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
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
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
after the manner of a Spirit They could not be so ignorant as not to know that our Saviour celebrated his Sacrament before his death and that we celebrate it likewise since his Ascension into Heaven and that consequently according to the Hypothesis of Transubstantiation we cannot regulate the State of his Body in the Mystery neither by one nor th' other of these two times that is to say neither by the time which preceded his death nor that which followed his Resurrection but we must take a middle time which may agree both with the one and the other whence it plainly appears these People believed not Transubstantiation for had they believed it this difference had never arose among them and so much concerning the Question in general Let us see now in what manner the two Parties maintained their Opinions SOME say's Nicetas asserted that it was incorruptible because that the Participation of the Divine Mysteries is an acknowledgment and commemoration that our Lord died and rose again for us as teaches the great Divine Cyrillus so that whatsoever part we receive we receive intirely that which Thomas handled and that he is as it were eaten after his Resurrection according to these following words of Saint Chrysostom O wonderful he that sits at the right hand of the Father is found in the hands of sinners and in another place Jesus Christ is a fruit which budded in the Law ripened in the Prophets and was eaten after its Resurrection and he tells us afterwards this is no other Body than that which was too strong for death and which began our Life For as a little Leaven leavens the whole Lump according to the saying of the Apostle so likewise this Body which God has made immortal being in our Body changes and converts it wholly into it self some likewise alledged these words of Eutychius that great light of the Church we receive the Sacred Body of the Lord intirely and his precious Blood after the same manner although we receive but one part of it for it is divided indivisibly into all by reason of the mixture MR. Arnaud pretends this Party supposed Transubstantiation because say's he they asserted after St. Chrysostom that our Saviour was in Heaven Lib. 2. cap. 14. pag 242. and on Earth and after Eutychus that he was distributed wholly and intirely to all that is to say they taught the real Presence But I hope he will correct his that is to say when he has considered that the Design of these Disputants was only to shew in what respect Jesus Christ communicates himself to us in the Eucharist to wit not as being mortal and corruptible such as he was before his Passion but as being risen So that when they say we receive him whom Thomas handled him who sitteth at the right hand of the Father the same that vanquish'd death the Body which God made immortal they do not design thereby to signifie his Substance but only the State which followed his Resurrection as if they had said we do not so much receive that Body which the Souldiers misused as that which Thomas handled not so much in respect that it was on Earth but at the right hand of the Father not so much for that it has suffered death but vanquished it and that God has made it immortal which is to say in a word that we receive him as risen because that in this Quality he is the Principle of our Life It is clear that this was their drift whence there can be nothing concluded in reference to the Substance for when we receive the Body of Jesus Christ not in Substance but in Mystery yet do we receive it in respect of its being risen and receive him also intire and so that passage of Eutychus will not decide our difference THERE need other considerations for this AND first it must be remembred that those that will argue from the Hypothesis of Transubstantiation that the Body of Jesus Christ is incorruptible in the Eucharist must not attribute to it the incorruptibleness which comes to it from the State of his Glory for besides that it could not have it as I already said at the time of the first Supper seeing that our Saviour was not then glorifi'd it is moreover apparent that even at this day it is not in this State of Glory and Majesty which it has in Heaven They must then attribute to it this other incorruption which is the effect of its Sacramental State And 't is unto this that the Doctrine of the substantial Presence does naturally and necessarily drive them It is therein incorruptible because 't is indivisible and insensible after the manner of Spirits YET do not the Greeks mention one word tending to this sacramental incorruption they speak absolutely only concerning the incorruption which follows his Resurrection and Glorification which is an evident token they argued not from the Principle of Transubstantiation Secondly had these Greeks intended to propose our Saviour's Resurrection wherefore say they that the Mysteries are a commemoration of it as well as of his death for they might with greater strength and clearness of reason affirm that seeing 't is the proper Substance of the Body that is risen it can be no more either passible or corruptible as it was before the Resurrection How comes it then to pass they mention not a word of that which reason would suggest to them supposing they believed the Conversion of Substances YET Mr. Arnaud tells us their reasoning was good and that it overthrew the whole Foundation of those Hereticks which was that the Eucharist only represented Lib. 3. cap. 14. pag. 241. our Saviour Christ in a State of Death whence they concluded he was in it only in a State of Death in taking for their Principle that he was therein such as he is represented But Mr. Arnaud does not consider that besides it is not true that the Adversaries of these Greeks did take for their Principle that the Body was in it such as 't is therein represented in supposing it was really in it I say this would be moreover to impute to these Greeks not a reason but an overthrowing of all reason and common sence If we believe Mr. Arnaud their Adversaries must have reasoned in this manner Jesus Christ is in the Eucharist such as he is therein represented now he is therein represented in a State of Death he is then therein effectually dead Supposing they believed Transubstantiation were they not very imprudent to let slip this first Proposition which is altogether contrary to Transubstantiation in the sence Mr. Arnaud would have them hold it to apply themselves to the second which is undeniably evident For no body ever denied that our Saviour is represented in the Eucharist in a State of Death seeing this Sacrament is a commemoration of his Death But those that hold the Transubstantiation of the Bread into the living and glorifi'd Body of Jesus Christ may not grant that
