The Catholic Doctrine of the Eucharist in All Ages, Book 3 · Chapter 9
CHAP. IX.
The Seventeenth Proof taken from the Dispute agitated amongst the Greeks in the Twelfth Century touching the Euchariſt, ſome of 'em affirming the Body of Jeſus Chriſt to be incorruptible, and others corruptible. The Eighteenth, from a Paſſage out of Zonarus a Greek Monk that lived in the Twelfth Century.
I Mention'd in my Anſwer to the Perpetuity a Diſpute which aroſe amongſt the Greeks in the Twelfth Century, touching the Body of Jeſus Chriſt which we receive in the Euchariſt, from whence I took occaſion to prove the Greeks do not believe the Tranſubſtantiation of the Latins. Mr. Arnaud contents not himſelf with pretending my Proof is not good, but will needs draw a contrary Concluſion from the ſame Principle I made uſe of. It then lies upon me to examine in this Chapter two Paſſages, the one of Nicetas Choniatus, and th'other of Zonarus who both take notice of this Controverſie; and to know whether this difference do's ſuppoſe Tranſubſtantiation or not.
I will begin with Nicetas, who lays down the Queſtion in theſe Terms. The Queſtion, ſay's he, was whether the Sacred Body of Jeſus Christ which we Nicet Chon. Annal. lib. 3.receive, be incorruptible, ſuch as it has been ſince his Paſſion and Reſurrection, or corruptible as it was before his Paſſion. Before we go any further, we ſhould conſider whether 'tis likely ſuch a Queſtion ſhould be ſtated in a Church that believes Tranſubſtantiation. This is a Point eaſily decided if we conſider, that thoſe that hold this Doctrine do not reckon the Body of Jeſus Chriſt in the Euchariſt to be either in a corruptible ſtate; ſuch as it was before his Paſſion, or an incorruptible one, wherein it has been ſince his Reſurrection. They have invented a Third, which holds the middle between the two others, and which equally agrees with the two times, before and after his Reſurrection, which is that they call the Sacramental State, in which they will needs have this Body to lie hid under the Accidents of Bread, being inviſible and inſenſible in it ſelf, without Extenſion, Action, or Motion, having all its Parts in one Point, and exiſting after the manner of Spirits. In this State according to them he has neither the incorruption he obtained by his Reſurrection, nor the Corruption he put on in coming into the World, but is corruptible in reſpect of the Species which encloſe him, and incorruptible by reaſon of that Spirituality which Tranſubſtantiation gives him. How can Mr. Arnaud imagine that in this Principle of the Sacramental State, there may be formed the Queſtion, whether he is incorruptible, ſuch as he has been ſince his Reſurrection, or corruptible as before his Paſſion? How can he conceive that Perſons who have his third State in view, and are agreed amongſt themſelves, can fall into a debate touching the two others? For it cannot be ſuppoſed the ignorance of the Greeks has bin ſo great as not to let them ſee the inconſiſtency there is between their Queſtion and the Doctrine of the Subſtantial Converſion, as it is taught by the Latins. No People can be ſo ignorant as not to know that a humane Body, ſuch as is that of our Saviour; being under the Accidents of the Euchariſtical Bread, is neither the ſame that was on the Croſs, nor that which Thomas touched when it was riſen and we muſt neceſſarily ſuppoſe that he has neither the corruptibility under which he was before his death, nor the incorruptibility he received when he aroſe from the Sepulchre, but another incorruptibility, which comes to him from his exiſtence after the manner of a Spirit. They could not be ſo ignorant as not to know that our Saviour celebrated his Sacrament before his death, and that we celebrate it likewiſe ſince his Aſcenſion into Heaven, and that conſequently according to the Hypotheſis of Tranſubſtantiation we cannot regulate the State of his Body in the Myſtery, neither by one nor th'other of theſe two times, that is to ſay, neither by the time which preceded his death nor that which followed his Reſurrection, but we muſt take a middle time which may agree both with the one and the other, whence it plainly appears theſe People believed not Tranſubſtantiation, for had they believed it, this difference had never aroſe among them; and ſo much concerning the Queſtion in general. Let us ſee now in what manner the two Parties maintained their Opinions.
