The Catholic Doctrine of the Eucharist in All Ages, Book 3 · Chapter 3
CHAP. III.
The Third Proof taken from that the Expreſsions uſed by the Greeks are general, and inſufficient to form the Idea of a ſubstantial Converſion. The Fourth, that the Greeks only receive for Determinations of Faith, the Decrees of the ſeven first General Councils. The remaining part of Mr. Arnaud's Deluſion laid open. The Fifth Proof taken from that the Greeks in their Tranſactions with the Latins have ever kept to their General Expreſsions. Mr. Arnaud's Eighth Deluſion diſcovered.
THE Common Expreſſions the Greeks uſe in the explaining their Belief touching the Myſtery of the Euchariſt, are theſe. They call the Symbols, the holy gifts, the holy things, the ineffable myſteries, the body and blood of Jeſus Chriſt, the ſanctified bread, the particle or parts, the pearl, and the like. They ſay, that the Bread is the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, that it is made the Body of Jeſus Christ, that 'tis changed into the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, that 'tis the real Body of Jeſus Chriſt.
AND to expreſs this change, they uſe the Terms of foreign, which ſignifie, to change. Now 'tis certain theſe expreſſions, whether we take 'em ſeverally, or joyntly, cannot form the Idea of Tranſubſtantiation. For, beſides that being general, they are capable of ſeveral particular ſences, and are found indifferently uſed on other Subjects wherein there is no Tranſubſtantiation imagined, as may be juſtified by a thouſand Examples, if it were needful; beſides this, I ſay, our reaſon guides us never to attribute a particular and determinate ſence to perſons who explain not themſelves otherwiſe than in general Terms, unleſs it evidently appears from ſomething elſe, that they had this particular ſence in their minds.
I confeſs that in this caſe, that is to ſay, if it appears they have had a particular ſence in their minds, we ought readily to take their Terms in this ſence, how general ſoever they may be, but if they come not up to this, we can give them no more than a general and undeterminate meaning. We know for example, that in the Church of Rome Tranſubſtantiation is commonly believed, when then we are told, that the Bread is made the Body of Jeſus Christ, or that 'tis changed into the Body of Chriſt; although theſe words are general, yet do we immediately underſtand them in this particular ſence, that the Bread is changed ſubſtantially into the Body of Chriſt. But had ſhe not elſewhere expreſſed her ſelf touching the change of the Subſtance, and had no Council defined it, nor were it to be found in the Confeſſions of Faith, Catechiſms, and other Publick Books, and taught by the Roman Doctours, it is evident we ſhould be unreaſonable, in giving theſe general expreſſions any other than a general ſence, and this generality it ſelf would be an invincible Argument that ſhe never deſcended ſo far as the diſtinct determination of Tranſubſtantiation, and conſequently this would not be an Article of her Belief. Now 'tis after this manner we ought to judge of the Greek Church, all its expreſſions are general, there appearing nothing elſewhere which determins this generality, or which engages us to attribute to her the particular and diſtinct ſence of the Church of Rome, and whatſoever Mr. Arnaud has alledged in the behalf of this, is of no weight. It then neceſſarily follows, that we ought to attribute to her no other than a general ſence, and in no wiſe that of Tranſubſtantiation, which is evidently particular and determinate: And even this conſideration, that they of the Church of Rome are obliged to uſe Arguments to explain the common expreſſions of this Church into a ſence of Tranſubſtantiation, is an infallible mark that ſhe does not believe it.
NOW ſeeing this Proof is deciſive, and that it not only eſtabliſheth my Sentiment, but likewiſe overthrows Mr. Arnaud's whole diſpute, it will not be therefore amiſs to illuſtrate it and conſider well its Foundations, to the end it may be manifeſted whether the concluſion I draw from hence is juſt and true. Firſt, then we muſt know that Tranſubſtantiation is the preciſe and diſtinct determination of the manner in which the Bread is made the Body of Chriſt, to wit, by a real converſion of the ſubſtance of this Bread into the ſubſtance of this Body; ſo that 'tis impoſſible to believe it without forming a diſtinct Idea after this manner, ſeeing it is even this preciſe and determin'd Idea it ſelf. It is then abſurd and contradictory to look for it in a general and confuſed Idea, which determines nothing, for this is to ſeek for a determination in a thing undetermined, and a diſtinct ſence in a generality, that is to ſay, light in darkneſs. And from hence appears what muſt be the expreſſions of a Church which believes Tranſubſtantiation, and teaches it, for it is neceſſary ſhe teach it in plain terms, which anſwer the diſtinct Idea ſhe has of it, and which may immediately form the like in the minds of thoſe that hear her. Now this cannot be done but by expreſs and formal Terms, or by Terms ſo equivalent, that they cannot be turned into a contrary ſence. What I ſay is verifi'd by the example of the Roman Church, whoſe expreſſions are plain and clear, and which immediately ſhew her meaning.
