The Catholic Doctrine of the Eucharist in All Ages, Book 3 · Chapter 6
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 he received when he was preached to every Creature; as if, he ſpoke to our Saviour himſelf, and ſaid to him, Thou art deſcended to us, thou haſt aſcended into Heaven, and filleſt the whole Earth with thy Glory. And therefore do we celebrate theſe Holy Myſteries, and partake of and poſſeſs thee eternally. Wherefore have we this (as if) he ſpoke to him, foreign, which Goar has well tranſlated, Quaſi cum ſalvatore diſſereret. How comes it to paſs, I Goar in Euchol. p. 153.ſay, we have this, quaſi, if in effect our Saviour was preſent, and the Prieſt ſpake to him? It may be alledged the paſſages I come from producing have ſome ambiguity, for it may be doubted whether by the aforemention'd foreign, is meant, as being the Body of our Lord, or as if it were the Body of our Lord, that is to ſay, as if it were in the ſtead of our Lord's Body. But firſt of all this ambiguity is void in reſpect of the paſſage of Simeon, who tells us, that the Prieſt does, as it were ſpeak to our Saviour; for it cannot be alledged, that this is either a quaſi of quality or of Identity, if I may ſo ſpeak, nor give it another ſence than this, to wit, that the Prieſt ſpeaks no otherwiſe, than if he had our Saviour himſelf in Perſon before him, and directed his Diſcourſe to him, in the ſame ſence, as he ſays, Let us ſee our Saviour ſpeaking in the Apud. Allat. de perp. conſ. lib. 3. cap. 13.Goſpel, and that he is, as it were, preſent, foreign, and elſewhere, That the Prieſt holding the Goſpel in his hand, gives it to be kiſſed by him that takes upon him the Chriſtian Profeſſion, as if it were our Saviour himſelf, foreign, and ſays to him, behold Jeſus Chriſt is inviſibly preſent in the midſt of us. Now this contributes to the reſolving of whatſoever may ſeem doubtful in the other paſſages.
MOREOVER the reaſoning of Balſamon and Blaſtarius clears the difficulty: for if we ſuppoſe they believed Tranſubſtantiation, we cannot give any tollerable ſence to their Diſcourſes. In effect, either they acknowledged that the Azyme was changed into the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, as well as the leavened Bread, or deni'd it; if they acknowledged it, their ſence is, that 'tis a great crime to eat the proper Body of Jeſus Chriſt, under the Accidents of an Azyme. Now this is abſurd: for if the Body of Chriſt be really under the Accidents of the Azyme, what crime is there in thus eating of it? For that which is eaten is no longer a real Azyme, but the Subſtance of the Body it ſelf. Wherefore moreover ſhould they be judged more worthy of condemnation than thoſe who mix themſelves with the Jews when they celebrate their Feaſt, and eat unleavened Bread with them? For the latter of theſe do really eat an Azyme, whereas the others receive only the Accidents of it, which ſerve as a vayl to the proper fleſh of our Lord. If it be ſaid they do not acknowledge the Azyme to be changed into the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, as the leavened Bread is, their ſence will be that 'tis a greater Crime to eat an Azyme, in ſuppoſing it to be the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, than to eat the ſame Azyme, wittingly and willingly, in the Communion of the Jews. Now this is no leſs abſurd, for the intention, and belief, which the firſt have, leſſens their fault, whereas the knowledge and intention of the other aggravates it. They that eat the Azyme with the Jews, mean only to eat an Azyme; whereas thoſe that eat it in imagining they eat the Body of our Lord, pretend nothing leſs than to eat an Azyme; ſo that it cannot be ſaid in this reſpect, but that the crime of theſe laſt is greater than that of the others. It muſt then be granted that to give a likely ſence to Balſamon and Blaſtarius, their quaſi muſt be a quaſi of compariſon