The Catholic Doctrine of the Eucharist in All Ages, Book 4 · Chapter 7

The Catholic Doctrine of the Eucharist in All Ages · Book 4 · Chapter 7

p. 306CHAP. VII.

Several Paſſages of Greek Authors (Cited by Mr. Arnaud) Examined.

THAT which remains to be examined of Mr. Arnaud's Diſpute touching this matter of the Greeks ſince the eleventh Century, will not long detain us. He produces ſome Paſſages out of Theophylact, Euthymius, Nicholas Methonienſis, Cabaſilas, Simeon de Theſſalonica, Jeremias the Patriarch of Conſtantinople, and ſeveral of the Greek Books of Divinity. They are the ſame we find in all the Controvertiſts in Bellarmin, Cardinal Perron, Coccius, Father Noüet, and eſpecially Allatius, from whom it ſeems Mr. Arnaud has taken them, rather than from their Originals. It will be a needleſs Labour to relate them at length, one after another, together with Mr. Arnaud's Commentaries on them: It will be ſufficient I examine as much as is neceſſary to give the true Sence of them, and to diſcover Mr. Arnaud's Errors; which I hope to do ſo clearly, that the Readers will remain ſatisfied.

p. 307FIRST, Theophylact, Euthymius, Cabaſilus, and Jeremias, aſſure us that the Bread of the Euchariſt is not an Antitype, that is to ſay a Figure, or Repreſentation, but the very Body it ſelf of Jeſus Chriſt, becauſe he did not ſay, this is the Antitype, but this is my Body. I grant all this, and I joyn all theſe four Authors together on this Head, that I may thereby avoid Mr. Arnaud's Prolixity, who having propoſed them one after another, could not avoid the oft repeating of the ſame Inductions and Arguments: One Anſwer ſhall ſerve for all. Theophylact, ſay's he, keeps to the propriety of Words, he excludes Lib. 2. c. 9. p. 180.whatſoever varies from 'em: He overthrows and abſolutely rejects all metaphorical Significations, and keeps cloſe to the literal Signification of the Word EST. C. 12. p. 215.Euthymius, ſay's he, excludes the Key of Figure, and plainly ſhows he has not taken the Word EST in the Sence of SIGNIFICAT. He has then taken it in a Sence of Reality. From whence he concludes that theſe Authors could not mean that the Bread is the Body of Chriſt in Virtue, ſeeing they would argue contrary to their Intention; For as our Saviour ſaid not, This is the Figure, nor that the Bread he would give ſhould be the Figure; ſo neither has he ſaid, that he would give the Virtue of his Fleſh, or that the Bread he would give, ſhould contain the Virtue of his Fleſh.

I anſwer, Mr. Arnaud need not trouble himſelf with ſhewing us that the Greeks admit not the figurative Sence in our Saviour's Words, neither take the Term EST in the Sence of SIGNIFICAT. We grant it him: And we grant likewiſe that we agree not with them in this. But the Queſtion here is to know, whether it thence follows they believe Tranſubſtantiation. Now I maintain that not only this does not follow, but that the contrary does; for they hold a kind of middle way between the Sence of Figure and that of Tranſubſtantiation. In a word, they believe that the Bread remaining Bread (as to its Subſtance) is yet the proper Body of Chriſt, by Augmentation of the natural Body, as we already ſhewed in the laſt Chapter of the foregoing Book. What does Mr. Arnaud deſire more? Would he have us ſhew, that the Greeks believe the Bread is made the Body of Chriſt by this means, in the ſame manner the Food we eat becomes our Body? They ſay ſo in expreſs terms. Would he have us ſhew him, that by this means, the Subſtance of Bread loſes not its Exiſtence, nor is changed into the proper Subſtance of the Body that 'twas before? The thing it ſelf ſpeaks as much, and we have ſhewed it in its place, as clearly as a thing of this Nature can be ſhew'd. Does he doubt that the Greeks believe by this means, to keep the preciſe and literal Sence of our Saviour's Words? They do themſelves declare that they underſtand them no otherwiſe. Would he have this, in fine, to be but a bad way of keeping the literal Sence? The Greeks maintain the contrary, and alledg for this Effect the Inſtance of Food which is made one with our Body, by this ſame way of Aſſimulation and Augmentation, and that it cannot be ſaid theſe are two Bodies, but one and the ſame Body.

BUT as, ſay's he, our Saviour ſaid not, this is the Figure, ſo neither did he ſay, this is the Virtue of my Body, but this is my Body. 1ſt. This is to diſpute againſt the Greeks, and not againſt us, who never undertook to warrant the Truth of their Opinions. 2d. They will anſwer him this Impreſſion of Virtue is ſufficient to make the Bread our Lord's Body without a Figure, and there is no need of a change of Subſtance, becauſe the Subſtance of Food is not preciſely changed into that which we have already, but only added to it, to make a Growth, or Augmentation, yet becomes our p. 308Body in a proper and literal Sence, not a Figure, but our Body it ſelf, not another Body, but the ſame we had before. Beſides they will affirm that the Sence of the Roman Church is not a literal Sence: For the literal Sence of our Saviour's Words muſt retain two things. Firſt, that 'tis Bread, and ſecondly, that 'tis the Body of Chriſt, which Tranſubſtantiation does not.