SOME, ſay's Nicetas, aſſerted that it was incorruptible, becauſe that the Participation of the Divine Myſteries is an acknowledgment, and commemoration that our Lord died and roſe again for us, (as teaches the great Divine Cyrillus) ſo that whatſoever part we receive, we receive intirely that which Thomas handled, and that he is as it were eaten after his Reſurrection, according to theſe following words of Saint Chryſoſtom. O wonderful! he that ſits at the right hand of the Father, is found in the hands of ſinners; and in another place, Jeſus Chriſt is a fruit which budded in the Law, ripened in the Prophets, and was eaten after its Reſurrection, and he tells us afterwards, this is no other Body than that which was too ſtrong for death, and which began our Life. For as a little Leaven leavens the whole Lump according to the ſaying of the Apoſtle, ſo likewiſe this Body which God has made immortal, being in our Body changes and converts it wholly into it ſelf; ſome likewiſe alledged theſe words of Eutychius that great light of the Church, we receive the Sacred Body of the Lord intirely and his precious Blood after the ſame manner, although we receive but one part of it, for it is divided indiviſibly into all by reaſon of the mixture.
MR. Arnaud pretends this Party ſuppoſed Tranſubſtantiation, becauſe, ſay's he, they aſſerted after St. Chryſoſtom, that our Saviour was in Heaven Lib. 2. cap. 14. pag 242.and on Earth, and after Eutychus that he was diſtributed wholly and intirely to all, that is to ſay, they taught the real Preſence. But I hope he will correct his, that is to ſay, when he has conſidered that the Deſign of theſe Diſputants was only to ſhew in what reſpect Jeſus Chriſt communicates himſelf to us in the Euchariſt, to wit, not as being mortal and corruptible, ſuch as he was before his Paſſion, but as being riſen. So that when they ſay we receive him whom Thomas handled, him who ſitteth at the right hand of the Father, the ſame that vanquiſh'd death, the Body which God made immortal, they do not deſign thereby to ſignifie his Subſtance, but only the State which followed his Reſurrection, as if they had ſaid, we do not ſo much receive that Body, which the Souldiers misuſed, as that which Thomas handled, not ſo much in reſpect that it was on Earth, but at the right hand of the Father, not ſo much for that it has ſuffered death, but vanquiſhed it, and that God has made it immortal, which is to ſay, in a word, that we receive him as riſen, becauſe that in this Quality he is the Principle of our Life. It is clear that this was their drift, whence there can be nothing concluded in reference to the Subſtance, for when we receive the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, not in Subſtance, but in Myſtery, yet do we receive it in reſpect of its being riſen; and receive him alſo intire, and ſo that paſſage of Eutychus will not decide our difference.
THERE need other conſiderations for this.
AND firſt it muſt be remembred that thoſe that will argue from the Hypotheſis of Tranſubſtantiation, that the Body of Jeſus Chriſt is incorruptible in the Euchariſt, muſt not attribute to it the incorruptibleneſs which comes to it from the State of his Glory, for beſides that it could not have it, as I already ſaid, at the time of the firſt Supper, ſeeing that our Saviour was not then glorifi'd, it is moreover apparent that even at this day, it is not in this State of Glory and Majeſty which it has in Heaven. They muſt then attribute to it this other incorruption, which is the effect of its Sacramental State. And 'tis unto this that the Doctrine of the ſubſtantial Preſence does naturally and neceſſarily drive them. It is therein incorruptible, becauſe 'tis 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 'tis 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 'tis 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 he is really in it ſuch as he is repreſented, becauſe he muſt be effectually dead, being repreſented therein as dead, which is punctually what the Adverſaries of theſe Greeks would conclude. They had been then very imprudent to paſs by the firſt Propoſition of their Adverſaries Argument, on which they might defend themſelves and apply themſelves to the ſecond, againſt which there could be nothing ſaid. For as I already obſerved, it cannot be denied but that our Saviour is repreſented in the Euchariſt in a State of Death. But would they not likewiſe have been very impertinent to apply themſelves to the ſecond Propoſition (in aſſerting as they have done) that our Saviour is repreſented in the Euchariſt in a State of Death and Reſurrection both together? What is this but to conclude, that he is then in it at the ſame time actually dead, and actually riſen by this Principle acknowledged by both Parties, that he is really in it ſuch as he is therein repreſented. The Catholicks, ſay's Mr. Arnaud, overthrew the Foundation of the Hereticks, by a Paſſage of Saint Cyril's, in which this holy man affirms that the Euchariſt is the Confeſſion of Jeſus Chriſt dead and riſen for us. Whence they rightly concluded that he was then in it in a State of Reſurrection, and conſequently in an incorruptible State. If this Concluſion be good, as Mr. Arnaud ſay's it is, this is ſo too; he is then in it in a State of Death, and conſequently in a State of Corruption, for Cyrillus does as well aſſert that 'tis the Confeſſion of Jeſus Chriſt dead, as riſen; whence it follows that according to theſe People our Saviour dies and riſes again effectually in the Euchariſt. And thus do they argue according to Mr. Arnaud, Our Savio… is in the Euchariſt, ſuch as he is therein repreſented, now he is repreſented therein, not only in a State of Death but Reſurrection. He is then really in it not only dead, but likewiſe riſen again, and conſequently corruptible and incorruptible both together. This would be the moſt ſottiſh reaſoning imaginable, for after this manner they would as well argue for their Adverſaries as themſelves. And yet this is the arguing which Mr. Arnaud ſo commends. And into theſe abſurdities and extravagancies does he lead thoſe Perſons he would have favourable to him.
