you of the necessity there is of receiving the Eucharist to be saved The ways of God are beyond our reach and we must never judg of the true sense of his word by the opinions which are prevalent amongst men Second Consequence Mr. ARNAVD's second Consequence is That the consent of all the Book 10. Ch. 2. Churches in the Doctrine of the Real Presence during the eleven last Ages being proved determines the sense of the words of the Fathers of the six first Ages His Arguments are the same which the Author of the perpetuity already offer'd That 'T is against nature sense and reason to suppose the same expressions were used for six hundred years space in a certain sense by all the Christian Churches and that in all the other ensuing Centuries they have been used in another sense without any bodies perceiving this equivocation That 't is contrary to nature to suppose all the masters of one opinion and all the Disciples to be of another and yet still to suppose they followed the sentiments of their Masters The first
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
consent has no proportion with the capacity of most people this very thing should shew that to ground ones Faith on a solid foundation wherein there 's no deceit to be feared the best which one can do is to keep to the Word of God THE third difference which Mr. Arnaud remarks consists in that the changes which I alledg are changes of Practice and Discipline whereas that in question is a change of Opinion and Doctrin Now says he Discipline is a thing of it self liable to change and the benefit of it depends on circumstances which are mutable but Doctrins are immutable in their own nature that which is true at one time being so always Every body knows that Disciplin may be alter'd and every one knows that Doctrins cannot change So adds he to introduce a new Discipline 't is not necessary to deceive the world nor shew 't is ancient but to introduce a new Doctrin the novelty must of necessity de disguised which is oftentimes impossible In fine the belief of a Doctrin necessarily imports the condemnation of the contrary opinion whereas one may embrace a Discipline different from another yet without condemning that which one leaves THERE are several things to be said to this discourse For first It is not true that all the points of Practice and Discipline are mutable The practices which our Saviour Christ himself has instituted in his Church with an express command of observing 'em are perpetual immutable and necessary at least as to necessity of precept and such is the Communion of both kinds Secondly There are few persons amongst the people that are prepossessed with this opinion that the points of practice and Discipline may be changed the greatest part go not so far as this distinction of points of Practice and Doctrins The abolishment of a practice rather appears to them a change of Religion than an abolition or introduction of a Doctrin because of two parts whereof a Religion consists to wit the Doctrins and Practices these last are most popular Thirdly There are practices which are so strictly joyn'd with Doctrins and are in such a manner the dependances and consequences of 'em that 't is impossible to change them without also changing the Doctrins and consequently without condemning all contrary Doctrins Such is the practice of communicating under both kinds for it was anciently grounded on this belief that Christ's command belongs as well to Ministers as the People as appears by Paschasus his own testimony Drink ye all of it says he to wit as well the Ministers as other Lib. de Corp. Sang. Domin c. 15. c. 19. Gela. apud Gra. Canon Comperimus de cons dist 2. Lib. c. cap. 10. p. 989. Believers and this was joyn'd with the condemnation of the contrary practise It is not well done says the same Paschasus to Communicate of the Flesh without the Blood This Mystery says Pope Gelasius cannot be divided without committing a great Sacrilege It is a mere abusing the world says Mr. Arnaud to pretend to establish an universal Doctrin which is received in the whole Church on a single passage of a Popes Writings recited by Gratien and to oppose this single passage against the constant practice of all the Churches in the world who have given the Communion to the faithful under one species in sundry occasions But of whom would Mr. Arnaud have us to learn better the belief of the Church in the time of Gelasius himself who was at the head of the Church of Rome who calls her self the faithful depository of Tradition Is Mr. Arnaud so scandaliz'd at the producing of a Testimony of a Pope It is Gratien says he that relates it Is it the less authentick for that Gratien did not invent it to serve us we did not inspire him with it and the Correctors of Gratien have not so much as doubted of it This passage adds he may receive several rational explications I know he endeavours to elude every thing by explications but we should know whether these explications be just Mr. Arnaud should propose 'em and then we might examin ' em This constant practice of all the Churches that have given the Communion to the faithful under one kind in several occasions is likewise a thing that ought to be proved Mr. Arnaud knows he need not long stay for an answer to what 's alledg'd touching that subject THE Communion of little Children is likewise another practice appendant