The Catholic Doctrine of the Eucharist in All Ages, Book 3 · Chapter 11
CHAP. XI.
The Two and Twentieth Proof, taken from an Anſwer in Manuſcript of Metrophanus Critopulus, to ſome Questions offer'd him by Mr. Ooſterwieck. The Three and Twentieth, is, another Anſwer in Manuſcript of Meletius Archbiſhop of Epheſus, and Hieroteus, Abbot of the Monastery of Cephalenia. The Four and Twentieth, is, the Teſtimony of Jeremias a Doctor of the Greek Church. The Five and Twentieth, is the Teſtimony of Zacharias Gerganus.
WHILST I am endeavouring to defend the Truth againſt the vain Subtilities of Mr. Arnaud, I hear, that ſeveral pious, and learned men, who cannot indure the World ſhould be thus impoſed on, do intereſs themſelves in this Diſpute, and having read this Famous Book I examine, they have wonder'd its Author ſhould with ſuch confidence affirm, that the Greeks believe the Tranſubſtantiation of the Latins. Some of 'em have ſent me ſome Manuſcripts, which they judged proper for the clearing up of this Queſtion. I will produce them then here, naming the Perſons from whom I receiv'd them, to the end if any doubt ariſe, they may addreſs themſelves to them, from whom I had them for their ſatisfaction.
MONSIEUR Spanheim, a Reverend Miniſter, and Divinity Profeſſor, in the Univerſity of Heydelberg, ſent me an extract of a Manuſcript he has by him, containing Seven and Twenty Anſwers, made by the ſame Metrophanus Critopulus, whom I mention'd in the foregoing Chapter, to ſo many Queſtions that were put to him by Monſieur Ooſterwieck, who was then in the Eaſt, and was ſo curious as to inform himſelf, not concerning the particular ſence of Metrophanus touching theſe Articles, but of the whole Greek Church, in which he then held a very conſiderable rank, being Patriarch of Alexandria. One of theſe Queſtions was thus expreſſed in Greek, foreign, I deſire to know the Opinion of the Greek Church touching theſe Articles of the Chriſtian Faith. The Three and Twentieth Article has for its Title, foreign. Of the Sacrifice of the Maſs, to wit, whether Chriſt be corporally preſent in the Sacrament. The Anſwer is this; We call the Lord's Supper a Sacrifice, but a Sacrifice that is ſpiritual and commemorative; ſpiritual as having nothing of carnal in it, according to that of our Saviour, the words which I ſpeak to you are Spirit and Life. Commemorative, as being perform'd in remembrance of the Sacrifice once offer'd on the Croſs, according to that other expreſſion of our Saviour, do this in remembrance of me. Which is what is taught by Saint Chryſoſtom, and the whole Church, ſaying, this is done in remembrance of what was done then, do this ſay's our Saviour in remembrance of me. We offer not any other Sacrifice, as did heretofore the High Prieſt, under the Old Teſtament; but we offer every day the ſame, or to ſpeak better we commemorate this Sacrifice. But we never believed Chriſt was bodily preſent in the Myſtery. Had the Greek Church believed Tranſubſtantiation, it was here a fit place to declare it, and to reply yes, we do believe that Jeſus Chriſt is corporally preſent in the Sacrament, inaſmuch as that the proper Subſtance of his Body lies covered under the Accidents of Bread, or ſome ſuch like equivalent thing. It will be to no purpoſe to alledge that Metrophanus means Chriſt is not corporally in it, that is to ſay, after the manner of viſible and ſenſible Bodies with all their Dimenſions; for this would be to make him return a captious Anſwer, and ſuch a one as is unbecoming an honeſt man, ſeeing he well ſaw this was not the Queſtion askt him, and that the Term of corporally in the Queſtion propounded, reſpected the proper Subſtance of his Body. So that the force of this Teſtimony cannot be evaded. This Metrophanus was Patriarch of Alexandria in the Year 1642.
THE ſaid Mr. Spanheim imparted to me the Anſwer of Meletius Metropolitan of Epheſus made ſome twenty years ſince to the Divines at Leyden; touching ſome Queſtions they propoſed to him. They askt him amongſt other things, foreign. Whether we may pray to Angels, or the Virgin Mary, and religiouſly worſhip them; and whether we muſt believe the Bread to be tranſubſtantiated in the Sacrament. Obſerve here what he anſwers, foreign. I declare, ſay's he, there are none of theſe things to be believed, for I may not believe the Doctrines of men, before thoſe of Chriſt and his Apoſtles. The Superſcr…tion is, foreign. Adjoyning unto which is the conſent of Hierotheus, in theſe words, foreign. And I Hierotheus an Archimandrite Abbot of Cephalania, am of the ſame mind in all things here above contained with the moſt holy and prudent Metropolitain of Epheſus, and all Aſia, according to what he has declared.