and not of Identity, and that they mean, that for a man to eat unleavened Bread in ſtead of the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, is a greater crime than to eat it ſimply with the Jews, becauſe this is an introducing of Judaiſm in the Chriſtian Religion, and to make of that which is accurſed, the Myſtery of our Lord's Body. Mr. Arnaud will without doubt reply, that they diſpute againſt the Latins, and ſo by conſequence this quaſi ought to be taken in the ſence of the Latins. Now the Greeks know very well that the Latins do not receive the Bread of the Euchariſt inſtead of the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, but as being really and in effect this Body it ſelf. I anſwer that Balſamon and Blaſtarius do not diſpute in particular againſt the Latins, whom they do not ſo much as mention in the Commentary they wrote on the Seventieth Canon of the Apoſtles; but eſtabliſh in general this Rule, that we ought not to eat unleavened Bread in this Myſtery. So that this ſubterfuge will not ſerve Mr. Arnaud's turn, for their quaſi muſt be taken in the ſence of the Greeks, and not in the ſence of the Latins. But ſuppoſing there be ſtill a great deal of ambiguity in this Term; yet is it fully cleared by the expreſſion of John Citrius in a paſſage cited by Allatius; We offer, ſay's he, leaven'd Bread in the Sacrifice inſtead of Apud Allat. lib 3 …e perp. C…nſ cap 12.the Body of our Lord. And this is the meaning of this foreign, of the Greeks, as the Body, that is to ſay, inſtead of the Body.
IT is in the ſame ſence that Germain the Patriarch of Conſtantinople, ſay's, That as often as we eat this Bread, and drink of this Cup, we confeſs the Death and Reſurrection of Jeſus Chriſt, and that in this Belief we eat the Bread, and drink of the Cup, AS of the Fleſh of the Son of God, confeſſing his Death and Reſurrection. We find the ſame Particle uſed by Nicetas Choniatus; Our Saviour, ſay's he, is AS it were eaten after his Reſurrection.
ST. Athanaſius uſed this Particle, AS a great while before him, Our Saviour, ſay's he, after his Paſſion and Reſurrection ſent his Apoſtles, to gather Athan. diſp. hab. in Concil. Nic. V…l alius ſub nomine Athanaſ….together the Nations, having ſpread his Table, which is the Holy Altar from which he gives the heavenly and incorruptible Bread, to wit, his Body, and Wine that makes glad the heart of man, foreign, mingling, AS it were his Blood in the Chalice. Theſe quaſi's have ſuch a bad relliſh with them, that Father Noüet, alledging this paſſage of St. Athanaſius, has thought good to leave it out, and 'tis the ſame antipathy to quaſi's that obliged the Tranſlators of Mons to leave out one, which they found on another Subject in the Text of St. Paul in his Third Chapter of the Firſt Epiſtle to the Corinthians Verſe 15. For whereas the Greek reads, foreign, ipſe autem ſalvus erit, ſic tamen quaſi per ignem, which they have tranſlated, he ſhall be ſaved, but muſt paſs thro the fire. The reſpect due to St. Paul could not ſave his quaſi from the fury of theſe Gentlemen. And thus do they deal with the Holy Scripture, when it ſpeaks not according to their mind.
I know not whether the quaſi's of Balſamon, Blaſtarius, Simeon of Theſſalonica, Germane, Nicetas, and thoſe of Athanaſius are leſs diſtaſtful to 'em, than that of St. Paul: But howſoever theſe diminutive Terms do ſufficiently evidence the Greeks do not believe Tranſubſtantiation, for th…ſe that do believe it ſtudy rather to ſtrengthen by clear and preciſe expreſſions the name of the Body of Jeſus Christ, which is given to the Eucharist, than to weaken it by reſtrictions and diminutions.
BUT to go on with our Proofs, It is an opinion generally received amongſt the Greeks, That the wicked who participate of the Euchariſt, do not receive the Body of Jeſus Chriſt. And that they do hold this opinion may be proved by the Teſtimony of ſeveral good Authors.
