The Catholic Doctrine of the Eucharist in All Ages, Book 3 · Chapter 5
CHAP. V.
The Seventh Proof taken from that the Greeks do not believe the Particles of the Virgin Mary and the Saints ought to be conſecrated on the great Altar, as is that of our Saviour, and yet they diſtribute them to the People in the ſame manner as they do the Body of Jeſus Christ. Mr. Arnaud's Tenth Fallacy laid open. The Eighth Proof taken from their believing that the Euchariſt conſecrated on Holy Thurſday, has a greater virtue than that which is conſecrated at other times. The Ninth Proof taken out of ſeveral Paſſages of their Liturgies.
WE have ſeen in the preceding Chapter, that the Greeks when as yet at the Protheſis, (that is to ſay, at the little Altar) do ſeparate eleven Particles of Bread, the firſt and principal Particle in honour of our Saviour, the ſecond in honour of his Holy Mother, and the reſt in honour of the Saints, and that they carry all theſe and place them on the high Altar, where the Conſecration is perform'd.
WE muſt here obſerve they believe not that all theſe Particles are conſecrated, for they reſtrain this effect to that which bears the name of our Saviour, the others remaining unconſecrated. Arcudius affirms Simeon of Arcud. de Sacr. Euch. lib. 3. c. 10.Theſſalonica (who lived in the beginning of the Fifteenth Century) to be the Author of this Opinion, againſt which he with much paſſion inveighs. Mr. Arnaud tells us we muſt not attribute this Error to all the Greeks; becauſe, ſay's he, that Simeon proteſteth before he propoſed it, that he did not offer it dogmatically, but only as a probable Opinion; But Arcudius does not fully ſay this, he only tells us that Simeon, at the end of his whole Diſcourſe adds, that he mentions not theſe things as Points of Doctrine, becauſe he always follows the Sentiments of the Church. This is a Clauſe of Submiſſion, but this is not to proteſt before the propoſal of the Opinion, that he offers it but only as a mere Opinion. Mr. Arnaud adds, That 'tis likely the Greeks in the Council of Florence did anſwer the Latins according to the ſence of Simeon, for the Acts mention that the Biſhop of Mytilene fully ſatisfi'd them touching the Queſtions propoſed, amongſt which this was one. But he is miſtaken, for the Queſtion of the Latins was not concerning the Conſecration of the ſmall Particles, but touching the Making of theſe Particles, and uniting them with the great one, foreign. They demanded of us wherefore we divided the Particles in the Oblation, that is to ſay, on the Protheſis, and afterwards joyned them to the Divine Bread, or great Conſecrated Particle. Now this Queſtion does not reſpect the Conſecration of theſe Particles, but ſuppoſes on the contrary they are not conſecrated; for if the Greeks believed they were conſecrated, it would be in vain for the Latins to demand wherefore they joyn them with that which is conſecrated. It appears likewiſe by Arcudius, that Gabriel of Philadelphia maintains this Opinion of the non-Conſecration of theſe Particles, not only as the bare Opinion of Simeon of Theſſalonica, but as that of the whole Greek Church, for he recites theſe words of Gabriel, What is it which perſwades me Arcud. lib. 5. cap. 11.of this? 'Tis firſt the Faith, and in the next place the Authority of the Holy Fathers, but in fine, I am perſwaded of this, becauſe 'tis the Doctrine which the Catholick Church diſperſed over the Face of the whole Earth teacheth and confirmeth. By this Catholick Church he means that of the Greeks. In like manner the Jeſuit Francis Richard an Emiſſary, ſpeaking of this Belief touching the non-conſecration of the Particles, tells us, that he has had ſeveral Relation of the Iſle of St. Erini.Diſputes with the Papa's that embraced this Falſe Opinion, and that the People for want of Inſtruction know not what to believe. Had Mr. Arnaud carefully peruſed Leo Allatius, his chief Author, who has furniſhed him with the greateſt part of his Materials touching this Diſpute about the Greeks, he might have found this Sentiment to be the ſame with that of the Monks of Mount Athos. All the Monks, ſay's he, that inhabit Mount Athos, are of this Epiſt 2. ad Nihuſ.Opinion, as teſtifies Athanaſius Venoire, the Archbiſhop of Imbre, who dwelt a long time with them, and I my ſelf have ſeen ſeveral who were Prieſts that zealouſly maintain'd the ſame thing.