MOREOVER we ſhould conſider that the Notion of Tranſubſtantiation is not one of thoſe which are called Speculative, but Practical Notions, which engages them that have it to ſeveral duties and performances, and eſpecially to the ſoverain adoration of this ſame ſubſtance, which before was the ſubſtance of bread, but now the ſame proper numerical ſubſtance of the natural body of Jeſus Chriſt, as ſpeaks the Church of Rome, whence it neceſſarily follows, that a Church which thus believes it, teacheth it in ſuch a manner, that the act of adoration follows freely and naturally of it ſelf..
IT is likewiſe to be obſerved, that the matter here in hand concerns the Greek Church from the Eleventh Century, which is to ſay, that ſince the conteſts with Berengarius, the Roman Church has expreſly determined the ſubſtantial converſion, which drove the Greeks into a greater neceſſity of ſpeaking clearly on this point, either to ſhew their conformity of belief with the Latins, or to avoid the falling into the ſame inconveniencies which the Latins endeavour'd to avoid by this formal declaration. And this obſervation is the more conſiderable againſt Mr. Arnaud, in that he grants the Greeks not to have been ignorant of this circumſtance touching Berengarius.
TO know then certainly whether the Greek Church believes Tranſubſtantiation or not, we need but ſee after what manner ſhe explains her ſelf concerning the Euchariſt; for if her expreſſions bear not a ſubſtantial converſion, either expreſly or equivalently, in ſuch a ſort, that they may eaſily and immediately form the notion thereof, if they be I ſay general, and determine nothing of themſelves, it is a certain proof ſhe does not believe it, for that Church which believes it, and would have its Children do the like, cannot but explain it ſelf clearly and fully on that ſubject. If we examine Mr. Arnaud's diſpute on this Principle, which I eſteem as the light of common ſence, we ſhall immediately deprive him of all his negative Arguments, taken from the ſilence of the Greeks, and that of the Latins; for altho theſe kind of Arguments are very good in other occaſions, yet it is apparent that to end a queſtion, ſuch a one as this is, which is, Whether the Eaſtern Church believes and teaches Tranſubſtantiation, Mr. Arnaud ſhould have taken a courſe more deciſive than that of conſidering what the Greeks have done in relation to the Tranſubſtantiation of the Latins, or what the Latins have done in reſpect of the belief of the Greeks. It were better for us, directly to conſider, after what manner, they themſelves do poſitively explain their belief, touching the Euchariſt. If we find Tranſubſtantiation plainly declared in it; theſe Arguments of ſilence are no longer neceſſary, and if we don't find it clearly expreſſed, there will follow a Concluſion ſo greatly to my advantage, that all Mr. Arnaud's negative Arguments will not be able to ſubſiſt before it, for there is a thouſand times more ſolidity in reaſoning after this ſort. A Church doth not clearly teach Tranſubſtantiation, therefore ſhe holds it not, than to argue thus; A Church does not oppoſe Tranſubſtantiation held by the Latins, therefore ſhe believes it. Beſides that the firſt Argument concludes directly and immediately what the other does not, there is a greater coherence between believing Tranſubſtantiation, and clearly teaching it, than there is repugnance between not believing it, and yet not oppoſing it in perſons who do believe it. There is no reaſon can hinder the Greeks from diſtinctly teaching Tranſubſtantiation, ſuppoſing they believed it, but there may be ſeveral reaſons which may oblige them from making this Point a matter of diſpute with the Latins, altho they do not believe it.
NEITHER muſt the Profeſſion of Faith, which the Emperour Michael Paleologus ſent (as from the Greeks) to Pope John the XXI. to finiſh the work of the Re-union of the two Churches be made uſe of againſt us; for beſides that this was an act extorted by force, which is not of any account amongſt the Greeks, we do not find that the Latin expreſſions which bear that the Bread is really tranſubſtantiated, do exactly anſwer the Greek expreſſions of the ſame act, which according to all likelyhood contained only, that the Bread is really changed, as we ſhall make it appear hereafter.