YET he adds, That 'tis an eaſie matter to conclude that according to theſe Catholicks, Jeſus Chriſt was really preſent in the Euchariſt, but 'tis a hard matter to divine by what means Mr. Claude has concluded he was not in it. It is no ſuch difficult matter to know this. For if theſe People ſaid not what common ſence immediately dictated to them, ſuppoſing they believed Tranſubſtantiation, but on the contrary that which even common ſence would hinder them from ſaying, it follows they had not this Hypotheſis in their Minds. Now this is what my Proof contains, for it ſhews that what they ſaid would be an extravagancy, and likewiſe what they ought to ſay, and have not ſaid. For they ought to ſay that our Saviour ſince his Reſurrection can be no longer in a State of Death, or paſſibility, and conſequently that being really in the Euchariſt, he cannot be therein corruptible, and this they have not ſaid.
BUT how, (ſay's Mr. Arnaud,) can Mr. Claude know what they have ſaid, or not ſaid? Will he pretend that all the reaſonings of theſe Perſons are contain'd in the ſhort account this Hiſtorian gives us of this Debate. But I do not pretend to this, for I only ſay, that if the Greeks whoſe Diſpute is ſet down by Nicetas, believed Tranſubſtantiation, he would have made them reaſon after another manner than they do, he would have made them ſay what ſence and reaſon do readily ſuggeſt to People that hold this Doctrine, and not Impertinencies, which could never enter into the mind of a man prepoſſeſſed with Tranſubſtantiation.
BUT, adds he, theſe Greeks have expreſly ſaid, what Mr. Claude blames them for not ſaying. For have they not expreſſed this clearly in theſe Words, Ibid.that whatſoever part we receive of the Euchariſt, we receive intirely Jeſus Chriſt himſelf whom Thomas handled, becauſe we eat him after his Reſurrection, which they confirmed by divers Paſſages of the Fathers, and amongſt the reſt by that of St. Chryſoſtom; O wonderful! He that ſits at the right hand of the Father is found in the hands of ſinners. I anſwer that Mr. Arnaud comprehends not the force of an Objection but only when he pleaſes. I do not deny but that theſe Greeks ſaid, That Jeſus Chriſt is in the Euchariſt as riſen, and that we receive him wholly and intire. This is the State of their Queſtion, and they prove it by Paſſages taken out of the Fathers. But I ſay that had they reaſoned on the Hypotheſis of the ſubſtantial Converſion, they would have ſaid that Jeſus Chriſt ſince his Reſurrection can be no longer either mortal or paſſible in himſelf, that he exiſts on the Altar after the manner of a Spirit, and is conſequently incorruptible; that the ſubſtantial Converſion cannot be made in the dead and inanimate Body of Jeſus Chriſt, foraſmuch as this is a State which has ceaſed ſince ſo many Ages, and that it would be blaſphemy and horrid cruelty againſt the Majeſty of the Son of God to make him die every day really and perſonally. And this is what I ſaid in plain Terms, but Mr. Arnaud would not underſtand me. I tell him therefore again, that common ſence led the Greeks to this, had their belief been the ſame as the Latins. Yet you cannot find this in what Nicetas makes them ſpeak. You read indeed that whatſoever part we receive, we partake of him whom Thomas handled, that is to ſay, of Jeſus Chriſt; the word Same which Mr. Arnaud has added, is of his own invention. You find there that he is eaten after his Reſurrection, and inſtead of Mr. Arnaud's Becauſe, there is in the Greek a Diminutive Particle foreign, he is as it were eaten, but you find not that Jeſus Chriſt can be any more paſſible, nor that he is in the Euchariſt after the manner of a Spirit, nor what a great outrage it would be to the Son of God to make him die and ſuffer perſonally again. And yet this is what ought to be ſaid according to ſence and reaſon, ſuppoſing they believed the real Preſence, and deſign'd to refute their Adverſaries.