BUT, ſay's Mr. Arnaud, Baptiſm contains the Virtue of Chriſt's Blood, and yet we do not ſay, Baptiſm is not the Figure of it, but the Blood it ſelf of Chriſt. Lib. 2. c. 9. p. 179.I anſwer, that this is ſtill to diſpute againſt the Greeks, and not againſt me. For ſuppoſing it were more true than it is, that the Water of Baptiſm is not mentioned, like as the Greeks ſpeak of the Bread in the Euchariſt; yet ſtill theſe two things are certain; Firſt, that they affirm the Bread to be the Body of Chriſt by this Impreſſion of Virtue; and ſecondly, that 'tis thus they Underſtand the Words, This is my Body. Ely de Crete having told us that God Comment. in Orat. 1. Greg. Naz.changes the Oblations, into the Efficacy of his Fleſh. Immediately adds, and doubt not of the Truth of this, ſeeing he himſelf plainly ſay's, this is my Body, this is my Blood. It is apparent he grounds this change of the Bread into the Efficacy of Fleſh, on the expreſs Words of our Saviour; Whence it follows that 'tis thus he underſtands them. Cyrillus of Alexandria, having likewiſe ſaid in the ſame manner, that God changes the Oblations into the Efficacy of his Cyrill. apud Victor. Ante MS. in Bibl. Reg.Fleſh, adds, that we muſt not doubt of the Truth of this, ſeeing he has ſaid it, which evidently ſhews that according to him, theſe Words, this is my Body, ſignifies no more, than that this has the Efficacy of my Body, or is my Body in Efficacy. Yet ſhould we take upon us to reply in behalf of the Greeks, to the Inſtance or Example Mr. Arnaud alledges touching Baptiſm; We might tell him that the Reaſon why they expreſs not themſelves in the ſame manner in reference to the Water, as they do to the Bread, is becauſe our Saviour never ſaid of it, this is my Blood, as he ſaid of the Bread, this is my Body; and that the Holy Scripture having differently explained it ſelf touching Baptiſm, and the Euchariſt, we muſt not think it ſtrange, if Divines have expreſſed themſelves about them in a different manner. He may be moreover anſwered, that the ſame Oeconomy obſerved touching the Body and Blood of Chriſt, is not obſerved in the Water of Baptiſm, as it is obſerved in the Bread and Wine in the Eucharist, and therefore it cannot be ſo well ſaid that the Water becomes the Blood by this way of Growth and Augmentation, as may be ſaid of the Bread, altho it receives the Impreſſion of the Virtue of Blood.

AS to what Mr. Arnaud adds that the Miniſters acknowledg theſe Words, this is my Body, muſt be either underſtood in a real, or figurative Sence, whence it follows according to him, that Theophylact underſtood them in one or the other of theſe. I ſay this Reaſoning is falſe, as well in its Principle, as Conſequence: For the Miniſters do not acknowledg either that we ought, or can underſtand theſe Words, in this Sence of Reality the Church of Rome gives them. We all hold that this is an abſurd and impoſſible Sence, and that none but a figurative one can ſubſiſt. But ſuppoſing the Miniſters ſhould ſay what he makes them, why would he have us regulate thereby the Sence of Theophylact and other Greeks. They have argued on their own Hypotheſis, and not on that of the Miniſters: Whether their Hypotheſis be juſtifiable, or not, is not to be diſputed with the Miniſters, for Mr. Arnaud was never yet told that the Greeks were agreed in all things with us. It is ſufficient that on one hand, he be ſhewed in what manner the Greeks pretend the proper Sence of our Saviour's Words is obſerved, and on the other, that this manner, whatſoever it p. 309be, Good, or Bad, Juſtifiable, or Unjuſtifiable, Conformable, or not Conformable to what the Miniſters ſay, is directly oppoſite to Tranſubſtantiation, for our only Queſtion is, Whether the Greeks believe Tranſubſtantiation or not.

THIS is then a mere Illuſion to explain Theophylact by what the Miniſters ſay or not ſay, and it is yet a greater, to tell us as if it were a thing earneſtly Diſputed between him and us, that Euthymius excludes the Key of Figure, and does not take the Word EST in the Sence of Significat; that 'tis not likely we would borrow Euthymius his Words to inſtruct a Man in our Opinion, and Lib. 2. c. 12.that we are not wont to ſay, that Chriſt gave us not the Figure of his Body, but his Body, becauſe he ſaid, this is my Body. And thus do Men argue that impoſe on the World, which Mr. Arnaud never fails of doing.

HAVING produced theſe Arguments, which in my Mind have not proved very ſucceſsful to him, he offers us others, drawn from the Doubts or Difficulties, which the Greeks propoſe to themſelves, as ariſing from their Sentiment, and which they endeavour to reſolve in the beſt manner they can. Theophylact, ſay's he, teſtifies there ariſes naturally a Doubt from what Faith teaches concerning this Myſtery, that the Bread is really the Fleſh of Chriſt, which difficulty Lib. 2. c. 9. p. 183.he expreſſes in theſe Words. Quomodo, inquit, neque enim caro videtur; How can this be? For this Bread does not ſeem to me to be Fleſh: Whence he obſerves the natural Conſequence of this Change muſt be, that the Bread being Fleſh muſt appear to be ſo, and ſeeing it does not, 'tis aſtoniſhing. Et quomodo, inquit aliquis, non apparet caro ſed Panis? Now, ſay's he, let a man take Aubertin's, or Mr. Claude's Gloſs, to expound Theophylact, and we ſhall find nothing can be more Extravagant. For this is as much as to ſay according to them, if it be true the Bread contains the Virtue of Chriſt's Body, how comes it to paſs, that it does not appear to us to be Fleſh? Whence is it we ſee only Bread and not Fleſh? Is it not ridiculous to make People reaſon after ſo abſurd a manner. And why muſt this Bread containing only the Virtue of Chriſt's Body appear Fleſh, when it is not ſo? Does it follow from the Breads partaking of a ſpiritual Quality of the Fleſh of Chriſt, either morally or phyſically, that it muſt appear Fleſh? Would it not be on the contrary a dreadful Prodigy, if the Fleſh of Chriſt being only in Virtue in the Bread of the Euchariſt, ſhould appear Fleſh.