to a Doctrin for the ancient Church had this custom because she believ'd this Communion absolutely necessary for the salvation of Infants S. Austin says so in express terms Ecclesioe Christi tenent proeter baptismum Aug. de Peccat rear remiss lib. 1. c 24. participationem Dominicoe mensoe non solum non ad regnum Dei sed nec ad salutem vitam oeternam posse quemquam hominum pervenire Mr. Arnaud is angry with me for making this belief an universal Doctrin of the Church To the end says he its authority may be with plausible pretences trampled Page 990. under foot and a Doctrin of Tradition rejected But what have I done in this matter more than the Jesuite Maldonat who was as much a Catholick as Mr. Arnaud did before me Missam facio says he Augustini Innocentii Maldon in Joan. 6. Binn not in Epist Innoc. primi sententiam quoe sexcentos circiter annos viguit in Ecclesia Eucharistam etiam infantibus necessariam What have I done more than Binius in his Notes on Innocent's Letter to the Fathers of the Council of Milevé It appears says he that Innocent ' s opinion which has been in vogue for six hundred years and which was followed by S Austin was that the Eucharist is necessary to little Children But seeing the command to receive the Eucharist does not oblige those that cannot receive it and that we must reckon them unfit to receive the Eucharist that cannot receive it with the respect due to it the Church instructed by the use of several Ages and the Decree of the Council of Trent has well determin'd not only that the reception of the Eucharist is not necessary to Children but that it ought not to be given ' em I know adds Mr. Arnaud that there are on this subject some passages of Page 990. S. Austin and Innocent the First which are difficult But Mr. Claude knows very well that Fulgentius and Bede have explained these passages He knows also that Cardinal Perron and several other Catholick Authors have solved them To the passages of S. Austin and Innocent Mr. Arnaud might add others which will admit of no explication as those of Gelasius the First in one of his Epistles of the Author of the Hypognosticks of Gregory the Second of the second Council of Toul and some others And as to the soft'ning Expositions of Fulgentius they hinder not but that the opinion of the ancient Church was in effect what we now
from all these other changes is the very nature of this Doctrin He means of the Real Presence and Transubstantiation For it is clear that had it been new it must have extraordinarily surpriz'd all those that never heard of it which is to say the whole Church I confess that in effect the Doctrin of the Conversion of Substances in the Eucharist has something in it that is very surprizing and more offensive than whatsoever is done in other changes But Mr. Arnaud knows very well that this quality of offensive and surprizing in a Doctrin is not strong enough to produce actually of it self an opposition or a rejection on the contrary most people love in matters of Religion those things that are surprizing and wonderful of which we see examples in most Religions But howsoever the Teachers of the Real Presence provided against this inconveniency three ways the first was the making 'em a Buckler of the Almighty power of God The second the publishing of Miracles which really hapned about the Eucharist to wit visible apparitions of Flesh and Blood And the third the asserting 't was always the Faith and belief of the Church accommodating to their sense some passages of the Fathers ill taken and ill explained HITHERTO we have had whatsoever Mr. Arnaud has said that is considerable on the question of the possibility or impossibility of the change in his 6th and 9th Book Whatsoever is therein of moment we have considered and answer'd solidly and pertinently as Mr. Arnaud himself I hope will acknowledg I should have been very glad if he would have told us his opinion on a passage taken out of a Book called The new Heresie publickly maintain'd at Paris in the College of Clermont The Author of this Book therein discovers the order and means which he pretends his adversaries use to introduce Novelties insensibly into the Church and he instances for this purpose the Parable of the Tares that were sown in the night whilst men slept which took root and in time grew up which is very near the manner after which according to us the change was wrought touching the Eucharist This Author has well comprehended it as judging it far from being impossible but Mr. Arnaud thought meet to say nothing to this passage I should likewise been very glad that having treated as he has done with great earnestness of the Doctrin of the Greek and other Eastern Churches he had made reflection on several Doctrins and Practices which separate them from the Latins and in which there have hapned of necessity either amongst the one or the others insensible changes For example how came it to pass the Greeks lost the belief of Purgatory supposing this were a Doctrin of the first establishment of Christian Religion How came they to believe the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone and also that unleaven'd Bread in the administration of the Eucharist is an abomination and likewise that the Priests may as well as the Bishops administer Confirmation and again that the Church of Rome is not infallible in matters of Faith and that the