The Catholic Doctrine of the Eucharist in All Ages, Book 3 · Chapter 13

The Catholic Doctrine of the Eucharist in All Ages · Book 3 · Chapter 13

p. 215CHAP. XIII.

The Real Belief of the Greeks, touching the Euchariſt.

BUT what do the Greeks then believe, if they believe not Tranſubſtantiation? The Bounds of this Controverſie oblige me not to anſwer this Queſtion. For it concerning us here only to inquire, whether the Greeks do, or do not believe the Converſion of Subſtances, it is ſufficient that we ſhow they do not believe it, ſeeing as I have already ſaid, we pretend not, that their Faith muſt be the rule of ours; yet will I endeavour to ſatisfie the Reader in this particular. I do alſo hope, that this inquiry will not be uſeleſs towards the clearing up of the principal Queſtion, between Mr. Arnaud and my ſelf, becauſe that in ſhewing what the Greeks do believe, I do at the ſame time ſhew what they do not believe. I ſhall do then three things in this Chapter, the firſt of which ſhall be to ſhew the real Belief of the Greeks touching the Euchariſt; Secondly, deſcribe in what they agree, and differ from the Church of Rome. And thirdly, likewiſe, wherein we of the Reformed Church do agree with them, and in what particulars we do not.

AS to the firſt of theſe Points, to the end we may have a fuller and clearer underſtanding of the real Opinion of the Greeks, it will be neceſſary we make ſeveral Articles of it, and reduce them into theſe following Propoſitions.

FIRST, in general, the Euchariſt is, according to them, a myſtical repreſentation of the whole Oeconomy of Jeſus Chriſt. They expreſs by it his coming into the World, his being born of a Virgin, his Sufferings, Death, Reſurrection, Aſcenſion into Heaven, and the Glory he diſplayed on the Earth in making himſelf known and adored by every Creature. Were it neceſſary to prove this Propoſition, we could eaſily do it, by the Greek Lyturgies, and Teſtimonies of Cabaſilas, Germain, Simeon Theſſalonienſis, Jeremias, and ſeveral others; but this not being a matter of conteſt, I ſhall not inſiſt upon it.

SECONDLY, They conſider the Bread in two diſtinct reſpects, either whilſt it is as yet on the Table of the Protheſis, or on the great Altar. Whilſt 'tis on the Protheſis, they hold 'tis a Type or Figure. Yet do they p. 216ſometimes call it the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, ſometimes, the imperfect Body of Chriſt, ſometimes the dead Body of Jeſus Chriſt, although they do not believe the Conſecration is then compleated. This is confirmed by what I related in the Fourth Chapter of this Third Book, and it is not likewiſe neceſſary to inſiſt any longer thereon, becauſe this particular concerns not the matter in hand.

THIRDLY, When the Symbols are carried and placed on the great Altar, they ſay that by the Prayers of the Prieſt, and Deſcent of the Holy Spirit, the Bread and Wine, are perfectly conſecrated and changed into the Body and Blood of Chriſt. To expreſs this change, they uſe theſe general Terms I already noted, to wit, foreign, &c. which ſignifie a change. They ſay the Bread is the Body of Chriſt, and that it is made the very Body it ſelf, or the proper Body of Chriſt, and hereunto refer all thoſe Citations Mr. Arnaud has alledged out of Theophylact, Euthymius, Nicholas Methonienſis, Cabaſilas, Simeon Theſſalonienſis and Jeremias. We do not deny that the Greeks uſe theſe Expreſſions, it concerns us here only to know in what ſence the Greek Church uſes them, and what kind of change they mean thereby.

I ſay then, that when we come to examine this change, and determine in what manner the Bread and Wine, are made the Body and Blood of Chriſt, they curb our curioſity, and remit this knowledge and determination to God, and for their own parts keep within their general Terms. Which appears by the profeſſion of Faith which the Sarrazins made in the Twelfth Century, when they imbraced the Greek Religion; I believe, Bibl. Patr. Tom. 2. Graeco-Lat.ſay's the Proſelyte, and confeſs the Bread and Wine which are myſtically ſacrificed by the Chriſtians, and of which they partake in their Divine Sacraments. I believe likewiſe that this Bread and Wine, are in truth the Body and Blood of Chriſt, being changed intellectually and inviſibly by his Divine Power above all natural conception, he alone knowing the manner of it. And upon this account it was, that Nicetas Choniatus complains, that in the Twelfth Century the Doctrine Nicetas Choniat. Annal. lib. 3.of the Divine Myſteries was divulged, and therefore cenſures the Patriarch Camaterus for his not having immediately ſilenced a Monk, who propoſed this Queſtion (to wit) whether we receive in the Euchariſt the corruptible or incorruptible Body of Jeſus Chriſt. He ſhould have been condemned, ſay's he, for an Heretick that introduced Novelties, all the reſt ſilenced by his example, to the end the Myſtery may ever remain a Myſtery. John Sylvius in his Cathe'merinon Joan Sylv. a…rebat. Cathem.of the Greeks recites a Prayer, wherein it is ſaid, That the Body and Blood of Jeſus Chriſt are touched, and changed on the Altar, after a ſupernatural manner, which muſt not be inquired into. We have likewiſe already ſeen in the Tenth Chapter of this Book the Teſtimony of Metrophanus, the Patriarch of Alexandria, who having told us the conſecrated Bread is really the Body of Jeſus Confeſſ. Eccleſ. Or. cap. 9.Chriſt, and that which is in the Cup undoubtedly his Blood, he adds, That the manner of this change is unknown to us, and the knowledge thereof reſerved for the Elect in Heaven, to the end we may obtain more favour from God by a ſimple Faith void of curioſity. And thus acquits himſelf.

ANOTHER Greek Author, cited by Allatius, under the name of John Allat. adverſus Chreygton exercit. 22.the Patriarch of Jeruſalem. You ſee, ſay's he, that Saint Paul ſcruples not to call this Body Bread. But be it ſo if you will, that it be no longer called Bread, and being no longer Bread is neither leavened nor unleavened, you ſee that it is not bereaved of theſe Appellations till after Sanctification. But before this dreadful p. 217Sacrifice, when you offer it to ſanctifie it, ſhall this be neither Bread nor an Azyme? Now that which is done in this Oblation is by our ſelves; but that which happens in this admirable change, is not from us but God. It appears by this paſſage recited by Allatius, and taken if I be not deceived out of a Manuſcript, wherein this Author diſputes touching the Azymes againſt a Latin who told him, that this Controverſie was vain, ſeeing that after the Conſecration, it is no longer Bread, but the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, and it ſeems this Patriarch maintains againſt him, that 'twas ſtill Bread, and proves it by the Authority of Saint Paul, who ſo calls it. It ſeems likewiſe by what he adds, that he would ſay, that ſuppoſing it was no longer called Bread, and loſt this name, yet we muſt not ſpeak of what it becomes by Conſecration, becauſe God only knows that, and not men.

ALTHO the Greeks are ſometimes thus reſerved, reſtraining themſelves within their general Terms, yet for the moſt part they ſhew more particularly their thoughts, touching the nature, and kind of the change which happens to the Bread and Wine, and which makes them to be the Body and Blood of Chriſt: And they do it likewiſe in ſuch a manner, that 'tis no hard matter to find out their meaning: Which is what we have now to demonſtrate. But before we enter into this Deduction, it will not be amiſs to obſerve, that the Bread and wine may be conceived to be changed into the Body and Blood of Chriſt two ways. Firſt, by a real converſion of the whole Subſtance of Bread and Wine, into the Subſtance of the Body and Blood, I mean into the ſame numerical Subſtance (as the Schools ſpeak) ſo that the Subſtance of Bread ſubſiſts no longer after the change, which is what is held in the Roman Church. Secondly, by the addition of a new quality, or form in the Bread and Wine, ſo that their firſt Subſtance remaining, they receive that which they had not before, and by this reception become that which they were not. In this firſt manner of conceiving the change, the Subſtance of Bread, and that of the Body are conſidered as two Terms, or two different Subjects, the firſt of which does not ſubſiſt, but paſſes over into the other. In the ſecond, the Bread is conſidered as a Subject that always ſubſiſts, but which receiving into it that which it had not, by this means becomes the Body and Blood of Jeſus Chriſt, after the ſame manner as the paper which receives the Characters and Seal of a Prince, becomes the Princes Letter, or Wax receiving the Impreſſion of a Seal, is made the Seal it ſelf, or Wool dyed in Scarlet, becomes a ſcarlet colour, or Wood receiving the impreſſion of fire, becomes fire it ſelf, or in fine, as the nouriſhment we take, receiving the form of our Fleſh, and being joyned thereunto, becomes our Body. By which it appears that to proceed faithfully, and ingenuouſly, in our Inquiries after the real Belief of the Greeks it muſt firſt be acknowledged, that theſe expreſſions; The Bread is changed into the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, the Bread is made the Body of Chriſt, the Bread is the Body it ſelf, or the proper Body of Jeſus Chriſt, are in themſelves general expreſſions, and that they may be ſimply taken in this their generality, or applied to ſeveral particular, ſences. Now if Mr. Arnaud would have us take theſe expreſſions in the ſence of Tranſubſtantiation, he muſt produce ſome ſolid and real paſſages out of Greek Authors, by which it may appear that 'tis in this ſence they underſtood them, and that they cannot admit of any other. Which is no more than what he ought to have done, but he has been far from undertaking it, knowing it to be a thing abſolutely impoſſible.

AS to my own part, had I only intended to ſhew the inſufficiency of Mr. p. 218Arnaud's Proofs, I might content my ſelf with alledging this generality, for it alone is ſufficient to hinder him from drawing any Concluſion. But ſeeing I have taken upon me, to ſhew in this Chapter, what the real Sentiment of the Greek Church is, I find my ſelf obliged to bring, not Arguments, or Diſtinctions from my own Head, but good and ſolid paſſages of the Greeks themſelves; which plainly demonſtrate what kind of change they mean.

FOR this effect I ſhall reduce what they ſay concerning it, to this Propoſition; They believe that by the Conſecration there is made a kind of compoſition or mixture of Bread and Wine, and Holy Spirit; that theſe Symbols keeping their own proper nature, are joyned to the Divinity, and by the impreſſion they receive from the Holy Ghoſt, are changed (for the Faithful only) into the virtue of the Body and Blood of Chriſt, being made by this means not a Figure, but the proper, and real Body of Jeſus Chriſt, and this by way of Augmentation of the ſame natural Body of Jeſus Chriſt. To which they apply the Compariſons I already mentioned, concerning the nouriſhment which becomes our proper Body by Aſſimilation and Augmentation, of the Wood which is put to the Fire, of the Wool which receives the dye, of Paper that is made the Princes Letter, and Wax, or other Matter which receives the Impreſſion of the Seal.