AND this is Mr. Arnaud's Reaſoning, ſet forth with its uſual Sweetneſs, that is to ſay, of Extravagancies and Abſurdities, with which he charges both me and Mr. Aubertin. I anſwer he is under a Miſtake, and ſuch a kind of Miſtake too, wherein his Reputation is deeply concern'd; for he takes for the Ground of Theophylact's Doubt, that which is on the contrary the Solution of it, as will appear by what follows. Now a Man cannot fall into a greater Error, than to take for the cauſe of a Doubt, that which is the Solution thereof, and which makes the Doubt ceaſe. To Diſpel then this vain Shadow, under which he has diſguiſed the Paſſage of Theophylact, we need only examine the ſeveral Parts of this Author's Diſcourſe, and ſhow their mutual Dependence. Immediately treating on the Words of Chriſt, he rejects the Sence of Figure. Jeſus Chriſt, ſay's he, in his Commentary on St. Comm. in Mat. c. 26.Matt 26Mathew, by theſe Words, this is my Body, ſhows us that the Bread which is Conſecrated on the Altar, is the Lord's own Body, and not an Antitype. For he did not ſay, This is the Antitype, but, this is my Body, this Bread being changed by an ineffable Operation, altho it appears to us to be ſtill Bread. He ſay's the ſame thing on the ſixth Chapter of St. John, and the fourteenth of St. Marc. So far he aſſerts that the Bread is the Body it ſelf, and Fleſh of Chriſt; but he p. 310does not explain after what manner it is ſo. Now becauſe from this Propoſition thus generally conceived, and not explained, there may ariſe two difficulties; one, how the ſame thing can be Bread and Fleſh; th'other, how it does not appear to us to be Fleſh, but Bread; Theophylact propoſes 'em both, Com. in. Joan.and reſolves 'em. He propoſes the firſt in theſe Terms: The Bread is changed into our Lord's Fleſh by myſtical Words, by the myſtical Bleſſing, and coming of the Holy Spirit: And let no body be troubled that he muſt believe the Bread is Fleſh. He reſolves it by the Example of the Bread which Chriſt eat, and which was changed into his Body, and became like unto his Fleſh in augmenting it, and nouriſhing it. The Lord, ſay's he, when as yet in the World, receiving Ibid.his Nouriſhment from Bread, this Bread he took, was changed into his Body, and became like unto his Fleſh, and contributed to augment and ſuſtain it after a natural manner, ſo in like ſort this Bread is now changed into our Lord's Fleſh.

IT is plain, this Anſwer ſuppoſes that the Bread is made the Body of Chriſt by way of Augmentation, and by a kind of Aſſimulation, as the Bread which he eat whilſt on earth, became his Body. Now firſt we ſee that this is not the Romane Tranſubſtantiation: The ſubſtance of Bread which the Lord eat, was not changed into the ſame Subſtance which he had before, it was joyned unto it, and made like it: But moreover what relation has this with the Difficulty which Theophylact propoſed to himſelf? Is it not evident that it muſt be ſolved after another manner, ſuppoſing he believed Tranſubſtantiation. For it muſt be ſaid that the Bread is not Fleſh, but only as it is really and ſubſtantially converted into the ſame Subſtance of this Fleſh. The Romiſh Hypotheſis would unavoidably lead him to this; but inſtead of this, he anſwers by an Example wherein Tranſubſtantiation is not concern'd, and this ſhows clearly that he had not this Tranſubſtantiation in his Thoughts.

AS to the ſecond Difficulty, which conſiſts in that if the Bread were Fleſh, it would appear Fleſh, as it may equally ſpring both from the Solution which he came from giving to the firſt Doubt, to wit, the Compariſon of the Bread which Chriſt eat, which was changed into his Fleſh; and from the general Propoſition he eſtabliſhed in the beginning, to wit, that the Bread is the Fleſh and the Body it ſelf of Jeſus Chriſt, not his Image; he conſiders it likewiſe as coming from both one and the other of theſe two Principles. He propoſes it in his Commentaries on St. John, as ariſing from the Solution he had given it: For having related this Compariſon of the Bread Chriſt eat, which became his Body, he adds, how then can it be ſaid? Why does it appear to us to be Bread, and not Fleſh. In effect, if it be the ſame with the Bread of the Euchariſt, as that which Chriſt eat, it ſeems it ought appear to us, to be Fleſh as the other did. To this Theophylact anſwers, that if it appeared Fleſh to us, we ſhould be ſtruck with Horror at the ſight of it. It is, ſay's he, to the end we may not conceive Horror in the eating of it: For if it appeared to us to be Fleſh, we could not but abhor the Communion. It is then by an effect of God's Condeſcention to our Weakneſs, that the Myſtical Food appears to us to be ſuch as we are uſed to. This Anſwer ſuffers us to conclude that 'tis not the Phyſical or Natural from of Fleſh, which is communicated to the Euchariſtical Bread, but the other; For if it received the Phyſical Form, as the Bread Chriſt eat did, it would appear Fleſh as well as that Bread did. All this agrees ſtill very well with the Greeks Hypotheſis.

BUT ſome will reply, this Anſwer is ſhort, for it does not ſufficiently explain p. 311what is this other Form which the Euchariſtical Bread receives, and which makes it the Body of Chriſt? I reply, the Anſwer would be ſhort indeed, had not Theophylact clearly explained himſelf thereon in his Commentary on St. Marc, wherein he propoſed the ſame doubt, as ariſing from the general Propoſition, that the Bread is Fleſh. This Bread, ſay's he, is not a Figure of our Lord's Body, but it is changed into the Lord's Body: The Bread which I ſhall give is my Fleſh. He does not ſay 'tis the Figure of my Fleſh, but my Fleſh. And in another place, if you eat not the Fleſh of the Son of Man. But it will be replied; how does it not appear to be Fleſh? O man, 'tis becauſe of thine Infirmities: For becauſe the Bread and Wine are Food familiar to us, and that we are not able to ſuffer Blood and Fleſh before us; God full of Mercy, in Condeſcenſion to our Weakneſs, conſerves the Species of Bread and Wine, but changes them into the VIRTUE OF HIS FLESH AND BLOOD. It is clear he means that our Weakneſs not ſuffering us to eat Bread which received the natural form of Fleſh, God conſerves the Bread and Wine in their proper Species; but to make them his Fleſh and Blood, imprints on them this ſupernatural Virtue. Who ſees not that the whole Scope of his Diſcourſe tends to this; The Bread is the real Fleſh of Chriſt, not its Repreſentation, becauſe there muſt a proper Sence be given to our Lord's Words? But if it really be this Fleſh, why does it not appear Fleſh? It is by an effect of God's Condeſcention, which ſeeing we are not able to bear the ſight of Fleſh and Blood, makes the Bread his Fleſh, not by an Impreſſion of the ſubſtantial Form of Fleſh; but by an Impreſſion of Virtue.