BUT be it as it will, Mr. Arnaud and I would draw from one and the ſame Principle very different Concluſions, the Principle is that the Greeks do not believe that the Particles are conſecrated, his Concluſion is, that they then hold Tranſubſtantiation, and mine on the contrary, that they then do not believe it. Let us now ſee which of theſe Concluſions is the trueſt.
HE tells us, that when any Object againſt the Greeks, that if their Opinion be true, it would follow, that they which communicated of theſe Partcles Lib. 4. cap. 1. pag. 330.would not receive the Body of Jeſus Chriſt; they anſwer, there is put into the cup part of the Host truly conſecrated, which is mixt with its Particles not conſecrated, out of which afterwards they diſtribute in a ſpoon the Communion to the Laity, ſo that it commonly happens that all in general receive ſome part of the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, and when it ſhould fall out otherwiſe, it would only follow they communicated but of one kind.
BUT this pretended Anſwer of the Greeks hath no other Foundation than Mr. Arnaud's Authority, who alleges no Author to confirm it, and Arcudius who manages this Diſpute againſt Simeon and Gabriel, and whence Mr. Arnaud has taken all he knows, makes no mention of it.
HE adds, That this Errour invincibly proves the Greeks hold Tranſubſtantiation, and that we need but conſider after what manner they expreſs it. And he afterwards produces the Paſſages of Simeon and Gabriel. The Church upon juſt Grounds, ſay's Simeon, offers theſe Particles, to ſhew, that this lively Sacrifice, ſanctifies both the quick and dead, but ſhe makes them not Gods by nature. He means, that as the Saints are united to God by Grace, but become not Gods in their nature, ſo theſe Particles are united to the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, altho they do not therefore become his Body. And this he clearly expreſſes in theſe words. The Saints being united to Jeſus Chriſt, are deifi'd by Grace, but become not Gods by nature; ſo likewiſe the Particles which are offered upon their account, obtain holineſs by the participation of the Body and Blood, and become one with this Body and Blood by this mixture, but if you conſider them ſeparately, they are not the very Body and Blood of Chriſt, but are only joyned to them. The Archbiſhop of Philadelphia ſay's the ſame thing in uſing the ſame compariſon, as the Souls of the Saints, ſay's he, being brought to the light of the Divinity which enlightens them, become Gods only by participation, and not by nature, ſo theſe Particles, altho united to the Fleſh and Blood of Jeſus Chriſt, are not changed, but receive holineſs by participation. After this Mr. Arnaud concludes in theſe words, it is as clear as the day, that all this has no ſence, but only as it relates to the Doctrine of Tranſubſtantiation, and that as theſe Authors ſuppoſe theſe Particles are not tranſubſtantiated, ſo they ſuppoſe the greateſt portion which is offered in the name of Jeſus Chriſt, and from which alone is taken what is reſerved for the ſick, is effectually tranſubſtantiated, and becomes the very Body of Jeſus Chriſt.
BUT I ſhall not ſtick to tell him, his Philoſophy deceives him, for theſe Authors do not diſpute on this Point, that is to ſay whether theſe Particles are tranſubſtantiated or not. But whether they are made the Body of Jeſus Chriſt in the ſame manner as the great Portion. And this does in truth ſuppoſe that the great Portion becomes this Body, but not that it is tranſubſtantiated. The compariſon they uſe does not favour this pretended ſuppoſition, for they mean no more by it than this, that as the Saints are indeed united unto God, and partake of his holineſs, but become not Gods by nature, ſo the Particles which repreſent the Saints, are really united with the great one which repreſents our Saviour Chriſt, and partake of its Sanctification, but they become not effectually what the great one is made, to wit, the Body of Jeſus Chriſt. And this is their reaſoning which does not ſatisfie us how the great Particle is made this Body, whether by a Subſtantial Converſion, or otherwiſe. And thus does Mr. Arnaud's Logick conclude nothing.