This Propoſition having ſeveral parts, and each of them of great importance in this Queſtion, it is therefore neceſſary to eſtabliſh them one after another diſtinctly and ſolidly.

FIRST, They believe there is a compoſition or mixture made of the Bread with the Holy Spirit. Metrophanus the Patriarch of Alexandria, ſhews us, that this is their Doctrine. For obſerve here what he ſay's in his Confeſſion of Faith of the Eaſtern Church in his Chapter of the Sacraments, God, ſay's he, has communicated his Grace to the Elect, not only after a ſpiritual manner, Confeſ. Eccleſ. Or. cap. 5.but likewiſe by ſome ſenſible ſigns, as moſt certain pledges of his promiſe. For as we are compoſed of two parts, ſo likewiſe the manner of communicating his Grace muſt be double, to wit, by a ſenſible matter, and by the Holy Spirit, ſeeing the Perſons that receive theſe things are made up of a ſenſible Body and intelligent Soul; Now theſe Pledges are that which we call the Myſteries, to wit, Baptiſm and the Holy Communion, which conſiſt of viſible Matter, and of the Holy Spirit. Theſe Words are ſo plain, that they need no Comment. He affirms there are two things in the Sacraments, and particularly in the Euchariſt, to wit, the ſenſible Matter, and the Holy Spirit. Now the ſenſible Matter in the Euchariſt can be nothing elſe but the Bread and the Wine.

METROPHANUS, affirms moreover the ſame thing in his Chapter, touching the Lord's Supper, wherein he ſay's, that the Myſtery never loſes Ibid cap. 9.the Sanctification it has once received, and that it is indelible. It is here where he compares the Sanctification the Bread receives, to Wool when 'tis dyed in any colour, which includes apparently this Idea of the Compoſition of Bread, and the Holy Spirit almoſt after the ſame manner as Wool that is dyed is a compoſition or mixture of Wool and dye.

THIS Greek Patriarch has only followed in this, the Doctrine of Jeremias the Patriarch of Conſtantinople in his Anſwer to the Divines of Wittemberg, Conſiſting, ſay's he, as we do of two Parts, that is to ſay, of a Body and a Jerem. Rep. 1. ad Theologos Wittemb.Soul, our Saviour Chriſt has therefore given us theſe things doubly, (he means the Sacraments) he himſelf conſiſting of two Natures, being both God and Man. p. 219He ſpiritually ſanctifies our Souls by the Grace of his Spirit, and ſanctifies likewiſe our Bodies by ſenſible Matters, namely, with Oyl, Water, Bread and Wine, and other things ſanctified by the Holy Spirit, and thus gives us a compleat Salvation. He not only ſay's, that the Sacraments in general are things that are double (as he terms them) conſiſting of things ſenſible, and the Holy Spirit, but ſay's, this particularly of the Bread and Wine in the Euchariſt.

WITH this agrees the expreſſions of the Greek Liturgies, and thoſe of the moſt famous Authors of this Church, who call the Sacrament the Holy Bread, the Conſecrated Bread, the Divine Bread, the Gifts ſanctified by the Holy Spirit, for theſe Expreſſions do naturally denote that compoſition or duplicity aforementioned.

NOW if we would know how it has come to paſs, the Greeks of latter Ages have thus expreſſed themſelves in relation to this part of their Belief, we need only look back to the foregoing Ages, for we ſhall there find Sentiments and Expreſſions on the ſame Subject, if not wholly conformable to the Expreſſions of the Modern Greeks, yet which come very near them, and which have ſerved for a Foundation to 'em, as will appear by the following Paſſages.

WE may then here mark what the Fathers of the Council of Conſtantinople in the Eighth Century aſſerted. As the Body of Jeſus Chriſt is Holy, In actis Concil. Nic. 2 act. 6.becauſe 'tis deified, ſo likewiſe, that which is his Body by Inſtitution, to wit, his Holy Image is made Divine, by a Sanctification of Grace. For as by virtue of the Hypoſtatical Union, our Saviour deified the Fleſh he took on him, by a Sanctification naturally proper to him, ſo in like manner he will have the Bread in the Euchariſt (which is the real Image of his Fleſh) to become a Divine Body by the Deſcent of the Holy Spirit into it, the Oblation being, by means of the Prieſt, transferred from a common State, to a State of Holineſs. And therefore the natural Fleſh of Jeſus Chriſt endued with Soul and Underſtanding, has been anointed by the Holy Spirit, being united to the Divinity, and ſo likewiſe his Image, to wit, the Divine Bread, is filled with the Holy Spirit. Who ſees not in theſe words the Union, and Compoſition of Bread with the Holy Spirit? The Bread, ſay they, is made Divine by a Sanctification of Grace, it becomes a Divine Body by the Deſcent of the Holy Spirit into it; the Bread is filled with the Holy Spirit, in like manner as the natural Fleſh of our Lord has been ſanctified, deified, and anointed with the Holy Spirit, by virtue of the Hypoſtatical Union. All this plainly favours the Compoſition of the Modern Greeks. Now this Teſtimony is the more conſiderable, in that the ſecond Nicene Council having been held on purpoſe to overthrow whatſoever had been determined in that of Conſtantinople, touching the Point of Images, they cenſured the name of Image, which their Adverſaries had given the Euchariſt, but left untouched the other Clauſes, I now mentioned. Which ſhews that theſe kind of Expreſſions, were received by both Parties, and that this was the common Doctrine of the whole Greek Church.

IN effect if we aſcend higher, we ſhall find, that Saint Ephraim Biſhop Apud. Phol. Bib. Cod. 229.of Antioch, who lived about the Sixth Century, thus expreſſed himſelf, That the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, which the faithful receive, does not leave its ſenſible Subſtance, nor is ſeperated from the ſpiritual Grace. Which does moreover favour the Duplicity, or Compoſition of Bread with the Holy Spirit.

p. 220THEODORET, who lived about the Fifth Century, expreſſes himſelf Diog. al. 1.after the ſame manner. Jeſus Chriſt, ſay's he, has honoured the viſible Symbols with the name of his Body and Blood, not in changing their naturee, but in joyning his Grace thereunto. Chryſoſtom ſaid the ſame thing in the Fourth Chryſoſt. Hom. 44. in Joan.Century, That the Bread becomes Heavenly Bread, by means of the Holy Spirit's coming down upon it.

THEOPHILUS of Alexandria in the ſame Century wrote, That the Theophil. Alex. Ep. Paſch. 1. Bibl. Patr. Tom. 3. Edit. 4.Bread and Wine placed on the Lord's Table are inanimate things, which are ſanctified by Prayer, and Deſcenſion of the Holy Ghoſt.

SAINT Irenaeus who lived in the Second Century, ſpake to the ſame Irenae, adverſ. Hareſ. lib. 4. cap. 34.purpoſe, That the Euchariſt conſiſts of two things; the one Earthly, th'other Heavenly. It is plain by the ſequel of his Diſcourſe, that he means by theſe two things the Bread, and ſanctifying Grace of the Holy Spirit. But it is alſo manifeſt, that all theſe Paſſages have occaſioned the Belief of the Compoſition.

THOMAS a Jeſu tells us of an Errour wherewith almoſt all the Eaſtern Thom. à Jeſu. lib. de procur. ſalute omn. gent. part. 2. lib. 7. cap 7.Chriſtians are infected: which is; That Jeſus Chriſt ſoaked the Bread he was to give to Judas, that he might thereby take away its Conſecration. I confeſs 'tis a great abſurdity to imagine the Conſecration can be taken away by this means; but 'tis eaſie to perceive, theſe ignorant People have fallen into this Errour, by conceiving the Conſecration under the Idea of a real impreſſion made on the Subſtance of Bread, for thereupon they have imagined this impreſſion might be effaced in waſhing the Bread, or ſoaking it.

AND thus far concerning the firſt part of my Propoſition. The ſecond, is, That they believe the Bread and Wine keeping their proper nature are joyned to the Divinity. Which is the ſame thing as the firſt, only, otherwiſe expreſſed. They will then mutually aſſiſt and ſtrengthen each other. For this effect I ſhall produce the Teſtimony of Nicholas Methonienſis, who lived in the Twelfth Century. This Author in anſwering thoſe that doubted whether the Euchariſt was the Body and Blood of Jeſus Chriſt, becauſe they ſaw neither Fleſh nor Blood, but Bread and Wine, reſolves the difficulty in this manner. God, ſay's he, who knows all things, and is perfectly good, has wiſely ordered this in reſpect of our weakneſs, leſt we ſhould have in horror the Pledges of Eternal Life, being not able to behold Fleſh and Blood, he has therefore appointed this to be done by things, to which our nature is accuſtomed, and has joyned to them his Divinity, ſaying, this is my Body, this is my Blood.

MR. Arnaud pretends to make advantage of theſe Doubts, which Nicholas Nicolaus Methon. adverſ. dubitantes, &c. Bibl. Patr. Craeco-Lat. Tom. 2.Methonienſis treats of, but we ſhall anſwer this Point in its due place. It ſuffices at preſent that we behold this Author laying down on one hand, the things to which our natures are accuſtomed, that is to ſay, Bread and Wine, and on the other, he aſſures us, that the Divinity is joyned to them. Which is exactly what I was to prove, whence it follows, that according to the Greeks, the Bread and Wine remain in Union with the Divinity. Mr. Arnaud who ſaw the force of this Paſſage, has endeavoured to avoid it by a frivolous evaſion. God joyns, ſay's he, his Divinity to the Bread and Wine. 'Tis true, but Lib 2 cap. 13. pag. 231.he has joyned it as the efficacious cauſe of the change of the Bread and Wine into the Body and Blood of Chriſt, ſo often repeated, by Nicholas Methonienſis, but p. 221not as a means of Union between the Bread and Wine, and Body of Jeſus Chriſt. He has joyned it to the Bread, not to conſerve it in the Subſtance of Bread, but to transform it internally into his Body.

