The Catholic Doctrine of the Eucharist in All Ages, Book 3 · Chapter 10
CHAP. X.
The Nineteenth Proof, that, we do not find the Greeks do teach the Doctrines which neceſſarily follow that of Tranſubstantiation. The Twentieth, is, the Testimony of ſundry Modern Greeks that have written ſeveral Treatiſes touching their Religion. The One and Twentieth, from the Form of Abjuration which the Greeks are forc'd to make when they embrace the Religion of the Latins.
I Did affirm in my Anſwer to the Perpetuity, that we donot find the Greeks do teach any of thoſe Doctrines which neceſſarily follow the Belief of the change of Subſtances, whence I concluded, there was no likelyhood they were in this Point agreed with the Latins. This Conſequence has diſturbed Mr. Arnaud, and as he makes his own Dictates and thoſe of Reaſon to be one and the ſame thing, ſo he has not ſcrupled to affirm, That Reaſon rejects this as a ſilly extravagancy. But foraſmuch as we have often experienced Lib. 10. cap. 8. pag. 59that in matters of Reaſon, Folly and Extravagancy, it is no ſure courſe abſolutely to rely upon Mr. Arnaud's words, therefore will we again lay aſide the Authority of his Oracles, and examine the thing as it is in it ſelf.
FIRST, The Greeks do not teach the Exiſtence of the Accidents of Bread and Wine in the Euchariſt without any Subject, or Subſtance which ſuſtains them. Now this is ſo neceſſary a Conſequence of Tranſubſtantiation, that thoſe which believe this laſt, cannot avoid the teaching and acknowledging of the other, ſuppoſing they are indued with common ſence. In effect it would be to charge the Greeks with the greateſt folly, to ſuppoſe they imagin'd that the proper Subſtance of the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, even the very ſame Body which was born of the Virgin, and is now in Heaven, does really exiſt on the Altar being the ſame in all reſpects, as the Bread of the Euchariſt does appear to us to be, that is to ſay, white, round, diviſible into little pieces, &c. and that the ſame things which, (as they ſpeak) did qualifie and affect the Bread before, do qualifie and affect the ſame Body of Jeſus Chriſt. We muſt not charge the whole Greek Church with ſuch an abſurdity. Whence it follows we muſt not attribute to her the belief of Tranſubſtantiation; for did ſhe make profeſſion of believing and teaching it, ſhe would teach likewiſe the exiſtence of Accidents without a Subject; theſe two Doctrines being ſo cloſely linked together, that 'tis impoſſible to ſeparate them unleſs they fall upon this fancy, that the Accidents of Bread do exiſt in the Body it ſelf of Jeſus Chriſt, or this other, namely, that which appears in the Euchariſt is not really the Accidents of Bread, but falſe appearances, and pure Phantaſms which deceive our ſences, which is no leſs abſurd, nor leſs contrary to the Doctrine of the Greeks.
SECONDLY, Neither do we find that they teach what the Latins call the Concomitancy, which is to ſay, that the Body and Blood are equally contained under each Species; but we find on the contrary, that they eſtabliſh the neceſſity of communicating of both kinds, and ground it on the neceſſity there is of receiving the Body and Blood of Chriſt, as will appear in the Sequel of this Chapter; which is directly oppoſite to this Concomitancy. Yet is it not to be imagined but that thoſe People who believe the Converſion of Subſtances, do at the ſame time eſtabliſh this other Doctrine. For if we ſuppoſe as the Church of Rome does, that we receive with the mouths of our Bodies, this ſame Subſtance of the Body and Blood of Jeſus Chriſt, which he had when on Earth, and has ſtill in Heaven, it is not poſſible to ſeparate in ſuch a manner his Blood from his Body, and his Body from his Blood, as to reckon the Body to be contain'd in the only Species of Bread, and the Blood in the only Species of the Wine, ſeeing 'tis true that this Separation cannot be conceived without breaking the Unity of the Life which is in Jeſus Chriſt.
THIRDLY, Neither do we find the Greeks have ever applied themſelves to ſhew, how 'tis poſſible for our Lord's Body to exiſt in the Euchariſt, ſtript of its proper and natural Figure, deprived of its dimenſions, impalpable, indiviſible, without motion and action, which is moreover another Conſequence of Tranſubſtantiation.