PRATEOLUS expresſly mentions this amongſt their Errors. They affirm, ſay's he, that thoſe who live in the practice of any known ſin do not receive Prateol. Elen. Hereſic. lib. 7. cap. de Graecis.the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, altho they draw near to the Table of our Lord, and receive the conſecrated Bread from the hands of the Prieſt.
POSSEVIN the Jeſuit confirms the ſame thing, They err, ſays he, Poſſevin in Moſc. p. 43.in affirming thoſe that are defiled with ſin do not receive the Lord's Body when they come to the Altar.
NICHOLAS Cabaſilas does fully ſet forth the Belief of the Greek Church touching this Point. The cauſes, ſay's he, of our ſanctification, or if Gabiſil. in explicat. Litur. cap. 22.you will the diſpoſitions which our Saviour requires of us, are purity of Soul, and love of God, an earnest deſire to partake of the Sacrament, and ſuch a thirſt after it as ſhall make us run to it. Theſe are the things which procure our Sanctification, and with which it is impoſſible but thoſe that come to the Communion muſt partake of Jeſus Chriſt, and without which it is impoſſible they ſhould. And a little further endeavouring to prove that the Souls ſeperate from their Bodies, do receive the ſame as the Faithful which are living in this World of the Sacrament. If the Soul, ſay's he, has no need of the Body whereby to receive Sanctification, but on the contrary the Body has need of the Soul, what more of the Myſtery do the Souls receive which are clothed with their Bodies, than thoſe which are ſtript of them? Is it that they behold the Prieſt and receive the Gifts from him? But the Souls that are out of the Body have the Eternal Prieſt, who is to them more than all theſe things, being the ſame likewiſe that adminiſtreth it to them alive, who receive it as they ought to do. For all thoſe to whom the Prieſt adminiſters it, cannot be ſaid truly to receive it. The Prieſt adminiſters it to all that come to him, but our Saviour gives it only to thoſe that are worthy to partake of it: Whence it clearly appears that 'tis our Saviour alone, who by means of this Sacrament conſecrates and ſanctifies the Souls as well of the living as the dead.
LEO Allatius has made a Catalogue of Simeon the Abbot of St. Mamant's Works, who lived about the end of the Eleventh Century, and whom the Greeks call Simeon the Divine. Now in one of his Treatiſes there is a Hymn expresſly relating to this Subject before us, to wit, that the wicked do not partake of the Body of Jeſus Chriſt when they receive the Sacrament. Allatius tells us that he has ſeen this particular piece, (being a Manuſcript) in a certain Library in Italy, and that the Title of it is, That they which receive unworthily the Sacraments do not receive the Body and Blood of Jeſus Chriſt. And 'tis unto this whereunto relates what Nilus ſay's in his Sentences, Keep your ſelves from all corruption, and partake every day of the Myſtical Supper, Apud Allat. de Simeon Nil. in Par. Bibl. Patr. Graeco-lat. Tom. 2.for 'tis after this ſort, that the Body of Jeſus Chriſt becomes ours. And what we find in the Verſe of Pſellus on the Canticle of Canticles, Jeſus Chriſt gives his Body to the Children of the Virgin, that is to ſay, to the Church, for thus does he ſpeak to them, (but 'tis Only to thoſe that are worthy) whom he calls his near Kindred, come my Friends eat and drink, and be merry my brethren, you Comm. trium. Patr. in Cant. Cant.that are my brethren in good Works, eat my Body and drink my Blood. And theſe words of Joanicius Cartanus, the Saints are made partakers of holy things, not they that are unworthy, and ſinners who having not cleanſed themſelves from Apud Allat. de perpet. Conſ. lib. 3.their ſins remain ſtill polluted, and elſewhere, when we ſhall draw near unto God with Love, Fear, Reverence and Repentance, and be in charity with all men, then ſhall we be meet partakers of the Body and Blood of Chriſt.