I ſay this is a frivolous evaſion. For according to this reckoning we muſt underſtand by the things familiar to our natures, the Bread and Wine, as the matter to which the Divinity is joyned to change it. But were this the ſence of Nicholas Methonienſis, what would this contribute to the clearing up the doubt propoſed to him? The Queſtion is, whether the Fleſh and Blood would not appear, if they were in the Sacrament, and Nicholas Methonienſis anſwers, that the Bread and Wine are the matter changed by the Divinity, which effects this change. This is certainly a very ſtrange way of ſpeaking, to ſay, he joyns his Divinity to them, to ſignifie that he tranſubſtantiates them. We ſee few People thus expreſs themſelves. But ſuppoſing this, what relation has this to the Doubt he pretends to reſolve? If the Fleſh of Chriſt were in the Sacrament, ſay theſe Dubitants, it would appear, we ſhould ſee it. I anſwer, ſay, Nicholas Methonienſis, (according to Mr. Arnaud's Comment) that the Bread and Wine are the matter which is changed, and that the Almighty power of God changes them. Can any Anſwer be more ridiculous? This Author muſt certainly loſt his Wits to make ſuch a Reply. They do not ask him, what the matter is that is changed, nor what the efficient cauſe of this change, but, why, if it be uſe Body of Chriſt, it does not appear to be Fleſh, but Bread; Matter, Cauſe, efficacy contribute nothing to the ſolving of this Doubt. This Gloſs then of Mr. Arnaud's is abſurd, and if we ſuppoſe Nicholas Methonienſis ſpake ſence, it muſt be granted, that his meaning is, that the Bread and Wine, remaining Bread and Wine, are yet notwithſtanding made the Body and Blood of Chriſt, by reaſon of their Union to the Divinity, and not otherwiſe. Whence it follows, that it muſt not be expected they ſhould appear to be Fleſh and Blood, becauſe they are not ſo in reſpect of their Matter, or Subſtance, but only by their Union to the Divinity, which makes them in ſome ſort to be the ſame thing, with the Body and Blood.

THIS Opinion ſeems to be derived from Damaſcen, whoſe expreſſions I deſire I may have leave to mention, altho we muſt uſe them alſo in another place. For 'tis certain, that to judge aright of the Opinion of the Modern Greeks, we muſt aſcend ſo far. Mr. Arnaud has himſelf obſerved, that, John Damaſcen is another Saint Thomas amongſt the Greeks, and has been ever the rule of their Doctrine touching the Euchariſt. Elſewhere he aſſures us, That we need only read the Treatiſes of the Modern Greeks, to find that they Lib. 2. cap. 6. pag. 155. Lib. 2. cap. 12.wholly conform themſelves to the Sentiment and Expreſſions of this Father. This then is a Principle with Mr. Arnaud, ſo that to convince him touching the Belief of the Greeks, there is a kind of neceſſity lying upon us to conſult this Father.

OBSERVE here then what he ſay's in his Fourth Book of the Orthodox Faith, The Bread and Wine are not the Figure of the Body and Blood of Damaſcen de Orthod. fid. lib. 4 cap. 14.Chriſt; God forbid; but they are the deified Body it ſelf of Jeſus Chriſt, the Lord himſelf ſaying unto us, this is, not the Figure of my Body, but my Body, not the Figure of my Blood, but my Blood: He had ſaid before to the Jews, if ye eat not the Fleſh of the Son of Man, and drink his Blood, you will have no life in you, for my Fleſh is Meat indeed, and my Blood is Drink indeed. And then again, He that eateth me ſhall live. Draw we near then with trembling, p. 222with a pure Conſcience, a firm Faith, and it will be unto us according to the constancy and firmneſs of our Faith. Honour we it with a perfect purity of Body and Soul. For it is double. Approach we towards it with a fervent deſire, and placing our hands in manner of a Croſs, receive we the Body of him that was crucified for us. Let us put it on our Eyes, Lips, and Forehead; and take we thus the Divine Coal, to the end our Devotion being inflamed thereby, our ſins may be conſumed, and our hearts inlightned, and that by the participation of this Divine Fire, we may our ſelves become inflamed and deified. Eſaias ſaw a Coal. Now a Coal is not meer Wood, but Wood in conjunction with Fire. So the Bread of the Communion is not mere Bread, being it is united to the Divinity. Now a Body united to the Divinity is not one ſingle nature, but two, one being that of the Body, and th'other that of the Divinity annexed thereunto. So that to take them together, it is not one only nature, but two.

THESE Words clearly ſhew, that Damaſcen means, that the Bread in the Eucharist, which is the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, is double, becauſe 'tis joyned to the Divinity, that 'tis not mere Bread, but Bread united to the Divinity, conſiſting of two natures, one of Bread, and th'other of the Divinity which is joyned to it; in like manner as Eſaias his live Coal was not meer Wood, but Wood in conjunction with Fire. Now this is what is exactly contained in my Propoſition, that the Bread, and Wine keeping their proper nature are joyned to the Divinity, according to the Greeks.

MR. Arnaud, who ſaw the force of this Paſſage, that he might get clear off it, has bethought himſelf, to ſay, that the Duplicity which Damaſcen mentions muſt be underſtood as meant of Jeſus Chriſt himſelf, who conſiſts of two Natures. He rehearſes the Paſſage in hand to theſe Words, Duplex Lib. 7. cap. 4. pag. 654.eſt enim, and then adds, it is plain that hitherto theſe Words relate to Jeſus Chriſt, and his true and real Fleſh, and that 'tis of him it is ſaid, Duplex eſt enim, which is to ſay, that he is compoſed of two Natures, and a little farther, It plainly appears that Saint John Damaſcen's Deſign is to exhort us to a double Ibid.purity of Soul and Body, to honour the double Nature of Jeſus Chriſt, and to ſhow that we receive in the Communion this double Nature. So that theſe Words, non eſt panis ſimplex ſed unitus divinitati, corpus autem unitum divinitati non eſt una natura ſed duae, una quidem corporis alter a conjunctae Divinitatis, are the Expoſition of what he ſaid before, that Jeſus Chriſt was double. And that which he ſhews us, is, that this double nature of Jeſus Chriſt has been ſignified by the Coal which Eſaias ſaw, and that we receive this Divine Coal.

BUT all this is but an Errour, and cunning Evaſion of Mr. Arnaud, who was not willing to conſult the Greek Copy of Damaſcen, for 'tis true indeed theſe Latin Words, Duplex eſt enim, may refer to Jeſus Chriſt, or his Fleſh, becauſe the Latin word, Duplex, is of all Genders, ſo that being taken in the Maſculine it relates to Chriſt himſelf, and in the Feminine to his Fleſh. But had Mr. Arnaud been willing to conſult the Greek Text, he would have found no pretence for this evaſion. For there is foreign. Now who knows not, that foreign, is of the Neuter Gender, which by conſequence can neither agree with Jeſus Chriſt, nor his Fleſh, but with foreign, the Body which the Vide Damaſcen de Orthodoxa Fide, of Veronnes Impreſſion, 1531. and that of Baſil.Bread is, and which we receive in the Communion, of which he ſpake in the beginning of his Diſcourſe? He might have found alſo that theſe words, Honour we him, are in the Greek in the Neuter Gender, foreign, which can only refer to the Body, and not to Jeſus Chriſt, nor his Fleſh.

p. 223MR. Arnaud methinks ſhould take more care another time of what he writes, and not give us ſo many of his; It is clear, it manifeſtly appears, for there is nothing ſo clear as the contrary of what he ſay's. Damaſcen ſpeaking of the Bread of the Communion, ſay's, that 'tis not a Figure, but the deified Body of Jeſus Chriſt, he would have us honour this Body, that is to ſay, that Body which we receive in the Communion, with a double purity of Body and Soul, externally and internally, becauſe 'tis double. He ſhews what ought to be our inward diſpoſition, to wit, a fervent deſire, he paſſes to our external Actions, which are, to hold our arms croſs-wiſe, and to hold the Communion we receive on our Eyes, Lips, and Forehead. Afterwards, to explain how this Body is double; he compares it to the Coal Eſaias ſaw, which was not bare wood, but wood and fire together. Then applying immediately his compariſon, he adds, Thus the Bread of the Communion is not mere Bread, being it is united to the Divinity. Now a Body united to the Divinity, is not one ſingle nature, but two, one of the Body, and th'other of the Divinity, which is joyned thereunto. Who ſees not then, that this double Body, of which he ſpeaks, and which he compared to Eſaias Coal, is the Bread of the Communion, that it is double, being Bread united to the Divinity, and that the effect of this Union is, not to change the nature of the Bread, but to make a compoſition of two Natures. Whence it manifeſtly follows, that one of theſe Natures being the Divinity, th'other is the nature of Bread. It is then true, as Mr. Arnaud has obſerved, that theſe laſt words, Sit panis communionis non eſt panis ſimplex ſed unitus divinitati, are the expoſition of what he ſaid before, Duplex eſt enim, for it is double. But becauſe duplex refers not to Jeſus Chriſt, but to the Body we receive in the Communion; it is therefore likewiſe true, that they expound what we muſt underſtand by this Body, to wit, the Bread united to the Divinity.

BUT I muſt puruſe the other parts of my Propoſition. The Greeks believe, That by the impreſſion which the Bread and Wine receive from the Holy Spirit, they are changed into the virtue of the Body and Blood of Jeſus Christ, and made by this means this Body and Blood. Which is apparent, firſt, from all thoſe Paſſages of the Liturgies I mentioned in the Fifth Chapter of this Book; the reſult whereof, is, that the Bread becomes the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, in aſmuch as 'tis made capable of ſanctifying us, and that this is exactly what the Prieſt prayes for in the words of Conſecration. Now what is this, but the Bread's being made the Body of Jeſus Chriſt in virtue?

SECONDLY, This appears likewiſe by what we have ſeen from Simeon Theſſalonienſis, who tells us, that the unconſecrated Particles being mixed with thoſe that are conſecrated, and partaking of their Sanctification, become in ſome ſort, the Body of Chriſt, and are proper for the Communion of the Faithful. For this neceſſarily ſuppoſes, as I ſhewed in the Fifth Chapter, of this Third Book, that the conſecrated Particle it ſelf is the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, in aſmuch as it receives this Sanctification.

THIRDLY, This moreover appears by the Paſſages of Cabaſilas, which I alledged in the Sixth Chapter, by which we ſee that he takes for the ſame thing, to receive Sanctification, and to receive the Body of Jeſus Chriſt. Which likewiſe neceſſarily ſuppoſes that the Bread becomes the Body of Chriſt, only in Sanctification and virtue.

p. 224FOURTHLY, Euthymius Zigabenius, a Greek Monk, that lived in the Euthym. Comment. in Matthe. cap. 64.Twelfth Century, confirms the ſame thing. We muſt not, ſay's he, conſider the nature of things which are offered, but their virtue: For as the word deifies (if it be lawful to uſe ſuch an expreſſion) the Fleſh to which it is united after a ſupernatural manner, ſo it changes by an ineffable operation the Bread and Wine into his Body, which is a Spiring of Life, and into his precious Blood, and into the virtue of both one and the other.

