The Catholic Doctrine of the Eucharist in All Ages, Book 3 · Chapter 2
CHAP. II.
The firſt Proof taken from the Greeks refuſing to uſe the Term of Tranſubſtantiation. The ſecond from their not expreſly teaching the Converſion of Substances. Mr. Arnaud's ſeventh Deluſion.
MY firſt Proof is taken from the Greeks not uſing the Term of Tranſubſtantiation, when they explain their belief touching the Euchariſt. And this Arcudius himſelf (who cannot be ſuſpected by the Roman Church, ſeeing he is a Perſon devoted to its Intereſts) is forc'd to confeſs in the ſame place, where he would perſwade us, that the Greeks believe the Converſion of Subſtances. In the Sacrament of the Euchariſt, ſay's he, the Greeks acknowledge, embrace and believe, with a firm Arcud. lib. 3. de Sacr. Euch. cap. 2.Faith, veram foreign, a real Tranſubſtantiation, as it appears by the Teſtimony of the ancient Greek Fathers of all Ages, and lately by that of Jeremias the Patriarch of Conſtantinople, in the tenth Chapter of his Cenſure of the Lutherans. So far he agrees with Mr. Arnaud, but what follows does not well accord with what he ſaid before, And altho they uſe not this Term, yet have they invented others, by which they explain themſelves as fully as can be deſired. Dicunt enim foreign, aliaque id genus, we ſhall by what follows whether he has reaſon to ſay theſe Terms ſignifie and expreſs areal Tranſubſtantiation, it ſuffices me at preſent to repreſent what he acknowledges, That they uſe not the Term of Tranſubſtantiation. This juſtifies it ſelf by the Teſtimony of Payſius Ligaridius, a real falſe Greek whom Mr. Arnaud produces with ſo great oſtentation, and that which ſhall be conſidered in its place; vox etenim, ſay's he, foreign, tranſubſtantiatio tametſi nova quodammodo videatur, & a pluribus non libenter ut recens ſuſcipiatur licet nihilominus, &c. This Term of Tranſubſtantiation altho it ſeems in ſome ſort new, and that ſeveral by reaſon of its novelty do not willingly receive it, &c. Theſe ſeveral he ſpeaks of are all the true Greeks, which is to ſay, all them which are not as Payſius, who holds intelligence with the Latins.
I might likewiſe here produce the Teſtimony of Mr. Baſire Arch-Deacon of Northumberland, and Chaplain to his Majeſty of Great Britain, a worthy Perſon, exquiſitely Learned, exemplary for his Virtue, and well verſed in Languages, who has not only voyaged into Greece and other Eaſtern Parts, but has lived there a conſiderable time, and publickly Preached in the Greek Churches. For in one of his Letters he ſent me, and out of which I ſhall produce hereafter ſome Articles, he aſſures me he has carefully read ſeveral publick Writings of the Greeks, as their Symbols, Confeſſions, and Catechiſms, to ſee whether he could find the Term of Tranſubſtantiation in them, which he could not find in any of them. He farther adds, that one of theſe falſe Greeks which the Latins make uſe of for the propogating of their Doctrines in theſe Countries, having compiled a Catechiſm, wherein he had inſerted the Term of Tranſubſtantiation, he was cenſured for it by the true Greeks. But all theſe Teſtimonies are not neceſſary, ſeeing we may read a great many of theſe authentick Pieces of the Greeks, as their Canons collected by Balſamon, Zonaras, and ſeveral others, part of their Liturgies inſerted in the Library of the Fathers, their Euchology given us by James Goar a Dominicain, their Pontificia publiſhed by Mr. Habert Biſhop of Vabres, the Confeſſion of Faith which their Prelats make at the time of their Ordination, the Typick, that is to ſay, the Book that regulates every days Office, with their Feſtivals, Faſts and Solemnities, their Anthology which particularly contains the Offices for Feſtivals, their Horologies conſiſting of daily Prayers and many other Eccleſiaſtical Books, a great number of which we find in the diſſertation Leo Allatius wrote on this Subject. Mr. Arnaud who has made an exact ſearch by himſelf and Friends, cannot produce one paſſage that bears the expreſſion of Tranſubſtantiation, which in my judgment is an evident token that 'tis not in them. We may ſee likewiſe the Books of their moſt approved Authors, as of John Damaſcene, Nicephorus the Patriarch of Conſtantinople, Photius, Theophilact, Oecumenius, Zonaras, Germain, Balſamon, Nicetas Choniatus, Cabiſilas, Marc of Epheſus, Jeremias the Patriarch, Metrophanus, and as many others whoſe works are extant, in which we find no ſuch expreſſion as anſwers that of Tranſubſtantiation. Neither can it be ſaid, that this expreſſion being new and found out but ſince the Conteſt with Berengarius, the Greeks have therefore no ſuch word in their Language whereby perfectly to expreſs this, ſeeing they have the term foreign, which ſignifies properly Tranſubſtantiation. We have already ſeen that Arcudius, and Payſius Ligaridius, have obſerved it, in effect the Latinis'd Greeks do commonly uſe it, and it was ever inſerted in the Formulary of Abjuration, which the Greeks make, when they embrace the Romiſh Religion, as I ſhall make it appear hereafter. And Mr. Arnaud himſelf has been forced to acknowledge, this word foreign, is not Lib. 4. c. 6. pag. 387.that which the Greeks ordinarily uſe whereby to explain Tranſubſtantiation, He ſhould have ſaid they uſed it not in the explication of their Creed. Moreover he needed not inſert the word, Ordinarily, for 'tis certain they do neither uſe it ordinarily nor extraordinarily.