NEITHER are the Atteſtations and particular Teſtimonies which are but from the year 1641. to be urged againſt us, for not to alledge that theſe pieces are apparently the fruit of the Emiſſaries and Seminaries, and that the quality of the Perſons who make theſe atteſtations, does not furniſh them with ſufficient Authority to decide our queſtion, which concerns the body of the Greek Schiſmatical Church, all theſe pieces are too new whereon to build alone, a Tradition from the …venth Century, that is to ſay, ſince ſix hundred years.
WE may then already ſee in general that Mr. Arnaud's whole diſpute is reduced to conſequences, which will be eaſily overthrown by a particular examination of them, which ſhall be done in its place; but in the mean time what I already ſaid is ſufficient to eſtabliſh the validity of my Argument, which is drawn, from that the uſual expreſſions of the Greeks, I mean the cleareſt of them, and thoſe which the Church of Rome believes to be moſt favourable to her upon the account of the Euchariſt, only conſiſt in general terms. Whence I conclude they hold not Tranſubſtantiation; for there is nothing more oppoſite to this Doctrine than general expreſſions, ſeeing the belief of the ſubſtantial converſion, as I have already eſtabliſhed it, is in it ſelf the particular and diſtinct determination of the manner of the Bread's being made or changed into the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, and that 'tis not poſſible but that a Church which believes it, and would inſtruct its people in this Doctrine muſt explain this Point clearly and diſtinctly: And thus in ſtrength'ning my own Arguments, I lay open the weakneſs of Mr. Arnaud's.
BUT this Argument I now produced, ought to be attended by this following conſideration, which will farther evidence its ſtrength and ſolidity. Which is that the Greeks profeſs to receive only for the determinations of Points of Faith, the ſeven firſt general Councils, to wit, that of Nice, againſt Arius under the Emperour Conſtantine the Great, that at Conſtantinople againſt Macedonius under Theodoſius, that of Epheſus againſt Neſtorius under Theodoſius Junior, that of Chalcedon againſt Eutychus and Dioſcorius under Marcion, that of Conſtantinople upon occaſion of the quarrel of the three Chapters under the Emperour Juſtinian, the third of Conſtantinople againſt the Monothelites under Conſtantine Pogonatus, and in fine the ſecond of Nice on the ſubject of Images under Conſtantine, and his Mother Iréna. Now 'tis certain, there is nothing in all theſe Councils which determins Tranſubſtantiation, for what is produced concerning the firſt at Nice; That we muſt conceive by Faith, that the Lamb of God that takes away the ſins of the World, lies ou this holy Table, that he is ſacrificed without a ſacrifice by the Prieſts, and that we do really receive his precious Body and Blood: This I ſay, as any man may ſee, is not Tranſubſtantiation no more than what is offered us touching the ſecond at Nice, as will appear by reading the fifth Chapter of Mr. Arnaud's ſeventh Book, wherein he relates it. And as to theſe Councils by which the Church of Rome has determin'd the converſion of the Subſtances, as that of Gregory the Seventh, held at Rome in the year 1079. that of Plaiſance held in the year 1095. under Urbain the Second, that of Latran in the year 1215. wherein Innocent the Third declared the Doctrine of his Church on this Subject, that of Conſtance aſſembled in the year 1414. wherein Wicliff was condemned for oppoſing this Doctrine, and in fine that of Trent, which eſtabliſhed the preeeding deciſions, the Greek Church receives none of theſe, nor makes any account of them. They all commonly ſay, ſay's Richardus the Relation of the Iſle of St. Erinys, chap. 12. pag. 150.Jeſuit, in his relation of the Iſle of St. Erinys, that the Decrees of the ſeven firſt Councils ought only to be obſerved, and the Prieſts make the people believe, that at the end of the ſeventh Council, an Angel deſcended from Heaven; teſtifying that whatſoever concerned our Faith, was therein perfected, and there remain'd nothing more to be added or decided. Leo Allatius likewiſe only mentions ſeven Councils which they approve. They have, ſay's he, in great eſteem Allat. de prep. conſ. lib. 1. cap. 9.the Decrees of the ſeven firſt general Councils, and hold them inviolable, they receive their Canons for their Rule in all things, and the moſt Religious amongſt them do conſtantly obſerve them.