Saints enjoy not the beatifical vision of God till the Resurrection and in short how came they to believe all the rest of those opinions which they hold contrary to those of the Latins There must of necessity have been a time wherein the Greeks and Latins were agreed in all these Articles whether we conceive that then neither of 'em held them which is to say that these Articles be not of Apostolical Tradition whether we suppose they held them in common since the first Preaching of Christianity which supposes that these Opinions were left 'em by the Apostles or whether we imagin that the Greeks as well as the Latins have ever held what they now hold at this day but that they supported mutually one another which supposes that both of 'em held these Opinions as needless ones and regarded the contrary opinions as tolerable ones Now in whatsoever sort we take it there have of necessity hapned insensible changes without dispute noise and opposition altho there may be the same objections brought against 'em and the same questions started which the Author of the Perpetuity and Mr. Arnaud have urged against the change in question SHOULD we suppose a time wherein neither the one nor the other held these Opinions how come they in fine to be imbued so generally with 'em and so contradictorily that a whole Church should hold the contrary of what the other believes Is there not in this double change at least as much reason to be astonish'd and surpriz'd as in that which has hapned according to us in respect of the Real Presence Have both the Latins and Greeks faln asleep without knowing any thing of the fire of Purgatory or Procession of the Holy Spirit or quality which the Eucharistical Bread ought to be of or th' administration of Confirmation or Beatifical Vision of the Saints nor th' Infallibility of the Church of Rome and have they all together at the same time awaken'd possess'd with contrary opinions on each of these points Whence had they their opinions Did not he who first taught them 'em advertise 'em that he Preached Novelties to 'em which they never heard of If he did tell 'em of this 't is strange he should be followed immediately by his whole Church and that such new Doctrins should be so immediately and zealously embraced If he did not tell 'em this 't is then very strange no body took notice of these Innovations that the Bishops and Priests did not oppose 'em and that of all that innumerable multitude of Religious persons not one of 'em has exclaimed against the Innovator Had the Innovator made use of some expressions of Scripture and of the Church to conceal the novelty of these Doctrins and to make people believe that that was the ancient Faith how can one conceive these terrible equivocations that expressions have been taken in one sense during a certain time generally by the whole Latin Church or generally by the whole Greek Church and that immediately in another they have been taken generally by the same Churches in another sense IF we suppose a time wherein both Greeks and Latins believed the same thing in respect of these points the same difficulties and the same questions return in respect of that of the two Churches which has changed Suppose for example that the Greeks and Latins both believed the Church of Rome is infallible that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son that one may use indifferently in the Eucharist unleavened Bread and that which is leaven'd and that the Bishop alone has the right of Confirmation how happens it the Greeks have pass'd into contrary Opinions without divisions amongst 'em till the Council of Florence Has this hapned all at a stroke Was this done insensibly and by succession of time If this has hapned all at once it must be granted this change is
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
knew the Church understood these expressions in one sense rather than in another seeing she never express'd her self about 'em in a clear and incapable manner of being perverted Who has given liberty to Paschasus to determin what the Church did not determin and t' express in particular terms what the Church only express'd in general ones Mr. Arnaud who plainly foresaw these inconveniencies has thought best to expess himself in an aenigmatical manner as those generally do who on one hand are urged by the force of truth and sequel of their own arguing but who on the other are retain'd by the fear of saying too much They pervert says he to their sense most of the common expressions And hence it happens that if any body else in following the common notions makes use of any term which they cannot in the same manner reduce to their particular sense they accuse this person of rashness This is exactly what we have reason to believe hapned in Paschasus his time Here 's exactly the description of a man that flies but fears to be taken in flying and therefore provides for himself another evasion against all occasions MY third proof is taken from Paschasus his proposing his Opinion in the manner of a paradox which must ravish the world with admiration Altho these things says he have the figure of Bread and Wine yet must we Lib. de Corp. Sang. Dom. believe that they are nothing else after Consecration than the Flesh and Blood of Jesus Christ And therefore the truth it self said to his Disciples This is my Flesh for the life of the world And to explain