LET us ſee now the Concluſion I pretend to draw hence. Firſt, we are agreed that in Simeon's ſence theſe little Particles are bread in Subſtance, and repreſent the Saints. Now if we ſuppoſe the biggeſt ceaſes to be Bread, and is made the proper Subſtance of Jeſus Chriſt, there can be nothing more impertinent than the Ceremony of the Greeks, to place in the ſame Myſtery round about our Saviour, who is in his own proper Subſtance, not real Saints, but little morſels of Bread which repreſent them. Now methinks there is a great deal more reaſon in ſaying that the great Particle is the Myſtical Body of Jeſus Chriſt, and the ſmall ones according to their way, myſtical Saints, than to ſay that the great one is ſubſtantially Jeſus Chriſt, and the ſmall ones, are only Bread in Subſtance, and Saints in the Myſtery.
MOREOVER, what means Simeon, when he tells us, that the ſmall Apud Arcud. lib. 3. cap. 11.Particles become one with the Body and Blood of Jeſus Chriſt by mixture? which is to ſay, that when they joyn them with the great Particle in the Cup, and mix them therein together, it is no more then but one and the ſame thing. For if we ſuppoſe, that as well the great one, as the leſſer, are the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, and myſtical Saints, I find no difficulty therein, for he means that all theſe Particles put together make no more than one Myſtery, which expreſſes that perfect Unity, which is between Chriſt and his Saints, which together with him make but one Body. But if on the contrary we ſuppoſe that the firſt Particle is Jeſus Chriſt in Subſtance, there will be found nothing more abſurd than the expreſſion of this Perſon, when he tells us that little Saints made of Bread are converted into the very Subſtance of Jeſus Chriſt. He is one and the ſame with his true Saints, whether they are in Heaven or on Earth, but to ſay he becomes one and the ſame with their Figures and Repreſentations, or with Crums of Bread, which repreſent them on an Altar, is in my opinion ſuch an extravagant fancy, that we ought not to charge the Greeks with it.
IN fine Arcudius aſſures us, that 'tis cuſtomary to adminiſter theſe Particles to the People, after the ſame manner as we do the Sacrament. He ſay's indeed that Simeon and Gabriel warned the Curats not to diſtribute them in this manner to the People, but to adminiſter them with the great Particle mixt and preſſed together in the Cup. Yet, adds he, Simeon ambiguouſly Arcud. lib. 3. cap. 10.expreſſes himſelf, for he ſay's that the Particles are the Body of our Lord, when they are mixt with the Body and Blood, and are not ſo being ſeparate, and therefore the Faithful may partake of them in the Sacrament, which is to ſay, they may receive them as the real Sacrament. Now tell me I beſeech you, whether 'tis likely a man that believes the Euchariſt to be the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, in its proper Subſtance, would ſpeak after this manner. Theſe Particles, ſay's he, become the Body of our Lord when mixt, but ſeparate they are not ſo. Is it that the conjunction and mixture tranſubſtantiates them, and the ſeparation untranſubſtantiates them? If this be his meaning, why does he ſo earneſtly aſſert, that they are not conſecrated? Why does Gabriel his Diſciple, ſay, that they are not changed, altho united? He muſt certainly mean Ibid.they are the Body of Chriſt, otherwiſe than in propriety of Subſtance, and he ſufficiently explains himſelf, when he ſays in the ſecond paſſage which Mr. Arnaud has alleged, foreign, they participate Apud Arc. lib. 3. cap. 11. pag 331.of the Body and Blood of our Lord, which Mr. Arnaud underſtood not amiſs when he tranſlated it, they receive holineſs by the participation of the Body and Blood. Which is to ſay, they are made the Body and Blood by a Communication of Sanctity, which comes to them from the great Particle by means of the mixture, even to the making them capable of being given in the Communion to the Faithful. Now there are ſeveral things which do hence neceſſarily follow. For firſt, it follows that the Bread which is the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, not in Subſtance, but in Sanctification, is ſufficient for the Communion of the Faithful. Secondly, that the great Particle is the Body of Jeſus Chriſt in ſuch a manner that it may be communicated to another piece of Bread without the change of its Subſtance, and by conſequence that it is not it ſelf this Body ſubſtantially, for beſides that this manner of being the Body of Jeſus Chriſt is incommunicable, it is evident that if it could be communicated to another Subject, even to the making of it the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, it then follows that this other Subject muſt be tranſubſtantiated. In a word, Simeon's meaning is, that the great Particle is in ſuch a manner the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, that it may communicate this honour to the reſt, and make them become the Body of Jeſus Chriſt in ſuch a ſort as renders them proper for the Communion. And to the ſame effect are theſe words of Arcudius. He ſaith, ſay's he, that the Particles are the Body of our Lord, when mixt with the Body and Blood, and therefore the Faithful may receive them in the Sacrament, and theſe other words, foreign, they communicate, or participate of the Body and Blood of our Lord. It is then evident he means not that the great Particle is the Body of Chriſt in propriety of Subſtance, for this propriety cannot be communicated to another Subject, if we ſuppoſe at the ſame time as Simeon does, that this other Subject remains really Bread.
