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
than that which receives Augmentation and they make use of the Example of a Child which Eating and Drinking and Growing by this means has not two Bodies but one MR. Arnaud then has in vain collected all the Passages of Cabasilas which assert The Gifts are changed into the Body and Blood of Christ that the Bread is Lib. 3. c. 8. the very Body of our Saviour the Sacrifice offered for the Salvation of the World that the Lord is seen and handled by means of the Holy and Dreadful Mysteries and that we receive him in the Eucharist These Expressions are common both to the Latins and Greeks from whence he can conclude nothing to the Prejudice of these Differences we have observed and which decide the Question IT is in vain he tells us that Cabasilas Disputing against the Latins on the Subject of this Prayer which they make after the Consecration Jube sursum ferri dona haec in manu angeli ad supercaeleste tuum Altare Reasons on these four Principles which include the real Presence and Transubstantiation 1st That we ought not to wish the Body of Christ be taken up from us 2ly That the Body of Christ being in Heaven and on Earth we ought not to desire it should be carried up into Heaven because it is there already 3dly That it cannot be offered by Angels because it is above Angels 4ly That we cannot without Impiety wish the Gifts a greater Dignity seeing they are the Body of Jesus Christ AS to what concerns the first of these Cabasilas say's only We must not pray that the Holy Gifts be taken away from us but on the contrary that they may remain with us and must believe they do so because it is thus that Christ is with us to the end of the World Hitherto we see neither Transubstantiation nor Cabas expos Liturg. c. 30. real Presence As to the 2d Cabasilas say's That if the Latins acknowledged it to be the Body of Christ they must believe he is with us and that he is above the Heavens seated at the right Hand of the Father in a manner known to him which still supposes neither real Presence nor Transubstantiation For according to the Greeks the Eucharist which is on the Earth being the Growth of the Body of Christ is one and the same Body with that in Heaven So that in manner the same Body is in Heaven and on Earth In Heaven in respect of its natural Substance and on Earth in respect of the Mystery which is its Growth which is far from the Sence of the Latins and does not suppose any Transubstantiation As to the 3d. How say's Cabasilas can that be carried up by an Angel which is above all Principalities and Powers and above every Name But methinks this would be to extend the use of Consequences too far to conclude from hence that the Eucharist is the Body of Christ in propriety of Substance For it is sufficient to establish the Truth of what Cabasilas say's that the Bread is the Body of Christ in Virtue and by way of Growth as we have already observed the Greeks explain it seeing it is true that this Dignity raises it up in some Sence above the Angels themselves not in respect of its Nature or Substance but in respect of the Virtue which accompanies it which is the supernatural Virtue of our Lord's Body As to the 4th It is certain that Cabasilas has had reason to say that if the Latins desired the Gifts might after their Consecration receive some new Dignity and a Change into a better State their Prayer would be impious seeing they acknowledged they were already the Body of Christ For as he afterwards adds to what more excellent or Holy State can we believe they pass into His Reasoning is good but I do not see it includes as Mr. Arnaud tells us the real Presence and Transubstantiation He ought to shew us this and not assert it without Proof for it may very well be said in the Sence of the Greeks that the Bread is capable of no higher a Dignity than that of receiving the Impression of the Virtue of Christ's Body and to be made this Body by way of Growth and Augmentation IT is moreover in Vain Mr. Arnaud endeavours to shew that in the Sence of Cabasilas Christ does not really dye in the Eucharist for we never imputed Lib. 3. c. 8. to this Author so strange a Doctrine Neither have we ween deceiv'd touching the Participles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Mr. Arnaud has imagined For we find that Cabasilas calls the Body of Christ not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Mr. Arnaud supposes this is a Fault in Grammar which has scaped his Pen for want of heed and which we must not impute to a Greek but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we have seen likewise he deny's the Body is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Mr. Arnaud does again assert by a Mistake thro Incogitancy for we are not willing to attribute it to any thing else The Greeks do not say 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in that Sence to say the Sacrificed or Slain Body no more than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is to say that Cabasilas means that the Body has been slain heretofore and not at present But this does not hinder it from being true as I said in my Answer to the Perpetuity that Cabasilas has respect to the Body of Christ in the Eucharist as dead that is to say under a respect or quality of Answer to the 2d Treat c. 8. Death Which appears by what he say's that it is not an Image or Representation of a Sacrifice but a real Sacrifice not of Bread but of the Body of Christ Cabas expos Lit. cap. 32. and that there is but one Sacrifice of the Lamb of him which was once offered Whence it follows that Christ is in the Eucharist as Dead and Sacrificed on the Cross which is precisely what I said MR. Arnaud will say that the Consequence which I draw to wit that Christ is not substantially present in the Eucharist is contrary to Cabasilas his Discourse who assures us That the Bread is changed into the thing Sacrificed altho the Sacrifice is not presently offered But Mr. Arnaud having never well Ibid. comprehended the Hypothesis of the Greeks it is no marvel if he has misunderstood Cabasilas his Sence in this Discourse which he makes of the Sacrifice in his thirty second Chapter The Greeks will have the Bread pass thro all the Degrees of the Oeconomy thro which the Body of Christ has passed that as the Holy Spirit came upon the Substance of the Holy Virgin so does he come upon the Bread that as the Body of Christ was in a corruptible state Crucifi'd and Buried so in like manner the Bread is first Corruptible lifted up as it were upon a Cross and buried in our Bodies as in a Sepulchre That in fine it becomes
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
return home the whole Country was immediately filled with Priests and Latin Bishops to bring over the People to Piety and Orthodoxy WHEREUNTO Mr. Arnaud Consents and saies That they were L. 3. C. 1. P. 256. more rigorously handled for their Religion in Cyprus than in Greece that several Greek Authors have grievously complained of these Cruelties and that Germain the Patriarch of Constantinople residing in Asia most pathetically laid open their Sufferings to Pope Gregory the ninth FRYAR Stephen a Portugais in his History of the Kingdom of Cyprus General Hist of the Isle and Kingdom of Cyprus Fol. 71. Relates that altho Guy de Lusignan was King of Jerusalem yet was he forc'd to be contented with being King of Cyprus He brought along with him several Greeks Armenians Coptites Maronites Jacobites Indians Nestorians Iberians and Georgians who would not acknowledg the Romane Prelacy each of these having their own Patriarch 'T is true saies he that the Kings of Lusignan would not permit their Bishops to exercise any Jurisdiction over them Ibid. but ordered they should only administer to them the Sacraments leaving the Overplus to the Jurisdiction of the Latine Arch-Bishop to whom these Nations in this respect were Subject He likewise Relates that about the same time there was published the Revelation of Jesus Christ to St. Bridget in which our Saviour himself exhorted the Greeks to submit to the Roman Church Let Ibid. the Greeks know these are the Words that their Empire Kingdoms and Lordships will never be in Peace and Security but always subject to their Enemies from whom they will continually receive exceeding great Dammages and perpetual Miseries till such time as they submit themselves to the Church of Rome with a true Humility and Charity obeying its Holy Constitutions and Ceremonies and wholly conform themselves to her Faith And after this manner did they make Heaven and Earth meet to cause these People to change their Religion WE may then I think plainly enough see that it has not bin the Latins Fault if the Greeks have not received their Doctrines from whence it follows that if it dos appear they have from that time Believed Transubstantiation and it not appearing they held it before we may then reasonably conclude they received it from the Latins This is a Consequence which follows naturally of it self The Testimony of the Greeks cannot be any longer produced as that of the pure Greeks after so many endeavours to make them embrace the Doctrine of the Church of Rome and the more Mr. Arnaud strives to prove the Entercourse of these two Nations the greater hold he gives us to contest with him the Advantage he pretends to have obtained from hence But he uses an admirable Expedient to hinder us from minding this Consequence For having seen on one hand that these Histories were too well known to be passed over wholly in Silence and on the other that if he should sincerely produce them as they are in themselves they would certainly make for our Advantage as it hath bin already observed he has thereupon bethought himself and presented them in another kind of Dress whereby he may insensibly turn aside his Readers Minds and amuse them by an agreeable Diversion And to this end has thought good to suppose I denyed the Greeks knew what was the Belief of the Latins and to employ all these historical Passages in opposing this Phantastical Supposition that is to say in manifesting the Greeks could not be ignorant of the Belief of the Latins touching the Eucharist I shall make appear in its proper place that this is but a vain Pretence and a meer quibling on Words which he has designedly taken in a Sence contrary to my meaning Wherefore I here declare it never entred into my Thoughts to deny what he makes me deny For this is an Invention he has used on purpose to conceal his indirect dealing CHAP. III. That the Greek Emperors led by politick Interests have themselves favoured the Design of the Latins in Introducing their Doctrines into Greece Mr. Arnaud's third Artifice discovered IT has not bin only the Latins that earnestly endeavoured to make the Greeks receive their Doctrines For even the Grecian Emperors themselves have favoured this Design induced by politick Respects which put them upon seeking the Friendship of the Western Princes and especially that of the Popes who in those times as speaks Mr. Arnaud gave Laws to all the rest and that even in Temporals We all know what a great Influence the Inclinations of Princes have not only on the People but Ecclesiasticks and Prelates It is usual with Subjects to turn themselves on that side which is most pleasing to their Sovereign and there are few Persons who make it not their Business so to do especially when Princes openly declare their Minds and make use of their Authority in punishing those that withstand them and rewarding those that approve them Now this the Grecian Emperours have often particularly done in favour of the Church of Rome to which they have endeavoured to unite their Subjects POSSEVIN the Jesuit reckons up fourteen of these interessed Reunions De reb Moscovit P. 7. the Greeks saies he have bin reunited to us fourteen times by publick Confessions and have so many times departed from us And it is certain that as they have ever known the Popes earnest Desires to submit them to the See of Rome so likewise have they not failed to flatter this Desire by fair Promises when they needed that Churches Assistance either for the obtaining of some important Design or for the averting of some dangerous Tempest which threatned them But as soon as ever these have bin over they have returned to their first State and slighted these Reunions I know not how it hath come to pass that the Popes having bin so often deceived should still continue so Facile but perhaps it was not a single Interest but be it as it will the Popes have never bin backwards in these Matters MY Design is not to set down here all these Reunions one after another and relate their particular Circumstances seeing an Account thereof is to be met with in sundry Historians but more especially in the Book Leo Allatius wrote touching the Agreement of these two Churches I shall only here take notice of some of them observed by Mr. Arnaud and which will be sufficient to shew after what manner the Greek Emperors have proceeded in Favour of the Latins when they wanted the Pope's Assistance MICHAEL Cerularius the Patriarch of Constantinople and Leo Bishop of Acrida having written some Letters against the Church of Rome to Peter the Patriarch of Antioch thereupon caused the Latine Churches to be shut up at Constantinople Pope Leo the Eleventh was greatly moved at it He therefore wrote to Cerularius and Leo of Acrida a long Letter wherein he answered their Objections and accused likewise the Greek Church of Lightness Rashness and Presumption This hap'ned about
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
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
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
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
they hold touching this Augmentation of the Body of Christ For if the Bread in the Eucharist augments or gives growth to our Lord's Body as they believe it ceases not to be being certain that to make an Augmentation we must add one thing to another joyn them together conserve them both and destroy neither of them To this we are moreover led by all those Comparisons we find they used of Wool dyed of Paper that receives the Emperors Signet of Wax that receives the impression of the Seal of a burning Coal or Wood in conjunction with Fire and Food by which we are nourished for in all these Examples the subject matter looses nothing of its first Substance Moreover seeing they will have the Bread pass thro all the Degrees of the Oeconomy of Jesus Christ that 't is first corruptible then incorruptible this sufficiently denotes they mean the Bread remains whereby to receive all these changes SECONDLY From this difference there arises another which is that the Latins believe that in the change which happens in the Eucharist the Substance of Bread and that of the Body of Jesus Christ are as they speak the two Terms of the change and that of the Bread passes intirely into that of the Body by a Conversion not only mystical but really and which destroys the Existence or matter of the Bread which the Greeks do not believe Which appears by this Augmentation of the Body of Jesus Christ of which they tell us and which they confirm by the Simile of Food For common sence plainly shews us that that which augments a thing is not really changed into the thing augmented as the Latins understand their change For there must always be reckoned a real difference between the thing augmented and that which augments The Opinion of the Greeks then can in no wise agree with that of the Latins for according to the Latins the Substance of the natural Body of Jesus Christ receives neither more nor less by the Conversion of the Substance of Bread into it and according to the Greeks it is augmented by it THIRDLY It must then be granted the Greeks do not acknowledge this conversion specified by the Roman Church and differ from it in respect of the nature or kind of this change admitting only that of an Object which receiving a new Form remains what it was before and yet becomes what it was not which is to say that the Bread remaining Bread receives the supernatural and oeconomical Form of the Body of Christ that is to say its virtue and is thereby made this Body And this is what is meant by this change of Sanctification and Virtue which they establish and by which they pretend the Bread becomes our Lord's Body Their whole Doctrine centers in this and 't is not possible to see what I alledged from them in this Chapter and not make this Conclusion that their Opinion is there only happens in the Eucharist a change of virtue and that 't is only thus the same Substance which is Bread is likewise the Body of Jesus Christ FOURTHLY The Latins hold that the Substance we receive in the Sacrament is absolutely the same numerical Substance which our Saviour had when he was on Earth and which he still retains in Heaven The Greeks hold not this their Hypothesis manifestly opposes it For altho they say the Body born of the Virgin Mary and the Bread in the Sacrament are not two Bodies but one yet the manner after which they explain this Unity and the reason they give for it do clearly denote they mean not thereby an absolute Unity nor an intire or numerical Identity as the Schools speak such as the Latins establish They say that as that which a Child eats and drinks makes not another Body but the same altho he receives growth thereby so the Bread in the Sacrament which augments the Body of Christ makes not two Bodies but one Now this necessarily supposes that this Substance which we receive with the mouths of our Bodies in the Eucharist is different from that which our Saviour had on Earth and which he still has in Heaven For a Body that is augmented is the same it was before but the Augmentation can never be absolutely the same thing as that which receives Augmentation In effect if the Latins be asked and all those that follow their Hypothesis why the Bread in the Eucharist and the Body born of the Virgin are not two but one only Body they will answer 'T is because they are but one and the same Substance in number But instead of this the Greeks take a different course saying 't is because the Bread is an Augmentation of the Body of Christ which puts a real difference between the two Substances Whence it follows that that which they believe they receive in the Sacrament is not the same Substance as that of our Lord 's natural Body FIFTHLY Hence it appears the Greeks do not believe the Real Presence of the Latins For the Latins by the Real Presence mean a Presence of Substance which is to say that this same Substance of the natural Body of Jesus Christ in which he lived and died and rose again and which now exists in Heaven the same I say in Number really likewise exists substantially and by it self in the Eucharist Now this the Greeks do not hold as I already shewed They on the contrary believe that this Substance we receive in the Eucharist and that of the natural Body of Christ are two Substances really different one of which is the Augmentation and th' other the thing augmented the one a true Substance of Bread and th' other the Substance of the natural Body of Christ The one to wit that of Bread receives according to them the impression of the virtue of th' other and the other communicates this to it They do not then believe that this same natural Body of Christ this same numerical Substance in which he died and rose again and which now exists in Heaven does likewise really exist in the Eucharist which is exactly as I already said the real Presence of the Latins They hold the Bread becomes by Consecration not a Figure of the Body of Christ but an Augmentation inasmuch as it receives its Virtue and Efficacy If this must be called a kind of Real Presence I say this is but a mere amusement of Words not worth our consideration In short the Presence of the Greeks is a Presence of Virtue that of the Latins a Presence of Substance so that upon this account they are at a great difference In effect if the things I alledged as well in this Chapter as in this whole Third Book be exactly considered it will appear that the most part of the Proofs I produced to justifie that the Greeks believe not Transubstantiation do equally conclude against the Substantial Presence and that they also believe not there is made any impression of the physical Form of Christ's Body on
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
an inconsistent sense but on the contrary a sense that appears consistent and reasonable to abused persons altho at bottom it be otherwise Whilst a man judges of it according to the false lights of these persons he calls it a sense because his mind acquiesces therein as seeing nothing therein impossible but as soon as he judges of it upon th' account of th' inconsistency of the terms 't is no longer a sence 't is a mere contradiction that has no sense and which is unintelligible I confess that as mens minds are subject to fearful capricio's it sometimes happens that they advance propositions wherein contradictions are so evident that they must needs have seen 'em themselves such as is that of this Philsosopher mention'd by Mr. Arnaud who affirmed That if God pleas'd two and two should not be four but in this case 't is requisite to say that these persons impose on the world and understand not themselves what they say For for to say that a man can make to himself a sense of a contradiction when it appears to him to be a contradiction that he can unite two ideas by affirming one of the other at the same time wherein he sees they cannot be accorded that is to say that he can persuade himself that a thing is possible ev'n then when it seems to him to be impossible If this be Mr. Arnaud's Philosophy he must Philosophise by himself for me 'T IS then clear I had reason to say that this second rank of persons which I supposed in the ancient Church who found inconsistency in the terms of this proposition The Bread is the Body of Jesus Christ conceiv'd properly no sense at all in it For as to their parts they could not find any in it seeing the proposition to them seem'd inconsistent Neither could their Pastors help 'em seeing 't is laid down for a maxim that they knew not in what sense the Fathers understood it But says Mr. Arnaud not knowing Page 580. any other way to make the Eucharist to be the Body of Jesus Christ they must make an entire separation of the Bread and Body and absolutely deny the presence and existence of Jesus Christ in the Bread which is rejecting the Real Presence I answer that this is not a good conclusion the persons of which we speak found no sense in the proposition The Bread is the Body of Jesus Christ the two ideas of Bread and Body appeared to them inconsistent they knew no other means of making the Bread to be the Body I grant but seeing 't was a proposition of their Pastors whom they would not charge with falsity and being taught it as from the authority of Jesus Christ himself 't is not to be doubted but they acknowledg'd in general that it must have a good sense altho they knew not which was this good sense and therefore I said in my answer to the Perpetuity that their minds stopt at the only difficulty without undertaking to resolve it 'T is fruitless to enquire whether they rejected by a positive judgment the unity of these two substances Bread and Body or whether their minds hung in suspense notwithstanding what appear'd to 'em from th' inconsistency of the terms I have not attributed to them this rejection as Mr. Arnaud says I have in impertinently transferring what I said of them who went as far as the Sacramental sense to those of this second rank who proceeded not so far But whether they formally rejected this unity of two substances or only suspended their judgments it is clear they neither rejected Transubstantiation nor Consubstantiation for neither one nor the other of these two opinions establishes th' unity of these two substances Bread and Body in the sense we understand it here that is to say by affirming that the Bread remaining Bread is the Body of Jesus Christ They may have deny'd the Real Presence in this last sense that is to say judged that the Bread remaining Bread cannot be the Body of Jesus Christ but as to other ways since found out to make the Bread to be the Body having no knowledg of 'em they could not reject them They rejected if you will the unity of the two substances they conceived no sense in this expression the Bread is the Body of Jesus Christ yet they acknowledg'd it must have a good and a true one altho they knew not in particular which that was they carry'd off their minds from this difficulty but in all this they conceiv'd no distinct notice either of Transubstantiation or Consubstantiation IN vain does Mr. Arnaud endeavour to persuade us That the natural Page 583. idea of these words The Bread is the Body of Jesus Christ in explaining them in the usual manner was that appearing Bread 't was not so but the very Body of Jesus Christ and that 't is a renouncing all the lights of reason to pretend that this so common true and authoriz'd sense by custom never entred into the thoughts of any man during eight hundred years All this signifies nothing seeing his pretended sense is contrary to nature the question concerning Bread which a man seeth and which all the notices of sense and reason assure to be Bread these same notices do not inform us that 't is not Bread or that 't is only an appearance of it The question likewise concerning a Body which we know is in Heaven and which is like unto that which we have the notices of reason urge not a man to understand that this Body is there under the appearance of Bread So that should we suppose that during eight hundred years this sense entred not into any bodies thoughts we shall suppose nothing but what 's very natural and reasonable But says Mr. Page 582. Arnaud when Raphael led young Toby if any one that knew who he was should say this Man whom you see is an Angel Toby would not have imagin'd that he was both Man and Angel too but easily conceive he meant only that appearing Man he was really an Angel But does not Mr. Arnaud consider that this example is quite different from our case When the Angels appear'd under the form of men there was always some sensible character that distinguish'd them and easily shew'd there was something more than natural in ' em There 's nothing like this in the Bread th' apparition of Angels in a humane shape was very frequent under the old Testament and Toby was instructed in his infancy in the belief of this This apparition of the Body of Jesus Christ under the form of Bread was unheard of in the Church We know that an Angel leaves Heaven when he comes to appear on Earth in a humane shape whereas we know on the contrary that the Body of Jesus Christ is so in Heaven that it will not leave that place till the last Judgment We know an Angel is of a spiritual nature and a man consults not his eyes to know whether he is