ALEXANDER Guagnin diſcourſing of the Religion of the Ruſſians, Guag. in Moſc. deſcrip.which is the ſame as that of the Greeks, relates their Belief is, that 'twas concluded in the ſeventh general Council, that the matters determin'd in the preceding Councils ſhould remain firm for the time to come, and that there ſhould no other Council be called under the penalty of an Anathema; wherefore (adds he) they ſay, that all the Councils and Synods held ſince the ſeven firſt, are accurſed, perverſe, and deſperately defiled with Hereſie. Sacranus Chanon of Cracovia, tells us likewiſe, that they regard not any of thoſe Councils which have been held ſince Relig. Rutheni art. 9.the ſeventh, ſaying, they are not concerned in them, ſeeing they were held without their conſent.
SCARGA the Jeſuit ſets down this as their ſixth Errour, that there De uno paſt. part. 3. c. 2.ought only the ſeven Councils to be regarded, and that whoſoever receives the Decrees of an eighth or ninth is accurſed. Mr. Baſire, whom I mentioned in the foregoing Chapter, confirms me in this matter by his Letter. In publica, ſay's he, Graecorum profeſſione, non niſi foreign recipiunt quas foreign nuncupant. In the publick confeſſion of their Faith they only receive the Decrees of the ſeven Councils which they call Oecumenical. And Metrophanus Confeſſ. Eccleſ. Or. cap. 15.the Patriarch of Alexandria authoriſes all theſe Teſtimonies by his expreſs Declaration: We only receive, ſay's he, the ſeven Oecumenical Councils, and as to the particular Councils, we receive from them what has been received and confirmed by the ſeven Oecumenical ones. Should I conclude from hence they hold not Tranſubſtantiation for an Article of their Faith, this concluſion perhaps would not be contemptible, for in fine not to receive for a determination of Faith any thing elſe but what is contained in the ſeven firſt Councils, and at the ſame time to believe the Doctrine of the ſubſtantial converſion, are two things very inconſiſtent with each other, eſpecially in reference to people that utterly reject the other Councils, wherein this Doctrine has been determin'd. And in effect, it ſeems to me that this Doctrine is important enough to be inſerted amongſt the Articles of their Faith already decided or confirmed by Councils, and not amongſt the common cuſtoms, or practices which are ſtill obſerved, altho not expreſly determined, or amongſt the Points, which being minute and inconſiderable, are therefore left undecided, altho they are held. Let the Reader judge, whether 'tis likely a Church would only receive for a determination of Points of Faith the Decrees of Councils, wherein there has paſſed not a word concerning Tranſubſtantiation, and reject others wherein Tranſubſtantiation has been eſtabliſhed, and yet believe this Doctrine as firmly as the Latins, and not dare to explain her ſelf in clear and proper terms, which would have eaſed Mr. Arnaud of that great pains he has taken to fill three or four large Books with his long Syllogiſms, the greateſt part of which are beſides the purpoſe. What mean theſe Greeks by their general expreſſions, which are good for nothing but to puzzle people? For according to Mr. Arnaud, they diſtinctly believe the whole ſubſtance of Bread is changed into the ſubſtance of our Saviour's Body, and teach as they believe, it being their intereſt to do ſo, to the end this Doctrin may prevail with the people to adore this ſubſtance when changed. They are not ignorant of the manner after which the Church of Rome explains it ſelf touching this Doctrine. And yet are they obliged not to receive any Doctrine as an Article of Faith, but what has been already determined by the ſeven firſt Councils, in which there's no mention of this Change of Subſtance, and to reject all thoſe Councils which expresſly decreed it, and nevertheleſs they expreſs themſelves in general terms, which ſignifie nothing. And muſt Mr. Arnaud (to whoſe immortal praiſe the Greeks are ſtill in the World, and to whom they are obliged for their preſervation under the Turkiſh Empire) tire himſelf, his Friends, and his Readers; exhauſt his ſtore of Conſequences, that is to ſay, his ſtock of Deluſions, and be continually imploying his invention to find ſome appearance or ſhadow of Tranſubſtantiation in the uſual expreſſions of this People? To ſpeak impartially, he has reaſon to be angry with theſe Greeks, who are ſo obſtinate, or at leaſt ſo lazy, that they will not be at the pains to expreſs plainly, and without ambiguity, a Notion ſo clearly and diſtinctly imprinted in their minds. And moreover not only theſe Greeks have not explained themſelves; but even when moved by temporal intereſts and the politick intrigues of their Emperours they conſented to theſe patched re-unions with the Church of Rome, they have changed the Latin expreſſions, and whereas in the Acts of theſe laſt, it is expresſly mention'd, that the Bread is