AND this is my Argument. Mr. Arnaud who ſaw the force of it, has endeavour'd to eſcape it by his uſual Artifices, for on one hand he has concealed from us what Arcudius has expresſly declared, to wit, that theſe Particles are the Body of Chriſt being mixt, and that the faithful may partake of them as of the Sacrament, and on the other, he has miſ-repreſented Simeon's ſence, and pretended it to be to his advantage. But all his Artifices cannot hinder us from perceiving that the real Sentiment of the Greek Church is; 1. That the Subſtance of Bread remains in all the Particles, that is to ſay, as well in that which is conſecrated as in all the reſt. 2. That the conſecrated Particle becomes the Body of Jeſus Chriſt in full virtue of Sanctification, and is as it were a Fountain of Grace and Divine Efficacy. 3. That the other Particles by mixture and union with the great Particle do partake of this Sanctification, and become by this means the Body and Blood of our Lord, not after a complete and perfect manner like unto the great Particle, but in a far lower degree, which is yet ſufficient to make them proper to be diſtributed to the People in the Communion, as being the Body and Blood of our Lord.
WE ſhall be confirm'd in this opinion, if we conſider the eighth Proof which I ſhall here offer. It conſiſts in that the Greeks believe the Euchariſt conſecrated on Holy Thurſday, to have a greater efficacy than that which is conſecrated at other times, which may be verifi'd if 'twere needful by the teſtimony of ſeveral Authors. See here what Prareolus ſay's; They aſſure us, ſay's he, that this excellent myſtery conſecrated on the day in which our Saviour celebrated his Supper, that is to ſay, on Thurſday in the Holy Week, hath a more excellent virtue, and is more efficatious than when 'tis conſecrated on other days, Prercol. Elem. Hereſ. lib. 7. pag. 201.and 'tis for this reaſon, according to Guy Le Carmes Relation, that they conſecrate the Euchariſt (for the ſick) on no other day of the year than in that wherein our Saviour made his laſt Supper, which they keep all the year only for this purpoſe. John de Lasko Archbiſhop of Gneſne, and Ambaſſadour from the King of Poland to Leo X. in the year 1514, relates the ſame thing of the Moſcovites, whoſe Religion as every one knows, is in a manner the ſame with that of the Greeks. As to the Sacrament of the Euchariſt, ſay's he, which they conſecrate Raynald ad ann. 1514.on the day in which our Lord made his laſt Supper, they ſay that this only is proper for the ſick, and not that which is conſecrated at other times, ſo that they conſecrate Bread on that day for the whole year, in a Chalice prepared for that purpoſe, and put it dry and full of maggots (as it is) into the mouth of the ſick with a ſpoon. Poſſevin the Jeſuit in the writing he preſented to the great Duke of Muſcovia in the year 158…. In which he reckons up the Errours of the Greeks, eſpecially remarks this as one of the chief; They err, ſay's he, Poſſevin in Moſc pag. 43.in ſaying the moſt excellent Sacrament of the Euchariſt, which is conſecrated on the day in which our Lord made his laſt Supper, is more efficacious and of greater virtue than that which is conſecrated on other days. Anthony Caucus Archbiſhop of Corcyra in his Relation of the Errors of the Greeks to Pope Gregory the XIII. obſerves likewiſe in the 14th. Article; That they hold the Sacrament of the Euchariſt, which is conſecrated on the day in which our Lord made his laſt Supper, has a greater virtue than that conſecrated on other times. Allatius mentions this Article of Caucus, amongſt others, which he cenſures as calumnies; but altho he is very earneſt to refute this Archbiſhop, and treats him as unworthily as may be, without any reſpect to his Dignity, even to the calling of him, os durum & Stygium, non niſi mentiri gnarum, yet has not he Allat. de perpet. conſ. lib. 3. cap. 17.dared to touch on this Article in particular, and his outrages only confirm in this regard the Authority of Caucus, and the truth of his Relation.