MR. Arnaud nibbles at this Paſſage, Euthymius, ſay's he, ſay's that Jeſus Lib. 24. cap. 12. pag. 216.Chriſt changes after an ineffable manner, the Bread into his own Body. This ſignifies, ſay's Mr. Claude, that he changes it, not into his Body, but into the virtue of his Body. Euthymius ſay's, that he changes the Wine into his Blood. This ſignifies, ſay's Mr Claude, that he changes it, not into his Blood, but into the virtue of his Blood. Euthymius adds, that he changes them into the virtue of both one and the other, in gratiam ipſorum. This Addition has perplexed Mr. Claude, and therefore he has thought good not to mention it. But in adding it, becauſe 'tis there in effect, the whole expreſſion of Euthymius expounded in the Calviniſts ſence will be, that Jeſus Chriſt changes the Bread into the virtue of his Body, and the Wine into the virtue of his Blood, and into the virtue of both one and the other. Who ever heard of ſuch a folly to joyn together the Metaphorical Term, and the expoſition of the Metaphorical Term, as two diſtinct and ſeparate things? Do we ſay, for example, that the Stone is Jeſus Chriſt, and the Sign of Jeſus Chriſt; that the Ark was the Church, and the Figure of the Church; that the Paſchal Lamb was Christ, and the repreſentation of Chriſt; that Anger changes men into Beaſts, and into the fury of Beaſts.

ALL this is but vain Rhetorick. Euthymius ſay's, We muſt not conſider the nature of the things offered us, but their virtue. This is not the Language of a man, that would ſay, that the nature of Bread and Wine ceaſes to be, and that we muſt conſider the proper Subſtance of Jeſus Chriſt under the Vail of Accidents. This Expreſſion on the contrary ſuppoſes that the nature of theſe things ſubſiſts, altho we muſt not conſider it, but raiſe up our minds to the Conſideration of the ſupernatural virtue they receive. When then he adds, that Jeſus Chriſt changes the Bread, and Wine into his own Body and Blood, it is true that this ſignifies, according to my Interpretation, that he changes them into the virtue of his Body and Blood, and not into their Subſtance. But what he ſay's afterwards, and into the virtue of both …e and the other, is not another diſtinct thing, or different from what he had ſaid, being only the explication of it. This Et is an explicative Particle, which has the force of an aſ much as to ſay, as if he ſaid, They are changed into the Body and Blood, that is to ſay, into the virtue of both one and the other. Mr. Arnaud muſt not think to blind us, by his, who ever heard? For there is nothing more common in Authors than the uſe of this Particle Et, in a ſence of explication, which joyns not two ſeveral things, but two ſeveral expreſſions, which ſignifie one and the ſame thing, and one of which is the explication of the other. Thus Saint Paul ſay's, That God created Meats to be received with Thankfulneſs by the 1 Tim. 4. 3.1 Tim 4:3Faithful. AND by thoſe that know the Truth. Again, Peace be unto thoſe that walk according to this Rule, AND on the Iſrael of God. All theſe Ets Gal. 6. 16.Gal 6:16are put for, that is to ſay's. Thus. Cyrillus of Alexandria ſpeaking of the effect of the Communion, the leaſt Eulogium, ſay's he, mixes or confounds in it Cyrill. Alex. in Joan. 6. 57. Chryſoſt. H…m. …. in Rom.John 6:57ſelf our whole Body, AND fills it with its efficacy. Saint Chryſoſtom, and whereas we were men, he has made us Angels and Children of God. Saint Auguſtin, p. 225he that could change Water into Wine, is able to change Graſs into Gold; Aug. S…rm. 12. ex 40 Serm.AND make of Fleſh an Angel. All theſe ETS, are explicatives, and are put for that is to ſay's. Mr. Arnaud need not contend about a thing ſo well known as this is; I ſay then Euthymius having firſt ſaid, That we muſt not conſider the nature of things which are placed on the Altar, but their virtue, and afterwards adding, that Jeſus Chriſt changes the Bread and Wine into his own Body and Blood, AND into the virtue of both one and the other, the firſt Propoſition which reſpects only the vertue, in ſuppoſing that the nature of Bread and Wine ſubſiſts, leads us to the underſtanding of the ſecond, and makes us eaſily comprehend, that 'tis as much as if he had ſaid, that he changes them into his Body and Blood, which is to ſay, into the virtue both of the one and th'other. For 'tis of the virtue not the ſubſtance, which his Diſcourſe treats of. Had Euthymius meant by his change into the Body and Blood, a change of Subſtance, what could move him to add, that they are likewiſe changed into the virtue of both one and the other? Beſides that to ſpeak properly, it would not be true, that the change was made into the virtue, ſeeing it would terminate it ſelf only in the Subſtance, and that the virtue would be only as a ſequel of the Subſtance, and not as a Term of the change; beſides this, I ſay, wherefore ſhould he ſpeak of this change of virtue? To inform us that the Subſtance is not alone; but who doubts that the ſanctifying virtue of the Body and Blood is every where, where their Subſtance is, and what need is there of informing the Readers of this?

FIFTHLY, When Euthymius his expreſſion were ambiguous, yet would they be cleared up by thoſe of other Greek Authors, that better explain themſelves, and ſhew that the common Doctrine of this Church is, that the Bread and Wine are the Body and Blood of Chriſt, inaſmuch as they are changed into their virtue.

THEOPHYLACT, who lived in the Eleventh Century, thus expreſſes Theophyl. in Marc 14.Mark 14himſelf, Becauſe the Bread and Wine are Food familiar to us, and we are not able to endure Fleſh and Blood to be ſet before us, God therefore who is full of pitty, accommodating himſelf to our weakneſs, conſerves the Species of Bread and Wine; but changes them into the VIRTUE of his Fleſh and Blood.

WE muſt obſerve, he makes this anſwer, to People, that doubted, whether the Bread was the Fleſh of Jeſus Chriſt, becauſe they ſaw no ſuch thing as the latter of theſe. When then he tells them, that the Bread and Wine are changed into the virtue of the Fleſh and Blood; it is clear he means, that the Bread and Wine are changed only in virtue, whence it follows, 'tis not to be expected they ſhould appear to be Fleſh and Blood, for otherwiſe he would not ſatisfie the difficulty he had propoſed. Were they changed into the real Subſtance of Fleſh and Blood, as well as into their virtue, the doubt would ſtill remain, to wit, that they muſt ſtill appear Fleſh and Blood. The change of Virtue would not decide the Queſtion. We ſhall examine in their due order, all the frivolous exceptions, which Mr. Arnaud oppoſes againſt the evidence of this Paſſage, and likewiſe hope to give a ſatisfactory account to whatſoever he alledges from this Author. I muſt not now interrupt my Proof by a Digreſſion which would carry me too far. It is ſufficient to ſhew, that Theophylact expreſly affirms, that if the Bread and Wine appear not to be Fleſh and Blood, 'tis becauſe God changes them into the virtue of this Fleſh and Blood.

VI. IF we aſcend higher than the Eleventh Century, we ſhall find the ſame belief and expreſſions amongſt the Greeks of thoſe times, which will p. 226give us greater light into the belief of the Moderns. Obſerve here how Ely Archbiſhop of Candia, the Commentator on Gregory Nazianzen expreſſes himſelf. Saint Gregory having called the Euchariſt an external Sacrifice and an Antitype. By this external Sacrifice, ſay's Ely, he means that which is celebrated Elias Cret. Comment. in Oratio. Apol. Greg. Naz.with Bread and Wine, which being placed on the Holy Table, are really changed by the power of Almighty God into the Body and Blood of Jeſus Chriſt. Were there no more ſaid but this, Mr. Arnaud would be ſure to triumph; but hear what follows, For, adds he, to the end we might not be ſtruck with horrour in ſeeing Fleſh and Blood upon the Holy Table, God condeſcending to our weakneſs indues the Elements, ſet before us, with an enlivening quality, and changes them into the efficacy (or operation) of his Fleſh. This Author lived about the Eighth Century, and was preſent at the Council of Nice.

VII. WE have already ſeen in the Quotations of Nicetas Choniatus, a Paſſage of Eutychus, which aſſerts the ſame Doctrine as the reſt. This Author lived (if I be not miſtaken) towards the end of the Sixth Century, for I believe he is the ſame Eutychus againſt whom Gregory the Great, being at Conſtantinople, diſputed touching the Reſurrection. But howſoever, he ſay's, Nicet. Annal. lib. 3.according to the Relation we have from Nicetas, That the Body and Blood of Jeſus Christ being applied to the Antitypes, by Conſecration, imprint on them, Their proper Powers (or proper virtues) foreign. It was he from whom we had the compariſon of the Seal, which applied to Wax, imprints its Character thereon, which does moreover repreſent this impreſſion of virtue, we now ſpeak of.

VIII. IN the Fifth Century, lived Cyrillus Alexandrienſis, and Victor of Antioch; which latter relates theſe Words of Cyrillus, not to contradict, but to approve them. Leſt we ſhould conceive horrour at the ſight of Fleſh Victor Antioch. Com. MS. in Marc.and Blood on the Holy Table, God in regard to our weakneſs, indues the things thereon offered with a VIRTUE of life, and changes them into the efficacy of his Fleſh, to the end they may be to us a vivifying Communion, and that the Body of life may be found in us as a living Seed.

IX. IN the Fourth Century Saint Epiphanius held the ſame Language. Epiph. Serm. de Fide Eccleſ. & in Anacephal.They that come, ſay's he, to the Baptiſm, receive the virtue which Jeſus Chriſt brought to it when he deſcended into it, and are illuminated by the communication of his light. Thus, is the Oracle of the Prophet, accompliſhed, which ſay's, that there ſhall happen in Jeruſalem a change in the virtue of Bread and Water, and there ſhall be given to them a ſaving virtue. For here, to wit, in Jeſus Chriſt, the virtue of Bread and force of Water are made ſtrong, not that the Bread is thus powerful to us, but the virtue of the Bread: For as to the Bread, it is indeed an Aliment, but there is in him a VIRTUE to inliven us.

X. GREGORY of Niſſe, in this ſame Century, ſpake to the very ſame Greg. Niſſ in Bapt. Chr.effect. You ſee, ſay's he, that Water is made uſe of in the Holy Baptiſm, but you muſt not therefore deſpiſe it, for 'tis of great virtue and marvellous efficacy. Do you ſee this Holy Altar where we attend? As to its nature, 'tis a common ſtone, which differs in nothing from others with which we build our Houſes. But when it has been ſanctified by the Divine Service performed thereon, and received the bleſſing, it becomes a Holy Table, an impolluted Altar, which all the World cannot touch, the Sacred Miniſters alone touch it, but yet with reſpect. So the Bread is at firſt common Bread, but after the Myſtical Conſecration, it is called, and is the Body of Jeſus Chriſt. I affirm the ſame concerning the Myſtical Oyl p. 227and Wine, theſe are things of ſmall value before their Conſecration; but when bleſs'd by the Holy Spirit, both the one, and th'other operate after an excellent manner. His Deſign, is to ſhew, how mere Water, ſuch as is uſed in Baptiſm, comes to have ſuch great virtue, and produces ſuch admirable effects. For this purpoſe he alledges divers Examples of mean and deſpicable things in themſelves, which by their Conſecration, acquire an excellent virtue and efficacy. Amongſt which, he eſpecially reckons the Bread, and Wine, in the Euchariſt. As to the Wine, he makes uſe of the Term of, operate, but as to the Bread, he ſay's, 'tis the Body of Jeſus Chriſt; which plainly ſhews, that in his ſence, to be the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, and to have an excellent operation, is but one and the ſame thing.