FOURTHLY, We do not find the Greeks do in any ſort trouble themſelves, touching the nouriſhment, our Bodies receive when they partake of the Euchariſt, and yet is it certain that if we ſuppoſe they believed Tranſubſtantiation 'tis impoſſible for them to obtain any ſatisfaction touching this matter. For ſhould they deny this nouriſhment, they may be convinced of it by experience, and if it be referred to the proper Subſtance of Jeſus Chriſt, they plunge themſelves into an Abyſs of Abſurdities and Impieties. If it be ſaid the Accidents nouriſh, beſides that common ſence will not ſuffer us to ſay that Colours and Figures nouriſh, they that affirm this do expoſe themſelves to the deriſion of all the World, who know our nouriſhment is made by the Addition of a new Subſtance to ours. To affirm that God cauſes the Bread to reaſſume its firſt Subſtance, or that he immediately creates another, this is to make him work Miracles when we pleaſe, and to be too free in our diſpoſals of the Almighty Power of God. And therefore the Latins have found themſelves ſo perplexed, that ſome of 'em have taken one ſide, and ſome another. Some have boldly denied this nouriſhment, whatſoever experience there is of the contrary, as Guitmond, and Algerus, others, choſen rather to affirm the Accidents do nouriſh, as Thomas Aquinas and Bellarmin. Others have invented the return of the firſt Subſtance of Bread, as Vaſquez; and others the Creation of a new Subſtance, as Suarez and others. Mr. Arnaud has choſen rather to affirm, That we are nouriſhed, not with the Body of Lib. 2. cap 6. pag. 155.Jeſus Chriſt, but after another manner known only to God, which ſhews his perplexity to be ſo great in this particular, that he knew not on which ſide to turn himſelf. Whilſt the Greeks poſſeſs ſo great Tranquility in this Point, that it does not appear they ever found the leaſt difficulty in it. They aſſure us the Euchariſt does nouriſh our Bodies; but they ſee none of thoſe inconveniencies which diſturb the Latins; which clearly ſhews they do not believe the Converſion of Subſtances. For did they believe it, they would not fail to ſee what common ſence diſcovers to others; and ſeeing it, how is it poſſible they ſhould expreſs no aſtoniſhment, nor any difficulty therein, or at leaſt not take that ſide which Mr. Arnaud has taken, which is to leave theſe difficulties to Almighty God?
NEITHER do we find that the Greeks do trouble themſelves about the alteration, or corruption which frequently happens in the Subſtance of the Euchariſt, as the Latins do, altho the former of theſe have more reaſon for it, than the latter. For the Latins take all poſſible care to keep their Hoſts from corrupting; but the Greeks on the contrary take none at all. And keeping as they do the Sacramental Bread ſprinkled with conſecrated Wine, the ſpace of a whole year, for the uſe of the ſick, it often happens that 'tis corrupted and full of Maggots, as it is obſerv'd by Sacranus, and the Archbiſhop of Gneſne, and conſequently are more expoſed to theſe inconveniencies than the Latins. Yet do they not ſeem to be concerned, nor inform themſelves whence come theſe Worms, which being as they are Subſtances, it cannot be ſaid they generate from bare Accidents. Neither can it be ſaid without blaſphemy, that they are made of the proper Subſtance of Jeſus Chriſt.
THIS Proof may be extended farther; for 'tis certain we do not find amongſt the Greeks any of theſe kind of things which depend on Tranſubſtantiation. I mean which neceſſarily and wholly depend thereon. They are in this reſpect in a moſt profound ſilence. But it's worth our while to hear Mr. Arnaud. It is indeed, ſay's he, a real truth, that the Greeks take little Lib. 10 cap 8. p. 59.notice of theſe Philoſophical Conſequences. Samonas ſpeaks occaſionally of a Body in two places, and of Accidents without a Subject, the Archbiſhop of Gaza does the ſame, but both one and the other of theſe do this by conſtraint. What ſignifies this tergiverſating, for he ought not to ſay the Greeks ſpeak but little hereof, ſeeing they ſpeak not at all of it. This Samonas and this Archbiſhop of Gaza are not Authors to be quoted, ſeeing we ſhall make it appear in its place, that the Book which bears the name of the firſt of theſe is deſervedly ſuſpected to be counterfeit, and that the other is a Roman Proſelyte wedded to the Intereſts of the Court of Rome. It is evident that to eſtabliſh a reſtriction of this Conſequence, Mr. Arnaud ſhould have better Proofs. But that we may do him right, we will not conceal what he adds afterwards. I drew from the ſilence of the Fathers touching the Miracles of Tranſubſtantiation, and its Conſequences, an Argument to conclude they believed it not. He anſwers, that inſtead of Fathers, I ſhould ſubſtitute the Greeks, Armenians, Ibid. pag. 63.and Copticks of thoſe times, for, ſay's he, 'tis certain that all theſe Chriſtians believed Tranſubſtantiation, as we do, and yet take no notice of all theſe difficulties which Mr. Claude's head is full of. This acknowledgment is ſincere, and we need deſire no more. The Greeks take no more notice of the difficulties ariſing from Tranſubſtantiation than the Armenians and Copticks, and Mr. Arnaud grants this to be ſo undeniable a Truth, that he makes it the ground of an Anſwer.
OUR preſent buſineſs then is to know whether the Conſequence I hence draw be juſt and good. Which he conteſts me, and firſt he ſay's, that all theſe Eaſtern Churches profeſs to believe original ſin, and yet their Divines trouble not themſelves about explaining this Doctrine. He adds, that they obſerve Ibid. pag 58, 59.the ſame ſilence in all the Queſtions and difficulties which the Socinians propoſe against the Trinity, the Perſon of the Holy Spirit, and the ſatisfaction of Chriſt, altho theſe difficulties are as obvious and ſenſible as thoſe alledged againſt the real Preſence.