present or not but we know that the Body of Jesus Christ is of a sensible nature th' object of our sight and feeling Had then any one said to Toby This man whom you see is an Angel perhaps Toby had taken this proposition in Mr. Arnaud's sense because he would have been led to it by what I now come from representing touching th' appearance of Angels But suppose as we ought to suppose in this place of our dispute a man that knows not as yet the Doctrin of Transubstantiation nor that of Consubstantiation that knows not the Principles of it that never heard of it nor of an appearance of Bread without its substance nor of a humane Body impalpable invisible and existent in several places at a time and moreover knows that the Body of Jesus Christ is in Heaven Let this man be told the Bread is the Body of Jesus Christ 't is certain that the light of reason will never lead him to this violent explication That that which appears Bread and is not is the very Body of Jesus Christ in substance As to the rest Mr. Arnaud ought not to abuse several passages of Calvin Beza and Zuinglius disputing against those called Lutherans Their sense is that if these words this is my Body may be literally understood we must rather admit the sense of the Roman Church than that of the Lutherans But it does not hence follow that the sense of the Roman Church is the most natural one nor that the people must find it of themselves this consequence does not any ways follow SO that here are two of the ranks of persons which I asserted delivered from the unjust pursuits of Mr. Arnaud The third says he is less troublesome Book 6. ch 8. pag. 586. than the others Why Because adds he it consists only of persons that believed the Real Presence and had a distinct Faith of it This rank is of those who going as far as the question How the Sacrament is the Body of Jesus Christ proceeded also to the solution of it but their minds stopt at general terms as that Jesus Christ is present to us in the Sacrament and that we receive therein his Body and Blood without searching a greater light 'T is certain says Mr. Arnaud there might be in effect faithful persons in the ancient Church that penetrated no farther into this Mystery than barely to believe that Jesus Christ is therein present and that we receive therein his Body and Blood God be praised that we have at length once said something which Mr. Arnaud does not contradict And to return him the same kindness do tell him that what he grants here does not at all displease me For this plainly shews there were faithful people in the ancient Church that knew nothing of Transubstantiation but conceiv'd only a Presence of Jesus Christ in the Sacrament and a reception of his Body and Blood under a general notion yet Mr. Arnaud pretends that this notion how general soever it might be was distinctly the Real Presence Which is what I deny and must examin The question is then only whether these persons believ'd distinctly the Real Presence he pretends it and I deny it THEY knew says Mr. Arnaud neither the key of Figure nor the key of Page 587. Virtue according to the Hypothesis it self So that neither the presence of Virtue nor the presence of figure came into their thoughts I grant it What presence then could they conceive but the Real Presence but the Real Reception And why must they have given to these words another sense than that which they naturally have This is ill concluded They would have conceiv'd a confus'd and general idea of Presence without descending to a particular and precise distinction I confess 't is very hard for persons that have their sight and never so little of common sense not to acknowledg that the Body of Jesus Christ is not in the Eucharist in this ordinary and corporeal manner by which a body is naturally in one place and I am sufficiently persuaded that those persons in question could not come so far as to enquire how the Eucharist is the Body of Jesus Christ without conceiving the idea of his visible and sensible Presence to reject it but we shall suppose nothing that is unreasonable in saying that in carrying off their thoughts from this corporeal Existence they conceiv'd it present under a very confused notion for 't is a usual thing with persons that are unlearned to consider things in a confused manner and therefore we commonly see they cannot express themselves otherwise than in certain obscure and general terms which do never well shew what they have in their minds It cannot be deny'd but this kind of confused ideas are usual among people But Mr. Arnaud must not imagin that these persons of whom we speak believed the substantial Presence of the Body of Jesus Christ in the Sacrament for rejecting the idea of the corporal Presence as 't is likely they did by the very instinct of nature to maintain they believ'd a substantial Presence we must suppose either that they had the idea of another manner of substantial presence of a body than the corporeal one or at least that they knew there was some other which was not less a substantial Presence than the corporeal one altho they knew it not Now of these two suppositions the first is acknowledged to be false by Mr. Arnaud himself and the second is wholly contrary to reason for who should inform them there was another manner of a substantial presence of a body than a corporeal one Nature shews us no other the expressions of their Pastors mention'd no other whence then must they have it It must then be said they had a confused idea of another manner of presence than the substantial one they beheld it in the expressions of their Pastors felt it in the motions of their Consciences but to denote precisely what that was was what they could not otherwise do than by general terms of presence reception and such like Now this was in effect to believe not a substantial Presence but a Presence of union a Presence of salutary efficacy in reference to the Soul altho they comprehended it not in its full distinction THE fourth rank is of those who after they had been puzled with the inconsistency of the terms of Bread and Body of Jesus Christ found the real knot of this difficulty to wit that the Bread is the Sacrament the memorial and pledg of the holy Body of our Redeemer They found it says Mr. Arnaud because it pleases Mr. Claude to suppose so but 't was after a long search My supposition contains nothing but what we see happens every day in the world 'T is certain there are persons who be full of doubts this is no wonder and we find 'em not so easily freed from them they esteem themselves happy when after a long search they get them resolved
What extraordinary matter is there then in this supposition BVT whilst they were in search of it and could not find it adds Mr. Arnaud dares Mr. Claude say their minds were not smitten with any idea of the Real Presence by all the passages and instructions of the Fathers They never knew of any key of Virtue or Figure how then understood they the words of the Fathers which assured them that the Lamb of God is present on the Eucharistical Table that the Bread appearing Bread was not so but the Body of Jesus Christ that we drink the immortal Blood of Jesus Christ that the Blood of Jesus Christ is added to ours that it enters into us that this single Body which is distributed to so many thousands is entire in each of 'em that 't is the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ in truth that we must not doubt of it seeing he has said so himself that altho what we see has nothing like to a human body yet none refuse to believe what Christ himself has asserted to be true that the Bread is changed into the very Body of Jesus Christ that the Bread is made the Body of Jesus Christ by the ineffable operation of the Holy Spirit that we must not look for the usual course of nature in the Body of Jesus Christ Mr. Claude cannot defend himself from these passages but by applying to 'em his keys of Virtue and Figure and enduring a thousand vexatious oppositions Now these persons being strangers to these inventions conceived the literal idea of these words they conceived that Jesus Christ entred into us that 't was not Bread but the Body of Jesus Christ that 't was not to be question'd that they ought to give their senses the lye and thus during all the time of this search they had maugre Mr. Claude the Real Presence still in their minds TO make this arguing good there must be several things supposed which Mr. Arnaud himself will not approve to be reasonable First we must suppose that those of this fourth rank now in question had either heard a great part of the Fathers preach which the Roman Church alledges in her own favour as well Greeks as Latins of several Ages or read almost all their Writings concerning the Eucharist for what Mr. Arnaud now recited to us is a rhapsody of several expressions to be found here and there in Gelasius of Cyzique Cyril of Jerusalem Chrysostom Cyril of Alexandria Gregory of Nysse Hesychius Gaudencius Epiphany Damascen and Ambrose Secondly We must suppose they made an exact collection of all these expressions of the Fathers which Mr. Arnaud abuses and put them altogether to make a better survey of them and grounded thereupon their difficulty Thirdly We must suppose that those of this fourth rank did all the same thing or at least communicated this rhapsody to one another to behold therein all of 'em the Real Presence during the time of their doubting Fourthly We must suppose they took care to collect nothing that might carry off their minds from rhe Real Presence or offer 'em contrary objects LET Mr. Arnaud consider if he pleases that those of this fourth rank now in question are a middle sort of people whom we suppose to be persons of small reading or study who were not capable of making either for themselves or fellows collections of difficult passages but only heard their Pastors say that the Bread of the Eucharist is the Body of Jesus Christ or is made the Body of Jesus Christ For when we suppose persons that knew all these expressions of the Fathers proposed by Mr. Arnaud and that have collected 'em 't will be just to suppose likewise they were not ignorant that the Fathers taught also That what we see on the Altar is Bread and Wine creatures and fruits of the Earth that they are signs and mystical symbols of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ that these symbols leave not their own nature but remain in their first substance that our Saviour Christ has honored them with the name of his Body and Blood not in changing their nature but in adding grace to their nature that Jesus Christ as he is God is every where but as Man is in Heaven that his Body must be in one place that when his Flesh was on Earth it was not in Heaven and that being now in Heaven it is not certainly upon Earth that the Bread is not properly his Body nor the Wine his Blood but so call'd inasmuch as they contain the mystery of 'em that our Saviour has made an exchange of names having given to his Body the name of Symbol that he has called the Bread his Body to the end we might know that he whose Body the Prophet had anciently figured by Bread has now given to Bread the figure of his Body By this means when Mr. Arnaud pretends the former passages gave the idea of a Real Presence I may pretend likewise that these last mention'd carried the same persons off from it and led 'em to a Sacramental sense But as I said it is not needful to put them of this fourth rank upon collecting passages out of the Fathers on either hand seeing we suppose they were only meanly instructed in points of Religion TO finish this Chapter and the defence of the second third and fourth ranks of persons which I supposed were in the ancient Church we have only to answer in few words an objection which Mr. Arnaud has proposed in his tenth Chapter which respects these three ranks in general I mean the second third and fourth which objection consists in this That there being two sorts of doubts the one in which a man understands and conceives a thing but knows not whether it be or be not whether 't is possible or impossible as when a man doubts whether Beasts think whether our blood circulates in the body others wherein a man knows not what makes the doubt as when one doubts of the causes of the flux and reflux of the Sea or of the sense of a passage of Scripture when the sense which appears is false and yet a man sees no other there is this difference between these two ways of doubting that in the first there 's no need to have the thing explained to us 't is sufficient we have proofs given us of it But the second which includes an ignorance of the manner necessarily requires an explication That the doubt or ignorance which Mr. Claude attributes to three of the ranks which compose his system is of this second kind that is to say one of these doubts which have need of information and explication of the manner of the thing being the persons in question were offended at the inconsistency of these terms Bread and Body and knew not how it could be true that the Bread was the Body of Jesus Christ or chang'd into the Body of Jesus Christ so that their ignorance could not be cured but by shewing 'em the
Saviour did not scruple to say This is my Body when he gave the sign of his Body that he made Bread his Body in saying This is my Body that is to say the figure of my Body that we must distinguish between the Bread of our Lord and the Bread which is the Lord himself that the consecrated Bread is honored with the name of our Lords Body altho the nature of Bread remains that the nature or substance of Bread ceases not to be and that that which we celebrate is the image or resemblance of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ who knew that the humanity of Jesus Christ is local absent from Heaven when on the Earth and left the Earth when it ascended up into Heaven that to eat the Flesh of Jesus Christ is to believe in him that this locution is figurative and must not be taken according to the letter signifying we must communicate of our Lords Passion and call to remembrance that his Flesh has been Crucified for us 'T IS such kind of persons as these who are well instructed in the sense of the Fathers that are to be consulted to find the natural sense of these other expressions which Mr. Arnaud alledges in his favour What likelihood is there that with these preparatives which they receiv'd daily from their Pastors they should stick at these expressions they heard 'em use That the Bread is the Body of Jesus Christ that 't is made the Body of Jesus Christ changed into the Body of Jesus Christ that the Body of Jesus Christ enters into us that we are refresh'd with his Blood and nourish'd with his Flesh and other expressions of this nature what likelihood is there they should hesitate at 'em or see any other sense in 'em than the Sacramental or figurative one Now these are the persons whereof my fifth rank consists whom I supposed to have a knowledg of the truth more distinct and clear than the others and a mind better fitted to understand the stile and ordinary expressions of the Church Let the same instructions the same expositions be given now to the people which the Fathers gave them let neither Transubstantiation nor the Real Presence nor the conversion of the substance of Bread into the very substance of Christs Body nor the Body of Jesus Christ concealed under the vail of accidents without a subject nor th'existence of these accidents without a subject nor the real existence of the Body of Jesus Christ in several places nor his double Presence that is to say his visible and invisible one nor his Sacramental state after the manner of a Spirit be mention'd let 'em not be enjoyn'd t' adore the Sacrament of the Eucharist with that Sovereign adoration which is due to Jesus Christ alone and in a word let all things be suppress'd which we find the Fathers did not speak or do and let the impressions and prejudications which these novelties have introduc'd into mens minds be lost let the same instructions and expositions I say be given to the people now which the Fathers gave them and then let 'em be told as long as you will that the Bread is the Body of Jesus Christ that 't is chang'd into the Body of Jesus Christ for I am persuaded and believe every reasonable man will be so too that the people will never conceive from these expressions either Transubstantiation or Consubstantiation but understand 'em without difficulty in a Sacramental sense Where Where 's then this great noise which the Real Presence made knocking as the Author of the Perpetuity words it millions of times at the gate of the hearts of all the Faithful Is not this clatter a mere dream and has Mr. Arnaud any reason to reproach me with the deafness of my ears BUT 't will perhaps be question'd whether persons of mean capacity whom we do not suppose to have this knowledg of the style and sense of the Church did not receive by these words th' impression of the Real Presence I answer we shall do 'em no wrong by supposing they did not understand them You have commanded us to believe said they in S. Austin Serm. ad inf explain to us then how the Bread is the Body of Jesus Christ to the end we may understand it They did not understand it then before the explication In effect the greatest part of the Fathers words taken literally are void of any natural sense Philosophy must give 'em one for how can we understand naturally that the Bread is the Body of Jesus Christ according to a literal sense or chang'd into the Body of Jesus Christ seeing we behold it still to be Bread I confess there are some of these expressions which are apt to offer to ignorant people the idea of a Real Presence but not of the real invisible and incorporeal Presence touching which we contend but on the contrary the idea of a corporeal Presence for a mans mind especially that of an ignorant man does not imagin th' existence of a human invisible insensible and impalpable Body I moreover say that this idea of the corporeal Presence would be immediately rejected as false by the most stupid and ignorant from the testimony of their own senses which they could not but consult supposing at least they knew Christ's Body was a human one But supposing they did not 't is likely their simplicity would lead them to believe that the natural Body of Jesus Christ was really upon Earth in the form of Bread such as they saw in the Eucharist and this is what S. Austin says little Children would do were they earnestly and gravely told 'tis the Body of Jesus Christ AS to the passages of S. Hilary and Gregory of Nysse which Mr. Arnaud alledges as offering the idea of the Real Presence I confess the first is able to surprize th' ignorant and make 'em conceive a corporeal Presence seeing it has these words that Jesus Christ is in us in reality of nature and not by a simple consent of will and then again that Jesus Christ dwells in us naturally which literally signifies that our Lords Flesh exists in us in such an ordinary and corporeal manner as the flesh of animals exists in us when we eat 'em which was the sense wherein the Capernaits took the words of Jesus Christ Mr. Arnaud himself seems to have acknowledg'd this seeing he believ'd himself oblig'd to add in his Translation a corrective that mollifies or explains this term naturally Naturally says he that is to say really But this that is to say really ought not to be written in Italick as if 't were S. Hilary's own explication and if the fault be the Printer's and not Mr. Arnaud's he should at least have set it in the Errata because it causes two illusions at a time on one hand it makes a man believe S. Hilary taught the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in us in proper terms seeing he says that he remains in us naturally that is
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 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
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
he received when he was preached to every Creature as if he spoke to our Saviour himself and said to him Thou art descended to us thou hast ascended into Heaven and fillest the whole Earth with thy Glory And therefore do we celebrate these Holy Mysteries and partake of and possess thee eternally Wherefore have we this as if he spoke to him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which Goar has well translated Quasi cum salvatore dissereret How comes it to pass I Goar in Euchol p. 153. say we have this quasi if in effect our Saviour was present and the Priest spake to him It may be alledged the passages I come from producing have some ambiguity for it may be doubted whether by the aforemention'd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is meant as being the Body of our Lord or as if it were the Body of our Lord that is to say as if it were in the stead of our Lord's Body But first of all this ambiguity is void in respect of the passage of Simeon who tells us that the Priest does as it were speak to our Saviour for it cannot be alledged that this is either a quasi of quality or of Identity if I may so speak nor give it another sence than this to wit that the Priest speaks no otherwise than if he had our Saviour himself in Person before him and directed his Discourse to him in the same sence as he says Let us see our Saviour speaking in the Apud Allat de perp cons lib. 3. cap. 13. Gospel and that he is as it were present 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and elsewhere That the Priest holding the Gospel in his hand gives it to be kissed by him that takes upon him the Christian Profession as if it were our Saviour himself 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and says to him behold Jesus Christ is invisibly present in the midst of us Now this contributes to the resolving of whatsoever may seem doubtful in the other passages MOREOVER the reasoning of Balsamon and Blastarius clears the difficulty for if we suppose they believed Transubstantiation we cannot give any tollerable sence to their Discourses In effect either they acknowledged that the Azyme was changed into the Body of Jesus Christ as well as the leavened Bread or deni'd it if they acknowledged it their sence is that 't is a great crime to eat the proper Body of Jesus Christ under the Accidents of an Azyme Now this is absurd for if the Body of Christ be really under the Accidents of the Azyme what crime is there in thus eating of it For that which is eaten is no longer a real Azyme but the Substance of the Body it self Wherefore moreover should they be judged more worthy of condemnation than those who mix themselves with the Jews when they celebrate their Feast and eat unleavened Bread with them For the latter of these do really eat an Azyme whereas the others receive only the Accidents of it which serve as a vayl to the proper flesh of our Lord. If it be said they do not acknowledge the Azyme to be changed into the Body of Jesus Christ as the leavened Bread is their sence will be that 't is a greater Crime to eat an Azyme in supposing it to be the Body of Jesus Christ than to eat the same Azyme wittingly and willingly in the Communion of the Jews Now this is no less absurd for the intention and belief which the first have lessens their fault whereas the knowledge and intention of the other aggravates it They that eat the Azyme with the Jews mean only to eat an Azyme whereas those that eat it in imagining they eat the Body of our Lord pretend nothing less than to eat an Azyme so that it cannot be said in this respect but that the crime of these last is greater than that of the others It must then be granted that to give a likely sence to Balsamon and Blastarius their quasi must be a quasi of comparison and not of Identity and that they mean that for a man to eat unleavened Bread in stead of the Body of Jesus Christ is a greater crime than to eat it simply with the Jews because this is an introducing of Judaism in the Christian Religion and to make of that which is accursed the Mystery of our Lord's Body Mr. Arnaud will without doubt reply that they dispute against the Latins and so by consequence this quasi ought to be taken in the sence of the Latins Now the Greeks know very well that the Latins do not receive the Bread of the Eucharist instead of the Body of Jesus Christ but as being really and in effect this Body it self I answer that Balsamon and Blastarius do not dispute in particular against the Latins whom they do not so much as mention in the Commentary they wrote on the Seventieth Canon of the Apostles but establish in general this Rule that we ought not to eat unleavened Bread in this Mystery So that this subterfuge will not serve Mr. Arnaud's turn for their quasi must be taken in the sence of the Greeks and not in the sence of the Latins But supposing there be still a great deal of ambiguity in this Term yet is it fully cleared by the expression of John Citrius in a passage cited by Allatius We offer say's he leaven'd Bread in the Sacrifice instead of Apud Allat lib 3 â—e perp Câ—ns cap 12. the Body of our Lord. And this is the meaning of this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Greeks as the Body that is to say instead of the Body IT is in the same sence that Germain the Patriarch of Constantinople say's That as often as we eat this Bread and drink of this Cup we confess the Death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ and that in this Belief we eat the Bread and drink of the Cup AS of the Flesh of the Son of God confessing his Death and Resurrection We find the same Particle used by Nicetas Choniatus Our Saviour say's he is AS it were eaten after his Resurrection ST Athanasius used this Particle AS a great while before him Our Saviour say's he after his Passion and Resurrection sent his Apostles to gather Athan. disp hab in Concil Nic. Vâ—l alius sub nomine Athanasâ— together the Nations having spread his Table which is the Holy Altar from which he gives the heavenly and incorruptible Bread to wit his Body and Wine that makes glad the heart of man 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 mingling AS it were his Blood in the Chalice These quasi's have such a bad rellish with them that Father Noüet alledging this passage of St. Athanasius has thought good to leave it out and 't is the same antipathy to quasi's that obliged the Translators of Mons to leave out one which they found on another Subject in the Text of St. Paul in his Third Chapter of the First Epistle to the Corinthians Verse 15. For whereas the Greek