ALPHONSUS de Caſtro attributes this ſame opinion to the Greeks. Alphonſus de Caſtro. adv. baereſ. lib. 6. tit. de Euchar. haereſ. 9.He alledges for this effect, the Teſtimony of Guy Carmus; and altho he has been accuſtomed not to ſpare him in his cenſures whenſoever he can find the leaſt occaſion, yet does he agree with him in this particular, ſaying, we muſt not wonder if the Greeks be in this Errour, ſeeing the Genius of that People lies, in expreſſing themſelves after a vain manner, and in inventing of Fables.
ARCUDIUS confirms the ſame thing, There are, ſay's he, People ſo Areud. lib. 3. cap. 55.impertinent, as to believe, the Holy Euchariſt which is prepared on that day (Holy Thurſday) hath a greater virtue to ſanctifie them who receive it, than that which is conſecrated on another day. As if it were not ſtill the ſame Jeſus Chriſt, or as if our Lord was at ſometimes more powerful than at others.
IF it be demanded what conſequence we can hence draw againſt Tranſubſtantiation; I anſwer it appears plain enough in it ſelf. For if we ſuppoſe the Greeks hold the Euchariſt to be made the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, in virtue and efficacy, by means of this abundant ſanctification which the Bread receives, we ſhall not find any abſurdity in this other Opinion, which they hold, concerning the Euchariſt conſecrated on Holy Thurſday, namely, that it is more efficacious than that conſecrated on other days, for this ſanctification of the Bread, and quickning Grace which accompanies it may have its degrees; it receives more and leſs, as the Schoolmen ſpeak; but if you ſuppoſe the Euchariſt to be made the Body of Jeſus Chriſt by converſion of Subſtance, this more and this leſs, which they imagine, cannot be admitted; it is true indeed that the Sacrament will produce various effects, according to the various diſpoſitions of the Perſons who receive it, and according as there ſhall be more or leſs devotion in a man's Soul, it will feel more or leſs the ſtrength of Grace, but the cauſe will be in them who ſhall receive the Sacrament, and not in the Sacrament it ſelf, nor in the day of its Conſecration. If the Bread becomes the proper Subſtance of the Son of God, it is always of equal virtue in it ſelf; and the time of Conſecration, can neither encreaſe nor diminiſh it. It is then ſcarcely to be imagined, that Perſons who believe Tranſubſtantiation, can fall into this other Opinion; for is it not the ſame Subſtance, the ſame Jeſus Chriſt perſonally, is it not one and the ſame Converſion, which terminates it ſelf in the ſame Subject? Whence then can proceed this more and leſs? Would they ſay that the Tranſubſtantiation is made more on one day than another? This thought cannot happen in the mind of thoſe that know what Tranſubſtantiation means. Do they mean that the Body of Jeſus Chriſt has greater virtue in it one day than another? This thought likewiſe cannot happen in the mind of thoſe that know what our Saviour is. Do they hereby only mean that he diſplays a greater efficacy one day than another, altho he has ever the ſame meaſure of it in himſelf? It is certain that this more and this leſs of Grace, which the Faithful receive in the Communion (ſuppoſing we take the proper Subſtance of Jeſus Chriſt with the mouths of our Bodies) cannot proceed from any other cauſe, but that of more or leſs devotion, which we bring with us to the Lord's Table. So that this Opinion of the Greeks being found inconſiſtant with that of Tranſubſtantiation, and moreover it not appearing clearly to us that they have this latter, whereas it is plainly manifeſt they have the other, we are obliged to conclude they hold not the ſubſtantial Converſion. I know we muſt not imagine that men do always ſo exactly adjuſt their Sentiments, that they never contradict themſelves; and I acknowledge the Greeks are ignorant enough to have on the ſame Subject contradictory Opinions, but beſides that there are certain palpable contradictions, of which few men how bruitiſh ſoever