IT appears then from the Explication which I now gave to Theophylact's Diſcourſe. 1st. That Mr. Arnaud has been ſtrangely miſtaken when he imagined that to expound him according to our Sence; he muſt ſay, if it be ſo that the Bread contains the Virtue of Chriſt's Body, why does it not appear Fleſh to us? For this Doubt does not ariſe from the Bread's being Fleſh in Virtue; on the contrary, 'tis that which diſſipates the Doubt, and makes it vaniſh: It comes either from the general Propoſition that the Bread is Fleſh, and not the Figure of Fleſh; or from this other Propoſition, that it is Fleſh even as the Bread which Jeſus Chriſt eat was changed into his Fleſh; but the Doubt reſolves it ſelf by this laſt Propoſition, that it is changed into the Virtue of Fleſh and Blood.

SECONDLY, It appears likewiſe from thence, that Theophylact had not Tranſubſtantiation in his Thoughts: For if he had it in his Thoughts, he muſt have ſolved the Difficulty in another manner: He muſt have ſaid that the appearance of Bread remains; but that its Subſtance is changed into the Fleſh of Chriſt, and for this Reaſon does not appear Fleſh, but Bread. But yet notwithſtanding the Doubts would not have ceaſed as they do now, for it might be demanded, how this appearance of Bread ſubſiſted alone, without its natural Subſtance, how our Sences could be deceived by an appearance of Bread, which was not Bread; and by a real ſubſtance of Fleſh, which appears not Fleſh; how this ſame Subſtance of the Fleſh of Chriſt can be in Heaven, and on Earth at the ſame time; and ſeveral other ſuch like Queſtions, which are not to be found in Theophylact's Text. 3dly. It appears likewiſe that Theophylact believed, that if the Bread was Fleſh otherwiſe, than by an Impreſſion of Virtue, it muſt needs appear Fleſh. For in ſaying that 'tis in Condeſcention to our Weakneſs, that God changes it into the Virtue of his Fleſh; he leaves it to be concluded that otherwiſe our Infirmities would not be ſuccoured, and we muſt unavoidably behold Fleſh in its natural Form.

p. 312MR. Arnaud not liking this change of Virtue, which is found thus deſcribed in proper terms in Theophylact's Diſcourſe, endeavours to give three different Explications of them, and leaves us at liberty to chooſe either of them. Firſt, that by the virtue of Fleſh, we muſt underſtand the Reality, the internal Eſſence of this Fleſh. The ſecond, that this is a way of ſpeaking, which is uſual with the Greeks to ſay foreign, or foreign the Force, or Power of Fleſh, to ſignify Fleſh full of Efficacy. The third, that when two things are joyned together in Truth, and in the Mind of thoſe to whom we ſpeak, it often happens Theſe 2.that in expreſſing them, we denote but one, without excluding the other, and with a deſign to make the other understood, which we do not expreſs by that which we do. Which he afterwards explains in theſe Terms. It is certain that the Conſecrated Bread is changed into the Body of Chriſt: It is certain likewiſe that it becomes full of its Virtue and Efficacy. Theſe two Truths are joyned, and are the Conſequences of each other: And therefore it oft happens that Authors do joyntly expreſs them, as does Euthymius, who tells us in expreſs Terms, That as Jeſus Chriſt deified the Fleſh he took by a ſupernatural Operation, ſo he changes the Bread and Wine after an ineffable manner into his proper Body, which is the Fountain of Life, and into his proper Blood, and into the Virtue of both one and the other. But as theſe two changes are ſtill joyned in Effect, and the Fathers ſuppoſing they were joyned in the Spirit of the Faithful; It ſufficed them to expreſs the one, to make the other underſtood: And thus they tell us a hundred times that the Bread is changed into the Body of Chriſt, without expreſſing it is filled with its Virtue, becauſe one follows the other, and Theophylact having told us ſeveral times that the Bread is changed into the Body of Chriſt, tells us once, that 'tis changed into its Strength, as the ſequel of a Myſtery which makes it conceived wholy entire, becauſe the Faith of the Faithful does not ſeparate the virtue of Chriſts Body, from the Body it ſelf, nor his Body from its Virtue, it never having entred into their Minds, that Chriſt's Body was in Heaven, and that we have only in the Euchariſt its Strength and Virtue, whereas they believe that we have only this Strength and Virtue, upon the account of its being really and truly preſent in our Myſteries. And 'tis by theſe Engines Mr. Arnaud pretends to draw Tranſubſtantiation from the Paſſage of Theophylact.

BUT in general, all theſe three Explications appear to us to be forced, and neither of 'em to be choſen: There needs not this great ſtir to find Theophylact's real Meaning. He means no more than what his Expreſſions plainly intimate, to wit, That the Bread and Wine are changed into the Virtue of the Fleſh and Blood of Chriſt, and he means nothing elſe. Had he believed a change of Subſtance, he would have ſaid ſo: as well as a Change of Virtue, and ſo much the rather as I obſerved, that the Difficulty which he propoſed to reſolve, obliged him to explain himſelf clearly about it. Why does not the Bread being Fleſh, appear to be ſo? Becauſe its Subſtance is only changed, and its Accidents remain. A Man that believed Tranſubſtantiation muſt needs ſay thus.