BUT 'tis his prejudice, and not his reaſon that has dictated to him this Anſwer. For firſt, there is a vaſt difference betwixt the incomprehenſible Myſteries reſpecting the Divinity, which being above the natural light of reaſon require a profound ſubmiſſion, and the Doctrine of Tranſubſtantiatiation. The nature of the Sacraments is well known, and the matter and ſigns thereof are better known, which are Bread and Wine. Even the thing ſignifi'd, to wit, the natural Body and Blood of Jeſus Chriſt are not only the natural Object of Reaſon, but likewiſe of Sence, and both one and the other of theſe Faculties can judge of it, nay, they do judge of it by a ſpontaneous motion, even when we would not our ſelves. Secondly, beſides this infinite difference, which yields no room for Mr. Arnaud's compariſon, the Point in hand concerns not the difficulties touching Tranſubſtantiation, or the real Preſence, but the Doctrines which neceſſarily attend them, and Queſtions which immediately ariſe thence of themſelves. There is a great deal of difference between theſe two Particulars. The difficulties which are raiſed againſt a Truth, are commonly falſe Conſequences which the Adverſaries draw thence; and I confeſs it would not be to reaſon aright, abſolutely to conclude that a Church holds not a Doctrine, becauſe ſhe troubles not her ſelf in anſwering all the Objections which may be made againſt it. To allow theſe kinds of Arguments, there are diſtinctions to be made, and particular circumſtances to be obſerved, without which there can be nothing concluded. But we ſpeak here of real Conſequences of a Doctrine, of Conſequences, I ſay, which immediately ſhew themſelves to the ordinarieſt capacity, without any great Meditation and Study. Now altho the Greeks do not apply themſelves to anſwer the Objections of the Socinians, againſt Original Sin, againſt the Myſtery of the Trinity, the Perſon of the Holy Spirit, and Satisfaction of Chriſt, being perhaps not acquainted with them, yet do we plainly ſee amongſt them the Conſequences of theſe Doctrines. They baptiſe little Children, and baptiſe them in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghoſt, they believe the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are conſubſtantial; they adore the Perſon of the Holy Spirit, they put their truſt in the death of Jeſus Chriſt, and ſuch like things. Wherefore ſhould it not be the ſame in reſpect of the Conſequences of Tranſubſtantiation? Is it poſſible to hold this Doctrine, without thinking at the ſame time at leaſt on ſome one of theſe Conſequences, on the actual exiſtence of a humane Body in ſeveral places, the exiſtence of this Body without its uſual Dimenſions, the concomitancy of the Body and Blood, and on the Accidents of Bread which remain after Conſecration.
THE difficulties which the Socinians object againſt the Trinity and other Doctrines mentioned by Mr. Arnaud, are for the moſt part falſe Conſequences which theſe Hereticks draw from theſe Doctrines. It is no wonder if almoſt all Chriſtians be ignorant of theſe Conſequences. They do not ſpring up naturally: For 'tis paſſion and blindneſs that produces them. For I call blindneſs thoſe falſe Lights which cauſe theſe Hereticks to behold that which is not. But that which Mr. Arnaud calls the difficulties of Tranſubſtantiation are real Conſequences of this Doctrine, and acknowledged to be ſuch by them of the Church of Rome. Let him ſay as long as he will theſe are Philoſophical Conſequences, I affirm they are not ſo Philoſophical as to hinder them from being very natural, appearing to be ſo, even to the light of common ſence. It is moſt natural for a man that believes the Subſtance of Bread ceaſes to be, to think on the Accidents which remain. It is very natural for him that believes the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, and his Blood to be ſubſtantially therein, to imagine that where the Body or Fleſh is, there muſt the Blood be alſo, which is called in one word the concomitancy. It is moſt natural, for him that believes that 'tis not the Subſtance of Bread that nouriſhes, to conſider what ſhould cauſe this nouriſhment. It is very natural for a man that believes the Body of our Lord to be a real humane Body, to inquire how this Body can be ſtript of the proprieties of its Nature. It is natural, when we ſee Worms which ingender in the Euchariſt, to inquire whence they take their matter. It is likewiſe certain that Philoſophy is not properly any more concerned in theſe Conſequences than barely to defend them, and not to illuſtrate them. And yet when they ſhould not appear in themſelves to the eyes of the Greeks, and we ſuppoſe the whole Body of this Church to be in ſuch a prodigious ſtupidity, that for ſo many Ages ſince they have diſcovered nothing of themſelves touching theſe things, which would be in my mind one of the boldeſt ſuppoſitions imaginable, yet it muſt be acknowledged they have ſeen them in the Doctrine and common belief of the Latins, who have filled their Religion with them ſince Beringarius his time.
NEITHER is it true, that 'twas mens Diſputations which occaſion'd all theſe Queſtions on the Subject of the Euchariſt, or diſcover'd theſe Conſequences we ſpeak of. Mr. Arnaud would fain perſwade us to it, but we know the contrary, and that 'tis the very Doctrine it ſelf of Tranſubſtantiation which has produced them. For they take their birth from what our eyes ſee, and hands touch, and experiences, which cannot but be acknowledged. In effect, they are to be found more amongſt the Schoolmen than Controvertiſts, more amongſt Authors of the Church of Rome than Proteſtants.