Tranſubſtantiated into the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, they have barely inſerted, that it is changed, that 'tis conſecrated, and in a word, they have ever ſubſtituted their general expreſſions, to the formal and preciſe expreſſions of the Latins. What can Mr. Arnaud alledge, when on one hand he ſees in Raynaldus, this Confeſſion of Faith, about which he has made ſuch a noiſe, and which was offer'd to the Greeks by Clement IV. by Gregory X. by John XXI. and by Urbain V. as diſtinctly and clearly containing the Belief of the Roman Church, and that he ſees it, I ſay, expreſſed in theſe Latins words, Sacramentum Euchariſtae ex azymo conficit eadem Romana Eccleſia, tenens & docens Raynald. ad ann. 1267. num. 77.quod in ipſo Sacramento Panis veré Tranſubſtantiatur in Corpus, & Vinum in Sanguinem Domini noſtri Jeſu Chriſti. The Church of Rome celebrates the Sacrament of the Euchariſt with unleavened Bread, holding and teaching that in this Sacrament the Bread is really tranſubſtantiated into the Body and the Wine into the Blood of our Lord Jeſus Chriſt; and when on the other hand he finds this ſame Article in the Greek Copy produced by Allatius in theſe Words, foreign. Allat perp. conſ. lib. 2. cap. 17.foreign. The Church of Rome celebrates the Sacrament of the Euchariſt with unleavened Bread, holding and teaching that in this Sacrament the Bread is really changed into the Body, and the Wine into the Blood of our Lord Jeſus Chriſt. The Latins ſay's, veré Tranſubſtantiatur, it is really Tranſubſtantiated, and the Greeks foreign, it is really changed.
Mr. Arnaud, who loves not to complain, when his complaints will do him Liv. 3. cap. 7. pag. 298.no good, paſſes lightly over this difference, as if it were a trifle not worth his notice, for having told us, that Raynaldus obſerves, ſome read in Latin Tranſmutatur, and others Tranſubſtantiatur, he adds, Allatius who has given us the Original it ſelf, makes it appear that theſe words, Tranſmutatur and Tranſubſtantiatur, are mere Synonimous Terms, ſeeing they have been ſubſtituted by Interpreters to theſe Greek words, foreign, &c. And this is what is ſoon diſpatched by the Rule of Synonimy, Tranſmutatur, and Tranſubſtantiatur are both the ſame, becauſe Interpreters ſubſtitute both one and the other of theſe words to the Term foreign foreign. But who are theſe Interpreters, who thus render Tranſubſtantiatur, are they not ſuch who find Tranſubſtantiation every where, and will have it brought into the Greek Church by force? If Tranſmutare and Tranſubſtantiare are Synonimous Terms, Mr. Arnaud may when he pleaſes render Gregor. Naz. Ora. 40.thoſe words of Gregory Nazianzen, Chriſto indutus ſum, in Chriſto Tranſubſtantiatus ſum, for there is Tranſmutatus, and when he ſhall find in a Homily attributed to Origen, Sanctus Theologus in Deum Tranſmutatus, he may read, H…m. 2. in diverſ. Iren. ad Haereſ. lib. 5. cap. 12.in Deum Tranſubſtantiatus, and when he reads in St. Iréneus Oleaſter, Tranſmutatur in bonam olivam, he may render this, Tranſubſtantiatur in bonam olivam. If we may as well ſubſtitute to the Greek word foreign, theſe two Latin ones, Tranſmutatur and Tranſubſtantiatur, Mr. Arnaud may read in the Verſion of St. Macairus, omnes in naturam Divinam Tranſubſtantiantur, for the Interpreter has ſet down Tranſmutantur, and the Greek imports foreign, and when he ſhall find in the ſame Author, that Jeſus Chriſt came to change the nature, he may underſtand it, that he came to Tranſubſtantiate the nature, foraſmuch as the Latin bears Tranſmutare, and the Greek foreign. 'Tis certain that a man who reads good Authors upon Mr. Arnaud's credit, and follows his Synonima's, will make abundance of extravagant Tranſubſtantiations, and I do not believe Mr. Arnaud will be willing to warrant them all. He will ſay theſe words are Synonimy's, when they concern the Euchariſt; for the Bread's being Changed or Tranſubſtantiated, is the ſame thing. It is ſo indeed with them that believe Tranſubſtantiation, but not with them who do not believe it. But the Greeks believe it, ſay's Mr. Arnaud, which he is obliged to prove before he affirms it. Mr. Arnaud's Arguments are really admirable, for they are very concluſive, provided we ſuppoſe the truth of what they conclude. If it be demanded of him wherefore he makes ſuch a noiſe with this Form of Faith, he will anſwer 'tis becauſe the Term of Tranſubſtantiatur is in it. Tell him that in the Greek there is foreign, Tranſmutatur and not Tranſubſtantiatur, he will anſwer that foreign, Tranſmutatur and Tranſubſtantiatur are the ſame thing. But let this be examined, it will be found to be indeed the ſame thing to them that believe Tranſubſtantiation, but as to others who do not, there is a great difference; ſo that to ſpeak truly, to make Mr Arnaud's Argument good, it muſt firſt be ſuppoſed the Greeks believe the Subſtantial Converſion, as well as the Latins.