THE firſt Explication eſpecially, can have no grounds, becauſe that when we ſpeak of the Virtue of a thing to ſignify its Truth, Reality, and inward Eſſence: It is only when the Queſtion concerns this Truth, or this Reality in reſpect of its Operation or Effects, and Mr. Arnaud's Inſtances confirm what I ſay. For when St. Paul ſaid, ſpeaking of Hypocrites, that they have a Form or Appearance of Godlyneſs foreign, but that they denied the Power, foreign, he means, they have only a falſe Appearance of it, a vain Shadow, but not the Reality of it, which is ſeen by its Effects. So when Heſychius ſay's p. 313that it is to receive the Communion ignorantly, not to know the Virtue and Dignity of it, and to be ignorant that 'tis the Body and Blood of Chriſt according to Truth: That this is to receive the Myſtery, and not know the Virtue of them; he did not mean that the Myſteries were the Body and Blood of Jeſus Chriſt in Subſtance, but according to the ſpiritual Underſtanding, which is what he calls the Truth of the Myſtery, it is the Body and Blood of Chriſt, becauſe what offers it ſelf to our ſight, is only the Shadow and Vale of the Myſtery; but that the Divine Object repreſented by theſe ſenſible things, is the Body and Blood of Jeſus Chriſt: Which is what he calls the Virtue of the Myſtery, becauſe its whole Operation and Effects depend only on them: As to what he alledges of Paſchaſius, beſides that he is an Author who affects Obſcurity, as is uſual with Innovators, and that there is a great deal of Injuſtice in regulating Theophylact's Sence, by his Expreſſions, beſides this I ſay, there is nothing can hinder us from ſaying that when he called the internal Eſſence of things their Virtue, it was in reſpect of their Operation and Effects. But this cannot be ſaid of Theophylact, for his Diſcourſe does not concern the Effects of the Euchariſt, but only to know, why the Bread being the Fleſh of Chriſt, yet does not appear Fleſh. If then he would ſay, it is becauſe the appearance of Bread remains, and that its Subſtance is changed into the Subſtance of the Body of Chriſt, to what purpoſe ſhould he explain himſelf in this manner, it is changed into the Virtue of the Body. Why ſhould he ſay Virtue for Subſtance, ſeeing that here there was no Queſtion raiſed about the Efficacy of the Sacrament.

MR. Arnaud's ſecond Explication, is no better than the firſt. He tells us tis an uſual way of ſpeaking amongſt the Greeks, to ſay foreign or foreign the Strength, or Power of Fleſh; to ſignifie the Fleſh full of Efficacy. But not to enter into the Diſcuſſion of his Criticiſm, concerning which much might be ſaid, did he only pretend to prove it by two Verſes of Horace, by a Paſſage of Paſchaſius Ratbert, and another of St. Bernard's. I ſay that when Authors expreſs themſelves in this manner, the Virtue of a thing, to ſignify a thing full of Virtue or Efficacy, 'tis only when they conſider this thing under the Idea of its Virtue or Efficacy, and not otherwiſe; Thus when Horace ſay's, The Virtue of Scipio, and the Wiſdom of Lelius: It is becauſe he conſidered them under the Quality of Virtuous and Wiſe, as we call the King his Majeſty, then when we are filled with the Idea of his Greatneſs. It is the ſame in theſe Expreſſions foreign, the Force or Rapidity of the River, for a ſwift River, foreign the ſtrength of Hercules, for the valiant Hercules, for then they are conſidered under the Idea of their Strength. Our Saviour ſay's, the Virtue of the Holy Spirit, when he meant the Effects of the Power of the Holy Spirit on the Apoſtles. St. Bernard ſay's likewiſe in the ſame Sence, that the wiſe Men acknowledged the Virtue of God in the weak Body of a Child, becauſe he deſigned to oppoſe the eternal Power of the Divinity, to the weakneſs of Childhood. But there is no ſuch thing in the Paſſage of Theophylact, for he does not conſider the Fleſh of Chriſt in reſpect of the Effects which it diſplays on the Faithful, but ſimply conſiders it in Reference to the Bread which is changed into it, and the Point is not to know, as I have already ſaid, why this Bread produces ſo great Effects; but only why being Fleſh, it does not appear Fleſh, but Bread. So that theſe two pretended Explications of Mr. Arnaud's are but mere Evaſions, being Groundleſs and Improbable.

AS to the third, did ever any man ſee any thing more forc'd, and Illuſo…y, than this whole Diſcourſe he makes to eſtabliſh it. When the Bread, ſay's he, p. 314is changed into the Body of Chriſt, it becomes full of its Virtue and Efficacy. What means Mr. Arnaud by this? If the Bread be changed into the Subſtance of Chriſt's Fleſh, it ceaſes to be Bread: Now that which ceaſes to be, is no longer filled with any thing, becauſe 'tis abſolutely no longer in being. There remains only the external Figure, and when we underſtand that 'tis this external Figure that is filled, we cannot ſay that that which is changed is filled, for 'tis not the Figure that is changed. It is certain when a Mans Head is overy full of Philoſophical Notions, they make him forget himſelf.

IT ſometimes happens, adds he, that Authors expreſs theſe two Truths joyntly together, as Euthymius has done. But I already ſhewed that Euthymius in ſaying the Bread and Wine are changed into the Body and Blood, and into the Virtue of both; never deſigned thereby to expreſs two different things; but only made uſe of two different Expreſſions, to ſignify one and the ſame thing; the latter of which is only the Explication of the former, his Et, being to be taken, for a that is to ſay.

MR. Arnaud goes on and ſay's that Theophylact having ſaid ſeveral times the Bread is changed into the Body of Chriſt, tells us once 'tis changed into his Strength, as an effect of the Myſtery, which makes it conceived intire. But it is eaſy to anſwer him, that when Theophylact ſay's the Bread is changed into the Body, and that it is changed into the Virtue of the Body, theſe are neither two diſtinct things, nor two parts of the Myſtery, but two Expreſſions which ſignify at bottom but one and the ſame thing; with this Difference, that the one is general, and th'other particular, the one more confuſed, and th'other more diſtinct, the one, which gives way in ſome ſort to the Doubt by its generality, and th'other which reſolves it. It is certain he has ſaid ſeveral times the Bread is changed into the Body, and only once, 'that 'tis changed into the Virtue of the Body, but it is alſo true, that he never ſaid it is changed into the Subſtance of the Body. If he only once ſpake of the Change of Virtue, this once is ſufficient to ſhew his meaning. Others have mentioned it as well as he, as Theodotus, Cyrillus of Alexandria, Victor of Antioch, Eutychius, Euthymius, Ely de Crete. Who could ever be perſwaded all theſe Authors (who lived in divers times) have conſpired together to ſay always Virtue, and never Subſtance, altho they had in their Thoughts a Change of Subſtance, and not of Virtue.