XI. WE find at the end of Clement Alexandrinus his Works, a Treatiſe Epitome. Theodot. in calce, oper. Clem. Alex.of a Greek Author, named Theodotus; who lived in the Third Century, wherein he aſſerts this ſame change of virtue, The Bread and Oyl, ſay's he, are ſanctified by virtue of the Holy Spirit. They are no longer then, what they were before, notwithſtanding their outward appearance, but are changed, INTO A SPIRITUAL EFFICACY.

WE have here then, the Doctrine of the Greeks, cleared up, by expreſs Teſtimonies, both from Modern, and Ancient Authors. So that methinks Mr. Arnaud has no reaſon to turn into ſport, and raillery, as he has done, this change of virtue, in calling it our Key of Virtue. Every man ſees 'tis no invention of ours, and that we alledge nothing concerning it, but what is authoriz'd, by good and real Paſſages, and by the Sentiments and proper expreſſions of the Greeks of greateſt account in all Ages. When Mr. Arnaud ſhall produce as many and ſolid Teſtimonies for his change of Subſtance, we will give him leave to deride our change of virtue, as he is pleaſed to term it. But till then, I have reaſon to deſire him to ſtop his Laughter.

I ſhould now paſs on to the proving my Propoſition, That, the Greeks believe the Bread and Wine only thus become the Body and Blood of Jeſus Chriſt to the Faithful; but having already eſtabliſhed this Article, in the Sixth Chapter, and drawn from thence an Argument, to ſhew they believe not Tranſubſtantiation, I ſhall therefore for the avoiding needleſs Repetitions, refer the Reader to it.

I come then to the laſt Article, which, contains, that the Greeks hold the Bread, is made the proper and real Body of Jeſus Chriſt, by means of the addition of his Natural Body. This Point calls for a particular conſideration, for not only, it will further diſcover to us, what the real Opinion of the Greeks is; but likewiſe ſhew us, whence come theſe emphatical expreſſions, which they ſometimes uſe, in ſaying 'tis the very Body of Jeſus Chriſt, and no other Body than that which was born of the Virgin Mary, and likewiſe ſhew us in what ſence we muſt underſtand them.

I. I ſay then, among other Compariſons, the Greeks uſe, for the explaining the manner of this change, which happens to the Bread and Wine; they eſpecially imploy, that of Food, which being received by us, is changed into our Bodies. Now, every man knows, that the Matter or Subſtance of Food, is not changed, into the firſt Subſtance which we had before we take it, in ſuch a manner that the one muſt be abſolutely the other, and by a Numerical Identity; on the contrary, each ſubſtance conſerves its proper being, and p. 228that of the Food, is joyned to that of our Body, and receives its Form, it augments it, and by way of Union, Augmentation, and Aſſimilation (as they ſpeak) becomes ours, and makes but one and the ſame Body, and not two, with that which we had before. And this is the Compariſon, the Greeks do moſt often urge, whereby to expreſs their Conceptions touching the Holy Sacrament. Theophilact, in his Commentaries on Saint John's Goſpel, having told us, the Bread we eat in the Myſteries, is not an Antitype of the Fleſh of Jeſus Chriſt, but the very Fleſh it ſelf, immediately adds theſe Words, The Bread is changed into the Fleſh of Chriſt, by the Ineffable Words, the Myſtical Theophil. 1. Joan 6.Benediction, and coming of the Holy Spirit. No man ought to be troubled, in being obliged, to believe, that Bread becomes Fleſh. For when our Lord was converſant on Earth, and received his nouriſhment from Bread, this Bread he eat, was changed into his Body, being made like unto his Fleſh, and contributed to augment and ſuſtain it after a humane manner. And thus, now, is the Bread changed into our Lord's Fleſh.

THEODORUS Abucara, Biſhop, and Metropolitan of Carie, and contemporary with Photius, according to Gretzer the Jeſuites conjecture, borrowed the ſame Compariſon, whereby to explain, how the Bread is made the Body of Chriſt. He introduces in one of his Dialogues, a Saracen diſputing Bibl. Patr. Tom. 2. Graeco-Lat.with him on this Subject. The Saracen. Tell me, Biſhop; why do ye Prieſts ſo impoſe on other Chriſtians? Of the ſame Flower, you make two Loaves, the one for common uſe, and th'other you divide into ſeveral pieces, diſtributing 'em to the People, which you call the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, and perſwade them it confers remiſſion of ſins. Do ye deceive your ſelves, or the People, whoſe Guides you are? The Chriſtian. We neither abuſe our ſelves nor others. The Saracen. Prove me this then, not by Scripture, but by reaſon. The Chriſtian. What do ye ſay? Is not the Bread made the Body of Jeſus Chriſt? The Saracen. I know not what to anſwer to that. The Chriſtian. When your Mother firſt brought you forth into the World, was you then as big as you are now? The Saracen? No, I was born a little one, and became bigger by means of Food, God thus ordering it. The Chriſtian. Has the Bread then been made your Body? The Saracen. Yes. The Chriſtian. And how was this done? The Saracen. I know not the manner thereof. The Chriſtian. The Bread deſcends into the Stomach, and by the heat of the Liver, the groſſeſt parts ſeparating themſelves, the reſt are converted into Chyle, the Liver attracting them to it, and changing them into Blood, and afterwards diſtributes 'em by means of the Veins, to all the parts of the Body, that they may be what they are, bone to bones, marrow to marrow, ſinew to ſinews, eye to eyes, hair to hair, nail to nails, and thus by this means the Child grows, and becomes a Man, the Bread being converted in to his Body, and the Drink into his Blood. The Saracen. I believe ſo. The Chriſtian. Know then that our Myſtery is made after the ſame manner, the Prieſt places Bread and Wine on the Holy Table, and praying, the Holy Spirit deſcends thereon, and the efficacy of its Divinity changes them into the Body and Blood of Jeſus Chriſt, neither more nor leſs, than the Liver changes the Food into the Body of a Man.

THEODORUS Graptus, a Greek Monk, who lived in the Ninth Century, Apud Leonem Allat. poſt diatribas de Simeon & …ia Collect 1.uſes likewiſe the ſame Compariſon; We do not call, ſay's he, the Holy Myſteries, an Image, or Figure, of the Body of Jeſus Chriſt; altho they be a Symbolical Repreſentation thereof, but the very deified Body of Jeſus Chriſt, he himſelf ſaying, if ye eat not the Fleſh of the Son of man, and drink his Blood, ye have no life in you. And this is what he taught his Diſciples, when he ſaid p. 229to 'em, take, and eat my Body, not a Figure of my Body; for thus did he form his Fleſh, of the Subſtance of the Virgin, by the Holy Spirit. Which may be explained likewiſe by things familiar to us: for as the Bread, Wine, and Water, do naturally change themſelves into the Body and Blood of him that eats and drinks them. So by the Prayers of the Prieſt, and Deſcent of the Holy Spirit, theſe things are ſupernaturally changed into the Body, and Blood of Jeſus Chriſt. And this is done by the Prieſt's Prayer, and yet we underſtand not that this is two Bodies, but one and the ſame Body.

NICEPHORUS, the Patriarch of Conſtantinople, and Contemporary Allat. de perp. Conſ. lib. 3. cap. 15. M. Arn. lib. 7 cap. 5 p. 662.with Theodorus Graptus, ſay's the ſame thing, in a Paſſage which Allatius, and Mr. Arnaud after him, has related. If it be lawful, ſay's he, to explain theſe things by a humane Compariſon, as the Bread, Wine, and Water, are naturally changed into the Body and Blood of thoſe, that eat and drink them, and become not another Body, ſo theſe Gifts by the Prayer of him that officiates, and deſcent of the Holy Spirit, are changed ſupernaturally into the Body and Blood of Jeſus Chriſt. For this is what is contained in the Prieſt's Prayer, and we underſtand not that this is two Bodies, but one and the ſame Body.

THIS way of explaining the change of the Bread and Wine, is not peculiar to theſe Authors alone, whom I now alledged. Damaſcen, who according to Mr. Arnaud, is to be eſteemed as the common Oracle of the Greeks, made uſe of it, in his Fourth Book of the Orthodox Faith. As in Baptiſm, Damaſcen. de fide Orthod. lib. 4. cap. 14.ſay's he, becauſe men are wont to waſh and anoint themſelves, God has added to the Oyl, and Water, the Grace of his Holy Spirit, and made thereof the Laver of our Regeneration: ſo in like manner, becauſe we are wont to eat Bread, and drink Wine and Water; he has joyned to theſe things his Divinity, and made them his Body and Blood, to the end that by things familiar to our nature, he might raiſe us above nature. This is really the Body united to the Divinity, the Body born of the Virgin. Not, that the Body which aſcended up on high, deſcends from Heaven; but becauſe the Bread, and Wine are changed, into the Body and Blood of God. If you ask how this comes to paſs; it will be ſufficient to tell ye that 'tis by means of the Holy Spirit; and after the ſame manner as he became Fleſh in the Virgin's Womb. All that we know of it is this, that the Word of God is true, efficacious, and Almighty; and that the manner of this change is inconceiveable. Yet we may ſay, that as naturally the Bread we eat, the Wine and Water we drink, are changed into the Body and Blood of him, that eates and drinks, and yet become not another Body than that which he had before, ſo after the ſame manner the Bread and Wine, which are placed on the Altar, are ſupernaturally changed into the Body and Blood of Jeſus Christ by Prayer, and Deſcenſion of the Holy Spirit; and theſe are not two Bodies, but one and the ſame Body.

IT is probable, that Damaſcen, and the others aforementioned, who uſe this Compariſon, have taken it out of the Catechiſm of Gregory of Nyſſe; wherein we find almoſt the ſame Conceptions. For, he ſay's, that as the Gregor. Nyſſ. in Orat. Cat… chet.Bread which Jeſus Chriſt eat, was changed into his Body, and received thereby a divine virtue; the ſame likewiſe comes to paſs in the Euchariſt. For there, it was the Grace of the Word, that ſanctified the Body, which was nouriſhed with Bread, and was in ſome ſort Bread; and here after the ſame manner, the Bread is ſanctified by the Word of God, and by Prayer; not being in truth made the Body of the Word, by Manducation, but by being changed in an inſtant by the Word into the Body of Chriſt, according to what he ſaid himſelf, this is my Body.

p. 230THIS Compariſon does already ſufficiently enough declare the Doctrine of the Greek Church; to wit, that the Subſtance of Bread conſerving its proper being, is joyned to the natural Body of Jeſus Chriſt; that it is made like unto it, that it augments it, and becomes by this means one and the ſame Body with him. For 'tis thus the Aliment we take, (altho it conſerves its own Subſtance and proper being) becomes one with our Body, by way of Addition, or Augmentation.