NOW if you would know of what importance the Argument is, which we draw from this Doctrine of the Greeks, you need but read what Chifflet the Jeſuit and others have written touching a paſſage of the Confeſſion attributed Chifflet. praefat. ad Lector. in Confeſſ. Alcu.to Alcuinus which bears, That the virtue of this Sacrifice is ſo great, that it is the Body and Blood of Jeſus Chriſt only to the juſt ſinners, tanta eſt virtus hujus Sacrificii ut ſolis juſtis peccatoribus Corpus ſit & Sanguis Chriſti. If the Sacrifice, or Sacrament, ſay's this Jeſuit, be the Body and Blood of Jeſus Chriſt to ſome only, and not to all, what remains then but to confeſs, that Alcuinus has been the Forerunner of Berengarius and Calvin: and that he has denied the Real Preſence of Jeſus Chriſt in the Euchariſt? He tells us this paſſage has given him no ſmall trouble, and endeavours to expound it, ſaying, that Alcuinus ſpeaks of the Body and Blood of Chriſt in reſpect of their ſalutiferous effect which appertains only to the Juſt. But the Authors of the Office of the B. Sacrament; having told us, that it ſeems we muſt read, tanta In their Hiſtorical and Chronological Table under the title of B. Alcuin.eſt virtus Sacrificii ut ſolis juſtis, non peccatoribus Sanguis ſit & Corpus Chriſti, they have added, that this expreſſion has not been uſed ſince the Hereſie of Berengarius, and that the Schoolmen who have been more ſcrupulous as to Terms, have (after the riſe of the Hereſies touching this Myſtery) avoided it. Which is as much as to ſay, in my opinion, that if we believe Tranſubſtantiation, as the Church of Rome has believed it ſince the time of Berengarius's condemnation, we cannot be of this Belief, that the Euchariſt is only the Body of Jeſus Chriſt to the faithful and not to the wicked. And in effect if the Subſtance of Bread be really changed into that of Chriſt's Body, it hence evidently follows that all thoſe that communicate thereof (be they either righteous or wicked) do receive this Body as it is, that is to ſay, in its proper Subſtance, covered with the vail of Accidents. So that the Greeks aſſerting the Euchariſt not to be the Body of Chriſt to Sinners; (as I have already ſhew'd) makes the Proof I draw hence concerning their not believing of Tranſubſtantiation to be ſolid and convincing.
YET may there be two Objections made againſt my Argument; the Firſt, That what the Greeks ſay concerning Chriſt's Body, is to be underſtood only in reſpect of its ſalutiferous effect, as has been declared by the Jeſuit Chifflet, and not in reſpect of its Subſtance, which is to ſay, their meaning is, that the wicked do indeed receive the real Subſtance of this Body and Blood, but receive thereby no advantage: The Second, that the Bread reaſſumes its former Subſtance, when a wicked man approaches to receive the Communion, and that that of the Body of Jeſus Chriſt withdraws it ſelf. But firſt, I ſay to make people of good ſence contented with this explication, they muſt be ſhewed theſe kind of meanings in the Writings of the Greeks themſelves, which without queſtion would be met withall, did they hold Tranſubſtantiation. It cannot be denied but this Doctrine they teach concerning the wicked does manifeſtly oppoſe that of the Subſtantial converſion, and furniſheth us with this conception, that if the Euchariſt be not the Body of Jeſus Chriſt to the wicked, how can it then be ſaid, that the Subſtance of the Bread has been changed into that of this Body? This ſcruple does naturally ariſe in the mind of thoſe that believe Tranſubſtantiation, as appears by the example of the Jeſuit Chifflet, by that of the Authors of the Office of the bleſſed Sacrament, and by the pre-caution of the Schoolmen and Lattin Writers who carefully ſhun theſe kind of expreſſions. We need not doubt but if the Greeks believed the converſion of the Subſtances they would do one of theſe two things, either they would renounce this other Opinion, and deliver themſelves after another manner, or at leaſt they would ſo expound and mollifie it as to ſhelter thereby Tranſubſtantiation. But beſides this, I ſay, if we examine theſe pretended illuſtrations in particular one after another, we ſhall find they are vain and ill apply'd to the Greeks. In effect the firſt cannot be of any uſe, becauſe the Latins impute to them the Doctrine here in queſtion, as an Error. Now this would not be an Error in reſpect of the Latins, if the Greeks underſtood it only in this ſence, that the wicked do not receive the ſalutiferous effect of the Body of Jeſus Chriſt in the Communion, altho they received the Subſtance of it, for even this is believed in the Church of Rome. Yet Poſſevin does not only affirm they err, but he oppoſes moreover againſt their Error a contrary Propoſition to be held, and on which he grounds his cenſure. They err, ſay's he, Poſſevin ubi Supra.for the wicked do really receive the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, although they receive it unworthily, and to their condemnation.