THE Language of the Greeks is Conformable to that of Paſchaſius his Adverſaries, as he ſhews us himſelf in his Commentary on St. Mathew. They ſaid the Bread was changed into the Virtue of the Fleſh of Chriſt, and Paſchaſius is not ſo nice in his Language as Mr. Arnaud. He neither ſay's the Virtue ſignifies Verity, Reality, internal Eſſence, nor that the Virtue of the Fleſh, ſignifies the Fleſh full of Virtue, nor that 'tis only one part of the Myſtery which ſignifies the other. All theſe Turnings were not in faſhion in his time: He very honeſtly takes this Term in the true Sence of thoſe that uſed it. I am aſtoniſhed, ſay's he, at what ſome ſay now, viz. that the Euchariſt is not Paſchaſ. Rat. 6. in Mat. 26.Matt 26the Fleſh and Blood of Chriſt really, but Sacramentally; a certain Efficacy of the Fleſh, not the Fleſh itſelf, the Virtue of the Blood, but not the Blood itſelf. In this manner did they underſtand it, who ſpake of a change of Virtue, and thus was it taken by Paſchaſius: But Mr. Arnaud has found that according to the Rules of his Grammar it muſt be taken otherwiſe, and as if he were the ſole Judg of mens Thoughts, and Interpreter of their Sence, he aſſures us that this Change of Virtue, ſignifies a Change of Subſtance, by three Explications, of which he gives us the Choice.

p. 315MOREOVER I know not why he ſhould tell us, that the Faith of the Lib. 2. c. 9. p. 288.Eaithful never ſeparates the Virtue of Chriſt's Body, from the Body itſelf, nor his Body from its Virtue. For if he means this generally, as his Expreſſions intimate, he ſhould remember what he ſaid juſt before, That Baptiſm contains the Virtue of Chriſt's Blood, in the ſame manner the Miniſters imagine this Virtue to be Ibid. p. 179.contained in the Euchariſt. He ſhould have obſerved that in his Chapter on Nicholas Methonienſis, he poſitively aſſerts, that the Virtue of Chriſt's Body is Lib. 2. c. 13. p. 223.communicated to the Water of Baptiſm, and the Oyl of Confirmation. It ſeems to me here's a manifeſt Contradiction, for if the Faithful do not ſeparate the Virtue of Chriſt's Body, from the Body it ſelf, that is to ſay according as he underſtands it from the Subſtance of his Body: How does the Water of Baptiſm, and the Oyl of Confirmation contain the Virtue of this Body, ſeeing 'tis out of Doubt that they contain not the Subſtance of them? But whence has he learned ſuch a profound kind of Doctrine, that the Faith of the Faithful does not ſeparate the Virtue of Chriſt's Body, from the Body it ſelf? Does not this Virtue accompany the Word of God which St. Paul calls the Power of God to Salvation, and in which, notwithſtanding there is not to be imagined a Preſence of the Subſtance of Chriſt's Body? Does he not know that the Fathers teach, We eat our Saviour's Fleſh, as well in the hearing of the Word, as in the Participation of Baptiſm, which can only be underſtood of the Virtue ſeparated from the Subſtance? If Mr. Arnaud ſay's that he underſtands this as meant only of the Eucharist, beſides that his Terms are general, and in manner of a Principle, which he afterwards applies to the Euchariſt; beſides this I ſay, this does not at all reſolve the Queſtion, ſeeing our Debate is, Whether the Virtue of the Body is in the Euchariſt together with the Subſtance, or whether it be in it alone, and without the Subſtance. Wherefore muſt not the Faithful who acknowledg in other Particulars this Virtue without the Subſtance, acknowledg the ſame thing in the Eucharist?

AND this is what I had to ſay to the Paſſage of Theophylact, and which may likewiſe ſerve for an Illuſtration to what Mr. Arnaud alledges out of Nicholas Methonienſis. This Author wrote a Treatiſe which is inſerted in the Bibl. Patr. Tom. 2. Greco. Lat.Bibliotheca Patrum, under this Title foreign. Againſt thoſe that doubt, and ſay the Conſecrated Bread and Wine are not the Body and Blood of our Lord Jeſus Chriſt.

MR. Arnaud, ſay's he, finds the Miniſters very much perplexed touching this Doubt. But this is only an imaginary Difficulty: For what Perplexity is Lib. 2. c. 13. p. 223.there in it? Theſe People doubted whether the Bread and Wine were the Body and Blood of Chriſt: But did they doubt that the Bread and Wine were the Signs or Repreſentations of the Body and Blood of Chriſt? No, this was not the Cauſe of their Doubt: Did they doubt that 'twas the Body of Chriſt in Virtue? Should we take their Doubt in this Sence; 'twould not be ſuch a ſtrange Matter as Mr. Arnaud makes it. He may declame if he pleaſes, Why could not they believe Chriſt might morally communicate to the Bread, the Virtue of his Body? Is it a harder matter to communicate to the Ibid.Bread the Virtue of Chriſt's Body, than to communicate it to the Water of Baptiſm, and the Oyl of Confirmation? This is but a Flouriſh, for Palladius tells us that a Monk doubted of this very thing, having had no Reſpect to Mr. Arnaud's Remonſtrances. He doubted touching the Gifts, and ſaid, how can the Pallad. Hiſt. cap. 73.Gifts ſanctify me. St. Ambroſe in his Treatiſe de Initiatis, combats the ſame p. 316Doubts touching the Virtue of Baptiſm: Is this then this great Myſtery which Eye hath not ſeen, nor Ear heard, nor yet hath entred into the Heart of Man to conceive? I ſee the ſame Water which I ſee every Day, is this that which muſt cleanſe me? Mr. Arnaud muſt not imagine it is ſo eaſy a matter for weak and prophane Perſons, to believe a ſupernatural Virtue to be communicated to the Bread and Wine. We have already ſeen that Cyrillus of Alexandria, and Ely de Creté, having told us that God changes the Bread into the Virtue of his Body; add, that we muſt not doubt of it, ſeeing Chriſt himſelf ſay's it, which ſhows that this is as much a Subject of Doubt, as any thing elſe.