DURANDUS a Biſhop, and Famous Divine, amongſt the Latins, who Durand in 4. ſent. diſt. 11. quaeſt. 3.lived in the beginning of the Fourteenth Century, acknowledged the force of this Compariſon, and made it be obſerved by thoſe in his time, and alſo uſed it himſelf, to ſtrengthen his Opinion, which was, that the Subſtance of Bread remains, and loſing its firſt form of Bread, receives the natural form of the Body of Chriſt. Bellarmin anſwers, that theſe Compariſons muſt not be Bell. de Sacr. Euch. lib. 3. cap. 13.ſtrained too far, that they are not in all things alike, and that the Greeks only uſe that of Food to ſhew the reality and truth of the change, which happens in the Bread and Wine in the Sacrament; and not to ſignifie that this change is made in the ſame manner. And this is in my mind as much as can be ſaid with any ſhew of reaſon. We muſt then ſee here, whether in the ſence of the Greeks, we may extend the Compariſon of the Food, ſo as to underſtand thereby, that the Bread and Wine are made the Body and Blood of Jeſus Chriſt, by way of Augmentation of this Body, for if it appears they take it in this manner, Bellarmin's Anſwer ſignifies nothing; and our Proof will be compleat and undeniable.

DAMASCEN, decides the Queſtion himſelf in his Letter to Zacharias Damaſcen. E. piſt ad Zachar. Doar. & in Hum. de Corp. & Sanct Dom. in Edit. Biblii.Biſhop of Doare, and in the ſhort Homily which follows it. Obſerve here, what he ſay's in his Letter. Touching the Body of our Lord, of which we partake, I declare to you, it cannot be ſaid there are two Bodies of Jeſus Chriſt; there being but one alone. For as the Child aſſoon as he is born is compleat, but receives his growth from eating and drinking; and altho he grows thereby, yet cannot be ſaid to have two bodies, but only one, ſo by greater reaſon the Bread and Wine, by Deſcent of the Holy Spirit, are made one only Body, and not two by the AUGMENTATION OF THE BODY OF CHRIST.

BUT to the end it may not be thought this Diſcourſe ſlipt from him unawares, obſerve here how he explains, his mind in the following Homily. This Body, and Blood of our God, of which we partake, is ſubject to Corruption, being broken, ſpilt, eaten, and drunk, and paſſes thro all the natural Oeconomy of the Incarnation of the Word, which comes to paſs in the ſame manner, as the GROWTH of our Bodies. For as to our Bodies, the firſt thing ſuppoſed, is the matter of which the Embryo conſiſts, afterwards the Mother furniſhing it with the Aliment of her Blood, this matter is changed by little and little, and becomes an organiſed Body, by means of the virtue which our Creature has given to nature. In the ſame manner is formed the Fleſh, Bones, and reſt of the Parts, by the aſſiſtance of the Faculties deſtini'd for Attraction, Retention, Nouriſhment and Growth. So likewiſe the Food we take, increaſes and augments the maſs of our Body, by the miniſtry of theſe ſame Faculties, deſigned for nouriſhment; which attract, retain, and change the Food. And therefore our Lord ſhews us the whole divine Oeconomy of his Incarnation, Crucifixion, Burial, Reſurrection, and State of Corruption in this GROWTH of his Body. For the Body of our Lord became not immediately incorruptible, but corruptible, and paſſible, till his Reſurrection; and p. 231after his Burial became incorruptible, by this ſame Divine Power, by which he raiſed himſelf, and makes us alſo incorruptible: But how comes this to paſs? The Holy Virgin has been as it were the Table whereon was the Subſtance of Bread, when according to the ſaying of the Angel, the Holy Spirit came upon her, and the virtue of the moſt High overſhadowed her, that is to ſay, the Divine Word, the Divine Perſon who took Fleſh of her. So likewiſe here the Subſtance which is Bread, and Wine mingled with Water, is placed on the Myſtical Table, as it were in the Womb of the Virgin, for even the Virgin was nouriſhed with theſe things, and diſtributed the Subſtance of them to the Body of the Child. In fine, the Prieſt, he ſay's, in imitation of the Angel, let the Holy Spirit come upon, and ſanctifie theſe things, and make the Bread, the Sacred Body of Jeſus Chriſt; and the Chalice his precious Blood. Then there is made not by the virtue of nature, but ſupernaturally, and by the AUGMENTATION of the Body and Blood of Chriſt, there is made, I ſay, one only Body, and not two. After this, it is lifted up by the hand of the Prieſt, as he was lifted up on the Croſs, it is diſtributed, broken and buried in us, to make us thereby incorruptible. And thus the Oeconomy is finiſhed.

AND this is the Doctrine of the Greeks, the Bread, and Wine, are made the Body and Blood of Chriſt, in the ſame manner the Food we receive becomes our Body, and this Example or Compariſon exactly comprehends three things. The firſt, that as Nature obſerves the ſame courſe, and performs the ſame Operations in the Food we receive, as it does in the firſt matter of which our Bodies are compoſed; ſo Divine Grace keeps the ſame meaſures, and does the ſame things in the Bread and Wine, as in the Body our Lord took of the Virgin. This is in all reſpects the ſame Oeconomy. They receive the ſame Holy Spirit; are corruptible, raiſed up as it were on a Croſs, buried in us, and in fine become incorruptible. The ſecond, that as the Food increaſes, and gives growth to our Bodies; ſo the Bread and myſtical Wine, are a Growth or Augmentation which the Body of Jeſus Chriſt recieves. The third, that as the Food makes not another Body, but becomes one and the ſame Body with that which it augments; ſo the Myſtery is not a new Body of Jeſus Chriſt, but the ſame which was born of the Virgin.

MOREOVER, altho the Greeks uſe the Simile of Food, (whereby to explain the manner after which the Bread in the Euchariſt becomes the Body of Chriſt) yet we muſt not imagine, they believe the Bread receives the phyſical or natural form of our Lord's Fleſh in the ſame manner the Food receives that of ours; whether we underſtand by this phyſical Form, the Soul of Jeſus Chriſt, or ſome other ſubſtantial Form ſubordinate to the Soul: This is not at all their Belief; for they only mean, that as the Food we eat receives the phyſical or natural Form of our Body, ſo the Bread in the Euchariſt receives the impreſſion of the inlivening and ſanctifying virtue, reſiding in the natural Body of Chriſt; and that as the Food in receiving the phyſical Form of our Fleſh, becomes an Augmentation of our Body; ſo the Bread in the Euchariſt receiving the impreſſion of the virtue of the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, becomes an Augmentation. This is a Compariſon, wherein there is ſome proportion of one thing with another, but not an intire reſemblance. The Greeks conceive the ſanctifying virtue of the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, as its ſupernatural and oeconomical Form, which belongs to it not ſo much for that it is a mere Body, as that it is the Body of the Word, the Principle of our Spiritual Life and Salvation.

p. 232THERE is made then according to them, not a Communication, or an extenſion of the natural Form of the Body of Jeſus Chriſt on the Bread; but a communication or an extenſion of its virtue.

WHICH plainly appears by what we have already alledged. For firſt, hereto relates this compoſition of Bread and Holy Spirit; and Union of Bread with the Divinity which they aſſert. Secondly, hitherto expresſly relate, all the Paſſages we have ſeen touching the change of virtue, to which the Greeks ſo ſtrictly keep themſelves; never mentioning the impreſſion of the phyſical Form, but ever that of virtue. Thirdly, we gather the ſame thing from their comparing the Bread in the Euchariſt with the natural Body, whereby to eſtabliſh how the Bread is made an Augmentation of the Body, they ſay not that the ſame phyſical Form of the one is communicated to the other; but only that the ſame Oeconomy, which is obſerved in the natural Body, is likewiſe obſerved in the Bread. And explaining in what conſiſts this ſame Oeconomy; they ſay, 'tis in that the Bread receives the Holy Spirit, as the natural Body receives it, that 'tis raiſed up (as it were) into a Croſs, in the like manner as the natural Body, that 'tis buried in us, and becomes in fine incorruptible, as the natural Body does. Now this is quite different from the impreſſion of the phyſical Form; and gives only the Idea of an impreſſion of virtue. Fourthly, the ſame thing appears from a great part of the Proofs I produced in this third Book, as from what they teach touching the unconſecrated Particles; that they become in ſome ſort the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, by connection with that which is conſecrated; and that the People may receive them as well as the Sacrament; for this ſhews they mean the conſecrated Bread becomes only the Body of Jeſus Chriſt by the impreſſion of this ſanctifying virtue of which we ſpeak. And that which they believe touching the Euchariſt conſecrated on Holy Thurſday, that 'tis of a more excellent virtue than that of other days; for this would have no ſence, did they hold the impreſſion of the natural Form of the Fleſh of Jeſus Chriſt on the Bread. And all the Clauſes of their Liturgies, by which it appears, they reſtrain the effect of the Conſecration, to the Bread's becoming the Body of Jeſus Chriſt in Sanctification, and Virtue. And what they ſay touching the dead; that they receive the ſame as we do in the Communion; which would be abſurd if they meant the phyſical Form of the Fleſh of Chriſt was imprinted on the Bread, for the dead receive not this phyſical Form. And their not adoring the Sacrament, with an abſolute Adoration of Latria, as do the Latins, and as the Greeks would do without doubt, if they held the impreſſion of the phyſical Form. And that which the Greeks of the Twelfth Century mentioned touching the Eucharist, namely, that 'tis not indued with a Soul, or Underſtanding; which ſhews clearly, they do not mean the Bread in the Sacrament receives the impreſſion of the Soul of Chriſt. And in fine, that they take ſo little care to preſerve the Subſtance of the Sacrament; uſing it after ſuch a negligent manner, as would be highly criminal and impious, or to ſpeak better, after ſuch a manner as is not conceivable, did they believe the phyſical Form of the Fleſh of Jeſus Chriſt.

BUT to finiſh the juſtification of my Propoſition touching the Belief of the Greeks, there only remains to be proved, the Compariſon of the Paper, which becomes the Princes Letter, when it receives his Characters or Seal. For as concerning that of the Food, we have already ſufficiently treated on p. 233it; we have likewiſe conſidered that of Wood in conjunction with Fire; that of Wool which takes the dye, and that of Wax or Matter which receives the impreſſion of the Seal. As to that of Paper, Nilus Abbot of Mount Sina, (an Author of the Fifth Century, and who was Saint Chryſoſtom's Schollar) furniſhes us with it, in one of his Epiſtles. Paper, ſay's he, conſiſts of a certain Matter, and is called only Paper, but when the Emperor puts thereunto his Seal or Name, it becomes Sacred. In the ſame manner muſt our Myſteries be conceived. Before the Words of the Prieſt, and Deſcent of the Holy Spirit, 'tis mere Bread and Wine, which are offered; but after the Holy Prayers, and coming of the holy and enlivening Spirit, 'tis no longer mere Bread and Wine, but the pretious and immaculate Body of Jeſus Chriſt, who is God over all, and therefore thoſe that receive them with fear and reverence, are cleanſed from all filthineſs.