the Greeks being brought into Italy when he was but ten years of age In effect what he say's concerning the Peoples prostrating themselves on the ground as soon as they hear the Priest say Sancta Sanctis is not true for the Liturgy denotes this Adoration of the People before the Sancta Sanctis at the same time as the Priest and Deacon adore immediately after this Prayer Look upon us O Lord Jesus Christ our God c. But granting it were so that the People prostrated themselves in the time the Sancta Sanctis was said it would not thence follow that their Adoration terminated it self in the Sacrament They would worship God as does the Deacon in the words I now mention'd O God be propitious c. Or our Saviour in Heaven as they do in the Prayer which I likewise now mention'd which precedes the Sancta Sanctis Look down O Lord our God from the Holy Place of thy Dwelling They prostrate themselves before the Images of the Saints before the Book of the Gospels before the Bread when as yet unconsecrated and yet no Body concludes hence they adore these things with an absolute Adoration Why then will Arcudius have them to adore the Eucharist with an Adoration terminating it self in it BUT if Arcudius's Testimony be of no validity in reference to this last Article wherefore must it be otherwise in respect of this other Article on which I ground my Conclusion I answer for two Reasons the one for that being interressed as he is against us it is not to be imagin'd he would speak any thing in our favour unless the thing were so well known and undeniably true that he could not disguise it or pass it over in silence and th' other because that in effect his Testimony in this respect agrees with the Liturgy of the Greeks which expresses no kind of Adoration directed to the Eucharist immediately after its Consecration And there being no mention likewise of any such thing afterwards to the end of the Office the Conclusion I draw hence is undeniable Had the Greeks the same Sentiments as the Latins and made profession of rendring the same Divine honours to the Substance of the Sacrament which are due only to the proper Person of the Son of God what time could they choose better for the acquitting themselves of this Duty than that in which he begins to be present on the Altar When a Prince comes into a place People are not wont to delay the shewing him the respect due to him every one stands immediately uncovered in his Presence and those Persons that did otherwise would be esteemed foolish and stupid What likelyhood is there then did the Greek Church believe that immediately after the Consecration the Bread becomes the very Substance of the Body of our Lord she would defer any longer to acknowledge it to be so by a Solemn Adoration Mr. Arnaud must not tell us that the Priest's mind is so taken up with the Idea of the Sacrifice that it is all this while fixed in Heaven These are Reasonings invented expresly to excuse a thing which cannot be alter'd but in truth it is so natural to Persons that believe Transubstantiation to shew immediately the Signs of Adoration to that Object they have before their eyes that notwithstanding all these fine Reasons those who compiled the Liturgy of the Greeks would never have been wanting in this particular had they believed the aforemention'd Doctrine So that this very consideration of the Greeks not having ordain'd any solemn kind of Reverence or Worship to the Sacrament after its Consecration is alone sufficient to make us conclude what we contend for MR. Arnaud who indeed has no reason to rest satisfi'd with his first Proofs has recourse to his Baron of Spartaris and Paysius Ligaridius that is to say to two false Greeks brought up in the Faith of the Roman Church and won to its interest as will appear hereafter I only wonder he is not asham'd to bring for witnesses such kind of People as these are AS to Oderborne the Lutheran who discoursing of the Russians tells us That the Priest leaving the Altar to shew the People the Eucharist the People kneel down and the Priest say's in the Moscovit ' s Language Loe here the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ whom the Jews put to death altho innocent it is easie to perceive he is deceived in taking for an Adoration of the Eucharist a Devotion which they practise before its Consecration when the Bread is carri'd from the Prothesis to the great Altar There can be rais'd no scruple concerning the truth of this seeing we have the Testimony of all Authors who by unanimous consent observe that this Ceremony is performed before the Consecration of the Symbols ALEXANDER Gagnin say's That one of them carries the Bread Moscovit descript cap. 2. which is prepared for the Sacrifice and another the Cup full of Wine that they issue out of the Sanctuary thro a little door with other Priests that carry the Images of St. Peter St. Nicholas and Michael the Archangel whilst in the mean time the â—â—ople express their Devotion by Acclamations and Acts of Worship that some of 'em cry out Lord have pity on us others knock their foreheads against the Ground and that others make often the Sign of the Cross and bow their heads in fine that they render to the Symbols which are carri'd about sundry marks of veneration and honour That having went round the Church they enter again thro the Gate which is in the middle of the Quire into the Sanctuary and there make the Sacrifice Sigismond Baron of Herberstain say's likewise Comment Vir Mosco That before they consecrate the Bread according to our manner they walk with it about the Church worship it and adore it with a certain form of words they utter ARCUDIUS who inveighs so earnestly against this Custom as an Idolatrous Arcud lib. 3. cap. 19. practice attributes it not only to the Greeks but likewise to the Russians and say's That they prostrate themselves and knock their heads against the Ground M. Habert Bishop of Vabres say's That in the Greek Churches Pontif. Eccl. Gr. obscrvat XI ad partein 7. litt the People make a low bow but in other Churches as in those at Russia they prostrate themselves on the ground after the same manner as if our Saviour's real Body passed along We have already observ'd that Sacranus and Scarga do expresly refer this Devotion to the Bread when as yet unconsecrated as well as others and moreover add that the Russians shew no reverence to the Sacrament after its Consecration And in effect we do not find they go twice round the Church whence it follows that Oderborne was mistaken and supposed this respect was given the Bread after its Consecration for there being but one turn made round the Church it cannot be denied but 't is done before the Consecration What
any Purgatory but Sigism Com. ver Moscov hold that every one after death goes to the place he deserves good People into a place of Serenity amongst Angels and the wicked into dismal and dark shades amongst terrible Devils where they expect the last Judgment that the Souls of the faithful know they are in God's favour by the nature of the place they are in and by the presence of Angels which accompany them and so the others on the contrary Goar testifies that Ligaridius a Greek Author of the Isle of Chios expounding Jacob. Goar in notis in offic Exeq. the meaning of those frequent Allelujas sung at the Funeral of the deceased say's They are sung as sign of joy that those who remain alive may rejoyce in that the defunct has happily left this miserable life and is now in possession of Everlasting Bliss IT appears then by this diversity that there is nothing so regulated on this Subject amongst the Greeks but that Cyrillus may assert the Doctrine contained in the Article before us without contradicting the general Belief of his Church Besides his Terms are not so strict but that they may be well accommodated with the Sentiment of those who affirm the Souls Enjoy not the Beatifical Vision or a perfect Felicity till the last Judgment and that hold there are three States of deceased Persons for he say's only That the Souls of the deceased are in bliss or misery and assoon as ever they leave their Bodies are either in Heaven or Hell which will bear this sence that Judgment is already passed upon them and that God has already shown them their condition which hinders not but it may be said that the damnation of the one is not yet perfect and the felicity of the others not yet compleated And this sence seems to be favoured by what Cyrillus adds immediately afterwards That every one is judged according to the condition he is in at the hour of death which seems to intimate that he would be understood to speak only of the Judgment and not of the full and perfect execution of this Judgment There are two things most certain in reference to the Greeks the one that they pray for the dead and th' other that they reject the Purgatory of the Romane Church Now Cyrillus touches not on the first of these and as to the second he agrees very well therein with his own People for he calls Purgatory an imagination not to be admitted So that Mr. Arnaud impertinently accuses him of contradicting the Greeks in the chief Articles of his Confession WE come now to Mr. Arnaud's third Objection which consists of two pretended condemnations of Cyrillus his Confession the one under Cyrillus of Berrhaea and th' other under Parthenius I have already discoursed of those two Pieces in my Answer to Father Nüet wherein I have shewn they are suspected to be fictious But if the Reader will not trouble himself with consulting what I have elsewhere written touching the matter he may here behold a Compendium of my Reasons I. ALTHO these Narratives have been often printed there has been no body yet that has taken upon 'em to own and warrant the Truth of them to the Publick There is one of them printed from a Manuscript sent from Rome and th' other from an Edition printed at Jasi in Moldavia published by a certain Monk named Arsenius It seems to me there ought to be greater assurance given than what we have already seeing it is not sufficient to authorize so important a matter as the Determinations of two late Councils the one in the year 1639. and th' other in 1642. II. THESE two Narratives contradict one another the first of them which is published under the name of Cyrillus of Berrhaea is subscribed by several of those whose hands are to the second and by the same Parthenius to whom this last is attributed and yet in the second there is no mention of the first The first expresly anathematizes Cyrillus and calls him an impious and wicked Person The second say's only There are certain Articles produced under the name of the Patriarch Cyrillus The first condemns with an Anathema these Articles The second say's It was proposed in the Synod whether they should be received and held for pious and orthodox Points or rejected as being contrary to the Doctrine of the Eastern Church which plainly shews that they that made the second knew nothing of the first and yet they are both found subscribed by the same Persons III. THERE is no likelihood that Metrophanus the Patriarch of Alexandria who is said to have been an Assessor at the first Synod under Cyrillus of Berrhaea nor that Parthenius who is said to have held the second would have so lightly and fraudulently condemned Cyrillus Lucaris seeing one of 'em had been the Chief Officer of his Chamber and th' other his Protector and intimate Friend IV. ARSENIUS the Monk from whom 't is said we have the pretended account of the Synod under Parthenius and who sent it from Constantinople to a nameless Friend at Venice having stuffed his Letter with Railings against Cyrillus and his Confession yet mentions not a word touching its first condemnation under Cyrillus of Berrhaea Which shews us that these are counterfeit Pieces composed at several times and by different Persons who not consulting one another nor furnished with sufficient Instructions have been guilty of several Contradictions I will now add to what has been already said some other Remarks which are no less considerable the first is that when Cyrillus his Confession of Faith appeared in our Western Parts the first Game that was played was to deny it and affirm 't was a feigned Story but when this Shift would no longer serve turn and that the thing was made evident then an account of these pretended Councils appeared which shows that they were substituted as a new remedy instead of the other which could be of no longer use Secondly what Parthenius is made to say That there have been some Articles produced under Cyrillus his name is as every man may discover the Style of the Western People and not that of Parthenius himself who could not speak after this manner nor his Synod neither because 't was notorious in Constantinople that this Confession was in effect Cyrillus his own seeing he offered it in a Council and openly justified it before the Ministers of the Grand Senior in the presence of several Ambassadors and because Parthenius and his Bishops in the preceding Synod had already considered it as unquestionably his Moreover what likelihood is there that Parthenius and his Council would thus grosly and slanderously imputed to Cyrillus a thing that was false as they do For Cyrillus having said in the first Article of his Confession That the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father by the Son which is an expression from which the Greeks never vary The first Article of the Censure bears That he asserted contrary to
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
no more mens Thoughts than those which were written concerning the Pagans or those the Fathers wrote on the Subject of Christian Religion IT seems these Gentlemen Consult only their own Interest When any Authors savour them they are worthy of publick Praise and when they do not they deserve to be Contemned and their Arguments become strong or weak good or bad accordingly as they are serviceable or otherwise It is certain if Mr. Arnaud's and my Proof be compared together in respect of Form they are equal for we suppose the same Principles and draw thence the same Consequences but if they be compared in respect of the matter the Advantage is wholly on my side for all the Circumstances strengthen my Argument whereas they weaken his The Pagans were Learned they had the Power in their Hands they needed not dissemble with the Christians They knew very well the Doctrines of Christianity The matter concerned the pulling down of their Altars and they were interessed to conserve their ancient Religion to decry these Novelties which had introduced themselves into the World There can be nothing said like this concerning the Greeks as will appear in the Sequel of this Chapter And yet my Argument is not Conclusive in the Author of the Perpetuity's Judgment and Mr. Arnaud's Argument if we believe himself is undeniably Evident that is to say these Gentlemen bestow on Arguments when they are pleased to make use of them the Title of good ones but when the same Arguments are urged against them then they become bad ones This partiality proceeds only from prejudice BUT in the second place without wandring from the Subject in Hand I can oppose against Mr. Arnaud's negative Proof several other Proofs of the like kind I have already made use of in the preceding Book which conclude with a thousand times more strength than his and consequently deserve to be preferred before them according to the Rules of right Reason The Greeks in explaining the Mystery of the Eucharist do assert neither the Existence of Accidents without a Subject nor the Concomitancy or Existence of the Body of Christ in the Eucharist after the manner of Spirits nor his Existence in several places They trouble not themselves with inquiring how our Bodies are nourished when they receive the Sacrament nor of what matter the Worms are formed which are bred in the Eucharist nor several other Questions In short they mention not a Word touching any of the natural Consequences of Transubstantiation which a man cannot but consider and which common Sence discovers without the help of any Philosophy as I already shewed in the tenth Chapter of the foregoing Book ALL that I now desire is that my negative Proofs be compared with that Proof Mr. Arnaud draws from the Greeks not making Transubstantiation a point of Controversy between them and the Latins The Greeks say's he have bin silent on the Transubstantiation of the Latins they neither opposed nor condemned it therefore they believed it as well as the Latins The Greeks say I have for Example bin silent on the Existence of the Accidents of Bread separated from their proper Substance they neither handled this Point nor so much as made mention of it therefore they do not believe it nor consequently Transubstantiation Mr. Arnaud must acknowledg that my Proof is far more conclusive than his for 't is a thousand times more natural for people that hold the Substance of Bread ceases and yet and tast behold all the Qualities and Properties thereof to consider how these things subsist or at least to speak in some sort of it than 't is natural to those that do not believe Transubstantiation to reproach them with it that do believe it If we weigh all Circumstances we shall find the Commerce the Greek Doctors have had either with their own people or with themselves in reflecting on what fell under their Sence has bin more particular and frequent than that which they have had with the Latins That which they saw and believed has bin more distinctly known to them than what the Latins taught or Gregory the VII or Innocent the III. determin'd in their Councils The Interest of quieting their own Consciences and satisfying their own Minds must needs be more prevalent with them than that of quarrelling with the Latins The occasions of satisfying themselves and instructing their people oftner presented themselves than those of condemning strangers with whom they dealt only by their Ambassadours and Interpreters The reasons of their Silence in respect of the Latins are easilyer found out than those which would oblige them to be silent in respect of themselves For what signifies the telling us the Glory of God and Respect to his Mysteries were the cause of their Silence touching the Existence of the Accidents without a Subject For this same Glory of God and respect to his Mysteries would engage them to declare the reasons of their Silence to the end they may be known to all the Faithful under their Charge and to exhort them to the same Silence Were I willing to enlarge my Book after Mr. Arnaud's Example who has hunted after little Stories whereby to bring over again a hundred times the same Argument I should tire my Readers Patience for I could argue touching all the Occasions the Greeks have had to see and administer the Eucharist to discourse and partake of it the Easters in which time the people do universally Communicate touching the Sick that desire it and received it the Books wherein they explain'd the Mystery of it and in general touching whatsoever may administer them an Occasion of considering the Accidents and I might as often draw this Conclusion that they do not believe Transubstantiation seeing they have said nothing concerning this pretended Miracle of the Existence of Accidents separated from their Subject 'T IS the same with the other Consequences of the substantial Conversion A Man needs only his Eye-sight to assure himself that if what we receive in the Eucharist be really and substantially the natural Body of Christ according to the Sence of the Latins it is not in the usual form of a humane Body whence there immediately arises this Consideration how it can be without this Form How it can be in a place after an unlocal manner neither palbable nor divisible thus more like a Spirit than a Body and yet without Motion Sense or Action and in this more like an inanimate Body than a Spirit A Man needs but little Sense to comprehend that if the Substance of Bread ceases there can be nothing found in the Eucharist to which may be attributed the effect of the Nourishment we receive thence Neither needs there much Study to find out that if the Substance of the natural Body of Christ be present in the Sacrament he is then in several places at the same time to wit in Heaven and on all the Altars whereon are celebrated this divine Mystery Yet do they make no mention of
avoid the Dangers that threaten us but on the contrary we shall be the better approved of by those that understand the nature of Affairs And again You must not affright the People by telling 'em we design to proceed any farther in this Reconciliation than we ought and as if we intended to change our ancient Customs and Ceremonies for those of the Latins and make the same Confession of Faith as they do Which Discourse does manifestly shew us three things First that there is a great deal of Difference between being silent in the Doctrine of the Latins not Disputing and Charging them with Error nay proceeding so far as a Union with them and the Imbracing of their Doctrines let Mr. Arnaud say what he pleases For Michael desires but the first of these and protests he intends not thereby to proceed to the other The second thing that appears from the Discourse of this Emperor is that the Principle on which I ground my Answer and by which I pretend to overthrow Mr. Arnaud's Argument is not a Proposition forged in my own Brain from the necessity of my Dispute but a Principle not only well known by the Greeks but approved and practised in an Occasion far more important than that now in question betwixt us For 't is far less important to lay aside one of the Doctrines of a Church and not Dispute on it than to be united with her and yet 't is certain the Greek Church consented to this Reunion in hope she should keep her Religion Intire and not receive any of the Doctrines of the Latins In fine I gather from Michael's Discourse and the Effect it had on the Minds of his Clergy that the only care the Greeks took was to keep their own Religion being willing to be silent and Imbrace the Union provided they were not forced to Imbrace the Religion of the Latins If it be replied that this was indeed the Disposition of Michael Paleologus but not that of his Church I answer that Michael engaged 'em to consent to the Reunion upon this Regard that each of the Churches should keep its own Opinions and not contend and charge one another with Error Now People are not wont to be prevailed on by Principles which they do not acknowledg to be good and therefore plausible Pretences and fair Colours are made use to win them Whence it follows that the Greeks were far from imagining 't was the same thing not to dispute against the Latins on an Article and to receive and own it with them Whence it likewise follows that if this Reason or Hope which Michael proposed to them was sufficient to make them do a thing in which they feared he would deceive them as indeed he did a matter which was contrary to their Duty and Conscience and against which they had moreover the greatest Aversion it might likewise be sufficient to withhold and hinder them from doing another thing to which they did not believe they were obliged and from which they might refrain without the least Violence to their Inclinations THIS Reflection will be strengthened by considering after what sort Veccus the Patriarch justified himself when he became a great stickler in the Union which he endeavoured to promote as much as in him lay I never Hottinger ex Allat in Orth. Grec Pag. 65. design'd say's he by any thing I either thought said or did to disparage any of the Ceremonies or Doctrines of the Greeks but only to establish the Peace of the Church If any Person in imbracing this Peace has despised our Rites and Ceremonies and preferred the Doctrines and Ceremonies of the Roman Church before them let him be excluded the Kingdom of Heaven and have his Portion with the Traytor Judas and his Companions who Cracified our Saviour We see here this Patriarch supposes a great deal of Difference between the not Condemning the Latins and letting them alone with their Doctrines Nay so far is he from granting Mr. Arnaud's Consequence that he makes this a Principle whereby to justify himself to the Greeks which is a Sign that this Proposition agreed with the Genius of that Nation For People are not wont to justify themselves by Maxims odious and publickly abhorred if Michael Paleologus Veccus or the Greeks in general have displeased Mr. Arnaud by this their Deportment they are excusable For in those Days the World was not acquainted with the Secrets of his Reasoning The Rules of his Logick were not then published They may henceforward become a Rule to Posterity but he must not expect they should be more priviledged than the Edicts of Princes which have no retroactive Virtue V. TO convince Mr. Arnaud that the Greeks are averse to Controversies I need only represent to him what Anthony Eparkus of Corcyra wrote to Philip Melancthon For having told him how careful the Turks are to establish their Religion every where and to extend the Limits of their Empire It Turco Grec 1 8. Pag. 545. would be very absur'd adds he for us to Dispute of sublime Matters in the Condition we are in It behoves us to watch and apply our selves diligently to the avoiding the Danger threatning us lest we lose our Possessions here on Earth whilst we idly and over curiously inquire into the things of Heaven 'T is certain the Greeks do not care to concern themselves overmuch about the things of the next Life Their Thoughts being wholly taken up with their worldly Interest this being the Key that opens and shuts their Mouths POSSEVIN the Jesuit distinguishes the Greeks into three Ranks the first of People who are very Ignorant The second of those that having some Biblioth selert de rat ag cum Grec lib. 5. cap. 24. Experience and beholding on one hand the Majesty of the Roman Church and on the other the Misery of the Greek one the Pomp of the Sacrament of the Latins and the Neglect wherewith the Greeks treat theirs conclude that the Roman Church is better beloved by God almighty than the Greek one The third is of those who having some knowledg of the World are yet transported by an habitual Hatred against the Latins altho their Bishops and most prudent Persons amongst them are of another Temper and not knowing for the most part what they say or would have they Compare the Greek and Roman Church together their Ceremonies with ours and prefer their Priests to our Latin Priests supposing them not so vicious as ours Yet they dare not affirm we are in an Error or that what we believe or practise touching the Sacrament is unwarrantable But they affirm as to themselves that they are in the right Way and do not doubt of Salvation in their own Religion Observe these two things first that the Greek Bishops and prudentest Persons in their Church are averse to Controversies And secondly that those that are not content themselves with maintaining their own Doctrines without condemning those of the Latins VI. BUT it will be