BUT it may be perhaps replyed, It does not follow that they do not believe with the Latins the Doctrine repreſented under this Term, altho they uſe not the Term it ſelf. I anſwer firſt, that if we ſuppoſe the Greeks ever held this Opinion, as Mr. Arnaud would perſwade us, there could not be any reaſon given why the word foreign has not been found all this while in uſe amongſt their Authors, and ſo much the more becauſe we find that of foreign & foreign in them. For the Latins who had not in common uſe either the Term of Subſtantiatio, nor Subſtantiare, have therefore invented and admitted of that of Tranſubstantiatio, and Tranſubſtantiare, as moſt proper to expreſs their conceptions on that Subject, ſo that this very conſideration, That we find not theſe kind of expreſſions in the Writings of the Greeks, is a kind of proof that they believed not the thing ſignified by them. Moreover, the Latins having Invented the Term of Tranſubſtantiation; how comes it to paſs the Greeks have not all this while, following their example uſed that of foreign, to keep up this perfect Conformity with the Church of Rome, which Mr. Arnaud has all along ſuppoſed? How comes it to paſs that when this Greek word has been known to 'em, and even the Latins themſelves have taught it them, yet they would not admit of it? and I pray, what ill conveniencies could they apprehend thereby, if they in effect believed the converſion of the Subſtances? It cannot appear ſtrange to us, that there were heretofore Perſons of ſound Judgments, who ſcrupled to admit the term of Hypoſtaſis, becauſe that in effect ignorant people would take thence occaſion to imagine, there were ſeveral Divinities; but there can be nothing like this alleadged in reſpect of Tranſubſtantiation, for there is no danger of giving this an exceſſive ſence, beyond what ought to be believed, ſuppoſing we admit the Subſtantial converſion. There is rather on the contrary, a kind of neceſſity to make uſe of it, becauſe it expreſſes better than any other this kind of converſion, and the Terms, foreign, being general expreſſions are conſequently defective, and ſuffer a man to deny the change in queſtion, and fall into Hereſie; which is as much the Greeks intereſt as the Latins to prevent, if it were ſo they had the ſame Sentiments in this Subject with them, as Mr. Arnaud aſſures us they have. He mightily beſtirs himſelf with his Arguments, or rather Declamations on that the Greeks have never quarrelled about this Doctrine, and finds it ſtrange ſuppoſing they were of a contrary belief to the Latins. But let him then tell us, wherefore they ſo obſtinately refuſed to uſe the word foreign, Tranſubſtantiation, and would never expreſs themſelves on this Myſtery in the ſame form as the Church of Rome; for I find this far more ſtrange, ſuppoſing they hold in the main the ſame Doctrine with her. It cannot be alledged that their ignorance has hind'red them from finding ſo proper a Term; for it has been made to their hands, or that they feared thereby to offend their Emperours; ſeeing they were deeply engaged to favour the Church of Rome, or feared thereby to incur a greater hatred from the Latins, ſeeing they could not do 'em a greater pleaſure.