NICETAS continuing to relate as from the part of theſe Greeks the Paſſage of Euthychius, adds theſe words, It is as a Seal which imprints its form on the matters which receive it, and which yet remain one, after this Communication, without being diminiſhed or changed into thoſe things which receive the Impreſſion, altho ſeveral in number. Even as one voice alone uttered by a Perſon, and caſt forth into the Air, remains wholly intire in him that utters it, and yet is carried wholly intire in the Air to the ears of them which hear it, without any of the hearers receiving more or leſs, but it remains indiviſible and wholly intire in all, when they ſhould be ſeveral thouſands in number, altho it be but one Body, for a voice is nothing elſe but verberated Air. Let no one then doubt but that after the Holy Sacrifice and Reſurrection of the incorruptible and immortal Body of our Lord, and his holy and living Blood are applied to the Anti-Types by their Conſecration, but that they do I ſay as much imprint his proper virtue, as the things I offered by way of example do, and that he fully and intirely exiſts in them. I know not what Mr. Arnaud thinks of theſe words, but certainly he ought not to ſuppreſs them as he has done. He mentions what precedes, and follows them, but leaves out thoſe that are in the middle. 'Tis probable he could not well brook this compariſon of the Seal that imprints its Image on ſeveral things, nor that of the voice which multiplies it ſelf in the Air, without loſing its Unity, for in effect there happens no change of Subſtance neither in the Matter that receives impreſſion, nor in the Air which receives the voice, and theſe ſeveral Matters to which the Seal communicates its Image, or thoſe ſeveral parts of the Air into which the voice is carried are one and the ſame thing amongſt themſelves, and with the Seal, or the firſt Air, in reſpect of the Characters, or Articulation, but not at all in reſpect of the Subſtance; whence we may conclude the ſame thing concerning the parts of the Sacrament, which is to ſay, that the Bread altho it receives the impreſſion of the virtue of Chriſt's Body, yet does it keep its Subſtance, after the ſame manner as the Body of Jeſus Chriſt retains his, the virtue remaining the ſame in all the parts of the Bread. 'Tis probable he did not like, that in propoſing the compariſon of the Seal, Eutychius has obſerv'd, that 'tis not changed into the things to which it communicates its Characters, whence it follows, that they are not likewiſe changed ſubſtantially into him. 'Tis likely he could not well relliſh this expreſſion, that the Body and Blood of Jeſus Chriſt are applied to the Anti-Types, and that they imprint no leſs in them their proper virtues foreign, than the Seal does in things, and the voice which a man utters in the Air. In effect I am much miſtaken if this does not repreſent the Idea of a Body of Jeſus Chriſt, in virtue and efficacy againſt which Mr. Arnaud has ſo great an averſion. I am greatly deceived if theſe expreſſions be not inconſiſtent with the Doctrine of Tranſubſtantiation or the real Preſence. For what mean this Body and Blood applied to the Anti-Types by Conſecration, and which as a Seal imprint on them their proper virtues, if we ſuppoſe theſe Anti-Types to be really changed into this Body and Blood, and become the ſame numerical Subſtance? But be it as it will, Mr. Arnaud ought not to retrench all this Diſcourſe from the midſt of the reſt, or if he deſign'd to do it, not to reproach me, for that in my Anſwer to the Perpetuity, I did not mention at large the Paſſages of Nicetas and Zonarus. I can eaſilier juſtifie my ſelf concerning this particular than he can himſelf, for it will appear at the end of this Chapter, that 'twould have been very advantagious to me to repreſent them at their full length, and the reaſon why I did it not, was becauſe I was unwilling to tire the Reader with Paſſages which are very long, and the ſum of which may be repreſented in few words; beſides I have cauſed them to be printed at large in the Margent of the laſt Edition of my Book. We muſt then attribute this reproach Mr. Arnaud makes me, to his humour and not to his Judgment, for had he taken time to conſider, he would have ſpared us the reading of ſo frivolous a matter. But when we call to mind that he himſelf has ſuppreſſed one part of Eutychus his Diſcourſe, this muſt be ſaid to be an effect of his Judgment and not of his humour, for he ſeems to be naturally an Enemy to Com pe diums.