AS to the other Objection, 'tis certainly groundleſs, for not to take notice of the extravagancy of this Opinion, that the Subſtance of the Bread is changed into that of Chriſt's Body, and again that of the Body into that of the Bread, the Terms of Cabaſilas are ſo clear that they admit not any evaſion, for he diſtinguiſhes two Perſons that give the Communion, one the Prieſt, and th'other our Saviour Chriſt, and he attributes to our Saviour alone the glory of giving his Body and Blood, 'tis likewiſe he himſelf, ſay's he, that adminiſters to Gabaſilas ubi Supra.them amongſt the living who truly receive. For all them to whom the Prieſt gives it, do not truly receive it. He himſelf; that is to ſay, immediately and without the Prieſts ſharing in the honour thereof. The Prieſt has the honour to diſtribute the Bread, but not of giving the Body and Blood. Now this does wholly overthrow Tranſubſtantiation, and refutes the ſecond Objection which I examine, for if the Bread were tranſubſtantiated, there would be no need of having recourſe to our Saviour himſelf, in order to his giving the Faithfull his Body and Blood, the Prieſt would give it them, for that which he holds in his hands and communicates to the Faithful, would be this Body and Blood in propriety of Subſtance, and Cabaſilas would have no reaſon to oppoſe our Saviour to the Prieſt.
BUT before we leave this paſſage of Cabaſilas, it is neceſſary to obſerve two things, one of which reſpects the Propoſition he would eſtabliſh, and th'other the means he makes uſe of for this. The Propoſition he would eſtabliſh is, That the dead receive the ſame as the living when they partake of the Euchariſt. The purity of the Soul, ſay's he, the Love of God, Faith, an earneſt deſire to partake of this Holy Myſtery, a ſecret joy which accompanies this deſire, a fervant appetite and thirſt which makes us run to it, theſe are the things which procure our Sanctification, with which qualifications it is not poſſible but thoſe that approach the Communion do partake of Jeſus Chriſt, and without which it is impoſſible Cap. 42.they ſhould. Now all theſe things depend only on the Soul, and are not corporeal. There is nothing then which hinders the Souls of the dead from having theſe things as well as the living. If then theſe Souls are in the ſtate and diſpoſition requiſite for the receiving of the Myſtery, if he to whom it belongs to beſtow Sanctification and Conſecration is always willing to ſanctifie, and ever deſires to communicate himſelf in all places, what can then hinder this participation? And a little further, It is evident, ſay's he, by the things I now mention'd, that whatſoever belongs to this Myſtery is common as well to the dead as living, and a little lower, the participation of the Holy Gifts is a thing which neceſſarily attends Cap. 43.the Souls after death. If their joy and repoſe ſprang from any other Principle; it might be ſaid that even this would be the reward of that purity wherein they are, and this Table would be no longer needful to them. But it is certain that whatſoever makes up their delights and felicity, whether you call it Paradice, or Abraham's boſom, or thoſe happy ſeats free from ſorrow and cares, or that you call it the Kingdom of Heaven it ſelf, all this I ſay is no more than this Bread and Wine. For theſe things are our Mediatour, who is entred as our Forerunner into the Holy Places, who alone conducts us to the Father, who is the only Sun of our Souls, which at this time appeareth and communicates himſelf to all them that are in the Bands of the Fleſh in the manner he himſelf pleaſes, but he ſhall then viſibly manifeſt himſelf without a Vail, when we ſhall ſee him as he is, and ſhall gather together the Eagles about the dead Body. He afterwards proves that the Souls ſeperate from the Bodies, are far more fit to partake of the Myſteries, than when cloathed with their Fleſh, that whatſoever reſt or recompence they enjoy, is nothing elſe but this Bread and this Cup, of which the dead have as much right to participate as the living, and for this reaſon, our Saviour calls the Saints felicity a Supper, to ſhew us thereby, that 'tis nothing elſe but this Table. And this already gives us great cauſe to ſuſpect that Cabaſilas