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
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
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
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
were elected by these Monsters seeing there 's nothing more natural than for every thing to produce its like Who doubts but they consented to all which they did who had chosen 'em but that they imitated 'em and trod in their footsteps but that they all desired our Saviour should sleep on and never rise to judg them nor awake to call 'em to account for their wicked deeds Luitprand produces a Letter of John the XIIth to the Council which the Emperor Otton assembled at Rome to depose him which shews us how admirable the Popes were for Learning in those days Joannes Episcopus servus servorum Dei omnibus Episcopis Nos audivimus dicere quod vos vultis alium Papam facere si hoc feceritis Excommunico vos de Deo omnipotenti ut non habeatis licentiam ullum ordinare missam celebrare The Councils answer is as elegant Est vestris in literis scriptum quod non Episcopum sed puerilem ineptiam scribere deceret excommunicastis enim omnes ut non habeamus licentiam canendi missam ordinandi Ecclesiasticas dispositiones si alâ—um Romanoe Sedi constitueremus Episcopum It a enim scriptum erat non habeatis licentiam ullum ordinare Nunc usque putavimus immo credimus duo negativa unum facere dedicativum nisi vestra autoritas priscorum sententias infirmaret autorum THE Zeal Fervour frequent Conversions and Reformations of those days could not hinder but that Symony was very frequent as I proved in my Answer to the Perpetuity by the testimonies of Luitprand and Glaber and by the very confession of the Author of the Perpetuity himself which might be further made to appear were it necessary Now judg I pray you what science and zeal there could be in a Church where the ministerial Office was upon sale to him that offered most And moreover the Arch-bishopricks and Bishopricks commonly bestowed on Children uncapable of discharging those great trusts which Baronius expresly asserts for having told Baron ad ann 925. us from the testimony of Frodoart that Heribert Earl of Guyenne and Süelphus Arch-bishop of Rhemes were agreed that after the death of Süelphus the Arch-bishoprick should come to Heribert's Son he says that Heribert to make quick work caused Süelphus to be poisoned and his Son to be chosen in his place who was not above five years old that the news of the Election being brought to the King he confirm'd it which was also done by Pope John the Xth. To which Baronius adds That this example was quickly followed by several Princes who promoted their own or relations Children to the Episcopal Seats as oft as they became vacant which says he was likewise done in Rome it self in those days Constantinople and other great Cities And would to God adds he this custom had went no farther than those days and that so detestable a wickedness against the Churches Canons were unknown to the following Ages Let Mr. Arnaud himself judg whether ignorance and carelesness are not the natural effects of such disorders WHEREUNTO we may add the Tumults and continual Wars with which the West was afflicted during this whole Century for 't is certain that from the beginning to the end of it all Europe resounded with the noise of them France was therein troubled by the League of Robert and the dreadful consequences hapning thereupon by the Wars against the Normans Danes and Germans and by those which hapned upon the rejection of Charles Duke of Lorrain and th' Election of Hugo Capet England was therein disturb'd by divers Civil Wars and the frequent Incursions of the Danes Scotch Irish and other people still professing Paganism Spain was also molested by the Moors Arabians and Saracens by the Invasions of the Normans and by the dreadful Divisions of the Christians GERMANY spent this Century in perpetual Confusions the Danes Sclavonians and Huns ravag'd all things by their irruptions which often hapned For Children to contrive the death of their Parents was ordinary and Great Persons to rise up against their lawful Princes which commonly ended in bloody Battels not to mention the cruel Wars which the Emperors had to maintain in Italy against the Factious and in Calabria against the Greeks and Saracens As to Italy she was throughout this whole Century in the most deplorable state imaginable on one hand by the Princes of Tuscany on the other by the Wars of the Italian Princes one against another and the Arms of the Emperors and neighboring Kings In short the confusions were then so general that there was scarcely a corner in Europe wherein a man that loves quiet could obtain it Now who is it but knows that times of War and Divisions are apt to introduce carelesness looseness and ignorance of the mysteries of Religion into the Church I CONFESS there were in this Age some endeavours after a Reformation bu besides that they were but mere essays that proved ineffectual I deny they were strong enough supposing they could have had a wished for success to stir men up to search into the Controversie of Christs Real Presence in the Sacrament The most considerable were those made in the Council of Trosly already mention'd by us and it will not be amiss to make some remarks on what was resolved therein Let us endeavour Concil Trost n Epilogâ— say these Fathers which were not above twelve by our own means and by the Priests under us to avoid as much as in us lies this terrible damnation which we have drawn down upon our selves and the people committed to our charge Let us instruct 'em both by our Doctrin and Example Let us behave our selves as the Ministers of Christ that our Office be not dishonored and it be said of us the Priests are without knowledg those to whom the Law is committed have not known me and lest we fall into the fault of Ely who corrected not the faults of his Sons First then let every Christian ground himself well in the Christian Religion which is the Catholick Faith without which a man cannot be called a Christian Let him believe in the Father Son and Holy Spirit one only true God three persons in unity of substance But yet know that the Son alone took on him our Flesh to save us and thus suffered Death rose again ascended up into Heaven and will come in the same Flesh to judg both quick and dead Let him believe in the Holy Ghost and that by him we have the remission of sins in our Baptism and that thro his Grace our sins are continually pardon'd by the penitence and ministery of the Priests Let him believe also a real and general Resurrection of the Flesh at the coming of Jesus Christ This is the true foundation of Faith which must be adorned by Good Works for as 't is impossible without Faith to please God so Faith cannot be persect if it shews not it self by Charity for if it be void of works it 's become