IN fine Nicetas, having made the Greeks of the firſt party ſpeak their ſence, he introduces the other, and adds theſe following words; Which things being alledged by theſe, and they producing ſeveral other Testimonies of the Church, the others replied on the contrary, That the Myſtery is not an acknowledgment of the Reſurrection, but only a Sacrifice, and conſequently is corruptible, being without Soul or Underſtanding, and that the Communicant does not receive Jeſus Christ intire, but in part. For were it, ſay they, incorruptible, it would be indued with Spirit, it would be alive, it could neither be touched, ſeen, nor chewed with the Teeth, and in its cutting it would be inſenſible of pain.
TO know whether theſe People believed Tranſubſtantiation, or the real Preſence, we need only inquire whether they had common ſence, for unleſs they were deprived of it, they could never believe that the Subſtance of the Bread is changed into the dead and inanimate Body of our Lord, which is ſeen, handled, cut, and chewed with the teeth, and which altho inanimate, yet is grieved and pain'd to ſee it ſelf thus uſed. If Mr. Arnaud can make us believe this he may make us believe any thing. How apparently impious and contradictory would this their Opinion be to expoſe our Saviour again to grief and pain; to imagine they ſee him and chew him with their teeth, and cut his fleſh in pieces, that every one may partake thereof; to believe he is without Life and Soul foreign, and yet that he is pained and grieved, foreign.
BUT It will be perhaps then demanded what is their ſence, ſeeing Mr. Arnaud aſſures us, That all this would be ridiculous, if we underſtand it as meant of Bread, which is only the Figure of our Saviour, and which contains only his virtue. I anſwer, 'tis no hard matter to give their words a national ſence in ſuppoſing they only believe a change of Myſtery and Virtue, for they mean that we receive Jeſus Chriſt in the Euchariſt, as dead and ſacrific'd for us, and that for to thus repreſent him the Symbols are taken from the number of thoſe things which have neither Life nor Underſtanding, from amongſt thoſe things (I ſay) which we ſee, handle and chew with our teeth, and which relate to the firſt viſible State of Jeſus Chriſt, when he lived on Earth, and was ſubject to pain and miſery; whereas were he repreſented in it in his incorruptible State, wherein he is no more viſible to our eyes, nor liable to the ill uſages of his Enemies, our Lord would without doubt employed other Symbols, wherein theſe dolours are not ſo lively repreſented. And as to what they ſay concerning our not receiving Jeſus Chriſt wholly entire, but in part, this ſuppoſes nothing elſe but that they believe the whole Body of the Bread receiving the impreſſion of our Saviour's virtue becomes his whole Body, and that each Particle is in effect but one part of it. 'Tis probable likewiſe they had regard to the moral Body of our Saviour which is the Church, and is repreſented by Bread, of which every one takes a part, to ſignifie that every particular Believer is not the whole Body, but one part thereof in communion with the reſt, according to that of Saint Paul, For we being many are one Bread and one Body; for we are all partakers of 1 Cor. 10:that one Bread.