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
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
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
more impertinent than Anastasius his Argument if what Mr. Arnaud imputes to him be true He concludes that the Body of Christ was corruptible before his Resurrection that is to say whilst he was in the World because it is corruptible in the Eucharist Now to the end his State in the Eucharist may be of Consequence to that wherein he was before his Resurrection It follows that when he was in the World he was in it under the Sensible Accidents of Bread intirely such as he is in the Eucharist Which is to say that when he Talked Walked and Conversed he did all these things under the form of Bread For unless this be so there can be no Consequence drawn from one to the other Anastasius could not have denyed that the incorruptible Body of Christ could not take on it a corruptible Form seeing he knew that this Body is now incorruptible in Heaven and that yet according to the Hypothesis which Mr. Arnaud attributes to him it becomes every Day corruptible in the Eucharist which cannot be but by changing its Form It must needs be then that Anastasius supposed the Body of Christ was in the World in the same Form 't is now in the Sacrament for supposing it changes its Form I understand not the Conclusion The Heretick Gaynite might still alledg that as it does not follow this Body is corruptible in Heaven altho it be so in the Eucharist neither does it follow that it was corruptible during the time he was on Earth and that 't is the Form he takes upon him in the Sacrament that renders him corruptible And thus Anastasius his Argument concludes nothing unless we suppose Christ's Body had absolutely the same Form when he was conversant on Earth that it has now in the Sacrament Now this Supposition being the greatest Degree of Folly there being no Man of Sence that will own it we may easily then perceive what Judgment to make of Anastasius as Mr. Arnaud handles him BUT 't is certain by what I now said that Anastasius believed neither Transubstantiation nor the real Presence for had he believed it he would never have reasoned as he does nor supposed as he has done a Principle altogether inconsistent with the Romane Doctrine BUT what is then this Author's Sence I answer that when he say's the Eucharist is not common Bread such as is sold in the Market His meaning is manifest to wit that it is consecrated Bread when he adds That it is not a Figure as that of the He-goat which the Jews offered It is clear he does not absolutely reject the Figure but in the Sence of a legal Figure which represented Christ only obscurely and imperfectly whereas the Eucharist is a Mystery which clearly and perfectly represents the whole Oeconomy of Christ's Incarnation and Mr. Arnaud himself acknowledges That altho the Greeks deny the Eucharist to be the Figure of Christ's Body yet do they affirm it Ibid. p. 630. is a Representation of the Mysteries of his Life and that the same Authors which teach the one teach the other So that so far there is nothing in Anastasius's Discourse but what is easy When he adds That it is the real Body of Jesus Christ He means that it is the Mystery of his Natural Body which not only is so perfect a Representation of it that one may say it is the true Body and not a Figure but which even has received the supernatural Form thereof or if you will the Character of it which is its Virtue in the same Sence that we say of Wax which has received the Impression of the King's Seal that it is his real Seal If we find any roughness in this Expression we must remember Mr. Arnaud finds the same in the Sequel of his Discourse and that we have shewed that what he calls Roughness is meer Absurdity Whence it follows that it is more reasonable to suffer that which is only a bare Roughness and Offensiveness in the Terms and which moreover does well agree with Anastasius his Reasoning than that wherein common Sence is not to be found We must likewise remember the Exposition which the Greeks themselves do give to these kind of Expressions that the Eucharist is the true Body the Body it self the proper Body of Christ to wit inasmuch as it is an Augmentation thereof which makes not another Body but is the same as we have already shewed in the foregoing Book We must know in fine that the Eutychiens against whom Anastasius Disputes were wont to attribute to Christ in their Discourses when urged no other than a phantastical and imaginary Body and not a real humane Body which obliged Anastasius to say that the Eucharist is the real Body of Christ that is to say the Mystery not of a chimerical but real Body THIS being thus cleared up the Sence of Anastasius his Argument lyes open before us He means that seeing the Bread is a Mystery in which is expressed the whole Oeconomy of Christ's Incarnation being as it is corruptible it must necessarily be concluded that the Body of Christ was in like manner corruptible before his Resurrection because the Bread was the Mystery of the Body before its Resurrection and that the same Oeconomy which was observed touching the natural Body whil'st it was in the World is observed in the Bread Let but Anastasius his Discourse be compared with that of Zonaras which I related in the ninth Chapter of the foregoing Book and Damascen's in the short Homily which I likewise mentioned in the Chapter touching the Belief of the Greeks and with what I said in the eighth Chapter of this Book for the explaining Cabasilas his Sence and there will appear no difficulty in it AS to that other Passage of Anastasius which Mr. Arnaud proposed wherein this Author disputes against an Heretick called Timotheus who affirmed Ibid. p. 634. the Nature of Christ after the Incarnation to be the only Divinity We must make the same Judgment of it as the former For as to what he say's That the Divinity cannot be Detained Chewed Divided Changed Cut c. as is the Eucharist and that we must according to this Hereticks Doctrine deny the Eucharist to be in truth Christ's visible terrestial and created Body and Blood He means that the Accidents which happen to the Eucharist being in no wise agreeable to the Divinity of Christ who is not subject to Change and Alteration but only to his Body we must therefore say the Bread does not pass through the same Oeconomy under which our Saviour passed whence it follows that it could not be said as it is that the Bread was in truth the Body and Blood of Christ being said to be so only upon the account of the Unity and Identity of this Oeconomy Had he believed Transubstantiation how could he miss telling his Adversary 't is not to be imagined the Substance of Bread is really changed into the very Substance of the Divinity and
in your Mouth the Sacred Body of Jesus Christ our God I complained that this Worshiping it written in great Characters was an Addition to the Greek Text which only say's thus And bowing thrice the Knee Answer to the 2d Treat of the Perpetuit 2. part c. 8. and joyning your Hands you shall take c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Mr. Arnaud Justifies this Translation and first he say's That Mr. Claude may as well Reproach Bollandus and Peter Combefis who first Translated the Greek Words which signify no more litterally than bending the Knee by these Trinaque genuflexione adorans To whom Mr. Arnaud may likewise add Allatius his great Author for he also Translates Trinaque genuum flexione adorans But neither do Bollandus nor Combefis nor Allat in addendis ad lib. de Perpet cons Allatius excuse the Author of the Perpetuity He ought not to assert any thing in a matter of this Importance without a careful Examination of it for 't is not the Examples of others that will excuse such kind of Faults as these Moreover there is a considerable Difference between the Translation of Bollandus Combefis and Allatius and that of the Author of the Perpetuity They Translate Trinaque genuflexione adorans This adorans is an Addition to the Letter and an Explication of what may be pretended the genuflexion signifies but 't is not a spoyling of the Sence for 't is certain that in this Occasion the genuflexion is an Adoration Mr. Arnaud needed not Expatiate in long Discourses and Distinctions to prove it We grant it All that can be said in this Respect is that Bollandus Combefis and Allatius have rather performed the Office of Paraphrastists than that of Translators The Paraphrastists do not only Explain the Terms but the Matters Represented by them They inlarge upon Matters and when two Notions are joyned together by any Dependance they pass easily from one to the other this is allowable in them But Translators must be more exact they must faithfully render the Expressions as much as the Idiom of the Language they Translate in will permit them They ought especially to keep to the first Sence and Notion which the Letter gives them and never take the Liberty to pass over from one Sence to another or from one Idea to another whatsoever Coherence and Dependence there may seem to be betwixt them For this is not permitted them A Paraphrastist may for Instance very well say on our Saviour's Words to Judas Dost thou betray the Son of Man with a Kiss in doing him Homage and shewing him Respect and Friendship This does explain that which the Kiss given to our Saviour does naturally Signify and a Man passes thus from one Idea to another But should a Translator pretend to this Liberty it would be justly denyed him A Paraphrastist may make our Lord say I am the Spiritual and Mystical Light of the World inlightning others A Translator cannot for altho this be the true Sence of the Word Light yet 't is a second and explicatory Sence which is not exactly the first Notion which the Letter gives We must say the same that when Bollandus Combefis and Allatius have Translated Trinaque genuum flexione adorans They were Paraphrastists not Translators and kept not the Character they took upon them They cannot be excused by saying as Mr. Arnaud does that genuflexion in a Matter of Religion is an Act of Adoration For altho this be true this is not the first Idea which the Letter of the Greek Text gives 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if rightly rendred signifies no more than ter genu Flectens Adorans ought not to be added thereunto this is Expounding and not Translating this is passing from one Conception to another which is not a Translator's Business and so much the rather in that there was no Necessity to make this Addition the Latin very well bearing that we should say ter genu flectens It is to no purpose for Mr. Arnaud to say as he does that Combefis has done no more than the Evangelists did For as to St. Luke's saying That the leprous Person fell flat on his Face before our Saviour Christ And St. C. 9. p. 724. Mark That he kneeled down And St. Matthew That he worshiped him Mr. Arnaud here Imposes on us as he is wont St Mark and St. Matthew were not Translators of St. Luke The Evangelists are each of 'em Authors of their own Gospel and there is a great deal of Difference betwixt speaking as an Author and as a Translator Had the Translation of Mons rendred these Words of St. Luke kneeled down or worshiped him instead of falling on the Ground it might be justly blamed and that Man ill understands the Rules of Translation who allows in himself or others this Liberty SO far concerning Bollandus Combefis and Allatius But the Author of the Perpetuity did not think good to stop here Besides the Addition of an Expression which is not in the Greek Text he has proceeded to the altering the Sence in determining it For he Translates And WORSHIPING it in bending thrice the Knee and with folded Hands you shall receive into your Mouth the Sacred Body of Jesus Christ our God He has written this Word Worshiping in great Characters to shew that thereon depends the Decision of the Question as referring it self to the Body of Christ which we receive into our Mouths that is to say to the Sacrament it self Th 'others left it at the Readers Liberty to refer this Adoration to God or our Saviour in Heaven But the Author of the Perpetuity judged not this sufficient and therefore would have it only relate to the Eucharist Now this is an inexcusable Depravation For what Right has this Author to add an Expression and determine moreover the Sence of it by an Article which hinders us from understanding it any otherwise than he pleases Is it fairly done of a Translator who cites a Passage in a Dispute to deal thus It is apparent say's Mr. Arnaud that in this Passage these Genuflexions refer themselves to our Saviour P. 725. Christ Which I deny if by the Body of Christ he means the Sacrament provided Mr. Arnaud can say it is Apparent it is Clear or it is False the Matter is decided he has done enough But why is this apparent Is not there more likelyhood on the contrary that these three Genuflexions respect the three Persons of the Trinity to whom is sung the Trisagion This Answer is again say's he Ridiculous why Ridiculous Because say's he that singing of Psalms or of the Trisagion rehearsing the Creed and folding the Hands are several Parts of the whole Ceremony injoyned by the Bishop all of which respect the Blessed Sacrament and serve as a Preparation for its Reception and not to one another It is true they all respect the Celebration of the Sacramental Action and serve for a Preparation to the Communion but that they all refer
quod sicut bestiae in morte expirant sic moriuntur ita Homines sicut bestiae cum semel morte fuerunt nunquam resurgent ita nec homines The Opinions held only in one Armenia are likewise denoted exactly in these Words In majori Armenia In minori Armenia or Catholicon majoris Armeniae Catholicon minoris Armeniae The common Opinions are expressed in these Terms Armeni dicunt Armeni tenent And altho in the Article which respects the real Presence and Transubstantiation we find these words Et hoc specialiter aliqui magistri Armenorum dixerunt videlicet quod non erat ibi Corpus Christi verum Sanguis sed exemplar similitudo ejus yet is this same sentiment imputed generally to all the Armenians for the Article begins thus Item quod Armeni non dicunt quod post verba consecrationis Panis Vini sit facta Transubstantiatio Panis Vini in verum Corpus Christi Sanguinem And towards the end of the same Article there is Quod etiam Armeni illud quod ponitur in eorum Canone Missae per quem panis Benedictus efficitur verum Corpus Christi exponunt quia efficitur ibi vera similitudo exemplar Corporis Sanguinis Christi Unde Damascenus propter hoc reprehendens eos dixit quod ducenti tunc anni erant quod Armeni perdiderunt omnia Sacramenta c. It is then clear that this information attributes this Opinion not to some particular Persons but to the whole Body of the Armenians seeing that on one hand this Article bears the Character of Errors common to the Armenians and on the other there is applyed to 'em what Damascene say'd of 'um so long before that they had lost all the Sacraments Let Mr. Arnaud bestir himself as fiercely as he pleases he cannot hinder us from perceiving that if this Article related only to Particular Persons witnesses of the Fourteenth Century that depose what it contains would never have sought in the eight Century that is to say Six Hundred Years before the Authority of Damascen to confirm what they deposed and even to confirm it by a passage which respects the Church of the Armenians in general and which accuses it for having no true Sacrament MR. Arnaud observes afterwards that in this same Article there is accused another Armenian Doctor named Narces for saying when the Priest C. 9. P. 48. pronounces these Words Hoc est Corpus meum the Body of Jesus Christ is then in a state of Death and when he adds perquem the Body of Jesus Christ is then alive It is true says he the information adds that this Doctor do's not express whether he speaks of the true Body of Jesus Christ or of the Figure But the difference of these two states of Life and Death being to be found in a figure which does not change sufficiently shews that he spake of the true Body of Jesus Christ If these two states of Life and Death cannot be found in a figure much less in the true Body of Jesus Christ which is no more Subject to Death nor the Necessity of rising again Is Mr. Arnaud so greatly prejudic'd that he cannot perceive the sence of this Doctor is that the Eucharist is a mystery which expresses the whole oeconomy of Jesus Christ especially his Death and Resurrection according to the common Doctrine of the Greeks from which in this respect the Greeks do not vary IN the Seventyeth Error says he moreover the same Armenians are Ibid charged with believing that when any one receives the Eucharist the Body of Jesus Christ Descends into his Body and is converted therein as other aliments which is a contrary Heresie to that of Berengarius But as Berengarius would not have scrupled to call the Bread which is the Sacrament of the Body of Jesus Christ the Body of Jesus Christ so neither would he have scrupled to express himself in the same manner as this Article makes the Armenians do That the Body of Jesus Christ that is to say the Bread which is the figure of it Descends into our Bodies and is changed into our Bodies So that this contrariety which Mr. Arnaud imagins has no Ground But there is a real Opposition between this Discourse of the Armenians that the Body of Jesus Christ is Changed into our Bodies as other food and the Opinion of Transubstantiation for how can it be conceived that the proper substance of the Body of Jesus Christ which is in Heaven should be changed into our Bodies that an incorruptible substance should be digested and changed that a substance which exists after the manner of Spirits should nourish us and become food to us It appears then from this very thing that by the Body of Jesus Christ the Armenians mean only the Sacrament or Mystery of this Body which in respect of its substance is real Bread NEITHER is it to any purpose to Remark as Mr. Arnaud do's Ibid. that those to whom was attributed the believing the Eucharist to be only the figure of Christs Body were not wont to call the Eucharist the Body of Jesus Christ and yet commonly the Armenians do thus call it as appears by their Liturgies For 't is evident the sence of this Article is not that absolutely the Armenians rejected this expression seeing it immediately afterwards attributes it to them but that it was not usual amongst them especially since they saw the Latins abused it and therefore they chose rather to use those of Host Sacrifice and Communion IT is also to no purpose to say the Liturgy of the Armenians is contrary Ibid. to this Opinion seeing it contained the Bread is made the real Body of Jesus Christ for they expounded it in this sence that the Bread is made the true resemblance or the representation of the Body of Jesus Christ This explication says Mr. Arnaud is so absurd and ridiculous that it could not be very common it being impossible the generality should entertain it But does Mr. Arnaud believe that Transubstantiation being fully and truly explained as it is in it self and consequences and dependencies can be more easily entertain'd by a People than this sence which the Armenians give to the terms of their Liturgy AS to what he adds that it is say'd in the Seventyeth Article that Ibid. according to the Armenians the Eucharist do's not effect the remission of Sins nor confer Grace and that this is contrary to the Words of the Liturgy of the Armenians of Leopolis and a passage of the Catholick of Armenia in the conference of Theorien which say's they Sacrifice in the Church the son of God for the Salvation of the whole World All that Mr. Arnaud can conclude hence is That the Armenians residing in Armenia do not well agree in this point with those of Leopolis in Poland and that the Catholick which conferred with Theorien was of no great consideration amongst them but it cannot hence follow
that the things which these Articles contain are only the Opinions of some particular Persons BUT says moreover Mr. Arnaud the Armenians justified themselves Ibid. by acts decrees and formal declarations the King of Armenia caused a Religious named Daniel to draw up a Memorial in which he protested against these Errors and complains they were unjustly charged on his Nation The Patriarch and Bishops being assembled condemned them The Patriarch of the lesser Armenia declared to Clement the Sixth his faith touching the Eucharist in these terms That the Body of Jesus Christ born of the Virgin Dead on the Cross and which is now alive in Heaven after the Words of the Consecration of the Bread which are This is my Body is in the Sacrament of the Altar under the species and appearances of Bread THERE is a strange Illusion in all this Discourse 'T is true the King of Armenia who needed the Popes protection drew up this Memorial mentioned by Mr. Arnaud But seeing he had this Remark from Raynaldus he ought not to have suppressed what the same Raynaldus adds Caeterum non Raynald ubi supra falso subornata erant haec crimina in Armenos nec temerè credita à Benedicto fassosenim Clementi VI. Armeniae Regis Oratoresplures errores in Armenia pullulasse Clementem studia sua ut abolerentur applicuisse visurisumus Moreoverthe Armenians were not falsly accused of these crimes nor did Benedict believe them without sufficient grounds For the Ambassadors of the King of Armenia confessed to Clement the Sixth that several Errors had sprung up in Armenia and Clement used his utmost endeavours to crush them as we shall see by what follows This dis-acknowledgment then of the King and complaint which Daniel made concerning the imputation of Doctrines to the Armenians which they never own'd was only a Politick intrigue which yet does not hinder the information of Benedict from being true I do not doubt but the King in the extremity of his affairs threatned by the Saracens and having no hope but in the protection of the Latins assembled his Bishops that they might satisfie the Pope in what he desired and condemn the Errors contained in his Bull. But if Mr. Arnaud will conclude that then they had them not before Raynaldus will draw a contrary Consequence that then they had them For after having say'd as I now recited that these Errors were not falsly charged upon the Armenians he immediately adds as a reason which confirms his Proposition Quin etiam commoti pontificiis monitis Armeni praesules coacta solemni Synodo numeratos superiùs Errores Ecclesiastica execratione damnaverunt ac decreta insigni ad sedem Apostolicam legatione imperiis se pontificiis adhaesuros professi sunt But moreover the Armenians moved by the Popes remonstrances called a Synod wherein they Condemned with an Anathema the Errors contained in this information and sent Embassadours to the Pope to make profession of their Obedience to his Commands He proves that the Errors contained in the Popes information were really the Armenians because the Bishops met together to Condemn them What a great deal of difference there is between a Person that is prejudiced and one that is not Raynaldus is naturally no more favourable to us than Mr. Arnaud the one is a Priest of the Oratory and the other a Doctor of the Sorbonne yet they draw from the same matter of fact contrary Conclusions one hence shews the Armenians were innocent of the things they were accused and th' other from the same Principle proves they were Culpable And this because one has the dispute in his Eye and th' other not the one Reasons without passion and th' other is in a heat AS to what Mr. Arnaud say's touching the Patriarch of the lesser Armenia who so Authentickly declared his faith concerning the Eucharist to Pope Clement VI. I cannot but desire the Readers attention to this subject for here he will perceive one of Mr. Arnaud's notorious Sophisms It is to be observed then that after Benedict the XII had sent into Armenia the Catalogue of this Peoples Errors the affairs of the Armenians growing every day worse they resolved that they might render the Latins favourable to 'em to make in a Synod a pretended Decree wherein they feigned to renounce these Errors and abjure them which made Pope Clement VI. who was Benedict's Successor to send them Anthony Bishop of Gayette and John Arch-Bishop of Pisa in quality of Apostolical Legats to finish if Possible the Work of their reduction Raynaldus speaks of this act as of a Piece not by which they cleared themselves of a false accusation but whereby they renounced their Opinions Post habitam says he Synodum at que in ea repudiatos Errores And Clement speaks after Raynald ad ann 1346. Num. 67. 68. c. the same manner in the Letter he sent them Vestra Synodo prout per vos commode fieri potuit convocata Errores abjecistis et condemnastis praedictos sicut in libello quem nobis transmiststis continetur Observe these terms repudiatos Eerores Errores abjecistis for they expresly signifie a change of Opinion a renunciation of their former Errors and not a bare Condemnation of Errors for which they had been in reference to their Church in General impertinently accused as Mr. Arnaud would make us believe But the King of Armenia urged the Pope to assist him against the Soldan of Babylon who fell upon his Kingdom and the Pope pressed him on the other hand to assist his Legats in the extirpating of those Errors which were so rife in Armenia He wrote also to the Legats to inform him of their Success who gave him to understand they lost their Labour and that whatsoever declarations the Armenians had made they still persevered in their Opinions Which appears by a Letter of Clement to the Bishop of Nicosia ab eorum Erroribus say's he iidem Raynald ad ann 1310. Num. 37. Rex Catholicus et Populus minime resipuisse dicuntnr sicut per quasdam litter as missas Scripturam exhibitam nobisluculenter apparet They persevered therein they repented not of them say's the Pope and Mr. Arnaud would needs perswade us they were falsly accused THE Pope had charged his Legat with some opposite Articles to the Errors of the Armenians to make 'um receive them and that which respected the Eucharist contain'd these words That the same Numerical Body Raynaldus ad ann 1351. Num. 31 of Jesus Christ idem numero which was born of the Virgin and nayled to the Cross is contain'd in the Eucharist One of the Legats Anthony by name dyed in the way and John having performed his Voyage fail'd not to propose these Articles to the Catholick of Armenia Minor and his Bishops But the Catholick refused to approve them he absolutely rejected some of them and made captious and doubtful answers to others he never would admit of the Article touching the