THERE is ſo great abſurdity in ſaying the Greeks are ignorant of the Conſequences of the Doctrine of Tranſubſtantiation, ſuppoſing they believed it, that Mr. Arnaud ſeems to be aſhamed to maintain it to the end. Ibid. pag. 62.He turns himſelf on another ſide, and tells us that 'tis the docility of the Faith of the Greeks which will not permit them to behold theſe difficulties. But this is very abſurdly anſwered again. For were it thus, the Greeks themſelves would at leaſt tell us ſomething of it. I mean they would tell us themſelves in ſome ſort, that they know well all theſe Conſequences, and are not ſo ſtupid, but that they ſee ſuch and ſuch Queſtions which ariſe from the Converſion of the Subſtances, but that they behold them as an Abyſs which cannot be fathomed, or to uſe Mr. Arnaud's Eloquent Expreſſion, That they ſtifle and Ibid.drown all humane thoughts in the abſolute certainty of the Word of God, and infallible Authority of his Church. They would give ſome reaſon for their ſilence, and endeavour to hinder its being interpreted in an ill ſence. They would inſtruct their People in the ſame Modeſty and Docility, and obſerve, that their Conduct in this particular was more diſcreet than that of the Latins. And this is what the Greeks would do, did they believe Tranſubſtantiation after this gentle and quiet manner Mr. Arnaud attributes to them. Yet do they not ſo much as mention theſe Conſequences or difficulties, they take no notice of their own ſilence in this reſpect. But Mr. Arnaud ſpeaks for them without any call or order from them. He tells us his Conceptions, and thoſe of Ernulphus an Engliſh Biſhop of the Twelfth Century, but not a word of the Greeks. The Greeks are in ſuch an abſolute ſilence on this Subject, that this ſilence cannot come from any other cauſe than the nature of their Doctrines, which not having the Conſequences of Tranſubſtantiation, do no ways oblige them to take notice of theſe ſame Conſequences.
AND thus far I think my Argument may paſs for good in the Opinion of thoſe People that underſtand reaſon. Yet Mr. Arnaud will have this to be Ibid. pag. 59.meer Folly and Extravagancy. And to ſhew it to be ſo, he tells us, That reaſon it ſelf ſhews us we muſt not diſown certain and undoubted Truths under pretence, they appear contrary amongſt themſelves on weak conjectures; but the certainty of theſe Truths ſhould make us conclude touching the falſity of theſe Reaſonings and pretended Contrarieties. It is, adds he, as certain a Truth as any thing of this kind can be, that the Greeks and other Eaſtern Churches do believe the real Preſence and Tranſubſtantiation, and there is nothing but may be called in queſtion upon the ſame grounds, if we may doubt of the conſent of all the Churches with the Church of Rome in this Doctrine. This is another Truth, that the Greeks take little notice of the Philoſophicl Conſequences. Whence he concludes, that theſe two Truths being equally certain, they cannot be contrary, and that they ſhew us the falſity of Mr. Claude's Conſequence.
IT muſt be acknowledged that never man had leſs trouble to anſwer an Adverſary than Mr. Arnaud. I prove to him the Greeks do not believe Tranſubſtantiation, becauſe they make no mention of its Conſequences nor difficulties. He denies my Conſequence becauſe the Greeks do believe. Tranſubſtantiation and that two Truths cannot be contradictory. It coſts little to make ſuch kind of Anſwers, and it coſts no more to tell him that if it were a certain Truth (as he affirms it is) that the Greeks believed the converſion of Subſtances, he would have no need to trouble himſelf to anſwer my Arguments. For the Queſtion being decided, there would be nothing remaining upon this account betwixt us. I believe I eſtabliſhed the Negative, which I defend a thouſand times more ſolidly, than he has proved his Affirmative; but if I pretended to elude his Arguments by ſaying, I deny the Conſequence, becauſe the Greeks do not believe Tranſubſtantiation, I ſhould be an impertinent Diſputer. It ſeems to me I ſhould make it appear, either that the Matters of Fact which Mr. Arnaud propoſes are not true, or that he takes them in a contrary ſence, and draws from them falſe Concluſions; but barely to ſay I deny the Conſequence, becauſe it oppoſes my Theſis, which I hold for a certain Truth, this would be to make my ſelf ridiculous. I know that a man that anſwers, ſuppoſes always his Theſis to be true, and that he has liberty to draw thence, if he can, where withal to ſolve the Arguments of his Adverſary, but he muſt do it in another manner, than by ſaying, I deny the Conſequence, becauſe my Theſis is true. For otherwiſe his Adverſary will tell him, and I prove that your Theſis is falſe by the very Argument I offer; ſo that this would be always to