BUT there is no neceſſity of expounding in this Sence the Doubt of thoſe of whom Nicholas Methonienſis ſpeaks: His Expreſſions muſt not be altered. They doubted whether the Bread and Wine were the Body and Blood of Chriſt, and this Doubt aroſe from the general and uſual Expreſſions of the Greeks, who poſitively affirm it. What can be concluded hence? The Greeks then underſtand theſe general Expreſſions in a Sence of Tranſubſtantiation, or real Preſence. I deny it, and that with Reaſon; for this does not follow: But it will be replied, theſe Doubters at leaſt believed their Church, took them in this Sence, and 'tis likely this was the Occaſion of their Doubt. Which I alſo deny, for if theſe were their Thoughts, why did they not tell us ſo? Why could not they ſay they doubted of the Truth of this Doctrine, that the Bread and Wine are changed into the Subſtance of the Body and Blood of Chriſt. To what purpoſe ſo many Words? This Propoſition, the Bread is the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, offended them; and which way ſoever they turn'd it, it could not ſeem to them capable of a rational Sence. Whether this Doubt aroſe thro want of a thro-Conſideration, or whether in effect they had examined the matter, or had conſidered the Propoſition, either confuſedly in it ſelf, or in the Expoſition, the Greeks gave of it, is more than we know, for Nicolas Methonienſis ſay's nothing of it, and we cannot inform our ſelves elſewhere. This is a matter of Fact, on which every Man may make his Conjectures, but yet this Principle muſt remain undenyable, that their Doubt aroſe from this Propoſition, the Bread is the Body of Jeſus Chriſt; and not from this other, the Bread is Tranſubſtantiated into the Body of Jeſus Chriſt.

LET Mr. Arnaud ſhew us if he pleaſes, how it happens that between theſe two Doubts which Theophylact and Nicolas Methonienſis propoſe, there ariſes never a one touching the ſubſtantial Converſion; for ſuppoſing the Greeks believed it, it could not be, but ſome muſt doubt and ſay, how is the Subſtance of Bread changed into that of the Body of Chriſt; even as they ſay'd, how is Bread Fleſh? How is Bread the Body? The Languages, which Lib. 2. c. 13. p. 223.according to Mr. Arnaud, are not ſo barren but they can furniſh us with Expreſſions to ſay, I doubt whether the Bread contains the Virtue of Chriſt's Body, I doubt whether it is the Figure of the Body of Chriſt? Can they not likewiſe ſupply them with proper Terms, who would ſay, I doubt whether the Subſtance of Bread is changed into the Subſtance of Chriſt's Body?

THERE is nothing then in the Doubt of theſe People which Nicholas Methonienſis handles, which can favour Mr. Arnaud's Cauſe. Neither is there any thing in his Anſwer which will do him any Kindneſs. Nicolaus Methonienſis ſays, that the Bread is changed into the Body of Chriſt. That this Myſtical Sacrifice takes its Original from our Lord himſelf: That we muſt not deſpiſe what has been taught us by this Divine Mouth which cannot lye: That 'twas he himſelf told us, this is my Body, this is my Blood, and if you eat not the Fleſh of p. 317the Son of Man, nor drink his Blood, you have no Life in you. That we muſt not charge him with want of Power, ſeeing he is Almighty: That his Body was born of a Virgin above the courſe of Nature, and above the Thoughts and Apprehenſions of Men. Mr. Arnaud is ſo well ſatisfied with theſe Expreſſions, that he cries out in a Tranſport of Joy, that they are juſt, natural, and befitting Ibid. p. 226.a Biſhop to Utter, that believes Tranſubſtantiation, and Refutes thoſe that do not! But what is there in all this, which does not agree with the Sentiment of the Greeks, being ſuch as I have repreſented it, in the thirteenth Chapter of the foregoing Book? The Bread is changed into the Body of Chriſt, by the Impreſſion of his ſupernatural Virtue, and is made this Body by way of Augmentation: This is an Effect of his almighty Power, which acts above the Courſe of Nature; But it does not follow that this is a Tranſubſtantiation. Had Nicolaus Methonienſis meant a Change of Subſtance, why could he not ſay ſo, the Tongues which Mr. Arnaud has ſo inriched when the Virtue of the Body was in Queſtion, muſt they immediately become ſo poor again, when the Queſtion concerns that of Subſtance? Could not they furniſh this Biſhop with proper Terms, to ſay that the Subſtance of Bread is changed into that of the Body? Which is what he ought to find in Nicholas his Expreſſions to bear him out in his Exultations. But Mr. Arnaud can find matter of Triumph when he pleaſes.

NICOLAUS Methonienſis continuing his Diſcourſe, adds, perhaps you doubt of this Myſtery, and do not Believe it becauſe you do not ſee Fleſh and Blood. He means according to Mr. Claude, ſay's Mr. Arnaud, perhaps you do not believe P. 226.the Bread and Wine contain the Virtue of Chriſt's Body and Blood, becauſe you do not ſee Fleſh and Blood; as if there muſt appear Fleſh and Blood, that we may believe the Bread and Wine contain the Virtue of them. Theſe Peoples Reaſoning, adds he, would conſiſt according to Mr. Claude in a very pleaſant Argument, if the Bread and Wine Contain'd the Virtue of Chriſt's Body, there would appear Fleſh and Blood in the Euchariſt, but there does not appear Fleſh and Blood; Therefore they do not contain the Virtue thereof. He enhaunceth this Remark by an Example taken from my Book, which contains, ſay's he, morally my Virtue, ſo that it may be demanded why my Perſon does not appear in all the Chambers wherein my Book is read.

