The Catholic Doctrine of the Eucharist in All Ages, Book 3 · Chapter 8
CHAP. VIII.
The Fourteenth Proof taken from that the Greeks when ever they argue touching the Azyme, do carry on their Disputes upon this Principle, That the Sacrament is ſtill real Bread after its Conſecration. The Fifteenth, from the little care they take to preſerve the Subſtance of the Sacrament. The Sixteenth, from a Paſſage of Oecumenius.
WE know very well that the Greeks conſecrate the Euchariſt with leaven'd Bread, and that there is touching this Point, between them and the Latins, ſo ſtiff a Controverſie, that the Greeks believe their Altars are polluted when the Latins have perform'd their Service thereon, and therefore when ever this happens, they waſh them with exceeding great care before they uſe them. I ſhall not trouble my ſelf, or Reader, with mentioning here any thing touching the beginning or progreſs of this Diſpute, all that I aim at here, being only to give farther light to the queſtion I handle. It ſeems to me then no hard matter in reading their Books concerning this Point, to know what their real belief is touching Tranſubſtantiation, for we find them continually arguing from this Principle, that the Euchariſt is ſtill Bread after Conſecration.
AND this appears by the Letters of Michael Cerularius, and Leo Biſhop of Acrida, to John Biſhop of Tranis in the Kingdom of Naples; for giving an account of the Inſtitution of the Holy Sacrament, they add, obſerve how our Saviour has called under the New Teſtament the Bread his Body. This expreſſion Bibliot. Pa…. Tom. 4. …d…t. 4.let Mr. Arnaud ſay what he will, does not well agree with the belief of Tranſubſtantiation; for according to this Doctrine it may be affirm'd, that our Saviour has made Bread his Body and changed it into his Body; but it cannot be ſaid with good ſence, that he calls the Bread his Body, ſeeing this latter expreſſion ſignifies, he attributes to the Bread the name of his Body, which ſuppoſes the Bread remains, and receives the name of the Body of Jeſus Chriſt. Yet do we meet with theſe kind of expreſſions not only in Michael Cerularius, but in the Triode of the Greeks which is one of their Eccleſiaſtical Books, foreign, ſay they, having likewiſe related the words of the Inſtitution foreign Allat de lib. Eccleſ. Graec. diſſ. 2.foreign, Obſerve that he calls the Bread his Body and not an Azyme, let them then be aſhamed that offer in the Sacrifice unleaven'd Bread. It appears by the Diſpute which bears the name of Gennadius, that this Paſſage Gennad p…o Concil. Flor. cap. 2 ſect. 7. Book 10.is frequently uſed by the Greeks. And Mr Arnaud has obſerv'd that Jeremias and Photius Patriarchs of Conſtantinople expreſs themſelves in this ſame manner, Jeſus Chriſt called the Bread his Body, the Wine his Blood; He aſſures us that Jeremias believed Tranſubſtantiation, but whether he did or not we ſhall ſee hereafter; He likewiſe tell us that Photius joyns this expreſſion with that which naturally denotes Tranſubſtantiation, to wit, that the common Bread is changed into the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, foreign, but this is meer mockery to deſire us to believe that a Term ſo general as is that of foreign, does naturally ſignifie a Converſion of Subſtance.