begin again. Mr. Arnaud will reply, he does not barely propoſe his Theſis for an Anſwer, but propoſes it, as having already ſolidly eſtabliſhed it by a great number of Proofs, and pretends that his Proofs ſurmount mine. I confeſs, that if this be his ſence, he has right to oppoſe Proof againſt Proof, and require a compariſon to be made of them, before the Reader paſſes his final Sentence. But I demand likewiſe for my part that there be comprehended in this compariſon, not only one o… my Proofs, but all of them together, with the Anſwers which I ſhall return his to ſhew their weakneſs and inſufficiency. Which is what a judicious Reader ought to do at the end of the Diſpute, in the mean time each Proof in particular ſhould have his force, neither muſt he imagine to elude them, one after another, by barely oppoſing againſt them thoſe which ſeem to eſtabliſh the contrary. If I pretended by the only force of my Argument drawn from the ſilence of the Greeks on the Conſequences of Tranſubſtantiation to acquit my ſelf of the examination of Mr. Arnaud's Proofs, and end the Diſpute by this means alone, he might reaſonably bring me back to this Diſcuſſion. For this would be to err in the ſame manner as the Author of the Perpetuity has done, who would decide the whole Controverſie of the Euchariſt, by an Argument drawn from the pretended Conſequences of a change, without any regard to our Proofs of Fact, which conclude directly the contrary. It would ſignifie nothing for me to alledge that my method is a method of Preſcription, and not of Diſcuſſion; for this would be meer wrangling. But this is not my deſign. I propoſed to my ſelf, (having firſt eſtabliſhed by divers moſt ſolid Reaſon, that the Greeks do not believe Tranſubſtantiation,) to anſwer in its due order whatſoever Mr. Arnaud has offered to ſhew that the Greeks do believe it. And yet this Proof, which I here treat of, comes with the reſt into the order of the Diſpute. It hath then, as I ſaid, its particular force and weight, and Mr. Arnaud muſt not imagine to overthrow it by barely oppoſing his Proofs againſt it, for before the Diſpute be ended, I hope to ſhew, that what he terms Proofs, are but meer Paralogiſms and Deluſions.
TO the end the Reader may better judge of the ſolidity of my Proof, Anſwer to the Sccond Treatiſe of Perp. cap. 8. pag. 442. Edit. 7.he muſt obſerve, that I offered it in my Anſwer to the Perpetuity only on this Ground, that there is no Law amongſt the Greeks, or general determination, that eſtabliſhes Tranſubſtantiation, that none of their Councils have decided it, none of their Confeſſions of Faith comprehended it, nor any of their publick Catechiſms aſſerted it. Now when men differ touching a matter of Fact, they uſually have recourſe to the place where they may moſt reaſonably expect ſatisfaction, and if it does not appear there in it ſelf, ſence obliges 'em to addreſs themſelves to its Conſequences, and if the Conſequences do not manifeſt themſelves any more than the Fact it ſelf, they draw thence a negative Argument, which in its place, has all the force that can be deſired. This method have I followed in this Anſwer to Mr. Arnaud, for I produce not this Argument drawn from Conſequences, till I manifeſted that the Fact it ſelf here in queſtion, that is to ſay, Tranſubſtantiation, does not appear any where amongſt the Greeks, neither in reſpect of the Terms, nor thing which the Terms ſignifie, and to juſtifie it I have produced what Mr. Arnaud has alledged to the contrary.
IN effect, if you ſet aſide the Latiniz'd Greeks, ſuch as Beſſarion, Emanuel Calecas, Pluſiadenus, the counterfeit Greeks, ſuch as the Baron of Spartaris, and the Archbiſhop of Gaza, whom I can prove to be a Penſioner of the Court of Rome, and others that are notoriouſly ſuſpected, ſuch as the pretended Samonas, the Monk Agapius, the ſix Prieſts of the Patriarchate of Antioch, and the Synod of Cyprus in the Year 1668. with ſome Acts that have been alter'd by the Latins already mention'd by us, all the reſt conſiſts only in Arguings and Conſequences, which have even in this quality neither Evidence nor certainty, as will appear hereafter. For as to Mr. Arnaud's vaunting, that he has ſhewed Tranſubſtantiation, hath been defined by Councils, that it is expresſly contain'd in the profeſſion of Faith ſign'd by the Sarraſins, and in the Eccleſiaſtical Writings of the Greeks, is what he ought not to affirm on ſuch ſlight Grounds, ſeeing People may be convinced of the contrary by the bare reading of theſe pretended Councils of Cyrillus, Berrhea, and Partenius, and Paſſages he produces as well of the profeſſion of Faith of theſe Sarraſin Proſelytes, as Eccleſiaſtical Writings; for 'tis certain we find Tranſubſtantiation neither defined, nor expreſly taught therein.