HOW comes it then to paſs, they never uſed it, but on the contrary, when the Latins in theſe forc'd and intereſſed Unions I mentioned in the preceding Book, have propoſed to them the Article of the Euchariſt under the Term of Tranſubſtantiatur, the Bread is tranſubſtantiated, they kept to their general expreſſions, ſaying, only foreign, the Bread is changed, as I ſhall hereafter make appear? Is not this an evident Teſtimony they would not adopt a Doctrine unknown to their Church, and which they regarded as a Novelty?
THIS firſt Proof ſhall be upheld by a ſecond of no leſs ſtrength than the former. Being taken from that the Greeks in the explicating of their belief on the Euchariſt, not only do not uſe the Term of Tranſubſtantiation, but whatſoever Terms they make uſe of, they ſignifie not any thing which expreſly bears the real converſion of the Subſtance Bread of and Wine into that of the Body and Blood of Jeſus Chriſt. When Pope Gregory, towards the end of the Eleventh Century was minded to ſhew what his belief was on this Subject; he did not indeed uſe the Term of Tranſubſtantiation, becauſe 'twas not then found out, but explained himſelf in ſuch a manner as was ſufficiently clear and intelligible. The Bread and Wine, ſay's he, on the Altar are changed ſubſtantially Mr. Arnaud lib. 2. ch. 8. p. 170.by virtue of the myſtical and ſacred Oriſon, and words of our Redeemer, into the true, proper, and lively Fleſh, and real, proper, and lively Blood of Jeſus Chriſt our Lord, and after the conſecration 'tis the true Body of Jeſus Chriſt, born of the Virgin Mary, and the real Blood which ran down his ſide, not only in a ſign, and by vertue of a Sacrament, but by propriety of nature, and reality of ſubſtance.
WHEN Innocent the Third would have this ſame belief known in the Council of Latran, he clearly explain'd himſelf, and made uſe even of the very Term of Tranſubſtantiation. In the Sacrament of the Altar, ſaith he, the Concil. Lat. ſub Innoc. 3. cap. 1.Body and Blood of Jeſus Chriſt are really contained under the Species of Bread and Wine, the Bread being tranſubſtantiated into the Body, and the Wine into the blood, by the divine power. In the ſame manner was it in the Council of Trent, which expreſly declared their belief, and what they would have others believe likewiſe. There is made, ſay they, by the conſecration, a converſion of the Seſſ. 13. cap. 4.whole Subſtance of Bread into the Subſtance of the Body of our Lord Jeſus Chriſt, and of the whole Subſtance of the Wine into the Subſtance of his Blood, which converſion is rightly and properly called Tranſubſtantiation.
AND thus ſpeak the Doctors of the Church of Rome, and thus in effect they ought to expreſs themſelves for the forming the Idea of this Doctrine. But 'tis otherwiſe with the Greeks: for beſides what I ſaid, that they uſe not the Term of foreign, but reject it, it will not be found they uſe any expreſſions which come near them of the Church of Rome, or mention any thing relating to a ſubſtantial converſion, or preſence of ſubſtance under the accidents of Bread and Wine, or change of one ſubſtance into another, which is what ought to be ſaid, to ſhew they believed Tranſubſtantiation. We ſee not any thing of this kind appear in the Cannons of their Councils, Confeſſions of Faith, or Liturgies, Books of Devotions, or any of their Writings, whether publiſhed by their Modern or Ancient Divines, and certainly 'tis very ſtrange theſe people ſhould believe Tranſubſtantiation, and yet at the ſame time not ſo much as declare in expreſs Terms this their belief. For beſides, that theſe Terms are but few and eaſie to be found out, there being nothing more eaſie to a man who believes the Subſtantial converſion, than to ſay, the Bread is ſubſtantially converted into the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, or the ſubſtance of Bread is really changed into the ſubſtance of Chriſt's Body, in ſuch a manner that the former ſubſtance remains no more. Beſides this, I ſay, they have in the Greek Language words which anſwer exactly the expreſſions of the Latins on this ſubject, and upon this account they would be inexcuſable, expreſſing themſelves as they do, differently from the Church of Rome, were their belief the ſame with hers.
YET is it evident, that the expreſſions of the Greeks are no ways like thoſe of the Latins, and there needs only the comparing of the one with the other to diſcern the difference. Compare for Example the confeſſion of Gregory the Seventh, with what Mr. Arnaud tells us concerning Nicetas Pectoratus and Theophilact. Compare the Diſcourſes of Urbain the Second in the Council of Plaiſance, of Innocent the Third in the Council of Latran, of Thomas Aquinas, and all the School-men, and in ſhort of the Council of Trent, with what he alledgeth out of Euthymius, Nicholas Methonienſis, Zonaras, Nicetas Choniatus, Cabaſilas and Jeremias; and you'l find on the one hand the converſion of the Subſtances clearly and plainly expreſſed, and on the other no ſuch thing.