HE may adjuſt theſe matters when he pleaſes; but let me tell him in the mean time, that the Greeks uſed the ſame expreſſions in the Council of Florence. The Latins having demanded wherefore after the words of our Saviour Concil. Florent. Seſſ. 25.Jeſus Chriſt, take, eat, this is my Body, which has been broken for you, for the Remiſſion of your Sins, &c. (they added this Prayer,) and make this Bread the precious Body of thy Chriſt, and that which is in this Cap, the precious bloud of thy Chriſt, in changing them by virtue of thy Holy Spirit; they anſwered they did acknowledge that the Conſecrated Bread was made the Body of Chriſt by theſe words. The Latin Decree has this expreſſion, fateri nos diximus per haec verba Tranſubſtantiari Sacrum Panem, & fieri Corpus Chriſti, but the Greek expreſſions are theſe, foreign, The Latin ſay's 'tis Tranſubſtantiated, the Greek that 'tis Conſecrated.
MR. Arnaud has recourſe here likewiſe to his Synonimy's; for he tells us, that the Latins (to whom this anſwer was made) having taken it in the ſence Lib. 4. cap. 2. pag. 345.of an acknowledgement of Tranſubſtantiation, it is ridiculous to pretend there was ſuch a great equivocation between them and the Greeks, the one underſtanding a change of Subſtance, and the others a change of Virtue. He adds, That if the Greeks had not taken theſe words in the ſence of the Latins, Syropulus, and Marc of Epheſus would have obſerved that the Latins were derided by this equivocation, and would have accuſed them who made this anſwer of prevarication and deceit. In fine, he ſay's, that Andrew de S. Cruce (who deſerves as much to be credited, as any of the other Hiſtorians, who wrote on this Council, becauſe he was there preſent) relates this acknowledgment of Tranſubſtantiation, which Beſſarion made in the name of all the Greeks, in a manner more preciſe, diſtinct, and with greater circumſtances, and that he attributes to him theſe words, we have learnt that theſe are the words of our Lord, which Change and Tranſubſtantiate the Bread into the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, and the Wine into his Blood, and that theſe divine words have the full force of Tranſubſtantiation.
I anſwer, the more I ſtudy the Character of Mr. Arnaud, the more clearly I perceive that theſe things are no otherwiſe ridiculous and affrightful, but only as they agree not with his deſigns. For it is certain that foreign, and Tranſubſtantiari, are two different Terms, which ſignifie not the ſame thing; the firſt is applicable in general to all Myſteries, and ſignifies only, to be conjecrated, or perfectly conſecrated; the ſecond ſignifies a Change of one Subſtance into another. It is moreover certain, that when the Latins wrote Tranſubſtantiari, the Greeks have only ſet down foreign, why then will he have it, that the Greeks took not this Term in its natural ſignification, and in the uſual ſence given to it amongſt them? Becauſe ſay's he, that the Latins took this anſwer for an acknowledgment of Tranſubſtantiation: But who told him, that the Latins did not do ill in taking it after this manner; Who told him the Greeks intended the Latins ſhould take it in this ſence? The Greeks have kept to their general expreſſions, and the Latins have drawn them as far as they could to their advantage. If there has been any equivocation in them, the Latins have voluntarily made it, and 'tis very likely, could they have made the Greeks ſay foreign, inſtead of foreign, they would gladly have done it, but not being able to effect it, they have made what advantage they could of foreign, in interpreting it by the word Tranſubſtantiation. And this is the whole Secret, which is neither ridiculous nor affrightful in any other, than Mr. Arnaud's imagination.