Eucharist which contained That after Consecration it was the same Numerical Body of Jesus Christ which was born of a Virgin and suffered on the Cross He wrote a Letter in which of fifty three Articles which were offered him he rejected sixteen of them amongst which was that of the Eucharist and in the Answers he made to the Popes instructions he would never admit of Transubstantiation but barely says he believed and held that the Body of Jesus Christ born of the Virgin dead on the Cross and which is now alive in Heaven after the words of the Consecration of the Bread which are this is my Body is in the Sacrament of the Altar under the species and resemblance of Bread sub specie similitudine panis Now 't is on this whereon Mr. Arnaud grounds himself concealing all the rest of this History and producing only these last words and drawing from them his Conclusion after his usual Manner in these terms I see no Lib. 5 C. 9. pag. 488. reason to doubt of the faith of this Patriarch considering this his declaration that is to say it plainly appeared hence that he believed Transubstantiation and the Substantial presence of the Body of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist BUT Mr. Arnaud is too quick at drawing of Consequences For I. he ought not to have dissembled that in all this affair the question is not whether the Armenians held or did not hold the things contain'd in the information of Benedict but whether they sincerely renounced them and whether the act of their renunciation sent to the Pope was feigned or real II. He ought not to have dissembled likewise that the whole conduct of the Amenians was in this respect but a mere cheat invented only to remedy the disorders of their State and procure assistance from the Western Princes That the Pope laid hold on this Occasion to make them receive the Roman Religion and they on their side endeavoured to deceive the Pope and draw from him what they desired in eluding his pursuits Which is justified by the Letter sent by Clement himself to the Catholick of Armenia Moreover says he we have bin several times informed by divers Raynaldus ibid. Numb 17. Persons worthy of credit and even by Armenians that you and your Predecessors the Catholicks of Armenia and the Armenians under your jurisdiction do not in any manner observe what you promised us and our Predecessors the. Roman Prelates touching the Faith And that which is yet worse and more deplorable is that you have contemned and utterly rejected the wholesome Instructions of our Apostolical Legats sent you in regard to your Souls but have after a Damnable manner despised the Faith of the Roman Church out of which there is neither Grace nor Salvation The same thing appears by Clement's Letter to the King of Armenia in which having exhorted him earnestly to endeavour to make his Patriarch receive the Roman Doctrine sincerely and purely Raynald ibid. Numb 18. without duplicity of heart to the end his Clergy and People may be reunited to the Latin Church he adds that by this means the mouths of several Catholicks and Armenians too will be stopt who stick not to affirm That the Patriarch and other Armenians proceeded not in this affair with faithfulness and simplicity but with dissimulation and that which is yet worse and more deplorable they affirm the Armenians have turn'd into derision and contempt the saving Doctrine which the Legats of the Holy See have communicated to them III. HE ought not to have conceal'd that the Patriarch of Armenia who would save himself by ambiguous Answers rejected the Article of the Eucharist which contain'd that it was the same Numerical Body which Raynald ibid. Numb 15. was Born of the Virgin and crucified and that he neither would admit of the Article of Transubstantiation because both one and the other so manifestly contradicted his faith and left no room for his Equivocations In fine he ought not to have concluded so briskly as he has done from the terms of his Answer that after this declaration there could be no Reason to doubt whether this Patriarch had the same faith as the Church of Rome For notwithstanding this declaration Clement VI. still doubted of it as also the Cardinals Patriarchs Arch-Bishops Bishops and Doctors with whom the Pope consulted about it Observe here the Contents of Raynaldus ibid. Numb 2. Clement's Letter to this Catholick of Armenia We have kindly receiv'd your answers and those of the Church of Armenia minor reduced to certain heads and having deliberately considered them together with my Reverend Brethren the Cardinals of the Roman Church some Patriarchs Arch-Bishops Bishops and other Prelates we could not nor cannot now gather from these answers till such time as you give us a more clear Discovery what you and the Church of Armenia minor do truely and sincerely hold and believe He afterwards adds this obliged him to make interrogations on Each Article and desired plain and direct answers In effect he proposes 'em to him and coming to the Article of the Eucharist having set down the first answer of the Patriarch in the terms I already recited he adds upon this we demand ibid. Numcr 11. first of all whether you believe the Bread is Transubstantiated into the Body of Jesus Christ Then coming to speak of a certain Letter which the Patriarch wrote wherein he rejected sixteen Articles of the fifty three which were offered him and amongst the sixteen this Quod Corpus Christi post ibid. Num. 15. verba Consecrationis sit idem numero quod Corpus natum de virgine immolatum in cruce he says to him the terms of your Letter wherein you write that you have taken away sixteen Articles of the fifty three which were given you by our Arch-Bishop and Bishops are confused and obscure as also the particular answers you returned by Writing Therefore we desire to know of you plainly and truely whether you have rejected these sixteen Articles because you do not believe 'em to be true and sound or for what other reason you have retrenched them from the rest But Mr. Arnaud being better inform'd than this Pope with his Cardinals Prelates and Doctors and better instructed in the intentions of the Armenian Patriarch than all the People then in the World comes and confidently tells us that he sees no reason to doubt of the faith of this Patriarch and thinks Mr. Claude himself will acknowledge as much And suppressing all these matters of fact related by the very Historian he makes use of he proclaims his Victories and confidently affirms the Armenians have ever believed the real Presence and Transubstantiation BUT Raynaldus is of a contrary Opinion for having related the whole story of what passed between Clement the VI. and the Armenian Patriarch which was only the Sequel of Benedict's information he adds That we may thence plainly see into how many filthy Errors thy
Lasicius a Polander writing of the Armenians of Leopolis say's they believe the Bread and Wine retain their first Nature They deny say's he that in the Sacrament of the Eucharist Joann Lazicius de Rel. Armeni the Elements lose their Nature They administer the Sacrament with Wheaten Bread dipt in the Cup. They mingle no water with the Wine They shew a greater respect to the Sacrament than the Russians believing our Saviour Christ is therein such as he was Born of the Virgin and after the Incarnation there was such a Conjunction and affinity between the Divine and Humane Nature that they were not separated in the Sufferings of Jesus Christ nor ever can be They have this Opinion from St. Chrysostom that Jesus Christ suffers something more in the Eucharist than he suffered on the Cross because in the Eucharist he suffers the Sacramental fraction And when I demanded of them how this could be seeing the Nature of Bread and Wine remains without being changed after the Consecration they answered me This was effected by the Divine virtue to which we ought to give credit And these are Lasicius his words according to the Original but different from Mr. Arnaud's Version It now concerns us to inquire into the advantage or prejudice which hence accrue to the cause I defend for if on one hand I pretend to prove by what has bin abovesaid that the Armenians belive not Transubstantiation Mr. Arnaud undertakes to prove by it also that they believe the real Presence But as to my pretention I think 't is well grounded and beyond all Question seeing this Author say's expresly they deny the Elements lose their Nature HE has had his informations say's Mr. Arnaud only from some Ignorant Lib. 5. C. 4. p. 449. Persons in Leopolis If this be a sufficient ground for rejecting the Testimony of Lasicius in reference to Transubstantiation why do's Mr. Arnaud cite the same Testimony to shew the Armenians believe the real Presence Has this Author met with ignorant persons for the informing him in one Point and knowing ones for the other perhaps say's he he did not comprehend that by the word Nature they meant only the Mass of external Accidents But he ought to assert things more likely to be probable Where will Ibid. he find the Armenians ever took the term Nature for the Mass of external accidents seperate from their substance The existence of accidents without a subject is one of those Difficulties of which he himself tells us in another place the Greeks the Armenians and Copticks of our times make no mention Why then would he have 'em to use in a familiar Discourse the Lib. 10. C. 8. word Nature to signify a thing which is unknown to 'em or of which at least they make no mention Mr. Arnaud makes and marrs these Principles according as his occasions require Diruit aedificat mutat quadrata rotundis Which shews his Answers mere Evasions and in effect there 's no Body that reads these words of Lasicius but will immediately comprehend they mean the Armenians deny Transubstantiation Now this is precisely the Point in question between the Author of the Perpetuity and me Hitherto our Disputes has not concern'd the real Presence BUT seeing he is desirous to treat of it I must tell him there is a great deal of difference between his pretension and mine that mine is grounded on clear expressions which are not capable of any other sence whereas on the contrary his are established on obscure and Ambiguous Terms of which he has not comprehended the sence For these Persons say only That our Saviour Christ is in the Eucharist such as he was born of the Virgin Mary Now we have already seen that according to them Mary only brought forth the Divine Nature which had only a Body in appearance 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and not really Upon this Hypothesis their sence will be that the Divinity being every where it must of Consequence be in the Eucharist And with this agrees what they add that after the Incarnation there was such a conjunction and society between the Divine and Humane Natures that they were not seperate even in the Sufferings of Christ For by this Conjunction they understood not a Union which leaves the two Natures distinct for in so saying they would not contradict the Orthodox sence but they meant a Confusion of the Humane Nature with the Divine a swallowing up of this Humane Nature into the Abyss of the Divinity as we have already seen they commonly held So that all the real Presence which they Understand in the Sacrament is no other than the presence of the Divinity which is every where but more especially in the Eucharist 'T is very probable 't was under this Equivocation the Patriarch of Armenia Minor sheltred himself in the answer he made to the Articles of Pope Clement VI. which we have related in the preceeding Chapter The Body of Jesus Christ say's he Born of the Virgin dead on the Cross and which is now alive in Heaven is in the Sacrament of the Altar under the species and representation of Bread The Body Born of the Virgin and Dead on the Cross which was to say according to them the Divinity which in being Born of the Virgin had the appearance of a Body and Dyed in appearance on the Cross But when he was urged to acknowledge 't was the same Numerical Body he would not grant it because he believed the term Number reduc'd the Body of Christ into the same Rank with other Humane Bodies and consequently made it a real Body Mr. Arnaud will reply this is one of my Conjectures which has no surer foundation than his may be so 's But he has no other Grounds for his may be 's than his own Imagination whereas I lay my Conjectures on the very Hypothesis of the Armenians having first solidly shewn 'tis such as I describe it WE may add to the Testimony of Lasicius that of Breerewood in his Breerewood's Inquiries Ch. 24. Treatise of Religions For he say's expresly That the Armenians deny the true Body of Jesus Christ to be really in the Sacrament of the Eucharist under the species of Bread and Wine I confess indeed he grounds himself on the Authority of Guy Carmes but this shews he takes it for an unquestionable truth MR. Alexander Ross in his view of Religions likewise tells us that the Armenians do not hold the Body of Christ is really present under the form View of Religions Printed at Amsterdam Gallice 1666. of Bread and Wine MR. De Vicqfort a Gentleman whose name is almost known thro out all Europe for his skill in Languages and other exquisit qualifications has obliged the publick with a Translation into French of Herbert's Voyages in which are found these words The Armenians administer the Sacrament Herberts Voyages Lib. 2. q. 244 of our Lords Supper under the two Species of Bread and Wine and deny the
Great Cham of Tartar that after the Union there was only one Nature in Jesus Christ BROTHER Bieul of the Order of Preachers affirms the same in the Relation of his Travels The Jacobites say's he are Hereticks and Schismaticks They say there is in Christ but one Substance one Operation and one Will which is the Divine This is false and contrary to our Catholick Faith For in Christ with the Divinity is a true Substance Operation and Humane Will For the true Faith is that God was real God and real Man And a little further speaking of a Dispute which he had with them We shewed them say's he wherein they erred when they denyed our Saviour Christ to be real God and Man and yet would still retain and affirm that in Jesus Christ there was only one Substance one Operation one Nature and one Will which according to them is the Divine POPE John XXII writing to Raymund the Patriarch of Jerusalem Raynald ad ann 1â—26 num 28. complains to him of the Jacobites being tolerated in the Kingdom of Cyprus and grounds his complaint on that these Hereticks dared maintain against the truth of the Orthodox Faith that there was but one Nature in our Saviour Christ GUY Carmes expresly observes this amongst the rest of their Errors Guid. Car. sum de baeâ—â—s tit de Jacob. Barth a Salignaico itiner terrae Sanctae fol. 31. de Jacobitis Pratcol Elench haret Lib. 7. de Jacob. art 3. Joann Cotov Itiner Hieros Syriac Lib. 2. Cap. 6. that they affirm there is in Jesus Christ but one Nature no more than one Person and therefore they make the sign of the Cross only with one finger THE same may be seen in Barthol Salignac's Voyages into the Holy Land They hold say's he speaking of the Jacobites that there is but only one Nature in Jesus Christ which is the Divine THEY profess to believe but one Nature in Jesus Christ say's Prateolus THEY are corrupted by several Errors say's Cottovic and especially in reference to our Saviour Christ For they confound our Saviours Divine and Humane Nature and make thereof but one Will and one Operation They deny there was in Jesus Christ after the Union of the Word with the Flesh two Natures intire and perfect without confusion of Person Moreover they maintain that the Flesh which our Saviour Christ took was not of the same Nature as ours and that the Word was not changed into true Flesh but into I know not what kind of Phantastical and apparent Flesh and that he rather seemed to be a Man to be born and dye than really to do and be so Thus do they teach that all the Mysteries of our Salvation the Incarnation Passion Resurrection of our Saviour his Ascension into Heaven and his Second Coming are only things feigned and appearances and by this means make invalid all these Mysteries And to confirm their Heresy by an external Testimony Cottovic Ibid. Voyages and Observ of the Sicur de la Boulay le Goux 3. part ch 12. pag. 371 they make the sign of the Cross only with one finger thereby representing that there is but one Nature in Jesus Christ HE tells us the same thing of the Copticks They follow say's he the Heresy of Dioscorus and Eutiches which is common to them with the Jacobites THE Copticks are Schismatical Christians say's the Sieur Boulay le Goux and hold the same Errors as the Armenians Jacobites and Aethiopians following in every thing the Opinion of Dioscorus and Eutyches THE Copticks say's Mr. Thevenot are Christians but Jacobites Thevenot's Voyages part 2. Ch. 75. p. 501. that is to say followers of Eutyches and Dioscorus IT will be needless to produce any more Testimonies for the confirming a thing so well known that Mr. Arnaud cannot but acknowledge it neither need we say much concerning the Ethiopians who are in all particulars like to the Copticks and receive from them their Abuna that is to say their Patriarch as Mr. Arnaud acknowledges Yet will I here relate the Answers which an Abyssin Priest named Thecla Maria returned to the questions offered him at Rome by some Cardinals who Colloquy'd with him by order of Pope Sixtus V. in the year 1594. as we find them set down by Thomas a Jesu Being askt say's he how many natures Thomas à Jesu Lib. 7. p. 1. C. 13. wills and operations the Aethiopians held to be in our Lord Jesus Christ He answered that the Aethiopians professed to believe only one Nature in Jesus Christ after the Union one Will and one Operation yet without confusion and he added he knew well that the Aethiopians Copticks and other Eastern Christians that hold this Opinion deviated greatly from the truth Being askt whether the Aethiopians believe one Nature in Jesus Christ resulting from two He answered that the Aethiopians do not say so but profess to believe that there is only one Nature in our Saviour without mixture or confusion which they affirm to be the Divine Being moreover demanded whether the Aethiopians received the Decrees of the Council of Chalcedon He answered they condemned this Council because therein was confirmed the two Natures in Jesus Christ and that therein was Condemned Dioscorus the Patriarch of Alexandria The Relations of Ethiopia confirm the same thing IT now concerns us to know whether all these Nations to wit the Jacobits Copticks and Ethiopians can hold Transubstantiation that is to say the question is whether they be People indued with common sence For what can be more contradictory than to maintain on one hand that our Saviour Christ has no real Body that there is nothing in him but the Divine Nature that his whole converse in the World his Birth Death and Resurrection were only bare Appearances without any Reality And to believe on the other that the Substance of Bread is really changed into the proper Substance of his Body into the same Substance he took of the Virgin and which he retains still in Heaven Mr. Arnaud will tell us they hold Transubstantiation after their manner But let him shew us then what this manner is Will he have 'um believe the Substance of Bread is inwardly changed into the Substance of these Appearances with which they say the Divinity heretofore clothed it self Besides that it would be ridiculous to attribute a Substance to simple Appearances which are nothing and that according to them these appearances are no longer in being having ceased with the Oeconomy will not this be excellent sence to say that the Substance of Bread changes it self into the Appearances which do not appear for they will be concealed under the Vail of the Accidents of Bread that is to say they will be invisible Appearances lying hid under other Appearances WILL Mr. Arnaud say they hold the Transubstantiation of Bread into the Nature of the Divinity which is to say that the Substance of Bread becomes it self the Divine Essence But if it be true
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
spared him for your sakes altho he was his only Son and you neglect him altho he dies with hunger And in another place When we give Alms let us give it as to Hom. 89. in Matt. Jesus Christ himself for his Word is more sure than our sight When then you see a poor body remember what he has said that 't is HIMSELF whom you feed For altho that which appears be not Christ yet is it HE HIMSELF that receives and asks under this shape And moreover in another place Somebody perhaps will say to me bring me a Prophet and I will willingly entertain him promise me then this and I will bring you a Prophet what say I a Prophet I will bring you the Master HIMSELF Hom. in Eli. vid. Valerian Hom. 7. of the Prophets Jesus Christ our God our common Lord. Know says Valerian that he whom you see naked blind and crooked is Jesus Christ HIMSELF We have already likewise shewed that this expression is used by the Fathers in the subject of the Church We are not enjoyned says De Sacerd. l. 4. Chrysostom to distribute our Corn or Oats nor to take care of Sheep or Oxen or such like things but to take care of the Body IT SELF of Jesus Christ for the Church of Jesus Christ according to the words of S. Paul is the Body of Jesus Christ S. Austin speaks often to the same effect The Body IT Augustin in Ps 87. Serm. 49. De verb. Dom. SELF of Jesus Christ says he cries out in a Psalm They have assaulted me even from my youth And in another place Behold the charity of our Lord He is now in Heaven and yet is in labour here below when the Church is in affliction Jesus Christ is an hungred and a thirst he is naked a stranger sick a prisoner for he has said he suffers whatsoever his Body suffers and at the end of the world when he shall gather together his Body IT SELF at his right hand c. And again in another place You hold an eminent Serm. 53. De verb. Dom. rank in the Body IT SELF of Jesus Christ not by your Merits but by his Grace Jesus Christ HIMSELF says he in another place that is Sedul lib. 5. oper Pas 6. 13. to say his Body dispersed through the whole world preaches Christ They cease not says Sedulius to rend by their Schisms the Lord Jesus Christ HIMSELF Let us worship says Damascen the sign of the Cross for HE HIMSELF Damas l. 4. de fid Orthod c. 12. Alcuin lib. 2. in Joan. Ether Beat. lib. 1. is there where the sign is His Body IT SELF says Alcuinus in the midst of the afflictions of this world glories and says now my head is exalted above mine enemies The Son is man says Etherius and Beatus he is the Head of his Church which is joyned to this Head and so becomes whole Christ that is to say the Head and the Body one only person AS to the terms of proper and properly we shall find them likewise applied to several subjects wherein we cannot literally understand them Origen expounding those words of our Saviour concerning the Eucharist This is my Body Jesus Christ says he receiving always of his Father this Bread Orig. in Mat. hom 35. and breaking it gives it to his Disciples according to what every one of them is able to receive saying to 'um Take eat and when he fed them with this Bread he shewed that 't was his PROPER BODY SO Hesychius expounding these words of Moses If any one has vowed and consecrated to Hesych in Lev. lib. 7. God the Field of his possession it shall be valued according to the measure of the seed No body doubts says he but the Field is the holy Scripture Jesus Christ is PROPERLY the Vine of this Field and the Father is the Vine dresser Despise not the poor whom you behold on the ground says Greg. Nyss Or. 1. 〈…〉 r. am Gregory of Nysse as if they were vile and abject persons consider rather who they are to know their worth They are cloathed with the person of Jesus Christ For this gracious Lord hath given them his PROPER person Good people says S Austin are properly the Body of Jesus Christ We might produce Aug. con Faust lib. 13. cap. 16. a thousand such like instances for there 's nothing more common in the Fathers than the use of these expressions in passages wherein there is no literal sense THE term proper has several significations 'T is true that sometimes it is opposed against metaphorical or figurative an improper or abusive sense as when we say of an expression that it must be understood in a proper sense that is to say in a literal but it is opposed sometimes to that which is foreign to us which is not ours which belongs not to us as when we say every man takes care of his proper business proper house proper family proper person in opposition to the affairs house and family of others And then we scruple not to joyn this term to other metaphorical ones We say for example of a man that misuses his Children that he tears his own Clemens Alex. Strom. lib. 3. Greg. Nyss Orat. 2. in illud faciamus hominem c. Isidor Pelus Epist lib. 1. Epist 397. proper bowels of a Husband that hates his Wife that he hates his own proper flesh It is in this sense Clement Alexander said The Church was the proper Spouse of Jesus Christ And Gregory of Nysse That God formed our bodies with his proper hand And S. Isidor That the Law baptized with simple water but our Saviour Christ iniates or consecrates us by his proper Blood Sometimes this term is opposed to that of common as when we say to a man that 't is of him we properly speak that 't is properly to him to do such a thing or when we say that 't was properly in such a place or in such a time wherein such a thing hap'ned And then moreover we do not scruple to joyn this term to other figurative terms as when Origen said That God Origen Hom. 1. in Mat. Greg. Nyss hom 7. in Cant. the Father is called properly the fountain of life And Gregory of Nysse That those who at this day take upon 'um the office of Prophets in the body of the Church are properly called the eyes It is certain then Mr. Arnaud can conclude nothing from these expressions unless he shews that these two last significations cannot take place in the passages which he alledges and that we must unavoidably take them in the first sense that is to say for that which is literal and not figurative THE terms of true and truly are likewise often used in occasions wherein they cannot signifie either a literal verity or a reality of substance and Mr. Arnaud does himself acknowledg that we find in the Fathers That Jesus Ch. 5. p. 781.