THIS Belief then appearing not of it ſelf in the Greek Church, and the expreſſions ſhe makes uſe of being lyable to ſundry Interpretations, a prudent man will conſider the Doctrines which depend thereon, and which are the inſeperable Conſequences of it; for if theſe Doctrines do no more appear than the Subſtantial Converſion, this muſt be granted a new Proof which confirms the firſt, and very much helps us to make our final Judgment. For as I ſaid, it is not poſſible that the Greeks can be in this Point agreed with the Latins, without believing at the ſame time with them, that the Accidents of Bread which remain, ſubſiſt without being upheld by the Subſtance of Bread, that the Body of Jeſus Chriſt is ſubſtantially preſent in ſeveral places at one time, that it exiſts in the Euchariſt void of theſe natural dimenſions, and that the Body and Blood are equally found under both Species by vertue of the concomitancy, &c. Theſe are the neceſſary dependances on Tranſubſtantiation, and the Greeks are ſo much the more obliged to explain themſelves, in as much as the Terms by which they are ſaid to expreſs their Belief touching this laſt particular are equivocal, and capable of ſeveral ſences, for they ought at leaſt to ſhew hereupon what is their meaning. So that having not done it, it is a Proof they are not agreed with the Church of Rome on the principal Point of the Converſion. And yet notwithſtanding all this, if we will believe Mr. Arnaud, my Proof is but a fooliſh and extravagant one. He may ſay what he pleaſes, but it ſeems to me by this, that for the moſt part there is no agreeing with him under any other Terms than the renouncing of our Reaſon. But to proceed.
I ſhall add to what I have already repreſented, the Teſtimonies of ſome Modern Greeks, who have given us exact deſcriptions of their Religion, and yet not a tittle of Tranſubſtantiation, altho their deſign and occaſions which ſet them on writing, obliged them not to be ſilent on ſo important an Article. I might begin with Jeremias the Patriarch of Conſtantinople; for let a man read over never ſo many times his Anſwers to the Divines of Wittemberg, yet cannot he find the leaſt intimation of a ſubſtantial Converſion, unleſs he ſuffers his mind to be corrupted by Mr. Arnaud's Declamations, but it will be more proper to refer this examination to the following Book, wherein, the order and ſequel of this Diſpute will oblige us to mention it.
WE have Chriſtopher Angelus his Letter, given us by George Felavius a Lutheran Divine of Dantzic; which Angelus was a Greek, a man both pious and learned. He greatly ſuffer'd amongſt the Turks for his Religion, and at length came into England to end there his Days in peace and quietneſs. His Letter contains a large Account of the Cuſtoms of the Greeks touching the Euchariſt, wherein he is ſo far from aſſerting the ſubſtantial Converſion of the Latins, that he expounds on the contrary theſe words of Body and Blood by them of Bread and Wine. The Prieſt, ſay's he, carrying in his hands Status & ritus Eccleſiae Graecae à Chriſtoph Angel…. cap. 23.the Holy Things, draws near to the People and ſtops at the door of the Sanctuary, where at once he diſtributes to every one the Body and Blood of our Lord, that is to ſay, Bread and Wine mixed, ſaying, this Servant of God receives, in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghoſt, for the Remiſſion of his Sins, Amen.
WE have a Confeſſion of Faith Compiled by Metrophanus Critopulus at Confeſſion Cath. & Apoſt. in Orient. Eccleſiae per Metrophanem Critopulum.Helmſtat in the Year 1625. He was not long after made Patriarch of Alexandria. There is a whole Chapter in this Confeſſion, the Title whereof is, foreign, of the Lord's Supper. In which having eſtabliſhed the uſe of leavened Bread, the Unity of this Bread to repreſent our Unity with Jeſus Chriſt, and one another, he adds. That the conſecrated Bread is truly the Body of Chriſt, and the Wine undoubtedly his Blood, but the manner, ſay's he, of this change is unknown and unintelligible to us. For the Underſtanding of theſe things is reſerved for the Elect in Heaven, to the end we may obtain the more favour from God by a Faith void of curioſity. Thoſe that ſeek after the reaſon of all things overthrow Reaſon and corrupt Knowledge, according to the Obſervation of Theophraſtus, ſeeing then this Myſtery is really the Body and Blood of Jeſus Chriſt, 'tis therefore very pertinently called by Saint Ignatius, a remedy againſt Mortality, a Medicine that purifies us, and an Antidote which preſerves us from Death, and makes us live in God by Jeſus Chriſt.
HERE we find the Bread to be really the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, and that it ſuffers a change, but we find not that the Subſtance of the one is really changed into that of another, which is preciſely the Tranſubſtantiation of the Latins. But on the contrary that the manner of this change is unknown to us whilſt on Earth, which is to ſay, in a word he would have us indeed to believe a change, (for the Bread is not naturally the Body of Chriſt) but will not ſuffer us to determine the manner of it, which what is it, but a plain rejecting of Tranſubſtantiation, ſeeing that it is it ſelf the Determination of this manner. It will be replied that they of the Church of Rome, do likewiſe acknowledge Tranſubſtantiation to be an unaccountable change, that we muſt believe it without troubling our ſelves how 'tis poſſible, and Mr. Arnaud has not fail'd to produce in this ſence, the Paſſage of Metrophanus, which I now mention'd according to his uſual Cuſtom, which is to turn to his advantage, even thoſe things that are moſt againſt him. But there is a great deal of difference between ſaying, there is a change which makes the Bread become the Body of Chriſt, altho we know not the manner thereof, and affirming there is a ſubſtantial change which converts the Subſtance of Bread into that of the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, altho we know not how this comes to paſs. By the firſt we keep our ſelves in the general Idea of a change without deſcending to a particular determination. By the ſecond we determine what this change is, to wit, a change of one Subſtance into another. In the firſt, the expreſſion is ſtill retain'd which ſuppoſes the Bread remains, to wit, That the Bread is the Body of Chriſt; but in the ſecond, this expreſſion is willingly laid aſide, becauſe it cannot be admitted but under the benefit of Figures and Diſtinctions. The firſt is the Language of the Greeks, the ſecond that of the Latins.