SO that here's the Paſſage of Nicetas examin'd, and to the end it may not be thought the ſence I give it is only grounded on meer conjectures, we ſhall ſee immediately that Zonarus expreſſes himſelf to the ſame effect, and that theſe two Authors explain one another. And this is the reaſon Why I differ'd in this particular from Mr. Aubertin, when he thought Nicetas did not faithfully relate the Queſtion, and that in effect the Diſpute was grounded on Tranſubſtantiation, and the real Preſence. This was his conjecture, and we all know that the meer conjectures of Authors, altho otherwiſe never ſo judicious, lay not any neceſſity upon us of following them. Every man is at liberty in theſe kinds of matters, and Mr. Arnaud who ſcruples not to deviate ſometimes from the Opinions of his own Doctors in Points of greater importance, had little reaſon to ſay, That here I am at variance with my Maſter Pag. 237.Aubertin. I do in truth profeſs my ſelf a Diſciple to thoſe that preceded me, for I am not of an aſpiring humour, neither have I as yet been accuſed of affecting Singularity, but when Maſters offer their conjectures under the title of videtur, touching an Hiſtorical Paſſage, as Mr. Aubertin has done, the Diſciples have right to judge of it and reject it, if their conjectures be not well grounded. Which is what I have done in this particular, and Mr. Arnaud muſt not pretend to refute me by oppoſing Mr. Aubertin againſt me, much leſs in quoting ſome pretended Marginal Notes of Wolphius, which appear not in his Nicetas, Printed at Baſil, 1557.
I come now to the other Paſſage which I ſaid belong'd to Zonarus, and which Allatius attributes to Glycas, We know, ſay's he, dear Brother, that ſome Tom. 6. Cyrill. Alex. in notis Valcan ad lib. adverſ. antrop. Allat. adverſ. Chr…ict.ſuffering themſelves to be too much led away by their own reaſonings, do raiſe doubts concerning the nature of the immaculate Myſteries, ſometimes maintaining the Euchariſt to be incorruptible, ſeeing it communicates to us the life immortal, and othertimes affirming it is corruptible, becauſe we chew it with the teeth and eat it. They aſſert likewiſe ſeveral other things according to their own fancy, and as it were, making a ſport and jeſt of theſe ſerious things. But as for your part, dear Brother, follow not their example, trouble not your ſelf with examining the Myſteries, leſt that curiouſly enquiring whether the Holy Communion be above corruption, or whether it laſts but for a time, in truſting too much to your ſelf you exceed the bounds of Truth. For theſe kind of things are to be believed, not queſtioned. And let not your reaſon make you ſo much a Sceptick as not to reject one of theſe Opinions as impious, and hold the other. For in examining them you will find they may be both maintain'd in a Catholick ſence. The Bread of the Protheſis, is that very Fleſh of our Saviour that was crucifi'd at the time of his Paſſion, and laid in the Sepulchre. Which manifeſtly appears by what our Lord ſaid to his Apoſtles when he inſtituted the Myſteries of the New Teſtament; for in giving 'em to them, he ſaid, take eat, this is my Body which is broken for you for the remiſſion of ſins. Conſider, that if the Fleſh of our Lord had not been corruptible it would not have been ſubject to the corruption of Death. For that which is incorruptible, is above all corruption. The Bread then of the Protheſis is ſubject to corruption, as being the real Fleſh of Jeſus Chriſt, which is cut, and chewed with the teeth, for were it incorruptible it could be neither cut nor eaten; moreover be not troubled at this ſaying, nor think it hard and inſupportable, for although we ſpeak to you of corruption in this divine and dreadful Cummunion, yet is it in fine attended with incorruption. For the Fleſh of our Lord after it had yielded to death, and was laid in the Sepulchre, was not corrupted according to the ſaying of the Prophet, Thou wilt not ſuffer thy Holy One to ſee corruption, for being preſerved by the Divinity it remain'd incorruptible. So likewiſe the Bread of the Protheſis after it has been chewed with the teeth, and deſcended into the Stomach as in a Sepulchre, returns to the ſtate of incorruption according to John Damaſcene, being united to the Subſtance of the Soul. And therefore thoſe that depart this life, if they have participated of the Holy Myſteries of our Lord with a pure conſcience, are taken up by Angels by means of what they have received, as ſay's Saint Chryſoſtom.