did not believe that which we eat in the Sacrament to be the proper Subſtance of the Body and Bloud of Chriſt; for we muſt not imagine he thought the Souls of the dead did really partake thereof. They do indeed participate of the Body and Blood of Chriſt, but after a ſpiritual manner, which is accompliſhed without our Saviour's Subſtance entring into them. Yet Cabaſilas ſay's the dead receive the Holy Gifts, that they receive the Myſtery, and that which makes up their felicity, is this Bread and Cup, that they partake of it, and that whatſoever appertains to this Myſtery is common to them with the Living. All which is well enough underſtood provided it be ſuppoſed we have no other Communion with our Saviour Chriſt in the Euchariſt than what is Spiritual, for the Souls ſeperate from the Body have this as well as we, and partake of our Bread and Cup, not in reſpect of their Subſtance and Matter, but in reſpect of the Myſtery they contain and Grace they communicate, and thus it is certain that whatſoever belongs to this Myſtery is common to them with the living. But if we ſuppoſed the Subſtantial Converſion, how could it be ſaid, They partake of the Holy Gifts, that they receive what we receive, that we have nothing more in the Myſtery than they, and that whatſoever appertains to the Myſtery is common to them with us? For in fine we ſhould really receive the proper Subſtance of the Body and Blood of Chriſt which they do not.
BUT to manifeſt more clearly this Doctrine of Cabaſilas and put it out of doubt, we ſhould conſider the courſe he takes for the ſtrengthening of his Propoſition. For it will appear that this participation of the Body and Blood of Chriſt, which he makes common both to the dead and living, reſpects not only the thing of which we partake, but likewiſe the manner of partaking of it; and in a word, he means we communicate thereof no otherwiſe than Spiritually. Firſt, then he always ſpeaks of the Sanctification which is made by way of participation and reception of the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, as of one and the ſame thing, without the leaſt difference, which is juſtifi'd by the bare reading of his whole Diſcourſe. Now this ſhews us, he means not that we receive in the Sacrament the proper Subſtance of the Body of our Lord, for if it were ſo, the wicked would receive it without receiving Sanctification, as the Church of Rome it ſelf does acknowledge, and the reception of this Subſtance, and the Sanctification, could not be conſidered but as two diſtinct things. Yet Cabaſilas confounds them, and thereupon immediately conſiders this difficulty; how the dead which neither eat nor drink can be ſanctifi'd by this participation. Are they, ſay's he, in a worſe condition in this reſpect than the living? No ſure, ſay's he, for our Saviour communicates himſelf to them in Cap. 42.ſuch a manner as is beſt known to himſelf. He afterwards inquires into the cauſes of the ſanctification of the living, and their participation of Jeſus Chriſt, and ſay's, 'tis not to have a Body, nor to come with feet to the Holy Table, nor to receive the Communion with our hand and mouth, nor to eat or drink, but that 'tis the purity of the Soul, Faith, Love of God, and other motives of Piety, theſe are the things, ſay's he, which make us neceſſarily partakers of Jeſus Chriſt, and without which it is not poſſible to be ſo. Whence he concludes that the Souls ſeperate from the Body are capable of this participation, and that in effect they have it ſeeing they have all theſe good affections. Now it hence plainly appears that he grants the living but one kind of participation of Jeſus Chriſt which is Spiritual; and which they have in common with the dead, and which immediately reſpects the Soul. For if they be only the good diſpoſitions of the Soul which make us partakers of Jeſus Chriſt, and that without them it is not poſſible for us to be ſo, and that the dead have the ſame advantage we have, it cannot then be ſaid, we receive the proper Subſtance of the Body, ſeeing on one hand according to the Hypotheſis of the Church of Rome, the want of theſe diſpoſitions hinders not men from receiving it, and on the other that the dead with all theſe their qualifications cannot receive it.