BUT before we leave this Confeſſion of Metrophanus, it will not be amiſs to make two reflexions thereon, the one, that when he eſtabliſhes the neceſſity of the Communion, in both kinds, he grounds it on the neceſſity of partaking as well of the Body as Blood of Chriſt, and alledges for this effect that ſaying in the ſixth Chapter of Saint John, If you eat not the Fleſh of the Son Ibid. cap. 91.of Man, and drink his Blood, you will have no life in you. Now this reaſon manifeſtly oppoſes the pretended concomitancy of the Latins, and Tranſubſtantiation it ſelf; for if there be made a converſion of the Bread into the proper Subſtance of the Body of Chriſt, ſuch as it is at preſent, that is to ſay, living and animate, thoſe that receive the Species of Bread do partake as well of the Blood as Body, and it cannot be ſaid, there is any neceſſity of receiving the Cup, by this reaſon that we muſt partake of the Blood, without falling into a manifeſt contradiction, which is likewiſe the reaſon wherefore in the Church of Rome it is believed to be ſufficient to communicate of one kind.
THE ſecond Conſideration concerning Metrophanus, is, that this Author diſcourſing, towards the end of his Chapter, of the Sacrament which the Greeks reſerve for the ſick, ſay's, That they believe, according to the Doctrine of the firſt Ibid.Oecumenical Council, that the Myſtery being reſerved, remains ſtill a Holy Myſtery, and never loſes the vertue it once received. For as Wool, ſay's he, being once dyed, keeps its colour; ſo the Sanctification remains in theſe Myſteries ever indelible, and as the remains which are taken off the King's Table are always the remains of the King's Table while they laſt, altho kept ſeveral years, ſo it cannot be but that the remains of this Holy Myſtery, are the remains of the Body and Blood of Chriſt. Let Mr. Arnaud tell us ſincerely whether this be the Style of a man that believes Tranſubſtantiation, and whether he himſelf would call that which is reſerved of the Sacrament, the remains of the Body and Blood of Chriſt, and compare the Sanctification which the Bread receives to the colour wherewith Wool is dyed. Whether he would ſay, that this Sanctification remains in the Myſteries, and is indelible. For 'tis certain this gives us the Idea of Bread, which, ſo remaining, yet receives an Impreſſion of Grace and Holineſs, which reſides in it as in its Subject, and makes it to be the Body of Chriſt, but no wiſe tranſubſtantiated Bread. If we were to underſtand by the vertue, not an Impreſſion of the Holy Spirit in the Bread, but an Action that changed the Subſtance of the Bread into the Subſtance of the Body of Chriſt, it might then be ſaid the effect which is produced by this Action, or Converſion, remains, that is to ſay, that 'tis ever the Subſtance of the Body of Chriſt. But it could not be ſaid, as Metrophanus does, that the Action it ſelf, that is to ſay, the Sanctification, always remain'd, becauſe it would be conceived in this caſe as a momentary Action, which ceaſes to be, aſſoon as the Converſion is made. Neither could it be moreover compared to the dye which Wool receives, ſeeing Wool remains ſtill Wool in reſpect of its Subſtance. In fine, if Metrophanus means no more but that the Myſtery remains ſtill what it has been made, to wit, the Body of Chriſt, in Subſtance, there can be no reaſon given, why, being able without doubt to explain himſelf eaſily, and clearly, he choſe rather to uſe obſcure and perplexed Terms, which have an Ayr wholly contrary to his Mind, and need a Commentary and Diſtinctions, than to uſe clear and natural expreſſions; for how many Commentaries need we to render intelligible, that this indelible Sanctification which the Bread receives, and is like to the dye which Wool takes, ſignifies the proper Subſtance of the Body and Blood of our Saviour?
I will finiſh this Chapter with another Proof, taken from the Form of Abjuration which the Greeks make when they leave their Religion to embrace the Roman. One of the Articles they are made to confeſs is this, That the Body and Blood of our Lord Jeſus Chriſt with his Soul and Divinity, are really, truly, Apud Poſſevin Bibl. ſelect. lib. 6.and ſubſtantially, in the Holy Sacrament of the Euchariſt, and that there is made a Converſion of the whole Subſtance of Bread into the Body, and of the whole Subſtance of Wine into the Blood, which Converſion the Catholick Church calls Tranſubſtantiation. The Greek runs thus, foreign.