And as to what he ſay's concerning Syropulus, and Mark of Epheſus, namely, that they would have obſerved the Latins were deluded by an Equivocation, and accuſe them who thus anſwered in behalf of the Greeks of prevarication and deceit; I ſee no reaſon they had to do this, for when the Greeks, ſayd foreign, they ſpoke their uſual Language and derided no body. If the Latins underſtood it otherwiſe than the force of the Term and common uſe permitted them; 'tis they that derided the Greeks rather than the Greeks them, wherefore there is no reaſon in this reſpect to accuſe them who made this anſwer of prevarication and deceit. Andrew de S. Cruce his relating the words of Beſſarion according to the intention of the Latins, does but confirm what I ſay, which is that the Roman Church has ever endeavoured to expound to its advantage the general expreſſions of the Greeks, and I know not wherefore Mr. Arnaud tells us, that he deſerves no leſs credit than the other Hiſtorians, who wrote of this Council. Would he have it, that Beſſarion who ſpeaks for all the reſt of the Greeks, did not uſe the Term foreign; This is the very word in the Greek Text concerning that Council, and Andrew de S. Cruce's Authority is not ſufficient to correct a Publick Act, neither can his Latin alter the Greek. Would he have it that the Latins explain'd the foreign of Beſſarion by Tranſubſtantiatur? I grant it, and the Decree of the Council ſhows it, ſo that he needs not call Andrew de St. Cruce to his aſſiſtance. Yet may we obſerve that Mr. Arnaud himſelf is not fully ſatisfi'd that the Greek and Latin expreſſions on this Subject, do mean but one and the ſame thing, altho he tells us he is; for he calls that which Andrew de S. Cruce, relates from Beſſarion, a more preciſe manner, more diſtinct and circumſtantial, which is as much as to ſay after all, that the Tranſubſtantiari of the Latins is more preciſe, diſtinct and plain than the foreign of the Greeks.
AND this the force of Truth has extorted from him; and it were well if it could likewiſe ſo far prevail with him as to make him acknowledge, that this proceeding of the Greeks is an evident mark they believed not Tranſubſtantiation. For had they believed it, what likelyhood is there they ſhould thus carefully keep themſelves from uſing the expreſſions of the Latins, which are proper, diſtinct and clear, and change them into others, which are general and equivocal, and that in the ſame Acts wherein thoſe aforementioned exactly deſcribe the converſion of the Subſtances, th'others ſhould be ſo obſtinate, as not to take notice of it. Had they been perſwaded the Latins did not innovate, would they not have yielded to a thouſand Reaſons which ſeem'd to conſtrain them to manifeſt their thro Conformity with them? Their Affairs were in very bad circumſtances, they left their Country to implore the aſſiſtance of the Weſtern Princes; they were in the Pope's hands, and maintain'd at his charge; they conſented to the re-union of the two Churches; their Emperors did not only ſollicite but conſtrain them thereunto; and they had already offered great violences to their own conſciences, for they conſented to the addition of the Filioque in the Creed; what reaſon then could hinder them from acknowledging the Converſion of the Subſtances, had their belief been the ſame with that of the Church of Rome; Wherefore ſhould they ſtill affect their general Terms, of foreign; Wherefore even in the very act of the re-union made at Florence, the Term of Tranſubſtantiation was never inſerted, but only that of confici, in the Latin, and that of foreign in the Greek? For thus was it ſet down, foreign. Item in azymo ſive fermentato Pane triticeo Corpus Chriſti veraciter confici, Sacerdoteſque in altero ipſum Domini Corpus conficere debere, unumquemque ſcilicet juxta ſuae Eccleſiae ſive Occidentalis ſive Orientalis conſuetudinem. That the Body of Jeſus Chriſt is really conſecrated, or made into Wheaten Bread, either with or without Leven, and that the Prieſts ought to make or conſecrate the Body of our Lord with either of theſe, every one according to the Cuſtom of his Church, whether Eaſtern or Weſtern. Here is no mention of the converſion of the Subſtances, for the general Terms carri'd it away from the determinations of the Latins. Neither need Mr. Arnaud tell us as he does, that the Greeks took Lib. 4. cap 2. pag. 346.theſe words in a ſence of Tranſubſtantiation, becauſe the Latins did ſo; For if