they be are capable, as this would be to believe that the Euchariſt is the proper Subſtance of the Son of God, and yet to be of a more excellent virtue being conſecrated on Holy Thurſday than on other days; beſides this I ſay, ſeeing it does not expreſly and clearly appear to us from any thing elſe that they believe Tranſubſtantiation, it is far more juſt to give to their Terms, on the ſubject of the Change which happens to the Bread, a ſence which agrees with this aforementioned belief, than to give them another which wholly contradicts it, and makes them ridiculous. If they muſt be led to the Subſtantial Converſion, or carried off from it by way of explication of their general expreſſions, there is more reaſon to expound them in a ſence conformable to their other Opinions, than to make them guilty of manifeſt abſurdities.
WOULD Mr. Arnaud lay aſide for a while this Perſonal Intereſt wherewith he ſeems to be tranſported in this Diſpute, and conſider things without paſſion; I am perſwaded he would ſoon acknowledge that the ſence he imputes to the Greeks has no reſemblance with the Terms of their Liturgies, nor other uſual expreſſions. As for example, we would know how we muſt underſtand this Clauſe of their Liturgies, Make this Bread the precious Body of thy Chriſt, and that which is in this Cup the precious Blood of thy Chriſt, changing them by the virtue of thy Holy Spirit. Mr. Arnaud underſtands them as mentioning a change of Subſtance; I ſay on the contrary, theſe are general Terms, to which we cannot give at fartheſt any more than a general ſence, and that if they muſt have a particular and determinate one, we muſt underſtand them in the ſence of a Myſtical change, and a change of Sanctification, which conſiſts in that the Bread is to us in the ſtead of the Natural Body of Jeſus Chriſt, that it makes deep impreſſions of him in our Souls, that it ſpiritually communicates him to us, and that 'tis accompani'd with a quickning grace which ſanctifies it, and makes it to be in ſome ſence one and the ſame thing with the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, and yet does not this hinder but that the Natural Subſtance of Bread remains. Let us examine the Liturgies themſelves, to ſee which of theſe two ſences are moſt agreeable thereunto.
WE ſhall find in that which goes under the name of St. Chryſoſtom, and which is the moſt in uſe amongſt the Greeks, that immediately after the Prieſt has ſaid, Make this Bread to become the precious Body of thy Chriſt, and that Euchar. Graecorum Jacobi Goar & Bibl. patr. Graecor. Lat. Tom. 2.which is in the Chalice the precious Blood of thy Chriſt, changing them by thy Holy Spirit, he adds, to the end they may purifie the Souls of thoſe that receive them, that is to ſay, be made a proper means to purifie the Soul, by the remiſſion of its ſins and communication of the Holy Spirit, &c. Theſe words do ſufficiently explain what kind of change we muſt underſtand by them, namely, a change of Sanctification and virtue, for did they mean a change of Subſtance, it ſhould have been ſaid, changing them by thy Holy Spirit, to the end they may be made the proper Subſtance of this Body and Blood, or ſome ſuch like expreſſions.
In the Liturgy, which goes under the name of St. James, we find almoſt the ſame thing; Send, ſay's it, thy Holy Spirit upon us and theſe Holy Gifts lying Bibliot. Patr. Graeco. Lat. Tom. 2.here before thee, to the end that he coming may ſanctifie them by his holy, good and glorious preſence; and make this Bread to become the Holy Body of thy Chriſt, and this Chalice the precious Blood of thy Chriſt, to the end it may have this effect to all them which ſhall receive it, namely, purifie their Souls from all manner of ſin, and make them abound in good works, and obtain everlaſting life. And this methinks does ſufficiently determine, how the Bread is made the Body of Jeſus Chriſt; to wit, in being ſanctifi'd by the preſence of his Spirit, and procuring the remiſſion of our ſins and our Sanctification.