MR. Arnaud that always offers his Arguments as Decrees, ſay's, That a man need but only read theſe words, that the Bread which is offered on the Altar is that very Fleſh of Chriſt which was crucifi'd and buried, to explode the vain Arguments of Mr. Claude, and that a man who undertakes to argue againſt ſuch an Evidence deſerves not to be heard. And I paſſing by the vanity of his Diſcourſe, which ſhews how greatly 'tis his intereſt that I be not heard, do demand Publick Audience to diſcover the Nullity of his Proof. There is nothing more uſual in Eccelſiaſtical Writers then to ſay of a Subject to which the Scripture gives the name of Jeſus Chriſt, that 'tis Jeſus Chriſt himſelf. Saint Chryſoſtom ſpeaking of a poor man, ſay's, That he is Jeſus Chriſt himſelf, Chryſoſt. Hom. 15. in Rom. lib. 4. de Sace… dot.who ſuffer'd death for us. Diſcourſing in another place of the Church, he ſay's, That it is the Body it ſelf of Jeſus Chriſt. Saint Auſtin expreſſes himſelf after the ſame manner in ſeveral places, and were it requiſite, we could eaſily Auguſt. in Pſalm. 87 & Scrm 49. & 53. de verb. Dom.ſhew that this ſame, or he himſelf, is applied ſometimes to the Poor, and ſometimes to the Church, and ſometimes again to every particular Believer in Sedulius, Ceſarius, Fulgentius, Ephraim, Valerian, in Alcuinus amongſt the Ancients, and Cabaſilas and Jeremias amongſt the Modern. Moreover how can Mr. Arnaud (who ſo triumphantly charges me with differing from Mr. Aubertin in an Hiſtorical Paſſage) maintain that the Evidence of theſe words of Zonarus, (the Bread is the very Fleſh it ſelf of Jeſus Chriſt which has been ſacrific'd for us) leaves no place for my arguings, he I ſay, who knows very well that the moſt famous Doctors of the Roman Church do teach that this Propoſition, the Bread is the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, cannot be admitted but in a Figurative Sence? Every Propoſition, ſay's Occam, in which the Body of Jeſus Occham quod 4. quaeſt. 35. Bell. lib. 1. d. Euchu. cap 1.Chriſt is ſaid to be Bread, is impoſſible. This Propoſition, ſay's Bellarmin, that the Bread is the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, if it be not taken Figuratively and in this ſence, that the Bread ſignifies the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, is wholly abſurd and impoſſible, for the Bread cannot be the Body of Jeſus Chriſt.
SUAREZ and Vaſquez affirm the ſame thing, and were not theſe three laſt Jeſuits, I might likewiſe ſay in my turn, that here the Diſciple is at variance with his Maſters. In the third place I affirm that in the Diſcourſe of Zonarus the Term of, the ſame, relates not ſo much to that of Fleſh, as that of ſacrific'd, as Mr. Arnaud renders it, and of buried, to ſignifie not the Bread is this Fleſh in propriety of Subſtance, but that it is this dead and buried Fleſh; which ſhews how frivolous Mr. Arnaud's Proof is, for this can neither be the ſame death nor burial, it muſt then of neceſſity be another. In fine, 'tis but obſerving never ſo little Zonarus Diſcourſe, and we ſhall find he diſtinguiſhes the Bread from the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, for he compares the one with the other, ſaying, that as the Fleſh of Jeſus Chriſt ſuffered death and was buried, ſo the Bread is ſubject to corruption; being chewed with the teeth, eaten, and ſent down into the Stomach, as in a Sepulchre; and that as the Fleſh of Chriſt overcame corruption, ſo in like manner the Bread becomes incorruptible, and paſſes into the Subſtance of the Soul; which ſhews that his ſence is, that the Bread is the Fleſh it ſelf of Jeſus Chriſt, not Subſtantially, but Myſtically, and conſequently this pretended Evidence of Mr. Arnaud is no more than one of his Whimſies.
IN effect, ſuppoſe that Zonarus believed Tranſubſtantiation, and that what he calls Bread is the proper Subſtance of Jeſus Chriſt, is it poſſible his extravagancy has lead him ſo far as to believe that this Fleſh is at firſt corruptible, and afterwards becomes incorruptible; that it is cut and chewed with the Teeth, and in fine reduced into the Subſtance of the Soul? Mr. Arnaud ſay's, 'tis probable that Zonarus abuſes the word corruption and extends this Ibid. pag …44.Term to all the changes that happen to the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, not in it ſelf but in reſpect of the Vayl which covers it. But this evaſion will not ſerve his turn, for Zonarus ſay's, that the Bread is ſubject to corruption, as being the true Fleſh of Jeſus Chriſt. Now 'tis not in reſpect of its Accidents, or Vayl, that 'tis the true Fleſh of Jeſus Chriſt according to the Hypotheſis of Tranſubſtantiation. It is ſo by the change of Subſtance. Not to take notice that to eat and chew Accidents with the teeth (that is to ſay, Figures and Colours ſtript from their Subſtance) is a ſingular Fancy.