DR. Benjamin Woodroff, an Eminent Divine in the Church of England, and Chaplain to the Duke of York, has favour'd me with an Extract, whoſe Original he has by him, and which was given him by its Author, being then at Oxford. It is a Declaration of the ſence of the Greek Church, drawn up by a Greek Doctour, named Jeremias. Obſerve here its Contents. The different uſe of the Myſtery of the Euchariſt having produced different Sentiments, ſome celebrating it with unleavened Bread, others with that which is leavened and kneaded, ſome believing it to be only a Sign, others that the Bread is changed and alter'd by the Word. Thoſe that believe the change are the Weſtern People, which adminiſter this Sacrament according to the Doctrine of the Roman Church, and all the reſt hold the Sign except the Eaſtern People; For the Eaſtern Church differs from both theſe, and yet teaches a Doctrine that is eaſie, full of piety, and free from contradiction. She affirms then that the Biſhop, or Prieſt, in the Divine Service holds the place of Chriſt, making the Propitiation for the ſins of the People, and that by the Holy Invocation of God's Name, and mention of the Divine Words of our Saviour, the ſpiritual Grace deſcends that ſanctifies the Bread and Wine, and changes them, not into the ſenſible, but ſpiritual Body of Jeſus Chriſt. And as to thoſe that aſſert the Subſtance of Bread and Wine is changed into the natural Fleſh of Jeſus Chriſt, if they underſtand hereby a ſupernatural change after a ſpiritual manner, thoſe that do thus ſpeak, concur in their Opinion with the Eaſtern Church. But ſeeing they will have this to be ſenſibly effected, our Church does therein diſagree with them, altho they have recourſe to another way of ſpeaking, in telling us of Accidents and Species, and ſuch like things, which none of the Ancients ever thought of, much leſs mention'd. For the Fathers of the Eaſtern Church have been ever averſe to Novelties and Contentions, which tend to the ruine of Souls, not only deteſting thoſe Doctrines which are heretical, and divide the Church, but which, in diſturbing its Peace, eclipſe its Glory. The Superſcription is, foreign, Jeremias Doctour of Divinity in the Eaſtern Church.
ALTHO we learn no new thing from the Teſtimony of this Author, yet does it confirm, and illuſtrate ſeveral matters. Firſt, that the Sentiment of the Greeks touching the Euchariſt, is not in any thing the ſame with that of the Church of Rome, but a middle way betwixt the Doctrine of the Latins and Proteſtants. Secondly, That although the Greeks do uſe the Term foreign, change, yet do they not underſtand thereby a real change of one Subſtance into another, which the Latins have invented, but a ſpiritual change wrought by the Grace of the Holy Spirit which ſanctifies the Bread and Wine. Thirdly, That when 'tis ſaid the Subſtance of Bread and Wine is changed into the natural Fleſh of Chriſt, this muſt be underſtood in a ſp…ritual manner to be conformable to the Sentiment of the Eaſtern Church. Fourthly, That thoſe of the Church of Rome underſtanding it (as they do) in a ſenſible manner, the Greeks reject them and their Communion. Fifthly, To the end there may be no pretence left for cavilling on the Term of ſenſibly, in ſaying the Roman Church underſtands not that the Body of Chriſt is viſible and palpable in its natural form, in the Sacrament, he declares that he well knows ſhe makes uſe of other expreſſions, namely, of Accidents and Species; meaning that this is ſtill to underſtand it ſenſibly to aſſert our Saviour's proper Subſtance is in this Myſtery, although covered with the Species and Accidents of Bread. And that this is a Novelty the Greeks have ever rejected, and of which the Ancients have not made the leaſt mention. If Mr. Arnaud likes this let him make the beſt uſe he can of it, in the mean time we will paſs on to another Proof.