far as the salutiferous waters There the Tyrant was drowned in the Sea here the Devil is suffocated in the water of Salvation THOSE that considered the effect of the consecration of the Bread which makes it to be really and not by a simple imagination the mystery of our Lord's Body might they not say that 't is truly the Body of Jesus Christ the Body of Jesus Christ in truth not to insinuate it to be so in proper substance but to signifie its being the mystical Body of Jesus Christ is not a thing which has no other foundation than our own imagination but that which is grounded on the things themselves either because our Saviour Christ has thus ordained it in instituting his Holy Sacrament in the Church or forasmuch as the Eternal Father has ratifi'd this Institution or that the Holy Spirit really descends on the Bread to consecrate it An adopted Son considering his adoption was real and not illusory or conceited may rightly say that he is truly the Son of such a one and in this sense every faithful person may say with assurance he is truly the Son of God 'T is in this same sense that S. Basil tells us That if our flesh be worthy of God it becomes Basil in Ps 14. Theophyl in Joan. 10. Cyril Hieroscal myst 3. Hierom in Epist ad Gal. c. 4. truly his Tabernacle And Theophylact That the Jews were truly blind in respect of the Soul And Cyril of Jerusalem That we have been truly anointed by the Holy Spirit and that Jesus Christ is truly the Primitiae and we the mass or lump And S. Hierom That we be all truly one Bread in Jesus Christ For they would say not that these titles of Tabernacle and Blind this Unction these Primitioe this Mass and this Bread ought to be understood in a literal sense but that their metaphorical signification was grounded on the things themselves and may be found entirely true THOSE in fine who consider the opinion of the Greeks that the Bread is made the Body of Jesus Christ by an union with the natural body and by way of growth and augmentation may not they likewise say that 't is truly this body and yet not establish 't is the same numerical substance which our Saviour has in Heaven but to signifie that this substance here and that there are not two different Bodies but one and the same Body as we have already more than once explained in the same sense as the augmentations which are made to a House or Ground become truly this House or this ground or the Kings Conquests added to his Kingdom become truly his Kingdom by virtue of their union ALL which clearly shews that Mr. Arnaud has much misreckoned himself when he believed there were but two occasions wherein men used these terms of true and truly the one when they affirm the figure of the Original as when we say that our Saviour Christ is the true Melchisedec the true Son the true Vine and the other when we would prevent any kind Ch. 5. p. 780. of doubt or contest as when we say of a suspicious piece of Gold that 't is true Gold or a Pope that has an Anti-Pope for his rival that he is the true Pope This enumeration is defective and the conclusion which he pretends to draw hence is void and refuted by what I now offer'd The Fathers might say that the Bread of the Eucharist is truly the Body of Jesus Christ without intending the prevention of any doubt BUT supposing they designed to prevent a doubt can there arise no other from the subject of the Eucharist but what relates to Transubstantiation or the substantial Presence May not a man doubt of the truth of the Body of Jesus Christ considered in it self and in reference to the Incarnation All those ancient Hereticks Marcionites Manichees have not only doubted of it but boldly affirmed that 't was only a Phantasm The Eutychiens have affirm'd and do still affirm that this Body was swallowed up in the abyss of the Divinity Cannot a man doubt of the truth of Jesus Christ his words The Jews and Pagans do not only doubt of them their impudence proceeds so far as to make a mock at 'um and how many impious and prophane wretches are there amongst such as profess Christianity that mock at 'um in their hearts Cannot a man doubt of the efficacy and spiritual virtue of this Bread We have already observed from Palladius that this was precisely the doubt that possessed the mind of a Religious And how many weak persons are there who seeing only Bread and Wine cannot imagine we ought to attribute to them so great an efficacy There is nothing says Tertullian that more perplexes mens minds Tertul. de Baptismo Ch. 5. p. 783. than to see the simplicity of the Divine operations when they are celebrated and to hear the magnificent effects issuing from them THIS doubt says Mr. Arnaud must have two qualities For first As this expression has been generally received by all people this must therefore be a general doubt and must naurally arise in the minds of all men Secondly As no body ever made use of this expression but only on the subject of the Eucharist this must be a particular doubt belonging to the Eucharist and which cannot be extended to all the other Sacraments How excellent is Mr. Arnaud at engrossing of objects He has gathered here and there from several Authors that lived in sundry Churches and at divers times some thirty passages taken in a counter sense that speak differently one in one manner others in another in different significations and this he makes to be the language P. 774. of all people In another place he assures us this is the language of all Nations and all Ages A man cannot say an expression has been generally received by all people and in all ages unless he has run over the Authors of all Ages and shew'd that this expression was received by the greatest part amongst 'um for which purpose thirty passages gathered at random are not sufficient Moreover the expression in question should appear in all the passages and not one in some of 'em and another in others Besides the expression must be used every where in the same sense But we find no such thing here We have only about some thirty passages in one of which there 's the term of same in another that of proper or properly in another that of true or truly and they are used in different senses too as will appear from the particular examination we shall make of them How can this then be called an expression generally received by all people the language of all Nations and that of all ages For my part I call it an illusion BUT supposing the expression of true or truly to have been generally received by all people as Mr. Arnaud supposes it was why must it needs proceed from a general doubt that
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
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
difficulties of this Mystery and therefore 't is no marvel that the Fathers never took notice of ' em Reflection WE have already refuted this opposition and it only remains that we observe here again Mr. Arnaud's illusion who to answer the proof drawn from the Consequences which he calls Philosophical ones such as are the existence of accidents without a subject the existence of a body in divers places at once the concomitance c. which were unknown to the ancient Church as well as to the Schismatical Churches supposes first that these Churches do firmly believe Transubstantiation and concludes afterwards that our proof musâ— needs be invalid seeing here are the Greeks Armenians and Copticks c. who make no mention of these difficulties So that by this means there are no Arguments which Mr. Arnaud cannot easily answer WE have likewise refuted particularly what he offers touching the adoration of the Eucharist in his 9th Chapter And as to what he alledges in the 10th touching the impossibility of the change which we maintain we will treat thereof in this following Book BOOK VI. Concerning the Change which has hapned in the Doctrin of the Latin Church in respect of the Eucharist That this Change was not impossible and that it has effectually hapned CHAP. I. The state of the Question touching the distinct knowledg of the Presence or Real Absence DESIGNING particularly to treat in this 6th and last Book of the Change which has hapned according to us in the Latin Church I could not better begin it than by the question Whether men ever had a distinct knowledg of the Presence or Real Absence This distinct knowledg being one of the principal means which the Author of the Perpetuity has made use of to shew that the change which we suppose is impossible it is necessary then to consider it first 'T is likewise for this reason that I reserved the discussion of Mr. Arnaud's 6th Book for this place for having treated of the Author of the Perpetuity's method I believed 't was necessary to discuss without interruption whatsoever concerned the Greeks and other Eastern Christians to examin at the same time the state of the Latins in the 7th and 8th Centuries and afterwards pass on to the Consequences which Mr. Arnaud draws from the pretended consent of all Churches in the Doctrines of Transubstantiation Which done due order requiring us to proceed to the question of the change which hapned in the 9th 10th and 11th Centuries and this other Question of the distinct knowledg which Mr. Arnaud handles in his 6th Book being a dependance of that of the change or to speak better a preamble to it I believed this was the most fitting place to examin it BUT before we enter into this matter it is necessary to state the question clearly and for this effect I shall propose some remarks which will plainly discover wherein consists the point of our difference First I grant Mr. Arnaud that the Author of the Perpetuity has not offer'd his Argument drawn from the distinct knowledg but only in respect of the Real Presence and not in reference to Transubstantiation But Mr. Arnaud likewise must grant that this proof does not fully answer the design which the Author of the Perpetuity proposed to himself at the entrance of his Treatise To make Perp. Faith pag. 14. us confess from the evidence of truth it self that the Belief of the Roman Church touching the Mystery of the Eucharist is the same with that of all antiquity For the Roman Church does not simply stop at the Real Presence she believes likewise Transubstantiation Now in this respect that Author's proof concludes nothing Yet seeing he himself has restrained his Argument only to the Real Presence it will not be just to give it a greater extent in this respect IN the second place it must be granted that the question here concerns nor persons that have no knowledg of Christianity and consequently perhaps never heard of the Eucharist nor Body of Jesus Christ The point in hand concerns persons that made open profession to be Christians who Communicated and knew that our Saviour Christ is in Heaven so that they had some kind of notion as well of the Eucharist as of the Body of Jesus Christ So far Mr. Arnaud and I agree well enough BUT our difference begins from the complaint I make against the Author of the Perpetuity in that he would establish the state of this question in an illusory manner It concerns us says he to know whether the faithful Refutation Part. 2. Ch. 2. could remain for the space of a thousand years in the Church without forming a distinct and determinate notion whether what they saw was or was not the true Body of Jesus Christ Mr. Arnaud maintains this state of the question Lib. 6. cap. 3. and I affirm 't is wholly captious and that the question does not at all concern this matter Which we shall illustrate by a third remark I say then the question is properly to know whether during a thousand years the people that were in the Church ever formed a distinct and determinate notion whether what they saw was or was not the Body of Jesus Christ in proper substance without ever ceasing during all this time to have this same notion thus distinct and determinate The Author of the Perpetuity and Mr. Arnaud are obliged to prove the affirmative because in their respect 't is a necessary proposition which they offer in form of a Principle wirhout which their Argument touching the impossibility of the change concludes nothing I must defend the negative but this negative consists not in affirming that during a thousand years the faithful could remain without forming this distinct and determinate notion here in question it consists in affirming only that during a certain time comprehended within the extent of these thousand years the people have not formed this distinct notion These Gentlemens affirmation must be general for the thousand years and if there be wanting but one or less than one Age their supposition will be ineffectual seeing 't is only by this they can prove that the change we dispute about was impossible during these thousand years But as to my own part 't is sufficient I affirm their supposition to be false during a certain time wherein the change will be made It will do these Gentlemen no harm perhaps who scoff at that Philosophy which they call School-boys Exercise to consult it sometimes for it will teach them to distinguish between a contrary opposition and a contradictory one Two contrary propositions may be both of 'em false and are never very proper to form a just state of a question between rational persons who dispute to find a Verity and not to discover two falsities For example these two propositions Men are lyars Men are always lyars are opposite by an opposition called contrary They are both false and cannot form a just question To form
condition he can understand no other than that and 't is it which he rejects because 't is on it whereon falls the first conception of his mind This will yet farther appear if we consider that the eyes of a Communicant will determin his thoughts to the corporeal Presence when of it self it were not therein determined for 't is not possible for a man who never heard of the spiritual and invisible Presence to raise in his mind at the same moment wherein he communicates this question Is the Body of Jesus Christ substantially present in this Eucharist which I receive but that he must at the same time use his eye-sight to inform himself This inclination is so natural that if he does not follow it it must necessarily be said that he has in his mind the idea of an invisible Presence of which his eyes cannot be witnesses and that 't is this idea which diverts him from having recourse to his sight and if he does follow it his eyes which tell him that it is not therein derermin his thoughts to the idea of the corporeal Presence to make him reject it BUT is it impossible that a man in conceiving the idea of the corporeal Presence and in rejecting it should conceive at the same time that there may be invented other manners of a substantial Presence but must reject them all be they what they will without specifying or considering them I answer that in this case he will conceive these other manners of presence in opposition to the corporeal and visible one and consequently will specifie them at least as incorporeals and invisibles and conceive them under this quality In a word when nature offers us but the idea of one single species there arises not up immediately a general consideration in our minds our fancy leads us to that particular species and if afterwards we conceive any other 't is always in opposition to that which nature it self offers to our knowledg Whence it follows that this first manner of believing the Real Absence by a general rejection of every kind of presence yet without specifying so much as any one in particular neither visible nor invisible is a mere chimera which resides only in Mr. Arnaud's brain AS to the third it is moreover invalid and illusory seeing it answers not the design of the Author of the Perpetuity For as we have already said he is obliged to shew that if people had not believed the Real invisible Presence they would have had in their minds dispositions and prejudices which would have made them respect it not barely as a Doctrin that appears contrary to natural reason this is not sufficient to produce actually an entire rejection and opposition when the matter concerns a point of Faith but as an innovation in the Churches Belief Now this third manner of believing the Real Absence without any reflection by a bare view of the nature of things in the same manner as we know Paris is not Rome nor France Holland that the Sun is not the Moon nor an House an Elephant thar the Kings Picture is not the King himself to use Mr. Arnaud's examples without having made this express and formal reflection this manner I say may make men capable of knowing that the Real Presence is contrary to the order of nature that it agrees not with common sense but not make 'em discern whether it be a mystery of the Churches Faith as 't is said to be or whether 't is a new humane invention This simple view of the nature of things which consists in knowing that the Eucharist is Bread that the Eucharist is an image of the Body of Jesus Christ that this Body is a humane Body and that 't is in Heaven does not hinder a man from being surprized with the matter of novelty by being persuaded that 't is the true Doctrin of the Church as 't is assured to be and on this persuasion Reason must yield to Faith 'T is in vain Mr. Arnaud tells us that supposing the Faithful had no other Lib. 6. cap. 2. pag 564 565. than these simple notions that the Sacrament of the Eucharist is Bread and Wine which represent to us the Body of Jesus Christ supposing they conceiv'd the Body of Jesus Christ to be in no wise therein that they imagin'd this Body to be only present in Heaven and that all the usual expressions form'd only in their minds the idea of a figurative Presence they would immediately have judg'd that the belief of the Real Presence was false and impertinent as we would immediately judg that man who would persuade us that Paris is Rome or that the Popes Picture is the Pope himself or that the seven stalks of Corn which Pharaoh dreamed of were really seven years or the Paschal Lamb a real passage and Sacrifices for Sins real Sins to be mad and sensless When a man judges of these things he simply judges of them according to the light of nature and 't is certain the light of nature will render that man impertinent who shall say what Mr. Arnaud makes him say It would be the same concerning the real invisible Presence should a man judg of it on this ground But those that offer it in any age oppose against the light of Nature the splendid name of the Churches Faith They endeavour to insinuate it under the pretence of its being a mystery of the Christian Religion which has been always believed and for this purpose they spare no colours By which means they stop the course of nature and hinder men from judging according to its Principles reducing the question to know whether it be true that this be the Faith and perpetual sense of the Church by which means 't is no hard matter t' impose on the ignorant 'T IS moreover in vain that Mr. Arnaud brings in the Statute of Henry IV. for an instance which all the Parisians know to be only Brass and that his body is only at S. Dennis He says perhaps they never thought of formally rejecting the opinion that this Statue is really the Body of Henry IV. and yet be ready to oppose this opinion should any extravagant person offer to make them believe it But howsoever the Parisians stand affected towards the Statue of Henry IV. there 's a great deal of difference between this example and that of the Eucharist here in question The Statue of Henry IV. is a work of humane institution wherein men suppose there 's nothing supernatural whereas the Eucharist is a Divine mystery in which there has been always believed to be something above nature The Statue of Henry IV. is a thing absolutely popular concerning which every man believes he has liberty of judging according to the principles of Sense and Reason The Eucharist is a mystery which has been endeavour'd to be made long since in some manner inaccessible to mens curiosity by concealing it under a cloud of Ceremonies Henry the Fourth was indeed a
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
to say really which is not true and on the other it hinders us from perceiving that the ignorant taking the naturally of S. Hilary according to the letter would have had the idea of a corporal and natural Presence and not that of a spiritual and invisible Presence These are a kind of faults for which people are not wont to be over-sorry when they happen for they have a desir'd effect for some time and when they chance to be discover'd may be laid on the Printer But howsoever 't is certain that all the impression which this passage of S. Hilary could make on the mind of an ignorant person was only to put him upon conceiving a corporal Presence which he might easily reject by the testimony of his proper senses But to speak the truth there 's little reason to suppose the Books of S. Hilary De Trinitate came to the knowledg of such ignorant and simple people as we speak of THE passage of Gregory of Nysse gives naturally the idea of a change of Bread into the Body of Jesus Christ by the union of the Bread into the Word and by way of augmentation of the natural Body of Jesus Christ as appears from the example which he brings of the Bread which Jesus Christ ate which became the Body of the Word which is far remote from the Transubstantiation of the Church of Rome who will have the substance on the Altar to be the same in number as that which our Saviour Christ assum'd from the Virgin and which is now in Heaven There 's little likelihood that simple and ignorant people understood what Gregory meant even supposing they were acquainted with his Catechism which is not very likely But supposing they knew it all by heart and comprehended the sense of it they could thence only conceive this change by union to the word and augmentation of the Body of Jesus Christ which Damascen has since explained more clearly And this is what Gregory supposes also not as the true Faith of the Church but only as a probable opinion according as he formally explains himself Perhaps says he we are in the right AND this is what we had to say concerning Mr. Arnaud's sixth Book Whatsoever success this Dispute might have had he could not thence promise himself any advantage because as we have already observ'd more than once the eight first Centuries being out of the time wherein we suppose the change was wrought when he shall have proved the Real Presence or Real Absence was distinctly held therein he will be still told the question concerns not those Ages but the following But 't is not the same with me who draw thence several advantages For first neither Mr. Arnaud nor the Author of the Perpetuity can henceforward prevail by the equivocation of the term of Real Absence which may be taken either for the rejection of the visible or corporeal Presence or for the rejection of th' invisible Presence seeing we have shew'd 'em that in this debate the question concerns not the Real Absence in the first sense but the Real Absence in the second Secondly They can no longer confound these two things as if they were but one to wit to be in a condition to acknowledg that the Real Presence does not agree with the lights of nature and to be in a condition to acknowledg 't is a novely which was never held in the Church seeing we have shew'd 'em there 's a great deal of difference between these two dispositions and that it does not follow hence that those who are in the first are also in the second which is precisely that which is here in question Thirdly Neither will they I think any more confound two sorts of very different doubts the one of incredulity which deny the thing it self and the others of simple ignorance which consist only in not knowing the manner yet without denying the thing seeing they have been shew'd clearly enough the difference of 'em and that they ought not to refer to one of these doubts what belongs to the other Fourthly They can no longer blind the world by this vain distinction of three ways of rejecting the Real Presence or by a general rejection without denoting any one kind of 'em or by a formal rejection of all the kinds or by a bare view of the nature of things seeing we have shew'd 'em that the first is impossible that the third brings no advantage to 'em and that there 's only the second which they can reasonably stick to and which yet they renounce because they find it unjustifiable Fifthly 'T is likely they will no longer obstinately maintain that a known inconsistency that is to say a pure impossibility and respected as such is a sense after th' illustrations given on this subject Sixthly They can no longer say that the ancient formulary of the Communion Corpus Christi must necessarily direct the minds of the Faithful to conceive the Body of Jesus Christ present in the Eucharist which they receiv'd seeing it had another use which was to raise 'em up to meditate on the Death and Resurrection of their Saviour this other use being sufficient to employ many of their minds Seventhly They will henceforward in vain pretend that the terms which the Father 's used in their ordinary instructions brought naturally the idea of the Real Presence into their Auditors minds seeing we have shew'd that the natural sense of their Propositions did not depend on the natural signification of each term but on the matter in hand which determin'd them to a figurative sense Eighthly They have had no reason to pretend that all the Faithful have always had a distinct belief either of the Presence or Real Absence in the sense wherein the Roman Church understands these terms seeing we have shew'd them five ranks of persons in the Church of the first eight Centuries who had no formal knowledg of either the one nor th' other Ninthly It being thus in reference to the first eight Centuries it hence follows 't was the same by greater reason in the following which were far darker Tenthly And that which is most important is that one may already know by this that the change which occasions our principal question has been not only possible but easie For there being only two things which can hinder it the one the distinct belief of the Real Absence that is to say the formal and positive belief that the Body is not in the Eucharist by its proper substance neither visible nor invisible and th' other the knowledg diligence and fidelity of the Pastors watching over their Flocks ready to acknowledg and repel the new errors and make them known to their people 'T is already apparent that the first of these things is an unjustifiable supposition and contrary to all probability And as to the other 't is certain it calls in question the credit of all Historians and the judgment of all learned men who agree in this that