THIS appears by the Sequel of his reaſoning, for what he ſay's concerning the dead, the ſame he ſay's concerning the living which dwell in Deſerts, and that cannot perſonally come to the Lord's Table. Jeſus Chriſt, Ibid.ſay's he, ſanctifies them inviſibly with this Sanctification. How can we know this? I anſwer, becauſe they have the life in themſelves, and they would not have it, were they not partakers of this Myſtery. For our Saviour himſelf has ſaid, unleſs you eat the Fleſh of the Son of man, and drink his Blood, you have no life in you. And for a further confirmation of this, he has cauſed to be brought to ſeveral of theſe Saints, the Gifts, by the Miniſtry of Angels. It is evident, he attributes to theſe Inhabitants of Deſerts, the ſame participation of Jeſus Chriſt, the ſame manducation of his Fleſh and Blood which we receive in the Sacrament without the leaſt difference, whence it follows, that our Communion with Jeſus Chriſt by means of the Sacrament is purely Spiritual, and that our eating of his Fleſh is Spiritual likewiſe, there being no need of adding the reception of his Subſtance into our Stomacks.
BUT yet this does more plainly appear by what follows. The Gift, ſay's he, is indeed communicated to the living by means of the Body, but it firſt paſſes to the Subſtance of the Soul, and afterwards communicates it ſelf to the Body, by the Miniſtry of the Soul. Which St. Paul meant when he ſaid, that he that is joyned to the Lord, is one and the ſame Spirit with him, becauſe this Union and Conjunction is made firſt of all in the Soul. This being the Seat of this Sanctification which we obtain by the exerciſe of our virtues. This is likewiſe the Seat of Sin. 'Tis here wherein is the Band of Servitude, by which the Sacrament links us to God. The Body has nothing but what it derives from the Soul, and as its pollutions proceed from the evil thoughts of the heart, from the heart likewiſe comes its Sanctification; as well that of the Virtues, as that of the Myſteries. If then the Soul has no need of the Body, to receive Sanctification, but the Body on the contrary of the Soul, why then muſt the Souls which are yet cloathed with their Bodies be greater partakers of the Myſtery, than thoſe ſtript of them? We muſt be ſtrangely prepoſſeſſed with prejudice, if we do not acknowledge that this Author only eſtabliſhes the ſanctifying and ſpiritual Communion, and not that of the proper Subſtance of the Body and Blood of our Saviour, for if we ſuppoſe the Bread to be the Body of Jeſus Chriſt in Sanctification and Virtue, it is eaſie to comprehend what he means, but if we ſuppoſe Tranſubſtantiation, how ſhall we then underſtand what he ſay's, viz. that the Gift is indeed received by the Body, but it immediately paſſes to the Soul and afterwards communicates it ſelf from the Soul to the Body? Does not the Subſtance of the Body of Jeſus Chriſt deſcend immediately from the Mouth into the Stomack, and does it not remain there till the change of the Species? How then ſhall we underſtand him when he ſay's, that our Communion with Jeſus Chriſt is firſt eſtabliſhed in the Soul? For 'tis certain, that to judge of it, in the ſence of Tranſubſtantiation, it would be eſtabliſhed on the contrary firſt of all in the Body, which would be the firſt Subject that would receive the Subſtance of the Fleſh and Blood of our Lord. How ſhall we underſtand the Concluſion he draws from all this Diſcourſe, to wit, that the Souls of the dead are no leſs partakers of this Myſtery than thoſe of the living, for the living do communicate after two manners, Spiritually and Subſtantially, whereas the dead only in one? How in fine, ſhall we underſtand what he means in ſaying that the Body has no other Sanctification by means of the Myſtery, than that which comes to it from the Soul? Is it no wiſe ſanctifi'd by touching the proper Subſtance of the Son of God.