the Greeks believed a true and real converſion of Subſtance, wherefore then was not that Article expreſſed in clear and proper Terms. The Latins were not ignorant of them, the Greeks knew them well enough, there being no word more common among them than that of foreign. That of Subſtantia had been already affected by the Latins in the Myſtery of the Euchariſt, and the Popes that preceded Eugenus the IV. were not wanting to bring it into that famous Confeſſion of Faith which we have ſo often mention'd. In ſhort Mr. Arnaud need not tell us ſo often of theſe Equivocations, for we know very well, that in theſe kind of Accommodations, wherein intereſt holds the chiefeſt rank, the two Parties agree commonly in certain generalities, which each of 'em endeavour to explain to their own advantage. There is nothing more common than theſe kind of Treaties, in which when there's foreſeen any inſuperable difficulties, they are uſually left untoucht, both Parties contenting themſelves with general Terms, by which each of 'em think to compaſs their deſigns. Mr. Arnaud is a Perſon of too much reading and experience to queſtion a Truth ſo well known, and I believe we need not go far for inſtances of this kind. But, howſoever, this is certain and undeniable, that in all the Decrees of the Florentine Council, there appears nothing on the part of the Greeks, that eſtabliſhes the converſion of Subſtances, but on the contrary, it ſeems as if they had prevail'd on the Latins, to abate their expreſſions in the ſolemn act of their re-union.
BUT before we leave this Proof, it is to be obſerved that Beſſarion Archbiſhop of Nice, who was one of the Principal Agents in this Accommodation, in behalf of the Greeks, was a Perſon already brought over to the Intereſts of the Latins, and for his good Services was ſoon after made a Cardinal in the Roman Church. It cannot then but be ſuppoſed he favoured the Latins, and uſed all poſſible means to prevail on his own Country-men. In effect Syropulus complains of this; in ſuch a manner, as ſufficiently ſhews, what judgment we ought to make of this particular. In the mean time, compare I pray, the Terms Beſſarion uſes when he ſpeaks in behalf of the Greeks in the Conferences of the Council, with thoſe he uſes in his Treatiſe of the Euchariſt, wherein he ſpeaks from his own head, ſince he was made a Cardinal, in Specie, ſay's he, in this Treatiſe, Panis & Vini, veritas Corporis & Sanguinis continetur, cum in illa, Subſtantia Panis Vinique mutetur. The Body of Jeſus Chriſt is really contain'd under the Species of Bread and Wine, the Subſtance being changed into this Body and Blood; and a little farther, verba dicuntur quibus dictis mox Conſecratio fit, Tranſubſtantialitas perficitur; The words are no ſooner ſaid but the Conſecration is made, and the Tranſubſtantiation finiſhed. 'Tis no longer foreign and foreign, Conſecration and Sanctification, but Subſtantia mutatur, Tranſubſtantialitas perficitur, the change of Subſtance, Tranſubſtantion. Whence comes this difference, but from that the Greeks do not uſe the ſame expreſſions as the Latins, and that there is not any Conformity between theſe two Churches in this Point of the Converſion of Subſtances? Beſſarion counterfiting the Greek, makes uſe only of general expreſſions. But when he diſcovers himſelf to be a Latin, he ſpeaks plainly and diſtinctly.
BUT beſides Beſſarion, this ſame difference is obſervable in other Latiniſed Greeks, engaged to propogate the Roman Doctrines, if we compare their Style with that of the true Greeks. Compare for example what Mr. Arnaud tells us out of Emanüel Calecas, and John Pluſiadéne, with what he himſelf alledges out of Cabiſilas, Mark of Epheſus, Simon of Theſſalonica, and others, and you will find theſe laſt mention not the change of Subſtance, whereas the former do expresſly aſſert it. Emanuel tells us concerning the Euchariſt, that God is able to change the inward Subſtance, and yet conſerve the ſame Accidents entire. Pluſiadene after the ſame manner, That the Subſtance of Bread is changed into the Body of Chriſt. Whereas there's no ſuch expreſſions in the true Greeks: for we meet only with ſuch expreſſions as theſe, that the Bread is really the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, and that 'tis changed into the Body of Jeſus Chriſt: but as to the Subſtance they make no mention of it, and there is nothing but Mr. Arnaud's Conſequence or Synonimy, which can make them do it.