find therein the consolation of our Souls this without doubt is popular It is popular to hearken to the testimony of sense which tells us that 't is Bread and yet to hear that 't is the Body of Christ the Sacrament of the Body of Christ its pledg its memorial It is popular to know that Jesus Christ is in Heaven and that from thence he shall come to judg both the quick and dead Whence he concludes with Authority that the distinct knowledg which I give to the first Ages and the confused one which I attribute to the 10th are but one and the same thing IT must be allowed that never any consequence was more violently drawn than that of Mr. Arnaud's First It is not true that the Articles which I give of the distinct knowledg are the same with those of the popular knowledg Among the first is found That the Bread and Wine lose not their natural substance That they are called the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ because they are the Sacraments of 'em which is not found in the Articles of the popular knowledg How will he have this to be then one and the same thing There is a great deal of difference between harkning to the testimony of ones proper senses which shew the Eucharist to be Bread and Wine and learning from the instructions of Pastors that the Eucharist is Bread and Wine The first induces a man to believe that to judg of it by sense 't is real Bread and Wine but the second goes farther for it shews this very thing which the senses depose to be the true belief of the Church Now these two things are wholly different as any man may see The first does not dispose men to reject Transubstantiation as a novelty contrary to the Faith of the Church for it remains still to know whether the Faith of the Church be not contrary to the testimony of sense The second does dispose 'em to it for it shews that the Doctrin of the Church is according to the deposition of the senses Now the first is according to my rule belonging to the popular knowledg and the second belongs to the distinct knowledg What reason is there then in having these two knowledges to be the same Thirdly Mr. Arnaud has not observed that when I spake of the distinct knowledg of the eight first Centuries I did not pretend exactly to denote all the Articles of it this was not my business in that place But only t' observe some of the principal ones which were sufficient to make known the sense of these Propositions The Bread is the Body of Jesus Christ it is changed into the Body of Jesus Christ But it does not hence follow but that there were therein some others very considerable ones which may be gathered from the passages of the Fathers which I produc'd in my first part as that the change which happens in the Eucharist is not a change of Nature but an addition of Grace to Nature that Jesus Christ as to his human Body or human Nature is so in Heaven that he is no more on Earth that the manducation of the Body of Jesus Christ is spiritual and mystical that we must not understand it literally it being a figurative expression that the Sacrament and the verity represented by the Sacrament are two distinct things and several others which are not necessary to be related Supposing it were true that the Articles of the popular knowledg were the same with those I mark'd of the distinct knowledg which is evidently false yet would it not follow that these two knowledges according to my sense would be the same thing seeing I never pretended to make an exact enumeration of all the points of the distinct knowledg nor exclude them which I now denoted which are no wise popular In fine Mr. Arnaud has not considered that of the same Articles whether popular or not popular a man may have a distinct knowledg and a confused one according as he makes a greater or lesser reflection on them according as they are respected with more or less application according as each of those that has the knowledg of 'em has more or less understanding natural or acquired so that supposing we attributed to the distinct knowledg of the eight first Centuries only the Articles which I specifi'd supposing these Articles were the same as those I attribute to the popular knowledg which is not true supposing again there were no difference in 'em as there is in respect of some of these Articles between the knowing of 'em popularly that is to say either by the help of the Senses or by the natural motion of the Conscience and to know them by the instruction of the Pastors as a thing which the Church believes and from which a man must not vary it would in no wise thence follow that the confused knowledg were according to what I laid down the same thing the object of these two knowledges would be the same but the knowledges would be distinct And thus have we shewed Mr. Arnaud's subtilties CHAP. VI. Mr. Arnaud's Objections against what he calls the Machins of Mollification and the Machins of Execution Examin'd The state of the Twelfth Century MR. ARNAVD will not suffer me to say in my Answer to the Answer to the second Treatise Part 2. chap. 7. Author of the Perpetuity That Error does not insinuate it self by way of opposition or a formal contradiction of the truth but by way of addition explication and confirmation and that it endeavours to ally it self with the ancient Faith to prevent its immediate opposition And this is what he calls my Machins of Mollification which he pretends to overthrow in his fifth Chapter The inventions says he of Mr. Claude are Book 9. ch 5. page 899. usually attended with very considerable defects To which I have no more to say but this that the pretensions of Mr. Arnaud are commonly very high but generally very ill grounded well offer'd but ill defended 'T IS false says he that Paschasus did not teach his Doctrin by expresly condemning those that were of a contrary Opinion Mr. Arnaud hides himself under a thin vail pretending not to understand what he does very well We do not say that Paschasus did not propose his Doctrin by condemning those of a contrary Opinion This is not the point in question The question is Whether he did not propose his Doctrin as the Doctrin of the Church which was not sufficiently understood and which he therefore more clearly explain'd Now Paschasus himself decides this difference as I have shewed in my Answer to the Perpetuity For speaking in the beginning of his Book touching his design he says That all the Faithful ought to understand the Lib. De Corpore Sang. Dom. cap. 2. Sacrament of our Lords Body and Blood which is every day celebrated in the Church and what they ought to believe and know of it That we must seek the
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 I said in some places of my answer That the expressions of the Fathers were not of themselves capable to give rise to this opinion and therefore the idea of it must come from elsewhere That supposing these expressions and a thousand such like were every day uttered by the Fathers they could never form in the peoples minds the idea of a Transubstantiation or a Real Presence such as the Roman Church teaches unless they were propossessed with it by some other means That there 's no likelihood that before Paschasus made this first explication men abandoned their senses and reason to conceive the Real Presence and that certainly no place but the solitary and idle Convent of Corbie could bring forth such an extravagant fancy Let a man upon this judg says Mr. Arnaud what kind of blade this Book 8. ch 8. p. 839. Paschasus must be according to Mr. Claude seeing that on one hand he was able to invent an opinion which could never come into any bodies head but his own and further had the power and good luck to persuade the whole world into the belief of it with circumstances which are yet more admirable Certainly this is beyond the reach of man I ANSWER that Mr. Arnaud draws his consequences always ill We said that the people who usually follow the lights of nature and common sense and whose meditations are not strong enough of ' emselves to invent this pretended manner of making the Body of Jesus Christ to exist in Heaven and on Earth both at a time could not raise the idea of this from the expressions of the Fathers and Mr. Arnaud hence concludes 't is impossible that Paschasus has invented this opinion or been able to persuade others to embrace it This consequence is absurd for we have examples of such kind of persons as Paschasus who have wandred from the true lights of nature and faln into remote imaginations which no body ever had before 'em and which the people were certainly never capable of I confess that in some respect one may marvel at these figuaries of human invention because they are irregularities it being likewise astonishing to see men capable of so many disorders but it must not be hence concluded that these disorders are more than human or that 't is impossible for a people who did did not invent an opinion themselves to follow it when 't is well contrived and coloured We see this happens every day and Mr. Arnaud should propose something more solid THE true way to know whether Paschasus was an Innovator or not is to enquire whether those that went before him taught the same Doctrin for if they did we are to blame in charging him with an innovation but if on the contrary we find their Doctrin different from his we cannot doubt but he innovated And this is the course Mr. Aubertin has taken for he offers not the history of the change of which he makes Paschasus the first Author till he shew'd by an exact discussion of each particular Century that till Paschasus his time no body ever spake like him whence it follows of necessity that he was an Innovator It belong'd therefore to Mr. Arnaud and the Author of the Perpetuity had they design'd to deal sincerely to take this course and shew that Paschasus said nothing but what others said before him This would have been an easie and direct method supposing Paschasus had not been an Innovator but Mr. Arnaud does not like the engaging in these kind of discussions HE thought it more for his purpose to fall upon a fruitless criticism by which he pretends to conclude That no body publickly declared himself Book 8. ch 8. p. 841. against Paschasus his Book all the time he lived That no body wrote against him That no Bishop no Abbot of his Order reproached him with it That there were only some persons who shew'd in secret they were frighted at these truths and said not in writing but in particular discourses that he had gone too far and yet this was not till three years after he had publish'd his Book SUPPOSING this remark to be as certain as Mr. Arnaud has made it what advantage will he pretend hence Will Paschasus be ever the less an Innovator for his not finding any thing publish'd against him during his life All that can be concluded hence is that his Book was but little known at first and afterwards but of small esteem with great men and that if they believed themselves oblig'd at length to write against his Doctrin 't was only because they saw several follow'd it whom 't was necessary to undeceive For to imagin that John Scot Bertram and Raban shunn'd the opposing him during his life that they might not bring upon 'em so terrible an Adversary must proceed from th' ignorance of what these three great men were who had another kind of esteem amongst the learned than Paschasus 'T is also a ridiculous conjecture to imagin they lay quiet during his life because his Doctrin was then the common Doctrin of the Church which they dared not oppose For if this reason hindred 'em from writing against Paschasus during his life why did it not do the same after his death seeing the common Doctrin of the Church was still the same and Paschasus carried it not away with him into his Grave BUT at bottom there 's nothing more uncertain than this remark of Mr. Arnaud For as to John Scot there 's not the least reason to guess he wrote since Paschasus his death We know he wrote of the Eucharist by the command of Charles the Bald and consequently whilst he was in France whether this was before or after the year 852 't will be in my opinion hard to determin As to Raban we cannot be certain whether this Egilon to whom he wrote his Letter against Paschasus was either Egilon Abbot of Fuldad who died in the year 822 or another Egilon Abbot of Prom who succeeded Marquard in the year 853. For as to what is said by the anonimous Treatise which Father Celot publish'd which is that Raban was Archbishop of Mayence when he wrote this Letter is very weak It 's true it terms him Raban of Mayence but upon another occasion to wit when the Author accuses him to have taught that the mystery of the Body and Blood of our Lord is exposed to the common condition of aliments whereas when he mentions the Letter which he wrote against Paschasus he calls him only Raban and hence can be nothing certain gather'd As to Bertram Mr. Arnaud alledges no other reason but this That there 's little Book 8. ch 8. p. 842. likelihood he would write against his Abbot whilst he was under his Jurisdictiction and that Paschasus who believed his Doctrin could not be attack'd without a crime must have complain'd of this attempt But is Mr. Arnaud ignorant of what the President Maugin has written touching Bertram that he was not only a very
to his great common place of moral impossibilities and supposing that according to us none of the Clergy or Laity imagin'd that Jesus Christ was really present in the Eucharist that they all took the Eucharist for Bread and Wine in substance that they knew the Bread and Wine were signs and Sacraments of the Body of Jesus Christ by which we obtain his Graces and that we must meditate on the Passion of Jesus Christ in receiving them that Paschasus very well knew that his opinion was opposite to that of the Church and that he remain'd in her external Communion only out of a carnal motive lest he should find himself too weak if he departed out of it supposing I say this he thus reasons Let us imagin a Religious under a Regular Discipline and him so young that he calls himself a Child and who thinks he has discovered this marvellous secret that Jesus Christ is really present on Earth in infinite places that all Christians receive him really every time they partake of the Eucharist but that by a deplorable blindness they are ignorant of this happiness do not know the Saviour whom they have often in their hands and which they receive into their mouths and take his real Body for an image and simple figure that he is the only man that knows the truth of this Mystery and is destin'd to declare it to the world This conceit is already very strange and contrary to the idea which a man necessarily forms on Paschasus from his Writings there being nothing more remote from the humility and simplicity appearing in 'em than this prodigious insolency with which Mr. Claude charges him so that we may truly say he could not worse represent the character of his mind He afterwards says that this enterprise of Paschasus of instructing all people in this new opinion was the greatest enterprize that ever any man undertook far greater than that of the Apostles when they determin'd to Preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ throughout all the world For in fine they were twelve they wrought Miracles had other proofs than words they made Disciples and establish'd them Doctors of the truth which they preach'd Paschasus had nothing of all this He triumphantly fills five great pages with this discourse TO answer this with somewhat less heat we 'l reply that these arguings would have been perhaps of some use had Mr. Arnaud liv'd in Paschasus his time and was oblig'd to make an Oration before him in genere deliberativo to dissuade him from making his Book publick But who told him at present that Paschasus must necessarily have all these things in his mind and studied 'em neither more nor less than Mr. Arnaud has done in his Closet Who told him that all those who teach novelties think throly on what they do When Arius a simple Priest of Alexandria troubled the Church by teaching this dreadful novelty that the Son of God was but a Creature there 's no great likelihood he proposed to himself at first the changing of the Faith of the whole world for instructing the people and every where overthrowing what the Apostles had establish'd or compared his design with that of the Apostles and examin'd what there was more or less in it 'T is the same in reference to Eutychius and other teachers of new Doctrins their first thoughts were presently to set forth what they imagin'd most consonant to truth leaving the success to time and mannaging themselves afterwards as occasion required The greatest affairs do usually begin after this manner men enter upon 'em without much reflection and afterwards drive 'em on thro all that happens unforeseen 2. TO discover the vanity of Mr. Arnaud's arguings we need only apply them to John Scot or Bertram Suppose we then as he would have us that in their time the whole world believed firmly and universally the Real Presence and Transubstantiation and all the Faithful had a distinct knowledg of it knew all of 'em that the substance of Bread and Wine no longer subsists after their Consecration that what we receive in the Communion is the proper substance of the Body of Jesus Christ the same numerical substance which was born of the Virgin dead and risen and is now sate at the right hand of God that the same Body is in Heaven and on Earth at the same time John Scot a simple Religious undertakes to disabuse all the people to persuade them that what they had hitherto taken for the proper substance of the Son of God was a substance of Bread that thro a deplorable error they had hitherto worship'd an object which deserv'd not this adoration and that henceforth by his Ministry and at his word all the Earth should change its Faith and Worship Does this design appear less strange to Mr. Arnaud than that he imputes to Paschasus upon our supposition All the difference I find is that Scot's enterprize would be greater and harder than that of Paschasus for 't is difficulter to root ancient and perpetual Opinions out of mens minds than to inspire them with new ones to make 'em lay aside their Rites Altars th' object of their supreme Adoration and Piety than to make 'em receive new Services in reference to a subject for which they have already a great respect Howsoever 't is certain that John Scot wrote a Book against the Real Presence and according to Mr Arnaud's Hypothesis this Book was an innovation contrary to the common Faith of his Age. A thousand Arguments will never hinder but that according to him this is true Why then will he have it to be impossible for Paschasus who wrote a Book touching the Real Presence to advance any novelty with which the Church before that time was unacquainted Why must there be in Hypothesis's which are alike facilities on the one side and impossibilities on the other Paschasus and John Scot wrote one for the Real Presence and the other against it This is a fact which is uncontroulable One of 'em must necessarily have offered a new Doctrine contrary to the general belief and consequently one of 'em must be an Innovator If it be possible that 't was John Scot it is yet more probable 't was Paschasus if it be impossible that 't was Paschasus it is yet more impossible to be John Scot. Mr. Arnaud then need not so warm himself in his consequences seeing 't is his interest as well as ours to acknowledg the nullity of 'em and we may truly affirm without doing him wrong that never man spent his pains to less purpose than he has done in this occasion 3. ALL that can be reasonably said of Paschasus is that being yet young and imagining the substances of Bread and Wine did not subsist in the Eucharist but were chang'd into the substance of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ he thought this marvail was not enough known and that 't was necessary to explain it And therefore he undertakes to instruct his
all the Faithful universally believed and held distinctly according to Mr. Arnaud As all Christians believe the mysteries said he three pages before so they likewise all believ'd the Eucharist in Paschasus his time in the same manner as we believe it They all then believ'd that 't is the same substance of the Body of Jesus Christ which he assum'd of the Virgin and which is now in Heaven and that the substance of the Bread is converted into it yet without any change either in the tast or colour of the Bread What has Paschasus done to make 'em more mind it Those mens minds adds Mr. Arnaud which are not sufficiently humble are apt to startle and endeavour by their reason to find out ways whereby to shun the difficulties which they cannot bear Whence should this startling come supposing they believed of the Eucharist what is commonly believed at this day of it in the Church of Rome Did they never hear say before that they received in the Communion the proper substance of the Flesh of Jesus Christ born of the Virgin dead and buried nor that the substance of Bread is converted into this substance If 't were a novelty as to them they did not then believe Transubstantiation nor the Real Presence for 't is precisely in these ideas wherein these Doctrins do consist and if it be this particular manner of proposing the mystery which affrights them it must be necessarily acknowledg'd either that they were strangers to these ideas before or that they had been till that time very stupid and drowsie seeing they felt not the least trouble about it altho they had 'em always before their eyes whereas now a simple proposal of the same things without any objection without exaggeration affrights and constrains them to find out by their reason ways whereby t' avoid the difficulties which they cannot bear And then they commonly set upon him who proposed it to 'em endeavouring to distinguish him from the rest of the faithful Which is to say that they then lose their senses For 't is mere madness to set particularly upon Paschasus who only proposed to 'em in a manner the most simple imaginable if we will believe Mr. Arnaud without either Preface says he artificial method or disguise what the whole Church believ'd and what they believe themselves Even sometimes these ill opinions are already formed Here Mr. Arnaud acknowledges one part of the truth For the truth is that these people here mention'd never heard of the novelties of Paschasus They knew only that the Eucharist was the Body of Jesus Christ in Figure in Sacrament and in Virtue as they themselves explain'd their sense about it and this was the true cause of their astonishment and the only reason for which they accus'd Paschasus of Enthusiasms and Visions But let Mr. Arnaud explain if he pleases in what manner according to him these persons lived in the Communion of the Church They turn'd to their own sense says he most of the common expressions How happens it Mr. Arnaud who but the last moment could not suffer me to say Paschasus abused an expression of the Church and turn'd it to another sense now comprehended well enough that this whole Party turn'd to their sense most of the common expressions He that told us that Paschasus would be a mad man should he make use of this expression had he known the Church understood it in another sense will grant at present that these persons accommodated the greatest part of the Churches expressions to their sense without troubling ' emselves with the sense wherein the Church understood them Mr. Arnaud's Argument is like Aristotle's prima materia capable of any form at divers times Does his interest require the Churches expressions to be abused This may be done there are reasons for it Does the same interest require that it be a sensless thing to abuse 'em This cannot be and the reasons on the contrary are not wanting For in fine either these people were ignorant of the true sense in which the Church understood these expressions or they were not If they were ignorant of it Paschasus might be as well ignorant of it as they If they were not ignorant of it and yet abused it Paschasus might as well do the same contrary to his own knowledg They turn'd to their sense most of the usual expressions It seems that Mr. Arnaud by this supposes there were some of these expressions which might be turn'd by them Yet he adds And hence it happens that if any other person in following the ordinary notions makes use of any terms which they cannot in the same manner reduce to their particular sense they charge this person with rashness This discourse thus couch'd has no coherence for if amongst the ordinary expressions there remain'd still some of 'em which they could not reduce to their sense why must they set upon Paschasus in particular who not only follow'd the sense of the Church but also her expressions to wit those which were too plain and full to be perverted Why must he then be accused of rashness 'T is evident Mr. Arnaud stood upon Thorns when he wrote this Answer A reason must be given why these persons before us reprehended Paschasus in particular and accused him of being a rash person Now there cannot be naturally any other but this That Paschasus had proposed a new Doctrin in the Church which was never before heard of having asserted the Eucharist to be the same Flesh of Jesus Christ born of the Virgin dead and risen again Mr. Arnaud to avoid the making of this Confession supposes there were a party in the Church that did not believe the Real Presence he will have these persons turn to their sense the common expressions but not being able to do the same with that of Paschasus this was the reason why they set upon him in particular and accused him of rashness To make this answer pass currant it must be necessarily supposed that the expressions of Paschasus were peculiarly of this nature that they could not be turn'd to the sense of these people and that this was their particular character which distinguish'd them from all the common expressions for a reason must be found why they set particularly upon Paschasus as a rash person and this reason must be something that was singular in Paschasus But to acknowledg this frankly and clearly Mr. Arnaud must engage himself in terrible ill conveniencies for this would be an acknowledging there was not any thing in the common expressions of the Church at that time which was expresly for the Real Presence and which might not be turn'd to another sense which is to say that all the common expressions were general equivocal and ambiguous By this means he would have exposed himself to abundance of questions as amongst others to these Whence Paschasus could know the Church believ'd the Real Presence seeing all her expressions were capable of another sense Whence he