IN the ſecond place the Greeks are wont in this Controverſie to reproach Bibl. Patr. Tom. 4. Edit. 4.the Latins with their eating the Jewiſh Azyme, and that they eat it as a Figure of the Fleſh of Chriſt, You offer to God in Sacrifice, ſay's Nicetas Pectoratus, the Azyme and dead Bread of the Jews, and eat it as a Figure of the true and living Fleſh of Jeſus Chriſt; and a little further, he that makes the Azyme, and eats it, altho he has not taken this Cuſtom from the Jews, yet does he in this imitate them, and his Knowledge is no greater than that of a Jew. They apply to this occaſion the Eleventh Canon of the Sixth Council in Trullo, which forbids the eating of the Azyme of the Jews, and this is near upon the ſame Language of all the reſt of the Greeks. But theſe expreſſions would be extravagant did they not ſuppoſe that which we eat in the Euchariſt to be real Bread; for to eat the Body of Jeſus Chriſt under the Accidents of an Azyme, is not to eat the Azyme of the Jews, and in effect thoſe amongſt the Latins that have refuted them touching this Article have not fail'd to tell them, that after the Converſion 'tis no longer Bread, neither leaven'd nor unleaven'd, but the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, and that in ſuppoſing this Converſion, the Queſtion concerning the Azyme's is ſuperfluous, as appears in an Anonymous Treatiſe in the Bibliotheca Patrum, and in a Letter of Pope Gregory the 9th. which Mr. Arnaud mentions in the Tenth Chapter of his Third Book.
IT appears likewiſe by a Treatiſe attributed to Gennadius, the Patriarch of Conſtantinople, that at the Council of Florence, wherein 'twas ordain'd the Prieſts ſhall conſecrate the Body of Jeſus Chriſt with leavened Bread, and with the Azyme, every one according to the Cuſtom of his own Church, the Greeks that rejected the Union thus loudly expreſſed themſelves, ſaying, Gennad. pro Concil. Flor. cap. 2 ſect. 1.That the Council had divided the Myſtery of the New Teſtament into two Parts, and made two Bodies of Jeſus Chriſt, the one of unleavened, and th'other of leavened Bread. Which Language would be very improper in the mouths of Perſons who believe Tranſubſtantiation; for beſides that this would not be two Bodies, but one alone under the different Species, it ſhould at leaſt have been ſaid they had ſet up two Bodies, one made of leaven'd th'other of unleaven'd Bread.
WE find that the Greeks in this ſame Controverſie, to ſhew unleavened Bread ought not to be uſed in this Myſtery, affirm that Leaven is the ſame thing to Bread, as the Soul is to the Body, becauſe Bread receives elevation by means of the Leaven, ſo that they call leavened Bread, living Bread, as being that which has Spirits, and on the contrary the Azyme dead Bread, a dead Lump, unfit to repreſent the living Body of Jeſus Chriſt; and thereupon they ground this Accuſation, that the Latins eat a dead Lump, inanimate Bread, and not the Body of Jeſus Chriſt which is of the ſame Subſtance as ours, and is not void of Soul, as taught the Heretick Apollinarius. We may find this kind of arguing in Cerularius his Letter, in that of Nicetas Pectoratus, and in the Anſwers of Cardinal Humbert, and likewiſe deſcrib'd at large in the Anonymous Author I mention'd, The Chriſtians Eaſter, ſay's he, Bibl Patr. Tom 4, Edit. 4.was celebrated, not with unleaven'd Bread, but on the contrary with that which is leaven'd; to ſet forth the Perfection of Jeſus Chriſt. For our Lord has united to himſelf two Natures in one Perſon; and as the Divine Nature is moſt ſimple, ſo the humane Nature is compoſed of Soul and Body, or Fleſh. There being then in Jeſus Chriſt the Divinity, the Soul and the Body, ſo likewiſe in the Myſtery of the Sacrament which we celebrate with