HAVING thus hiſtorically and ſincerely ſhew'd, the real Belief of the Greeks touching the Euchariſt, it will be no hard matter to obſerve wherein they agree with the Latins, and wherein they differ; which is the ſecond thing I propoſed to do in this Chapter. Firſt, They agree with them, in the general Terms, which denote the change of the Bread and Wine into the Body and Blood of Chriſt. Secondly, They agree in thoſe other expreſſions, which bear, that the change is made into the real Body of Chriſt, into his own proper Body born of the Virgin Mary, and that he has not two Bodies, but one alone. Thirdly, They agree in that both of them attribute this change to the Holy Spirit, who deſcends on the Bread, and makes it the Body of our Lord. Fourthly, They agree in fine, in that they both aſſert, this change to be an effect of the Almighty Power of God, above all the Laws of nature. So far the Greeks and Latins agree.

BUT they differ in ſeveral things. Firſt, In that the Latins believe, that the Subſtance of Bread ceaſes, the Greeks on the contrary believe its exiſtence. Which we plainly gather from the Propoſition I now eſtabliſhed, and the Proofs I offered: For ſeeing they make the Euchariſt to conſiſt of the compoſition of a ſenſible Subſtance, which is the Bread, and the Holy Spirit, as we have already obſerved, ſeeing they joyn the Bread to the Divinity, believing that what reſults thence is double, that is to ſay, that it has two Natures, it is clear the Greeks hold that the Nature or Subſtance of Bread remains. This ſame truth appears likewiſe, concerning what they hold touching this Augmentation of the Body of Chriſt. For if the Bread in the Euchariſt augments, or gives growth to our Lord's Body, as they believe, it ceaſes not to be, being certain, that to make an Augmentation, we muſt add one thing to another, joyn them together, conſerve them both, and deſtroy neither of them. To this we are moreover led by all thoſe Compariſons we find they uſed, of Wool dyed, of Paper that receives the Emperors Signet, of Wax that receives the impreſſion of the Seal, of a burning Coal, or Wood in conjunction with Fire, and Food by which we are nouriſhed; for in all theſe Examples, the ſubject matter looſes nothing of its firſt Subſtance. Moreover ſeeing they will have the Bread paſs thro all the Degrees of the Oeconomy of Jeſus Chriſt, that 'tis firſt corruptible, then incorruptible, this ſufficiently denotes they mean the Bread remains, whereby to receive all theſe changes.

SECONDLY, From this difference there ariſes another, which is, that the Latins believe that in the change which happens in the Euchariſt, p. 234the Subſtance of Bread, and that of the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, are (as they ſpeak) the two Terms of the change, and that of the Bread paſſes intirely into that of the Body by a Converſion, not only myſtical, but really, and which deſtroys the Exiſtence, or matter of the Bread, which the Greeks do not believe. Which appears by this Augmentation of the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, of which they tell us, and which they confirm by the Simile of Food. For common ſence plainly ſhews us, that that which augments a thing is not really changed into the thing augmented, as the Latins underſtand their change. For there muſt always be reckoned a real difference between the thing augmented, and that which augments. The Opinion of the Greeks then can in no wiſe agree with that of the Latins, for according to the Latins, the Subſtance of the natural Body of Jeſus Chriſt receives neither more, nor leſs, by the Converſion of the Subſtance of Bread into it, and according to the Greeks it is augmented by it.

THIRDLY, It muſt then be granted, the Greeks do not acknowledge this converſion, ſpecified by the Roman Church; and differ from it in reſpect of the nature or kind of this change, admitting only that of an Object, which receiving a new Form, remains what it was before; and yet becomes what it was not, which is to ſay, that the Bread remaining Bread, receives the ſupernatural and oeconomical Form of the Body of Chriſt, that is to ſay its virtue, and is thereby made this Body. And this is what is meant by this change of Sanctification and Virtue, which they eſtabliſh, and by which they pretend the Bread becomes our Lord's Body. Their whole Doctrine centers in this, and 'tis not poſſible to ſee what I alledged from them in this Chapter, and not make this Concluſion, that their Opinion is, there only happens in the Euchariſt a change of virtue, and that 'tis only thus, the ſame Subſtance, which is Bread, is likewiſe the Body of Jeſus Chriſt.

FOURTHLY, The Latins hold that the Subſtance we receive in the Sacrament is abſolutely the ſame numerical Subſtance which our Saviour had when he was on Earth, and which he ſtill retains in Heaven. The Greeks hold not this, their Hypotheſis manifeſtly oppoſes it. For altho they ſay the Body born of the Virgin Mary, and the Bread in the Sacrament, are not two Bodies, but one, yet the manner after which they explain this Unity, and the reaſon they give for it, do clearly denote they mean not thereby an abſolute Unity, nor an intire or numerical Identity, (as the Schools ſpeak) ſuch as the Latins eſtabliſh. They ſay, that as that which a Child eats and drinks makes not another Body, but the ſame, altho he receives growth thereby; ſo the Bread in the Sacrament, which augments the Body of Chriſt; makes not two Bodies, but one. Now this neceſſarily ſuppoſes, that this Subſtance which we receive with the mouths of our Bodies in the Euchariſt, is different from that which our Saviour had on Earth, and which he ſtill has in Heaven. For a Body that is augmented is the ſame it was before; but the Augmentation can never be abſolutely the ſame thing, as that which receives Augmentation. In effect, if the Latins be asked, and all thoſe that follow their Hypotheſis, why the Bread in the Euchariſt, and the Body born of the Virgin, are not two, but one only Body, they will anſwer, 'Tis becauſe they are but one and the ſame Subſtance in number. But inſtead of this the Greeks take a different courſe, ſaying, 'tis becauſe the Bread is an Augmentation of the Body of Chriſt, which puts a real difference between the two Subſtances. Whence it follows, that that which they believe they receive in the Sacrament, is not the ſame Subſtance as that of our Lord's natural Body.

p. 235FIFTHLY, Hence it appears, the Greeks do not believe the Real Preſence of the Latins. For the Latins by the Real Preſence, mean a Preſence of Substance; which is to ſay, that this ſame Subſtance of the natural Body of Jeſus Chriſt, in which he lived and died, and roſe again, and which now exiſts in Heaven, the ſame I ſay in Number, really likewiſe exiſts, ſubſtantially, and by it ſelf in the Euchariſt. Now this the Greeks do not hold, as I already ſhewed. They on the contrary believe that this Subſtance we receive in the Euchariſt, and that of the natural Body of Chriſt, are two Subſtances really different, one of which is the Augmentation, and th'other the thing augmented, the one a true Subſtance of Bread, and th'other the Subſtance of the natural Body of Chriſt: The one, to wit, that of Bread, receives according to them the impreſſion of the virtue of th'other, and the other communicates this to it. They do not then believe, that this ſame natural Body of Chriſt, this ſame numerical Subſtance in which he died, and roſe again, and which now exiſts in Heaven, does likewiſe really exiſt in the Euchariſt, which is exactly, as I already ſaid, the real Preſence of the Latins. They hold the Bread, becomes by Conſecration, not a Figure of the Body of Chriſt, but an Augmentation, inaſmuch as it receives its Virtue and Efficacy. If this muſt be called a kind of Real Preſence, I ſay, this is but a mere amuſement of Words, not worth our conſideration. In ſhort, the Preſence of the Greeks, is a Preſence of Virtue, that of the Latins a Preſence of Subſtance; ſo that upon this account they are at a great difference. In effect, if the things I alledged, as well in this Chapter, as in this whole Third Book, be exactly conſidered, it will appear, that the moſt part of the Proofs I produced to juſtifie, that the Greeks believe not Tranſubſtantiation, do equally conclude againſt the Subſtantial Preſence; and that they alſo believe not, there is made any impreſſion of the phyſical Form of Chriſt's Body on the Bread.

SIXTHLY, Theſe principal and eſſential differences, produce others. For it hence appears, that altho they agree with the Latins in theſe general expreſſions, which bear, that the Bread is changed into the Body of Chriſt, into his real Body, into his own proper Body, yet they differ from them in the ſence of theſe expreſſions, underſtanding them in a quite different manner. For the Latins mean the Bread is changed into the Body by a real Tranſubſtantiation, which making the Subſtance of Bread ceaſe, becomes the proper ſubſtance of the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, the ſame in number which it was before. The Greeks on the contrary mean, that the Bread, remaining Bread in its proper Subſtance, is changed into the proper Body of Chriſt, in aſmuch as that 'tis made an increaſe or augmentation, by the impreſſion it receives from its virtue. So that when both one and the other ſay, the Bread is the Body of Chriſt, they in no ſort agree, in the ſence of this Propoſition; the Latins underſtanding it in a divided ſence (as they term it) which is to ſay, that that which was before Bread is now no longer ſo, but the Body of Jeſus Chriſt; the Greeks on the contrary, that that which is ſtill Bread, is alſo this Body.

VII. THE Latins following their Hypotheſis, are forced to admit the Exiſtence of Accidents without a Subject, the Greeks are not. Whence it is, they never mention this pretended Exiſtence, and we find no ſuch thing in their Authors.

VIII. THE Latins are obliged to give a reaſon for ſeveral natural Experiments, p. 236which denote, that the Subſtance of Bread remains, and which ſeem incompatible with their Belief, as that our Bodies are nouriſhed with the Euchariſt, that it breeds Maggots in it, &c. in which they are extreamly puzled. The Greeks are not ſo, neither do we find the leaſt hint thereof in their Books.

IX. THE Latins cannot but admit the Exiſtence of the ſame Body in ſeveral places at once; The Greeks know not any thing of this, neither are they concerned at it.

X. THE Latins are forced to make the Body of Chriſt exiſt in the Sacrament, void of his natural proportion and properties. The Greeks do not ſo, and therefore we ſee them never troubled at theſe difficulties which follow the Doctrine of the Latins.

XI. THE Latins by an unavoidable conſequence of their Doctrine, adore with a Sovereign Adoration the Euchariſt; which is according to them the proper Subſtance of our Lord's natural Body, ſeparate from any other Subſtance. The Greeks do not ſo, as we obſerved in the ſeventh Chapter.

XII. THE Latins, believe the wicked receive the Body, and Blood of Chriſt, with the mouths of their bodies, altho to their condemnation. The Greeks hold that the Bread and Wine are made this Body and Blood, only to the Faithful.