CABASILAS ſtay's not here, for concluding by way of Interrogation, that the Souls cloathed with their Bodies do not more partake of the Myſtery than thoſe which are ſtript of them, he continues to demand what they have more. Is it, ſay's he, that they ſee the Prieſt, and receive from him Cap. 43.the Gifts? But they that are out of the Body have the great Eternal High Prieſt, who is to them all theſe things; It being he indeed that adminiſters to them that truly receive. Was there ever any man that betrayed ſuch a want of memory as this man does, ſhould it be ſuppoſed he believed Tranſubſtantiation? Could he not remember that the living have not only this advantage above the dead to behold the Prieſt, and receive from him the Gifts, but likewiſe to receive the proper Subſtance of their Saviour? Could not he call to mind, that the Spiritual Communion, remaining common both to the one and the others, the Subſtantial was particularly to the living? Moreover, what does he mean in ſaying, that as 'tis Jeſus Chriſt that adminiſters it to the dead, ſo it is he likewiſe that gives it to the living that effectually receive it? Is it that the Prieſt who gives the proper Subſtance of Jeſus Chriſt does not truly and effectually adminiſter it? Is it that this Subſtance which is called with ſo great an Emphaſis, the Truth and Reality, and which Mr. Arnaud always underſtands, when he finds theſe kind of expreſſions, the real Body, and Blood of Jeſus Chriſt? Is it, I ſay, that this is not a Truth?
MR. Arnaud can without doubt remove all theſe difficulties when he pleaſes, and 'tis likely he will find a way to reconcile them with the belief of Tranſubſtantiation, ſeeing he himſelf has heretofore written, that God admits Of frequent Com. part. 3. P. 725.us to the participation of the ſame Food which the Elect feed on to all Eternity, there being no other difference betwixt them and us, but only that here he takes from us the ſenſible taſte and ſight of it, reſerving both one and the other of theſe for us when we come to Heaven. He will tell us there's no body doubts, but that he is of the number of Tranſubſtantiators, ſeeing he has with ſo much honour vanquiſhed the Miniſter Claude, and yet that what he has maintain'd is not contradictory to the diſcourſe of Cabaſilas. I do verily believe his ſingle Propoſition has almoſt as much force as whatſoever I have mention'd from Cabaſilas, for if there be no other difference between the participation of the Faithful on Earth, and that of the Elect in Heaven, than that of the ſight and ſenſible taſte, which we have not here, nor ſhall have but in Heaven, I do not ſee any reaſon wherefore Mr. Arnaud ſhould ſo beſtir himſelf to ſhew us that what we take by the Mouths of our Bodies, and which enters into our Stomacks, is the proper Subſtance of the Body and Blood of Chriſt, ſeeing 'tis certain the Elect in Heaven do not receive Jeſus Chriſt in ſuch a manner. But it being no ways reaſonable that what Mr Arnaud has ſaid at one time contradictorily to what he has ſaid at another, ſhould ſerve me as a Rule for the underſtanding of Authors, all that I can do in his favour is this, freely to offer him to lay aſide the Proof taken from Cabaſilas, when he ſhall have made his Propoſition to be approved of in the Court of Rome.