I have already mentioned Mr. Baſire an Engliſh Divine, who had a particular Commerce with the Greeks, and during the time he was amongſt them carefully applied himſelf to the reading of their Books; obſerve here then what he wrote me from Durham Decemb. 6. 1668. Dico 3. in ſpecie Eccleſiam Graecam, Tranſubſtantiationem nullibi aſſerere, neque voce, neque re. De publicis instrumentis, puta Symbolis, confeſſionibus, catechiſmis, &c. intelligi volo; quorum plurima pervolvi ad indaginem, neque in eorum vel unico, foreign vocis, ut & rei ipſius, priſcis patribus Graecis prorſus ignotae, vel vola vel veſtigium. Privatos eorum Doctores nil moror, quoniam non ſum neſcius quemdam ipſorum pſeudo-Graecorum hieromonachum in ſuam cathecheſin quam mihi videre licuit Conſtantinopoli, illam vocem foreign intruſiſſe, qui vel ideo verorum Graecorum cenſuram haud effugit: The Greek Church does no where teach Tranſubſtantiation. I mean in their publick Symbols, confeſſions and catechiſms, &c. ſeveral of which I have upon this account carefully peruſed, but could not find in any of them the leaſt trace either of this Term of Tranſubſtantiation, or the thing it ſelf ſignifi'd thereby, which Doctrine was altogether unknown to the Greek Fathers. I matter not ſome private Doctors amongſt them, for I know that a certain Monk, of the number of theſe falſe Greeks, had ſecretly inſerted the Term of foreign Tranſubſtantiation in his Catechiſm, which I ſaw at Conſtantinople, but he was ſeverely checkt for it by the true Greeks. It will be perhaps replied, that Mr. Baſire is a Proteſtant, and conſequently to be ſuſpected in this caſe; but beſides that he is a perſon deſervedly honoured for his integrity, and whoſe teſtimony cannot be queſtion'd without the higheſt injuſtice, and moreover a Divine, and therefore not likely to miſtake in things relating to his own Profeſſion, being a perſon of great Learning, and one that dwelt long in thoſe Parts, and had not only the curioſity, but likewiſe the means and opportunities to inform himſelf exactly in the truth of what he relates; beſides this, I ſay, Mr. Arnaud cannot juſtly reject his Teſtimony upon this only ground, that he is a Proteſtant; ſeeing he himſelf has produc'd the Letters of Mr. Pompone his Nephew, and Mr. Picquet, and the Hiſtory of what paſſed at M. the Archbiſhop of Sens, touching the Muſcovits atteſted by Roman Catholicks.
BUT ſhould I lay aſide Mr. Baſire's teſtimony, that of Mr. Arnaud would ſerve my turn. I ſuppoſe there's no body doubts, but that Mr. Arnaud has made all poſſible ſearch into theſe matters touching the Greeks, and 'tis certain, had he found any paſſages containing in expreſs Terms the Doctrine of Tranſubſtantiation, he would not omit them. Yet it is evident that whatſoever he has hitherto alledged, which ſeems to intimate the converſion of Subſtances, in all this long diſpute which takes up half his Book, is but a meer Sophiſm, impoſing on us by means of the reunion made between the Greeks and Latins by Michael Paleologus, and ſome teſtimonies the ancienteſt of which bears date but from the year, 1641. We ſhall examine theſe matters in their proper place, and hope to undeceive mens Minds whatſoever impreſſions they may have made upon them. In the mean time we may obſerve that inſtead of giving us expreſs and clear proofs, which are the only ones that can lawfully be produced on this ſubject, he amuſes his Readers with tedious Diſcourſes, wide Conſequences, and negative Arguments, which at bottom conclude nothing. For the Point in queſtion relating to a Fact which ought to be decided by proofs of Fact, we expect thereupon Teſtimonies concluſive in themſelves without the help of Mr. Arnaud, and the impoſſibility wherein he has found himſelf of ſatisfying the publick expectation, is in it ſelf an evident proof of the contrary of what he pretends. But this will appear yet more plain by what follows in the next Chapter, wherein we ſhall more fully diſcover Mr. Arnaud's impoſing on the World.