my self in a more wonderful manner Et ut mirabilius loquar 't is entirely nothing else but the Flesh which was born of the Virgin and suffered on the Cross and is risen from the Sepulchre These terms ut mirabilius loquar are the expression of one that pretends to say something extraordinary and surprizing Mr. ARNAVD answers That all Miracles are not Paradoxes I grant Book 8. ch 10. p. 865. it and therefore they are not all express'd in this manner ut mirabilius loquar Did S. Chrysostom adds he offer a Paradox when he broke forth into this expression concerning the Eucharist O wonderful he that is at the right hand of God is between the hands of the Priests I answer that in effect this discourse of Chrysostom is a true Paradox a Paradox of an Orator which seems at first to contradict common sense altho that in effect being rightly understood it does not but that of Paschasus is a false Paradox because it opposed in effect and at bottom not only common sense but likewise truth As to what remains I know not why Mr. Arnaud will have these terms translated ut mirabilius loquar by these The better to explain to you this marvail The Rules of Grammar must be changed to favour this Translation ut mirabilius loquar naturally signifies to speak or explain my self in a more admirable manner or at most to say something more admirable which is to say that the expression which he was going to use or the thing it self which he was about to speak was extraordinary and surprizing Now this shews he acknowledg'd at least that his expressions or conceptions were new whence 't is not difficult to conjecture that his Doctrin was as new as his expressions WE may make another conjecture from his submitting his Doctrin to the judgment of Frudegard and intreating him to see what is reprehensible in it He tells him he sends to him his Commentary on the 26. of S. Matthew and adds Vt ex ipso considerare queas quid intelligibilius credendum sit vel quid in me reprehendendum cum charitate To the end that you may know what is more rationally to be believed or what there is in me that may be charitably blamed Mr. Arnaud is mistaken if he believes I ground my conjecture in general on this deference of humility which Paschasus had for Frudegard We know that wise Authors are wont to acknowledg themselves liable to mistakes and submit themselves to the censures of their friends 'T is not this Here is something more particular which I desire may be considered Paschasus declares in his Letter that he was censured for teaching the Real Presence and taking the words of our Lord in a wrong sense Even Frudegard himself proposes to him an objection against his Doctrin he defends himself the best he can he desires Frudegard to read his Book over often he sends to him his Commentary on S. Matthew wherein he treats of the same thing and leaves Frudegard to the liberty of his judgment to see what may be more rationally believ'd or what may be charitably reprehended in him Quid intelligibilius credendum sit vel quid in me reprehendendum cum charitate Who sees not the question is only of the Real Presence and that what he submits to the judgment of Frudegard is to know which is most reasonable either to believe it or not to believe it to know whether it be or be not worthy of reprehension to have offer'd it But who does not likewise see that this cannot be the language of a man that taught nothing but what the Church then believed for people do not thus submit the Faith of the whole Church and such a clear certain and undeniable Faith as Mr. Arnaud supposes this was to the judgment of a particular person leaving him at liberty to take that part which he finds most reasonable and that of reprehending him that is to say of censuring him provided he does it with charity Mr. ARNAVD reckons for my 6th proof this That Paschasus does Page 868. never vaunt this his Doctrin was formally that of the whole Church This remark consists in a fact which we have already discuss'd and found to be true I need only add that if ever man was oblig'd loudly to offer and without hesitation the formal consent of the Church of his time and to protest he had said nothing but what all the Bishops and Religious of his time spake in conformity with him and what all the Faithful made profession to believe with him 't was Paschasus He was set upon in particular he was reprehended for ill expounding the words of Christ his Doctrin was opposed by a contrary Doctrin he was accused for being a rash person a visionary Now how could he after all this neglect the shelt'ring himself from all these insultings and making 'em return with confusion upon his Adversaries by saying clearly that all the faithful people in the Church at that time whether Pastors or others spake no otherwise than he did and that his Adversaries were faln into the utmost excess of impudence But instead of this he has recourse to some passages which he perverts as well as he can to his sense and to a clause of the Liturgy wherein there is Corpus Christi PASCHASVS furnishes us likewise
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
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
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
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 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 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