is one it be also joyn'd to the Body of Christ and that it be but one only Body in truth WE find this same opinion in another Book of Divine Offices which Rupert lib. 2. de Divin Off. cap. 2. some attribute to Rupert and others to Walramus This Body which is taken from the Altar and that which is taken from the Virgin are not said to be nor indeed are two Bodies because one and the same Word is on high in the Flesh and here below in the Bread IT is likewise very likely that in the 11th Century during the greatest heats of the Dispute of Lanfranc against Berenger there were several adversaries of Berenger who followed this Opinion Which may be manifestly collected from an argument which Lanfranc attributes to the Berengarians in these terms If the Bread be changed into the true Flesh of Jesus Christ Lanfran de Corp. Sang. Dom. either the Bread must be carried to Heaven to be changed there into the Flesh of Christ or the Flesh of Jesus Christ must descend on the Earth to the end that the Bread may be changed into it Now neither of these is done This Argument necessarily supposes that the Berengarians did set themselves against persons who thought the Bread was changed into the Body of Jesus Christ by way of union and conjunction or as speaks Damascen by way of addition as the food is changed into our body On this Hypothesis they had some reason to say that either the Body which is above must come down here below or that the Bread which is here below must be carried above for it does not seem immediately that the conjunction can be well made otherwise But they could not have the least reason or likelihood of reason to form this objection against the Doctrin of Transubstantiation in the manner wherein the Church of Rome understands it For if the substance of Bread be converted into the same numerical substance of the Body of Jesus Christ which is in Heaven the distance or proximity of this Bread and of this Body make not this conversion either more easie or more difficult Tho the Bread here below be carried up into Heaven tho the Body of Jesus Christ which is above in Heaven descends here below on Earth this contributes nothing to the making of the one to be converted into the other For the conversion of one substance into another speaks quite another thing than a kind of local motion as is that of ascending or descending It is then evident that the opinion which the Berengarians opposed was that the Bread is made the Body of Jesus Christ by way of union WE may moreover justifie the same thing by a passage of Ascelinus one of Berenger's adversaries for observe here in what manner he explains his sentiment in his Letter to Berenger himself Neque vero mirari vel diffidere In notis d' Acheri in vitam Lanfr debemus Deum facere posse ut hoc quod in Altari consecratur virtute Spiritus Sancti ministerio Sacerdotis uniatur corpori illi quod ex Maria Virgine redemptor noster assumpsit quippe utrumque substantia corporea utrumque visibile si reminiscimur nos ipsos ex corporea incorporea ex mortali immortali substantia esse compactos si denique firmiter credimus divinam humanamque naturam convenisse personam 'T is neither a matter of admiration nor of doubt for God to make that which is consecrated on the Altar by virtue of the Holy Spirit and ministry of the Priest to be VNITED TO THIS BODY which our Redeemer took of the Virgin Both one and the other being a corporeal substance both one and the other visible if we consider that we our selves are composed of a corporeal substance and of another that is incorporeal of a mortal substance and of another that is incorporeal of a mortal substance and of another that is incorporeal and if in fine we firmly believe that the two natures the Divine and Humane are joyn'd together in unity of person IT is necessary to relate these passages to shew the Readers how greatly Mr. Arnaud deceives them when he would persuade 'em that this opinion of the conjunction of the Bread with the Body of Jesus Christ by means of the same Divinity which fills them is a chimera of the Ministers invention It appears on the contrary that 't is a sentiment which has been in effect held by divers Authors in the Latin Church not to mention here that 't is the Doctrin of Damascen and the Greeks which have followed him And this is the first conclusion which can be drawn hence but from hence also follow several other most important matters For first by this we see that the sentiment of Paschasus was not that of the Church of his time as some would persuade us seeing those very Authors which Mr. Arnaud alledges in his favour and who seem to come the nearest to Paschasus his expressions are at bottom and in effect infinitely distant from his Doctrin Secondly Hence it appears there was nothing regular in the Latin Church touching Transubstantiation neither in the 11th nor 12th Century seeing considerable Authors then publickly explain'd their belief concerning the Eucharist in a manner which suffers the Bread and Wine to subsist in their first substance In the third place from hence is apparent how little certainty and confidence a rational man can put in the principle of the Author of the Perpetuity and Mr. Arnaud who suppose it as a thing certain that in the time when Berenger was first condemned that is to say in the year 1053. the whole Latin Church was united in the Faith of the Real Presence and Transubstantiation seeing the contrary may be justifi'd as well by the argument which Lanfranc relates of the Berengarians as by the passage of Ascelinus In fine it may be seen here how frivolous and vain Mr. Arnaud's negative arguments be who would prove that the Greeks believ'd in the 11th Century Transubstantiation because they did not take Berengarius his part nor disputed on this Article against the Latins For if Transubstantiation was not then determin'd in the Latin Church if one might therein make a free profession to believe the union of the Bread with the Body of Jesus Christ by means of the Divinity as appears from the example of Ascelinus Berenger's great Adversary what reason could the Greeks have to dispute and make oppositions IT signifies nothing for Mr. Arnaud to raise objections against the sentiments of these Authors whom I last mention'd and to say that if the habitation Book 8. ch 7. p. 828. of the Divinity in the Body of Jesus Christ remaining in Heaven and in the Bread remaining on Earth and conserving its nature and the application of this Bread to serve for an instrument to communicate the graces merited by the Body of Jesus Christ rendred the Bread the Body of Jesus Christ the
his Disciples Here then adds he we have people who said in the time of Charles the Bald and who must say according to their Principles That the Body of Jesus Christ has all the external accidents which appear to our senses and that there was no difference between the Body of Jesus Christ born of the Virgin and the Sacrament So that here are persons against whom may be maintain'd in an Orthodox sense that the Sacrament of the Eucharist is not the Body of Jesus Christ born of the Virgin He afterwards endeavours to shew that Bertram's Book directly attacks only these persons TO solve this difficulty it must first be supposed as a thing already proved that those who have been since called by way of reproach Stercoranists cannot be those of whom Mr. Arnaud here speaks who according to him believing the Real Presence yet affirm'd that the Body of Jesus Christ had all the sensible accidents which appear in the Eucharist and that Mr. Arnaud could say nothing less to the purpose than what he has offered That this opinion was a necessary consequence of that of Amalarius that 't is from thence he concluded the Body of Jesus Christ issued out thro the pores applying to it these words Omne quod in os intrat in ventrem vadit insecessum emittitur We have already seen from the testimony of Tho. Waldensis that these Stercoranists were Panites which is to say that they conserved the substance of Bread in the Sacrament and said all of 'em that the Sacrament was natural Bread We have already seen that in effect the belief of the Real Presence is absolutely inconsistent with this opinion that the Sacrament passes into our nourishment that it is digested that one part of it is changed into our flesh and another part into Excrements SECONDLY we must observe that supposing 't were true the Stercoranists believ'd as Mr. Arnaud would have it that the sensible accidents really affect the Body of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist there could be nothing more absurd than to imagin they were those whom Raban and Bertram opposed For as to Raban it appears as well from the testimony of the anonymous Author as by that of Waldensis that he was himself a Stercoranist The same thing appears from the proper passages of Raban which I have already related Whereunto I shall add another taken out of his Penitential Touching what you have demanded of me whether the Eucharist Cap. 33. when it has been consum'd and pass'd into Excrements like other meats returns again to its first nature which it had before 't was Consecrated on the Altar This opinion is contrary to that of Pope Clement This Period which I have included in this Parenthesis has no coherence with the discourse of Raban and my conjecture is that it is a remark which some body put in the Margin and which has been afterwards forced out of the Margin into the Text. and several other Holy Fathers who say that the Body of our Lord does not go into the draught with other meats Such a question is superfluous seeing our Saviour says himself in the Gospel Whatsoever enters into the mouth descends into the stomach and is cast into the draught The Sacrament of the Body and Blood is made of visible and corporeal things but operates invisibly our sanctification and salvation of both Body and Soul What reason is there to say that what is digested in the stomach and passes into Excrements returns again to its first state seeing no body ever maintain'd that this happens I think we have clearly here the opinion of Raban on this subject and that now it cannot be any longer question'd whether he was a Stercoranist As to Bertram the passages which I related out of his Book do clearly shew that he was of the same sentiment What can be more unreasonable and worse contriv'd than this thought of Mr. Arnaud that Raban and Bertram have combated the opinion of the Stercoranists which is to say that they have fought against themselves and wrote Books against persons without knowing they were themselves of their party Mr. Arnaud could not say any thing more unlikely and therefore we see that great Wits who believe ' emselves able to overthrow every thing do oft-times overthrow themselves and fall into labyrinths whence they cannot get out IN the third place how little soever we consider this opinion mention'd by Mr. Arnaud and the manner in which he conceives it we shall find 't is impossible it should ever come into any bodies mind unless he were excessively extravagant Not to mention how difficult it is to state how the natural accidents of Bread do unloose themselves from their proper and natural substance to fasten on that of the Body of Jesus Christ nor how the same numerical substance can be above in Heaven indued with its own proper accidents and here below indued really with the accidents of Bread and Wine I shall only say that unless a man doats extremely he cannot imagin that the same numerical Body which is above exists on Earth in a corporeal and material manner as a subject ought to exist that has accidents really inherent and yet is there in the natural manner of a real substance of Bread For every substance that receives and really sustains the accidents of Bread must receive and sustain them in the manner of a true substance of Bread to accommodate it self to the nature of these accidents A substance which receives really the accidents of Bread must have all its parts in ordine ad se as the Schools speak made as the parts of real Bread to the end there may be some proportion between them and the accidents which it receives And is it not an extravagancy to say that the parts of the human body of Jesus Christ to wit his head his arms and other members do exist inwardly in ordine ad se in the manner of the parts of Bread as little crums Who ever saw any thing more hollow than this Philosophy a human Body really divisible really palpable really sensible of a divisibility a palpability and a sensibility which is proper to it and yet is not natural to it but borrowed of another subject This divisibility and this palpability of the Bread which reside really in the same substance of the Body of Jesus Christ made it capable of all the changes which the Bread suffers it was digested by the natural heat in the stomachs of the Communicants and one part was reduced into their proper substance animated with their soul living with their life and united to them personally What did they then believe did they imagin that this same Body of Jesus Christ was at the same time animated with two souls and living with two lives or to speak better with an hundred thousand souls and an hundred thousand lives to wit that of Jesus Christ and of those of all the Communicants of the world personally
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
inconsistent with Transubstantiation 1. 40 Fathers in what manner they explain themselves when they design the nature of the Sacrament 2. 92 Feast of God rejected by the Greeks 1. 165 Formulary of the re-union between the Latins and the Greeks different in Greek from the Latin 1. 249 G. GEorgiens very ignorant 1. 68 Greeks very ignorant 1. 64 Greeks Bishops leave their Flocks to the Emissaries for Money 1. 98 Greeks superstitious 1. 72 Greeks much degenerated in their manners 1. 63 Greeks entreat the assistance of the Latins 1. 74. seq Greeks have always flattered the Popes with the hope of their re-union 1. 81 Greeks of two sorts the one united to the Roman Church the others not united 1. 109. seq Greeks re-united out of this Dispute 1. 110 Greeks Schismaticks of two sorts the one more rigid the others less 1. 87 Greeks do not believe the Real Presence of the Latins 1. 112. 234 Greeks reject the term of Transubstantiation 1. 114 Greek Apostat cenjured for putting into his Catechism the word Transubstantiation 1. 115 Greeks must use the term of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if they believe the substantial conversion 1. 115. seq Greeks in their re-union have changed the terms of the Latins 1. 224 seq Greeks of the Council of Florence held not Transubstantiation 1. 127 Greeks Proselytes of the Latins express themselves differently when converted 1. 128 Greeks only receive the seven first Councils 1. 122 Greeks say our Saviour is present in the Book of the Gospel 1. 131 Greeks speak of the Bread and Wine before the Consecration in the same manner as aster 1. 131 Greeks prostrate themselves to the Bread and Wine before they be consecrated 1. 132 Greeks make several Particles 132 Greeks call the Particles of the Body of the Virgin the Body of S. Nicolas c. 1. 131 Greeks joyn the small particles with the great ones 1. 131 Greeks say that these Particles participate of our Lord's Body and Blood 1 136 Greeks only establish a spiritual Communion with Jesus Christ 1. 148 Greeks disputing on the Azyms suppose the Eucharist to be real Bread 1. 169 Greeks neglect the substance of the Sacrament 1. 172 Greeks teach not the necessary consequences of Transubstantiation nor the Real Presence 1. 185 Greeks do not believe there 's made any impression of the physical form of the Body of Jesus Christ on the Bread 1. 231 Greeks prostrate themselves before the Book of the Gospel 1. 158 Greeks explain these words This is my Body in a sense of virtue 1. 307 Greeks reject the Apochrypha 1. 280 Greeks have nothing determinate amongst 'em touching the state of Souls after death 1. 209 Greeks in their re-union at Florence and elsewhere with the Latins never pretended to receive their Doctrin 1. 287 Greeks little solicitous about affairs of Religion 1. 287 Greek Bishops love not disputes 1. 287 Greeks contented with maintaining their Doctrins without condemning those of the Latins 1. 287 I. JAcobits believe that Jesus Christ was man only in appearance 2. 17 Jacobits believe not Transubstantiation nor the Real Presence 2. 54 Jacobits reject Auricular Confession 1. 282 John le Fevre a fabulous Author 2. 9 John the Parisian maintain'd in the 14th Century that Transubstantiation was not an Article of Faith 1. 288 Jesus Christ alone not the Priest gives in the Communion his Body and his Blood 1. 148 Jesus Christ preached his Gospel to the damned according to the Greeks 1. 280 Infallibility of the Roman Church is a thing of which the ordinary sort of people cannot assure themselves 1. 29 Infallibility of the Roman Church overthrown by the Author of the Perpetuity 1. 53 Infallibility popular is a Principle to be proved 1. 54 Infallibility double 1. 55 Invocation of Saints rejected by the Greeks in one sense 1. 203 Judgment of the Faculty of Paris on the affair of John the Parisian 1. 289 K. KNowledg distinct is taken in two senses 2. 168 Knowledg distinct and popular knowledg are not the same 2. 170 Knowledg distinct and knowledg popular are not the same 2. ibid. L. LAnguage double of Mr. Arnaud on the subject of the Eucharist refuted 1. 347. seq Latins establish Latin Bishops in Palestin and drive out the Greek ones 1. 75 Latins constrain the Greeks to embrace their Religion 1. 77 Latins fill Greece with Inquisitors 1. 78 Latins have done all they could to introduce Transubstantiation amongst the Eastern people 1. 106 Latins in the re-union at the Florentin Council leave their usual expressions 127 Latins greatly perplexed touching the nourishment which our bodies receive in the Eucharist 1. 187 Latins cause their Greek Proselytes to profess the Doctrin of Transubstantiation 1. ibid. Latins have never disputed with the Greeks about their general expressions 1. 290 Latins dreaded by the Greeks 1. 285 Legats Excommunicate the Patriarch of Constantinople 1. 82 Liturgies Greek denote the Bread to be made the Body of Jesus Christ in sanctification 1. 140 Liturgies Greek commonly term the Eucharist Bread 1. 141 Liturgies Greek direct Prayers to our Saviour in Heaven after the Consecration of the Bread 1. 142 Liturgies contain not one clause which denotes the substantial Presence 1. 142 M. MAronits believe neither Transubstantiation nor the Real Presence before their union to the Church of Rome 2. 52 Maronits very ignorant 1. 69 Manuel Comnenus Greek Emperor favours the Latins 1. 83 Matter subsists in the Eucharist after Consecration 2. 90 Method lawful whereby to examin the Controversie of the Eucharist Pref. Methods of Father Maimbourg and Nouet compared ibid. Method of Mr. Arnaud yields new advantages ibid. Method of the Perpetuity four considerations thereon 1. 5 Method of Controversie ought to be grounded on Principles either granted by both sides or well proved ones 1. 9 Method of prescription of the Author of the Perpetuity fruitless 1. 26 Method of the Perpetuity reduces us after many disputes to begin again 1. 52 Michael Paripanacius Greek Emperor favours the Roman Church 1. 82 Paleologus earnestly labours for a re-union 1. 84 Moscovits very ignorant 1. 69 Moscovits have no Preachers 2. 2 Moscovits very superstitious 2. ibid. Moscovits differ in many things from the Greeks 2. 3 N. NEstorians very ignorant 1 69 Nestorians believe not Transubstantiation c. 2. 50 Nestorians use not Auricular Confession nor confirmation 1. 282 Nisetas Pectoratus forced to burn his Book which he wrote against the Latins 1. 82 O. ORiental parts o'respread with Monks and Emissaries since the 11th Century 1. 90 Odeâ—born a Lutheran was deceived touching the Adoration which the Greeks give the Sacrament 1. 163 Oriental people say that our Saviour dipt the Bread which he gave to Judas to take off its Consecration 2. 52 Oriental people hold that the substance of the Eucharist disperses it self immediately over all the parts of our body 2. 52 Oriental people say we must read This is the Sacrament of my Body 2. 53 P. PAisius
these things WE have seen that one of their Opinions is that the Wicked do not receive Christ's Body in the Sacrament Now every Man sees this Doctrine does not well agree with Transubstantiation in as much as that on one Hand 't is held the Bread is made the Body of the Son of God in propriety of Substance and on the other that the Wicked in receiving it eat not this Body Whence it follows according to all Rules of Sence that they are obliged to endeavour to make these two Opinions agree and remove the contrariety which appears betwixt them Yet so far are they from troubling themselves about this that we find not this Contrariety whether real or imaginary ever entred into their Thoughts NOW let any Man compare the Arguments we draw from their Silence touching all these Consequences with that of Mr. Arnaud's and faithfully tell us whether ours are not more Conclusive and Evident than his We have proposed several things which the Greeks might know without any Study Reflection Attention of Mind Legats and Interpreters only by the sight of their Eyes and help of common Sence Affairs which were neither carried on by Intrigues Negotiations nor publick Respects and wherein the Silence of the Greeks is certain there being no likelyhood but if they spake of 'em we should be soon made to know it and concerning which in fine they could not be silent as they are without doing a notable Prejudice to Religion and an extraordinary Violence to Nature Whereas Mr. Arnaud only offers us one thing which can scarcely be known by any but the Learned and which requires also great attention of Mind and reading a matter which for the most part was in the hands of some Deputies and mannaged by the help of Interpreters wherein Intrigues and Interests Complacency and Fear and other humane Passions have great share and touching which we cannot be assured whether the Silence of the Greeks be truly such as 't is represented to us seeing we have no more of their Writings but what the Latins were pleased to give us A matter in fine in which the Greeks might be silent without offering any Violence to themselves and without believing they did any Wrong to their Religion I shall show this more largely hereafter what I now mention'd being only to facilitate the comparison of my Proofs with that of Mr. Arnaud's to the end the Readers may more clearly and exactly judg of them III. IN the third place it is necessary that my first Proofs which I offered in the foregoing Book be remembred which were taken from that the Greeks do not teach the Doctrine of Transubstantiation in express terms I mean the substantial Conversion asserted by the Latins that they receive not the Councils which have determined it that they will not use the term of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that they explain themselves only in general Terms which may be understood in another Sence and which at farthest can admit only of a general Sence and that Mr. Arnaud is constrain'd to betake himself to Consequences and Arguings to render their Expressions favourable It is likewise requisite that the Reader call to mind the solid Grounds on which my Proofs are built and the Testimonies I have produced on this Subject and on the other Hand the Illusions I discovered in Mr. Arnaud's Dispute as well in the formulary of the Reunion with which he has made such a noise as the Testimonys of Samonas Agapius the Baron of Spataris Paysius Ligaridius the Synod of Cyprus and that of some Priests in the Patriarchate of Antioch for the Truth of my Principle results from the Examination of all these things the rest of Mr. Arnaud's Proofs consisting only in Arguings and Consequences I would likewise desire the Reader to compare his negative Argument with mine and judg which of the two Consequences is the better The Greeks say I when they explain the Mystery of the Eucharist use not the Term of Transubstantiation nor teach the thing which this Term signifies they own not the Councils that have determin'd it and in the rejection of them never except this Article nor shew by any thing else they are agreed in it They do not then believe the substancial Conversion of the Latins Mr. Arnaud say's on the contrary the Greeks reproach not the Latins with Transubstantiation they make not a Dispute thereof they condemn it not as an Errour they then Believe it I say that my Consequence is evident certain immediate and necessary whereas Mr. Arnaud's has none of these Qualities My Consequence is evident for 't is evident a whole Church that believes the Conversion of the Substance of Bread into the Substance of the Body of Christ and would have her Children Believe it must needs teach it them in clear and distinct Terms and such as are able to form the Idea which she would have them conceive of it But the Greek Church does not do this therefore she does not believe it For it would be prodigiously strange that a Church had concerning the Change which happens in the Eucharist a Belief as distinct and determinate as is that of the Conversion of one Substance into another and yet could not or would not explain her self in clear and distinct Terms altho she finds them already made to her Hands in the Language of a Church with whom she agrees in this Point But this the Greek Church does not do She does not thus explain her self She has not then this Belief My Consequence is immediate for the first and most immediate Obligation the first and most immediate Effect which arises from the Belief of Transubstantiation in a Church that holds it is that of teaching it and explaining how she believes it that is to say distinctly for it cannot be believed otherwise than distinctly But the Greek Church does not explain her self distinctly She does not then believe it I say in fine that 't is necessary For there is nothing that can hinder the Greek Church from expounding clearly and plainly this Opinion if she held it Not the Ignorance of proper Expressions for besides that they are easily met with the Roman Church furnishes her with them not the Fear of scandalizing her People for the Church of Rome asserts these People have held this Doctrine ever since Christianity was first planted amongst them not the fear of scandalizing the Infidels for the Turks amongst whom the Greeks live suffer all sorts of Religions and the Latins who were mixt with them and who scruple not to explain themselves clearly on this Doctrine have long since taken away this Pretence from the Greeks the fear of offending their Emperors when they had 'em could not withold them for the Greek Emperors as we have already seen have almost all of 'em favoured the Latins Much less moreover can it be said they were hindred by the Fear of the Roman Church and its Power for this was a means on the contrary to