THIS Diſcourſe is ſo full of Error, that I can ſcarce believe it is Mr. Arnaud's own. 1ſt. Suppoſing we do attribute to theſe Dubitants the Argument he has formed, he cannot call it a pleaſant and ridiculous Argument, as he has done, without contradicting himſelf, and deriding his own Maxim, which he laid down in his Chapter touching Theophylact, That the Faith of the Faithful P. 188.doth never ſeparate the Virtue of Chriſt's Body, from the Body it ſelf, nor his Body from his Virtue, and that it never entred into their Thoughts the Body of Chriſt was in Heaven, and that we receive only in the Euchariſt its Strength and Virtue, whereas they believe we receive only this Strength and Virtue, from its being really and truly preſent in our Myſteries. Suppoſing that Nicolaus Methonienſis his Doubters, reaſoned on the Principle of Mr. Arnaud's Believers, their Argument would contain nothing but what is natural and reaſonable. For if the Virtue of Chriſt's Body be only in the Euchariſt, upon the account of his Body being really and truly Preſent in it, it naturally follows there muſt appear Fleſh therein, ſeeing the Virtue thereof cannot but be accompanied by this Fleſh, according to Mr. Arnaud and his Faithful. This Reaſoning muſt be wholly grounded on two Propoſitions, the one, that whereſoever the Body of Chriſt is ſubſtantially preſent, there muſt appear Fleſh, this is a natural p. 318Conſequence; th'other, that the Virtue of this Body is only in the Euchariſt, becauſe the Body it ſelf is ſubſtantially in it, this is Mr. Arnaud's Faith. If this Reaſoning be Pleaſant and Ridiculous, it cannot be ſo upon the account of the firſt Propoſition; for as I ſaid, it is ſelf Evident. It muſt be ſo then by reaſon of the ſecond, that is to ſay, upon the Account of Mr. Arnaud's Faith. Is it not ſtrange Mr. Arnaud ſhould forget himſelf ſo ſoon as ever he has leap'd out of one Chapter into another, and ridicule himſelf. I confeſs it may happen that a Man, altho otherwiſe conſiderative may fall into Contradiction; for there are few Perſons but what are lyable to Miſtakes; But it is ſtrange a Man ſhould combat and fall foul on himſelf, becauſe that when we are earneſtly intent on any Subject, the Ideas thereof return, and Attention furniſhes us with that Matter which offered not it ſelf at firſt. But that ſuch a man of Parts as Mr. Arnaud, ſhould Contradict and Confute himſelf, and Scoff at his own Aſſertions in the ſame Book, at three Chapters Diſtance, is in my Mind a little amazing.

II. BUT moreover, 'tis certain Mr. Arnaud has been plainly miſtaken in the Arguing which he attributes according to us, to Nicolaus Methonienſis his Dubitants. For we never told him their Doubt was grounded on the Bread's being the Body of Chriſt in Virtue. Perhaps, ſay's Nicolaus Methonienſis, Ye doubt of this Myſtery, and do not believe it, becauſe ye do not ſee Fleſh and Blood in it. Their Doubt was grounded on the general Propoſition of the Greeks: That the Bread and Wine were the Body and Blood of Chriſt. Nicolas ſay's, perhaps this Propoſition appeared to them incredible, becauſe they did not ſee Fleſh and Blood in the Euchariſt. We ſhould know whether theſe Doubters acknowledged, this was in effect the real Cauſe of their Doubt; but ſuppoſing it were, all that can be concluded thence, is that they would Reaſon in this ſort, If the Bread be the Body of Chriſt it muſt appear Fleſh; But it does not, therefore it is not Fleſh. This Reaſoning oppoſes the Expreſſion of the Greeks, that the Bread is the Body of Chriſt, as alſo the Example which they gave of it, to wit, of the Bread which our Saviour eat; but it does not diſagree with the Expoſition which they gave of it, which is, that it is the Body of Chriſt in Virtue; on the contrary we have already obſerved, that Theophylact uſes this Expoſition for the ſolving of the Objection contained in this Reaſoning: Which plainly ſhews that whilſt this Propoſition, the Bread is the Body of Chriſt, ſtands alone, and unexplained; it may give occaſion to Ignorant People to form this Objection, but as ſoon as 'tis explained and ſhewed in what Sence the Greeks underſtand it, the Doubt vaniſhes.

AND this will more plainly appear, if we conſider the Anſwer which Nicolaus Methonienſis made to thoſe that doubted, for it comes very near to that of Theophylact. God, ſay's he, reſpecting our Weakneſs, leſt we ſhould conceive Horror at the Pledges of Eternal Life, as being not able to indure the ſight of Fleſh and Blood, does therefore deliver to us things familiar to our Nature, and has joyned to them his Divinity, ſaying, this is my Body, this is my Blood. This Anſwer does in a manner explain in what Sence the Greeks believed the Bread was the Body of Chriſt, to wit, by its Union with the Divinity, which does very well ſolve the Argument of the Doubters, and bereaves it of its Strength. For if it be the Body of Chriſt only by this means, to wit, by its Union with the Divinity, there is no longer occaſion to ſay it ſhould appear Fleſh.

IT is then clear that this whole Diſpute of Nicolaus Methonienſis overthrows Tranſubſtantiation, as well as that of Theophylact. For as to thoſe p. 319that doubted, had they known the Greek Church taught that the Subſtance of Bread is changed into that of the Body, they would have grounded their Objection, not on the general Propoſition, that the Bread is the Body; but on the particular one, to wit, that the Bread is changed into the Subſtance of the Body, whence it more ſtrongly and diſtinctly follows that it ought to appear Fleſh after the Change. And as to the Anſwer return'd them, they muſt have been told that the Subſtance only is changed, and that the Accidents of Bread remain to ſerve as a Vail to the Fleſh of Chriſt; This is what ought to be anſwered on the Hypotheſis of Tranſubſtantiation, and not that the Bread is joyned to the Divinity. This Anſwer would be abſurd if we ſuppoſe Tranſubſtantiation, of the Difficulty would ſtill remain, Why the Bread becoming the Subſtance of our Lord's proper Fleſh, it does not appear Fleſh? Yet Nicolaus Methonienſis will have theſe Objectors reſt ſatified with his Anſwer, and extends not their Doubts any farther.