The Liturgy which bears the name of St. Marc, has almoſt the ſame expreſſions, Send on us and on theſe Loaves and Chalices thy Holy Spirit, that he Ibid.may ſanctifie and conſecrate them, even as God Almighty; and make the Bread, the Body, and the Cup the Blood of the New Teſtament of our Lord God and Saviour Jeſus Chriſt, our Sovereign King; to the end they may become to all thoſe who ſhall participate of them, a means of obtaining Faith, Sobriety, Health, Temperance, a regeneration of Soul and Body, the participation of Felicity, Eternal Life, to the glory of thy great name. A Perſon whoſe mind is not wholly prepoſſeſſed with prejudice, cannot but perceive that this Clauſe, to the end they may become, &c. is the explication of the foregoing words, change them into the Body and Blood of Jeſus Chriſt, and that it determines them, to a change, not of Subſtance, but of Sanctification and Virtue. This Truth is ſo evident, that Arcudius has not ſcrupled to acknowledge, that if this Clauſe be taken (make this Bread the Body of thy Chriſt) in an abſolute ſence, Arcud. lib. 3. cap. 33.that is to ſay, that it be made the Body of Chriſt, not in reſpect of us, but ſimply in it ſelf) it will have no agreement nor coherence with theſe other words that follow, to the end they may be made, &c. And he makes of this a Principle, for the concluding, that the Conſecration is not performed by this Prayer, but that 'tis already perfected by the words, this is my Body, directly contrary to the Sentiment of the Greeks, who affirm 'tis made by the Prayer. So that if we apply Arcudius's Obſervation to the true Opinion of the Greek Church, to wit, that the Conſecration is performed by this Prayer, we ſhall plainly perceive that their ſence is, That the Bread is made the Body of Jeſus Chriſt in reſpect of us, inaſmuch as it ſanctifies us and effects the remiſſion of our ſins.
AND with this agrees the Term of foreign to Sanctifie, which the Greeks commonly make uſe of to expreſs the Act of Conſecration, and that of foreign, the Sanctifications, by which they expreſs their Myſteries, as appears by the Liturgies, and thoſe of foreign, the holy Gifts, the ſanctified Gifts, the holy Myſteries, the quickning Myſteries, the holy Bread, which are common expreſſions amongſt them. All which favours the change of Sanctification.
ON the other hand we ſhall find in the Liturgy of St. Chryſoſtom, that the name of Bread is given three times to the Sacrament after Conſecration, in the Pontificia four times, and in the declaration of the preſanctifi'd Bread, it is ſo called ſeven times. In the Liturgy of St. Baſil the Prieſt makes this Prayer immediately after the Conſecration, Lord, remember me Archi. Habert Apud. Goar. in Euchol.a ſinner, and as to us who participate all of us of the ſame Bread, and Cup, grant we may live in Union, and in the Communion of the ſame Holy Spirit. Likewiſe what the Latins call Ciborium, the Greeks call foreign, which is as much as to ſay, a Bread Saver, and 'tis in it wherein they put that which they call the preſanctifi'd Bread, being the Communion for the ſick. I know what is wont to be ſaid in reference to this, namely, that the Euchariſt is called Bread upon the account of its Species, that is to ſay, of its Accidents, which remain ſuſtain'd by the Almighty Power of God without a Subject; but the Greeks themſelves ſhould give us this explication; for till then we may preſume upon the favour of the natural ſignification of the Term, which we not finding attended with the Gloſs of the Latins, it muſt therefore be granted not to favour the Converſion of the Subſtances.