compleat Bread, that is to ſay with leavened Bread, there are three things, namely, Flower, Leaven, and Water. But yours, far from being a true Sacrament, is no Sacrament at all, being ſo different from the Truth. But we find this arguing more clearly expreſſed in a Letter of the Patriarch of Antioch to the Biſhop of Aquila: Thoſe, ſay's he, that Auctar Combeſis, Tom 2. in not. ad Iſaaci arm. Cath. ambas inv.partake of the Azyme are in danger of falling into the Hereſie of Apollinarius, who did not ſtick to affirm that the Son of God took of the Virgin Mary a Body deſtitute of Soul and Reaſon, affirming the Divinity was to him in ſtead of the rational Soul. The Azyme then which has neither Salt nor Leaven, is it not dead and inanimate, and worthy in effect of Death? Our Lord Jeſus Christ who is perfect God and Man has two Natures, and one only Hypoſtaſis, having taken of the Holy Virgin a living Body indued with Underſtanding, and given us the Myſtery of the New Teſtament by means of perfect Bread. Suppoſing the Bread of the Euchariſt to be a Myſtery that repreſents Jeſus Chriſt, its Subſtance ſtill exiſting, it will then be no hard matter to comprehend this reaſoning of the Greeks; for they mean, that the lump of Bread repreſents the Body of Chriſt, the Leaven his Soul, or Life, and the Salt his Underſtanding, or Reaſon, wherefore they ſay, that the Leaven ſtands for the Soul, and the Salt for the Underſtanding: So that partaking of this Bread, we myſtically eat the animate and living Body of Jeſus Chriſt, ſuch as it is in effect, and not ſuch a one as Apollinarius dreamt of. Whereas thoſe that partake of an Azyme, do only myſtically eat inanimate Fleſh. But ſuppoſe, theſe People be lieved Tranſubſtantiation, and judge then of their meaning. They that celebrate the Euchariſt, ſay they, with unleavened Bread eat a dead Lump, how ſo? They eat not the Subſtance of the Azyme, but that of the living Fleſh of Jeſus Chriſt. They offer, ſay they, Fleſh that is dead. How ſo again, if they offer'd it in its proper Subſtance ſuch as it now is, that is to ſay living? They eat not the Body of Jeſus Chriſt which is conſubſtantial with us, becauſe they eat an inanimate Azyme. But it is falſe that they eat the Azyme, they receive only the colours and appearances of it, in the ſame manner as others take the colours and appearances of leaven'd Bread. Their Sacrament is not indeed a Sacrament, differing ſo greatly from the Truth. Their Sacrament being the Truth it ſelf, it can admit of neither difference nor reſemblance. Who ſees not theſe People are unintelligible if we imagine they argue from the Principle of Tranſubſtantiation? For if they only mean, that the matter of the Sacrament muſt be leaven'd Bread to become proper to be changed into the real Body of Jeſus Chriſt, they muſt conſider it in the time preceding the Conſecration; as for inſtance, were I to ſhew that theſe Stones are not proper to build a Pallace, I muſt conſider them in the time preceding the Building. Common ſence leads us to this. But theſe People on the contrary are wont almoſt always to conſider it in the time which follows the Conſecration. You partake, ſay's Nicetas, of an inanimate Azyme, you offer to God an Azyme, being the dead Bread of the Jews; You are fed from the Hebrews Table, and not from the living and rational Table of the Lord. You communicate with the Jews, ſay's Cerularius, you eat a dead Lump, ſay's the Author of the Treatiſe of the Auctar. Com. bef. Tom. 2 in not ad Iſ. Armen. in.Azymes againſt the Armenians, you receive an Azyme, you offer an Azyme, being dead Fleſh, whereas Jeſus Chriſt has given his Myſtery, foreign, with perfect Bread. All this does very ill accord with the Belief of Tranſubſtantiation.