THIS Paſſage of Zonarus which I now examin'd puts me in mind of another of the ſame Authors, who was a Grecian, and famous amongſt his own People and lived about the Twelfth Century, which ſhall be my Eighteenth Proof. The Paſſage is taken out of his Commentaries on the Cannons of the Apoſtles and Councils. See here what he writes on the 32. Canon of the Sixth Council in Trullo; The Divine Myſteries, I mean the Bread and Wine, do repreſent to us the Body and Blood of our Lord, for in giving the Bread to his Diſciples, he ſaid to them, take eat this is my Body, and in delivering the Cup, he ſaid, drink ye all of it, this is my Blood. Seeing then the Lord in his Divine Paſſion, after he had poured out his Blood, cauſed to flow from his Side pierced with a Spear, not only Blood, but likewiſe Water, the Church has therefore thought it neceſſary to mingle Water with the Wine in the Holy Mysteries.
THERE may be made two important Reflections on this Paſſage; Firſt, he ſay's, the Bread and Wine do repreſent to us the Body and Blood of Jeſus Chriſt, which cannot agree with the Doctrine of the Church of Rome, unleſs forced by ſeveral Interpretations unknown to the Greeks, as that by the Bread we muſt underſtand the Accidents or Appearances of Bread; and by the word repreſent an incluſive Repreſentation of the thing it ſelf. Secondly, that grounding as he does this Repreſentation of the words of Chriſt, This is my Body, this is my Blood, it is clear that he has taken them himſelf in a ſence of Repreſentation, and believed that 'twas as much as if our Saviour had ſaid, This Bread repreſents my Body, this Cup my Blood; for otherwiſe he could not ground as he has done his Propoſition, that the Bread and Cup repreſent the Body and Blood of our Lord, on this reaſon, that our Saviour ſaid, This is my Body, this is my Blood.
THIS Paſſage ſeeming to determine the Queſtion in our favour, it will not be amiſs therefore to conſider, what may be oppoſed againſt it; to avoid its force, Zonarus makes uſe of the Term of foreign, which may be ſayd to be better rend'red, not repreſent, but preſent, give, communicate; and that the ſence of this Author is not, that the Bread and Wine do repreſent to us the Body and Blood of Jeſus Chriſt, as Signs and Pictures repreſent their Original, but that they preſent and communicate them to us in effect, inaſmuch as they contain the Subſtance of them, and that 'tis to confirm this Propoſition he alledges the words of our Saviour, This is my Body, this is my Blood. But this evaſion will not ſerve turn, if the ſence and ſequel of Zonarus his Diſcourſe be never ſo little conſider'd. His Deſign was to confute the Armenians, in ſhewing that there ought to be Water mingled with the Wine in the Chalice. To prove this, he aſſerts, we muſt repreſent in the Myſtery the Water and Blood which ran down the pierced Side of our Saviour when on the Croſs, and to confirm this Propoſition, he has recourſe to this general Maxim, that the Myſteries, which is to ſay, the Bread and Wine, do repreſent the Body and Blood of our Lord. Which plainly ſhews then we muſt not tranſlate the Verb foreign, preſent, or give, for why, ſay's he, the Bread and Chalice give us the Body and Blood of Chriſt; but becauſe Jeſus Chriſt has ſaid, This is my Body, this is my Blood. We muſt then put Water into the Cup, becauſe Blood and Water iſſued out from our Saviour's Side. The Armenians have ſaid on the contrary there muſt be none put in, becauſe the Lord only made mention of his Blood; that 'tis very uncertain, whether the Myſteries give us this Water which ran down from our Lord's Side; and that ſuppoſing they do give it us, yet does it not hence follow we muſt mingle Water with the Wine in the Cup, the Wine alone being ſufficient to be tranſubſtantiated into the Blood and Water which accompanies the Blood. We muſt then neceſſarily (if we ſuppoſe Zonarus ſpeaks ſence) underſtand the Term of foreign, 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 …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.