IT is no more favour'd by ſeveral other Clauſes in the ſame Liturgy. For in that of St. James there is a Prayer, which the Prieſt directs to our Saviour in Heaven; altho he has the Conſecrated Bread before him, foreign, ſay's he, foreign, Bibl. Patr. Graeco Lat. Tom. 2.foreign. O thou Holy One, that dwelleſt in the Holy Places, ſanctifie us by the Word of thy Grace, and coming of thy Holy Spirit. We find this ſame Prayer in St. Mark's Liturgy. In thoſe of St. Baſile, and Chryſoſtom, there is another directed after the ſame manner to our Saviour in Heaven. Look down we beſeech thee, ſay's it, O Lord Jeſus Chriſt our God, from the Holy Place of thy Habitation, and Throne of thy Glory, which is in thy Kingdom, and come to ſanctifie us, thou that ſitteſt at the right hand of the Father, and art here with us inviſibly. Mr. Arnaud perverts theſe laſt words, and who art here inviſibly with us, not conſidering they relate to that part of the Petition, wherein, they beſeech him, to come and ſanctifie them, and that they only ſignifie this inviſible preſence of his Grace and Divinity, which he promiſed his Diſciples when he left the World, and aſcended up into Heaven. It plainly appears that the intention of the Greek Church is to ſend up their Devotions to the Place where our Saviour inhabits. How comes it to paſs, we find not at leaſt one Prayer wherein is expreſſed, that he has clothed the proper Subſtance of his Humanity, with the Veil of the Accidents, or ſome ſuch like words? But on the contrary, when the Prieſt reads with a loud voice, foreign, Holy Things are for Holy Perſons, the Quire anſwers, there is only one that is Holy, only one Lord, who is Jeſus Chriſt, at the Glory of God the Father. For 'tis clear, that theſe words, at the Glory of God the Father, mean that he is above in Heaven. In the Liturgy of the preſanctifi'd (Bread,) the Prieſt thus addreſſes himſelf to God, beſeeching him, that his only Son may reſt on this Altar, by vertue of theſe dreadful Myſteries thereon Eurho. Goar.expoſed; thus manifeſtly diſtinguiſhing the Myſteries from Jeſus Chriſt, and immediately prays, That he would ſanctifie our Souls and Bodies, by a perpetual Sanctification, to the end that partaking of theſe Holy Things with a pure Conſcience, a holy aſſurance, and enlightned mind, and being quickned by them, we may be united to Jeſus Chriſt himſelf, our true God, who has ſaid, he that eateth my Fleſh and drinks my Blood, dwells in me, and I in him. By which words it is evident, that the Myſteries are plainly diſtinguiſhed from our Saviour himſelf, and that thoſe who receive them unworthily, are not united with him. In the Liturgy of St. Baſil the Prieſt prays, That receiving with the Teſtimony Ʋbi ſupra.of a pure Conſcience the Particle of the Sanctifications of God, we may be united to the Body and Blood of his Chriſt, and that receiving theſe things worthily, we may have Jeſus Chriſt dwelling in our hearts. Theſe words do moreover diſtinguiſh Jeſus Chriſt from the Sacrament he has ordained, and 'tis certain theſe Terms, of Jeſus Chriſt dwelling in our hearts, do more plainly intimate a Spiritual Communion, than a corporeal one. In fine in this ſame Liturgy the Prieſt having performed his Office in this particular, makes a Prayer unto God, in which he recapitulates whatſoever has paſſed in this Myſtical Celebration; but mentions not the leaſt tittle concerning Tranſubſtantiation. We have, ſay's he, finiſhed and conſummated the Myſtery of thy Oeconomy, O Jeſus Chriſt our God, as far as we have been able. For we have celebrated the memory of thy Death, we have beheld the Figure of thy Reſurrection, we have been filled with thy never fading Life, and been made partakers of thy immortal Pleaſures, grant we may be found worthy to enjoy the ſame in the World to come. Is it not a wonderful thing there ſhould not in all this be the leaſt mention of the converſion of the Subſtances, which is yet in the ſence of the Roman Church the moſt eſſential part of that Myſtery, that whereunto all the reſt does tend, and whereon depends ſo much, that the reſt without this would ſignifie nothing. Let Mr. Arnaud alledge what he pleaſes, 'tis not to be imagin'd the Greek Church would forget this part of the Myſtery in ſuch a ſolemn recapitulation which it makes to God at the end of its Office, did ſhe in effect believe any other Change in the Bread, than that of its Virtue and Holyneſs.