NEITHER will it be leſs difficult to reconcile it with ſome other expreſſions uſed by the Greeks in this ſame Controverſie, as with that of Nicetas, which I already mention'd; You offer in Sacrifice to God the Azyme, the Nicet. pect. in Lat. Bib. Patr. …4.dead or unleavened Bread of the Jews, which you eat as a Figure of the true and living Fleſh of our Lord; and that which he adds ſoon after. You ſay that the Apoſtles receiv'd the Azymes of Jeſus Chriſt, and that they left 'em to you▪ for the celebrating of the Myſtery as a repreſentation of the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, And that of John Citrius which I already likewiſe mention'd, We offer in Sacrifice leavened Bread for the Body of our Lord, foreign. And that of the Patriarch of Antioch, the Leaven ſtands for the Soul, and the Apud. Allat. Perpet Conſ. lib. 3. cap. 12. Sigiſm. Reg. Moſc. Com.Salt for the Underſtanding. And that of John the Metropolitan of Ruſſia in his Letter to the Pope, or rather to the Archbiſhop of Rome, as he calls him, Jeſus Chriſt gave not to his Diſciples an Azyme, but Bread when he ſaid, Behold the Bread which I give you. Let Mr. Arnaud pretend what he will, yet I really believe theſe expreſſions do not well pleaſe him. He may tell us the Euchariſt may be conſider'd in two different reſpects; and that when 'tis looked upon in reference to its external Vail, 'tis called a Figure and Bread, and yet the Doctrine of Tranſubſtantiation receive no prejudice thereby. But this will not ſatisfie the World, for 'tis plainly apparent, the ſence of Nicetas and other Authors reaches farther than this; for to ſay, we offer dead Bread, unleavened Bread, and figuratively eat it as the Fleſh of Jeſus Chriſt, that our Saviour gave Bread to his Diſciples, that he told them 'twas Bread he gave them, that this Bread, ſhould ſignifie his Body, the Leaven his Soul, and the Salt his Underſtanding, this is not a bare conſideration of ſimple Accidents. But 'tis on the contrary to ſuppoſe, that the Bread remains, for we can neither offer, nor eat, dead Bread, a dead Lump, unleavened Bread, the figurative Bread of the Fleſh of Jeſus Chriſt, if it does not remain Bread in its real Subſtance. The Bread can neither ſtand for the Body, nor the Leaven for the Soul, nor the Salt for the Underſtanding, if in effect this Bread, this Leaven and Salt do not any longer ſubſiſt, but give place to the Body, Soul, and Underſtanding of Jeſus Chriſt. Mr. Arnaud, may tell us, if he pleaſes, that Agapius his Monk of Mount Athos, who taught Tranſubſtantiation makes uſe of this way of ſpeaking, that the Euchariſt is to us in the ſtead of Jeſus Chriſt, wee ſhall find he is a Perſon that would not wholly eſtrange himſelf from the expreſſions of the Greeks, if it be true that he received the Doctrine of the Latins. But we muſt go on with our proofs.
OUR Fifteenth Proof, ſhall be drawn from the little care the Greeks take to preſerve the Subſtance of the Sacrament after its Conſecration. For it is not to be imagin'd ſuppoſing their Belief to be the ſame with that of the Church of Rome, they would be ſo neglectful of it, and diſreſpectful to it as they are. I have already related in my Anſwer to the Perpetuity what Cardinal Humbert wrote from Conſtantinople, touching their Cuſtom of burying under Ground the remains of the Communion, and letting fall the Crums thereof, without troubling themſelves about them. When you break, ſay's Humbert. contr. Nic. Bib. Patr. Tom. 4. Edit. 4.he, the Holy Bread, or receive it, you are not concerned at the Crums falling down on the Ground. Neither are you more careful when you wipe the Diſhes after an undecent manner, with the Leaves of Palm-trees, or Bruſhes made with Hogsbriſtles. Some among you gather up the Body of Chriſt with ſo great irreverence that you fill boxes with it, and to prevent the ſcattering of the Crums, preſs them down with your hands. They eat likewiſe what is left of the Oblation after the ſame manner as common Bread, and ſometimes ſo much of it, till they glut themſelves with it, and what they cannot eat they bury under Ground, or throw it into Wells. He in another place ſeverely cenſures the Cuſtom of the Greeks; To bury, ſay's he, the Euchariſt, as ſome are ſaid to do, or put it in Bottles, or ſcatter it about, is certainly a great neglect, and ſign, that ſuch have Humbert contr. G…. Calumn.not the fear of God before their eyes. For the Holy and Divine Myſteries are the Faith of Chriſtians. And in another place, in anſwer to Cerularius, who boaſted that he would teach great and excellent things, are theſe, ſay's he, thoſe great and excellent things you ſpeak of, to place the Oblation on the Altar Ibid.in ſo great a quantity, that neither the Miniſters nor People, can devour it, but you muſt bury it, or throw it into Wells made for that purpoſe?