MATTHEW Caryophilus, titular Archbiſhop of Iconia, a Latiniſed Greek, and almoſt of the ſame ſtamp and temper, as Arcudius and Leo Allatius, has publiſhed a refutation of ſome Propoſitions taken out of a Catechiſm made by a Greek Gentleman whom he calls Zacharias Gerganus; Allatius ſay's he was a Biſhop. But be he what he will, Caryophilus uſes him after a dreadful manner, terming his Propoſitions Blaſphemies, and calling him Serpent, Baſilisk, Wolf, the Devil's Inſtrument, worſe than the Devil himſelf, a Lutheran. But 'tis a uſual thing with theſe Gentlemen to load mens Perſons with Injuries, when their Doctrines agree not with theirs. They thus begin, continue, and end their Refutations. It cannot then be taken ill, if laying aſide their Injuries, I only affirm, that Caryophilus very impertinently charges this Greek with his being a Lutheran; for it is apparent from the Propoſitions he recites, and what he ſay's in his Preface, that he was a true Greek, and maintain'd the Maxims of his Religion and Church; and moreover a real lover of his Country. He oppoſes (amongſt other things) the addition of the filioque, in the Symbol, and attacks the Azuma of the Latins. He affirms there is but one Holy Church, which is the Catholick, Apoſtolical, and Eaſtern; which does not well agree with the Title he has given him of a Lutheran; and 'tis plainly ſeen he has given it him only to make him ſuſpected by his own Countrymen, and hinder us from any advantage by his Teſtimony.
SO that the ſingle Authority of Caryophilus, being not ſufficient to hinder us from conſidering this Author's Teſtimony, notwithſtanding his pretended Lutheraniſm. I ſhall therefore produce here ſome of his Propoſitions, which he himſelf has taken out of his Catechiſm. The LXI is this. R…futatio pfeud…-Chriſtianae Catecheſis editae à Zacharia Gergano Graeco Auctore Matthae… Caryophil. Romae 1631. Blaſph. 61.The Holy Communion conſiſts of two Subſtances, the one viſible, and th'other inviſible, the viſible Subſtance is the Bread and Wine, the inviſible Subſtance is the Word of Chriſt, This is my Body, this is my Blood. The Queſtion in this Diſpute being only, Whether the Greeks believe Tranſubſtantiation, it will be therefore ſufficient for me to ſhow by this Teſtimony, that the viſible Subſtance of Bread and Wine remain, ſo that I am not concerned to know in what ſence this Author calls the Words of Chriſt the inviſible Subſtance of the Sacrament. Yet will I affirm his ſence is clear enough; for in reſpect of the Bread and Wine which are in effect Subſtances, it is plain we muſt take the Term of Subſtance in its natural ſignification; but in reſpect of the Words of Chriſt, which in effect are not Subſtances, it is likewiſe apparent we muſt underſtand this expreſſion in a metaphorical ſence, ſeeing by it is meant no more, but that the internal and myſtical virtue of this Sacrament is contain'd in theſe words, This is my Body, becauſe theſe words ſhew us we muſt not take theſe things as mere Bread and Wine, but as the Body and Blood of Chriſt, of which they are the Myſtery. Which is what he underſtands by this inviſible Subſtance, that is to ſay, the force and efficacy of the Sacrament; for had not our Saviour ſaid of the Bread, This is my Body, it would be no more than Bread, proper to nouriſh our Bodies, whereas the Faith we have in theſe words ſhews us in it another ſpiritual Subſtance, which nouriſhes our Souls.
THE LXV. Propoſition does no leſs oppoſe the ſubſtantial Converſion; Ibid. Blaſ. phem. 65.for it contains theſe words, That the Laity which communicate but of one only kind, receive an imperfect Communion, which is directly oppoſite to one of the neceſſary Conſequences of Tranſubſtantiation; which is the Concomitancy. And to prevent any cavilling touching the ſence of this Propoſition, as if he would ſay only, that this Communion is imperfect in reſpect of the Inſtitution of Chriſt, who has ordain'd we ſhould partake of both kinds, and not in reſpect of the Body and Blood it ſelf; which we fully receive under one, he thereupon explains himſelf clearly in the 68 Propoſition. This is an Ibid. Blaſphem. 6.impious Doctrine of the Papiſt, ſay's he, and of which Pope Eugenus has been the firſt Author, that where the Body of Chriſt is, there is likewiſe his Blood, and for this reaſon it is not neceſſary that the Laity receive the Communion under both kinds. So that here the pretended concomitancy is overthrown, and conſequently Tranſubſtantiation, inaſmuch as one cannot ſubſiſt without the other. This Author lived about the Year 1630.