HERE's clearly expreſſed the ſubſtantial Converſion, foreign, and Tranſubſtantiation foreign, for thus do the Greeks ſpeak when they become Latins, and 'tis thus they ought to ſpeak that believe this Doctrine. But why muſt the Greeks profeſs this when they change their Religion, if they held the ſame Language before? Is it uſual, when Proſelytes are received to make them profeſs Doctrines common both to the Religion they forſake, and that which they embrace? Do the Greeks do ſo by the Latins that paſs over to them, and is not this a plain ſign that their former Belief touching this Point was not that of the Church of Rome? For 'tis to be obſerv'd that this Formulary contains firſt the Symbol with the addition of the filioque, which the Greeks do not receive. Then it contains the Decrees of the Florentine Council, which the Greeks reject, and in fine the Articles determin'd in the Council of Trent, and in reſpect of this laſt part, 'tis the ſame profeſſion of Faith which them of our Communion make when they embrace that of Rome.
IT will be perhaps replied, that amongſt theſe Articles there are two, to wit, that of the Invocation of Saints, and worſhipping of Images, which there is no neceſſity of making the Greeks confeſs, ſeeing they practiſed them already in their Religion, whence it does not follow that they believed not Tranſubſtantiation, altho found expreſſed in this Form of Confeſſion, for there ought to be the ſame Judgment made of this, as of the other two Articles. But if this Anſwer happens to be approved by Mr. Arnaud, I will tell him 'tis of no weight. For as to the Invocation, the Greeks will not practiſe it to the Saints of the Church of Rome, which they do not acknowledge. When I enter into a Church of the Latins, ſay's Gregory the Confeſſor Hiſt. Conc. Fl…. ſect. 4. cap. 31, Relig. Ruthen, art. 6.in the Hiſtory of Syropulus, I adore not the Image of any Saint, becauſe I know not any one of them that I ſee. They blaſpheme, ſay's Sacranus (ſpeaking of the Ruſſians) againſt the Churches Saints, who lived in the Communion, and Obedience of the Roman Church. In the Invocation of Saints, ſay's the Error Moſ. ex Scarga art. …Jeſuit Scarga, they are guilty of ſeveral abſurdities. This Article then was not needleſs, but on the contrary there was ſome kind of neceſſity to inſert it in the formulary. And as to that of Images, we all know that the Greeks do abhor the Images of the Latins, and therefore call their Worſhip in this reſpect Idolatry.
THE Greeks, ſay's William Poſtel, call the Weſtern People that are ſubject De Repub. Turcor. pag. 46. Voyages of the Sieur Bénard. lib. cap. 24.to the Church of Rome, grand Idolaters, becauſe we have Statues erected. They have no other Images in their Churches, ſay's the Sieur Benard, than the Crucifix, the Virgin Mary, Saint John the Evangeliſt, and Saint George which are Painted in Tables. They teach, ſay's the Jeſuit Richard; that carved Images are Idols, and that 'tis unlawful to worſhip any others than thoſe which are painted.
POSSEVIN the Jeſuit reckons likewiſe this amongſt the reſt of their Errours. That they will not ſuffer a carved Image of our Saviour to be ſet up in their Churches. And the Sieur de la Boulay le Goux aſſerts the ſame thing, viz. that they ſuffer no other Images but thoſe that are painted againſt the Walls, their reaſon being, that carved Images are forbid in Moſes his Law; which Nicholas de Nicolai confirms, telling us, They ſuffer no carved Images in their Churches, only Table-Pieces.
IT was then moreover needful to inſert in the profeſſion of Faith this Article of Images. But there can be nothing alledged like this touching that of Tranſubſtantiation. There could be no reaſon obliging the Popes to require an expreſs Declaration from the Greek Proſelytes, unleſs that of this Doctrines being not taught in the Church they left, and therefore they muſt change their Faith as well as their Communion. In effect the Terms of the Greeks, are for the moſt part of 'em general, and altho the Latins do abuſe them in their Diſputes, to make us thereby believe they hold the ſubſtantial Converſion, yet when the matter in the main relates to their own intereſt out of the Diſpute, they do not then find them ſufficient for the forming a true Idea of Poſſevin Bibliot. ſelect. lib. 1.this Converſion, ſeeing there has been made an expreſs Article touching this Point conceived in the Terms of the Council of Trent. This is ſo true, that when they ſend into the Eaſt, thoſe that have been educated in their Seminaries, they make 'em ſign this ſame Formulary, to the end they may not fail to labour at the propagation of this Doctrine. It is no longer foreign, nor foreign, nor foreign, Change, Mutation, Converſion, there is not enough in this to make a good Catholick, it is foreign, a Change of Subſtance, Tranſubſtantiation. Mr. Arnaud torments himſelf to make us acknowledge the Doctrine of the Church of Rome in the common expreſſions of the Greeks. But that he may avoid this trouble hence forward, let me only adviſe him to conſult Pope Gregory the Thirteenth, for it was by his Order this Formulary we mention'd has been compiled.