NOT to inſiſt on ſeveral other differences, which do not preciſely relate to our Queſtion, as that the Greeks do all of 'em communicate of both kinds, whereas the Latins give only to the People that of Bread; that the Greeks hold the Conſecration is performed by the Prayer of the Prieſt, and the Latins on the contrary by theſe Words, This is my Body; that the Latins uſe Wafers, or unleavened Bread, whereas the Greeks abhorring the Azymes uſe only that which is leavened. There are likewiſe ſeveral other differences which I ſhall not here repeat, becauſe the Reader may find them, in what has been already ſaid in the foregoing Chapters.

AND here have I repreſented, as exactly as I could, the Differences and Agreements of the two Churches. If it be now demanded in what Points we agree with the Greeks, this may be eaſily collected from what I have already ſaid.

WE agree almoſt with them in all Points wherein they differ from the Latins. 1. In that we do not believe the Converſion of Subſtances, any more than they, nor admit, the ſubſtantial Preſence of the Natural Body of Chriſt, under the Species of Bread and Wine, that we adore not the Sacrament, nor acknowledge any of the Conſequences of the Doctrine of Tranſubſtantiation. 2. We agree with the Greeks, in that they conceive the change which is made in the Bread and Wine, to be a change of virtue by the efficacy of the Holy Spirit, God not deſtroying the Nature of Bread and Wine, but adding his Grace to Nature. 3. In that, we do not believe any more than they, that the wicked receive the Body of Jeſus Chriſt. 4. In that we believe with them, that we ought to communicate of both kinds. 5. In our holding the Conſecration is performed by Prayer. 6. In fine, that we deliver the Sacrament in leavened Bread, altho we hold the uſe of the Azyme an indifferent thing.

p. 237YET it muſt not be imagined, we pretend there's no difference in the Opinion of the Greeks and ours. I do not believe any of our Doctors ever aſſerted ſuch a thing. Mr. Arnaud would make the World believe I maintained this, and has triumphed thereupon in ſeveral places of his Book, as if I ſuppoſed the Greeks were Berengarians or Calviniſts. But this is a groundleſs charge. I only denied that the Greeks (which are called Schiſmaticks) believed Tranſubſtantiation, and the Adoration. It belongs to him therefore to ſee whether he had reaſon to accuſe me in this of raſhneſs and inconceivable boldneſs, or whether he himſelf rather was not guilty of this, when he bragged of confounding Miniſters with the number of his Proofs. Perhaps he would have hit better on it, had he ſaid he had confounded his Readers. But to let this paſs, I ſhall here truly denote the principal differences between the Doctrine of the Greeks and ours.

I. THE Greeks, ſince the Eighth Century, rejected the Terms of Type and Figure, in reference to the Euchariſt, altho they uſe them of Symbol and Repreſentation. We admit equally both as the Fathers of the firſt ſix Ages ever did.

II. THEY ſeem willing to keep in ſome ſort the literal ſence of theſe Words, This is my Body, which we do not. For we underſtand 'em in this ſence, this Bread is the Sacred Sign, or the Sacrament of my Body; or which is to the ſame effect, the Bread ſignifies my Body. They on the contrary, taking the Term eſt in ſome ſort according to the Letter, will have the ſame Subſtance, which is Bread, to be alſo the Body of Jeſus Chriſt; and therefore they ſo often ſay, that the Bread is, not the Figure of the Body, but the Body, not the Figure of the Fleſh, but the Fleſh it ſelf, becauſe the Lord did not ſay, this is the Figure of my Body, but this is my Body. Whereunto relates that ſaying of Theophilact, we already cited, which is, we muſt not be troubled to believe Bread is Fleſh.

III. 'TIS likewiſe to keep this pretended literal ſence, that they would have the Bread to be made one with the Body by its Union to the Divinity, by the impreſſion of the Holy Spirit, and by a change of virtue. And therefore they bring the compariſon of Food, which becomes one with our Bodies; and invented this way of Growth or Augmentation of a natural Body: for all this ends only in eſtabliſhing a Unity between the Bread, and the Body, which may make us ſay literally, and without recourſe to a Figure, that the Bread is the Body. As to what concerns us, we need not take ſuch a great circuit, becauſe the Queſtion, concerning a Sacrament, we believe we may take the Words of Chriſt in a ſacramental and figurative ſence.

IV. IT ſeems likewiſe, that the Modern Greeks underſtand ſome real or phyſical impreſſion, of the Holy Spirit, and inlivening virtue of Jeſus Chriſt, on the Bread, with ſome kind of inherency; yet I will not poſitively affirm this was the general Belief of their Church, altho their expreſſions intimate as much. But howſoever, this is not our Opinion. We do indeed believe, that the Grace of the Holy Spirit, and virtue of Chriſt's Body accompany the right uſe of the Sacrament, and that in the Communion we participate of the Body of Chriſt by Faith in as great a meaſure; and more really than if we received him with the Mouth of our Bodies, but we hold not this impreſſion, or real inherence of virtue, which it ſeems the Greeks admit; p. 238whence it happens that our expreſſions are not ſo emphatical as theirs.

AND this is what I had to ſay touching the real Opinion of the Greeks, with its principal Circumſtances, and in reference to that of ours, and the Church of Rome's. I do not doubt but ſeveral People reading this Chapter, will ſay, I charge the Greeks with a very fooliſh and unreaſonable Doctrine. They'l make Objections touching this compoſition of Bread and Holy Spirit, this Union of the Symbols with the Divinity, and eſpecially concerning this manner of being the Body and Blood of Chriſt, by way of Growth or Augmentation. But to this I need ſay no more, than that it concerns me not to juſtifie the Opinion of the Greeks. Our buſineſs here is to know what it is, and not whether it be juſtifiable, nor to anſwer the Objections may be made againſt it, becauſe we adopt not either their Expreſſions or Opinions. Yet I ſhall endeavour to ſolve two difficulties, which may trouble the Readers; the one is, that according to the Hypotheſis of the Greeks, it ſeems as if it might be ſaid in ſome ſence, that the Bread is changed into the Subſtance of the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, after the ſame manner we ſay the Bread we eat is changed into our Subſtance. Th'other is, that by this Union of Bread to the Divinity, it ſeems they underſtand a real hypoſtatical Union, like unto that which joyns the natural Body to the Word.

TO the firſt I anſwer, the Greeks mean not the Bread receives the natural or phyſical form of the Fleſh of Chriſt, as we have proved; neither do they ſay, the Bread is changed into the Subſtance of the Body of Chriſt, becauſe this way of ſpeaking, which we uſe in reſpect of the Bread we eat is grounded upon the Food's receiving the Subſtantial or phyſical form of our Fleſh. Now they mean no other impreſſion on the Bread in the Euchariſt, than an impreſſion of the inlivening virtue of Chriſt's Body by means of the Holy Spirit. And thus the Bread keeps its proper and natural Subſtance wholly intire, and yet is augmented by an Augmentation of the Body of Chriſt, in aſmuch as the ſupernatural virtue which is proper to this Body is communicated to the Bread. As to what remains, altho this pretended Augmentation of the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, by means of the Bread is abſurd enough, yet we may give it a plain ſence, in ſaying 'tis not neceſſary for this that the Bread and Body be locally joyned, it being ſufficient to conceive the Holy Spirit is the mutual link which unites them together, and the Bread receiving only the virtue of the Body, by a dependance thereon, and in aſmuch as 'tis the Myſtery of it, this is a kind of Growth and Augmentation, a Myſtery being as it were an Appendix, or Circumſtance to the thing of which 'tis the Myſtery.

TO the ſecond Queſtion, I anſwer, that altho the whole Hypotheſis of the Greeks, and eſpecially ſome of their expreſſions, ſeem to induce us to attribute to 'em the Belief of the hypoſtatical Union of Bread to the Divinity, yet their Authors not plainly expreſſing themſelves in this matter, and it not appearing elſewhere by their practice, that they hold this Opinion, there is more juſtice in not charging them with it, than in imputing it to 'em, and ſo much the more, becauſe there is none of their uſual expreſſions, how emphatical ſoever, but may agree with a ſimple Union of efficacy. The Term of Aſſumption uſed by Damaſcen, Panis & Vinum, foreign, aſſumuntur, induced me to believe at firſt with Mr. Aubertin, he meant thereby a real hypoſtatical Lib. 4. de Fid. Orth. cap. 14.Aſſumption, but having ſince carefully examined this Paſſage, it ſeemed to me this foreign, may be eaſily referred not to the foregoing p. 239Words in the ſame Diſcourſe, but to that which follows in the ſimple ſence, That the Bread and Wine are uſed in the Euchariſt, becauſe they are things familiar to us.

BUT howſoever, we may here obſerve, that ever ſince both Greeks and Latins deviated from the ſimplicity of the Goſpel; and natural Expoſition, which the Ancients gave this Myſtery; how they have fallen, I ſay, into vainand idle Speculations, both of 'em wandring from the Truth. Which commonly happens to ſuch as love rather to follow their own imaginations, than the Word of God. Our Saviour tells us concerning the Sacrament, that 'tis his Body, and added, that it was for a remembrance of him; and Saint Paul thus commented on it, This is a Declaration of the Lord's death till his coming. What could be more eaſie than to keep here, and to judge thereof by the very nature of a Sacrament, by the expreſſions of our Saviour, and his Apoſtle, and other parts of Chriſtian Religion? But inſtead of this, we have abuſed ſeveral exceſſive expreſſions of the Fathers, taking no notice of divers others, by which they explain themſelves; theſe have been extended, and altho innocent, yet are made a Rock of Offence. The Latins proceed to a real Preſence, a real Tranſubſtantiation, and Accidents without a Subject, and all the reſt of thoſe Doctrines unknown to the Ancients, which they heap up without number. The Greeks on their ſide have imagined a Union of the Bread with the Divinity, a kind of real impreſſion of ſupernatural virtue of Chriſt's Body on the Bread, a Growth, or Augmentation of this Body.

I hope I ſhall have this Juſtice done me, that it will be acknowledged, I have produced nothing touching the Doctrine of the Greeks, but what has been taken out of their beſt Authors, from them I ſay that are of greateſt account amongſt them. And 'tis in fine from their proper Teſtimonies, I have clearly ſhown, that that which the Greeks hold touching the Euchariſt, is not the Tranſubſtantiation of the Latins; which is the chief and only thing I had to do. Yet ſhall I anſwer in the following Book all Mr. Arnaud's vain Objections; as briefly as I can; for conſidering what I already eſtabliſhed, 'tis eaſie to judge, that his Arguments will not prove invincible Demonſtrations, as he would perſwade the World.

p. 241BOOK IV.

Mr. Arnaud's Proofs touching the Belief of the Greek Church refuted.