THE Anonymous Author of the Treatiſe againſt the Greeks obſerves the ſame thing with Humbert, At Eaſter, ſay's he, when the People receive the Bibl. Patr. Tom. 4 Edit. 4.Communion, they provide abundance of Bread, and conſecrate it all; and becauſe the heaps which are left, cannot be kept, they bury them.
THIS Cuſtom of burying the Euchariſt remains ſtill amongſt the Greeks; for the Jeſuit Richard relates, that a poor Woman of the Iſle of Saint Erinis, had no ſooner received the Holy Communion, but ſhe brought it up again by reaſon Relation of the Iſle of St. Erin. chap. 17. p. 2…0.of the weakneſs of her ſtomach, and that the Greek Prieſt, who gave it her before he confeſſed her, did not ſcruple to take up what ſhe had vomited and bury it, together with the Sacred Particles at the foot of his Altar, for which fact he was blam'd by the other Papa's, who would have him bury it on the Sea-ſhore, judge then, adds he, how great is the ignorance of theſe Greek Prieſts, and how great our Saviour's patience to bear this? He undoubtedly ſaw all theſe diſorders and indignities he was to ſuffer, when he inſtituted this Divine Sacrament.
THE ſame Author, ſay's likewiſe, That their Prieſts following the Cuſtom of the Jews, let their Beards grow, which are all over wet with the Lord's Blood Tract. contr. Bibl. Patr. Tom. 4. Arcud. lib. 3. cap. 60.when they drink. Arcudius reproaches them in the ſame manner. The Greek Prieſts, ſay's he, receive the Euchariſt very undecently, for taking the conſecrated Bead they graſp it cloſe in their hands, and ſo lift it up on their heads, (I ſuppoſe they do this as a ſign of Honour and Veneration) and having eaten the Euchariſt, and recited ſome Praiſes, they lift up their hands to their heads and ſtroke them, for it commonly happens that ſome Crums ſtick thereon. As ſoon as they have drank the Blood, they do not ſcruple to wipe their Beards with their hands, or handkerchiefs, as if they had drank common Wine; and foraſmuch as they let their Beards grow, and never cut their Mouſtaches, it frequently happens that drops of Blood fall from them on the Holy Veſtments, or Altar, and not ſeldom on the Ground. He farther adds, That the Rubrick of their Liturgy deceives them, and that theſe words ſhould be corrected, after the Priest has wiped his lips and the brims of the Sacred Chalices, with the Veyl he has in his hands, he calls the Deacon. Sacranus ſpeaking of the Ruſſians, ſay's likewiſe, That they give the Communion to the People in naſty wooden Spoons, and wipe off the Crums which ſtick thereon with a cloth, letting them fall on the Ground.
THEY are far from being ſcrupulous, and taking that care the Roman Church does, to prevent the Euchariſts being eaten by Vermin, for the Rats may run away with great pieces of it, and yet they not concerned thereat. Manuel the Patriarch of Conſtantinople (whom Binius ranks in the Seventh Century) being askt by one of his Biſhops what puniſhment he thought a Prieſt deſerv'd, who let a Mouſe run away with the conſecrated Bread, coldly anſwered, That thoſe to whom theſe miſchances happen are not to be blamed, becauſe theſe things are uſual; Multa enim ejuſmodi ſaepe accidunt. If the like Queſtions were offer'd to a Latin Biſhop, 'tis not to be doubted but he would inſiſt on the care that ought to be taken for the prevention of theſe inconveniencies, and inſtead of ſlighting the matter and excuſing the Prieſt, as this Patriarch does, by ſaying this often happens, he would on the contrary invent all ways imaginable to prevent this from ever hap'ning.
LET Mr. Arnaud if he pleaſes reflect a little on all theſe things. How is it poſſible theſe People would ſhew ſo little reverence and ſo great neglect to the Subſtance of the Sacrament, did they believe it to be the proper Subſtance of their Saviour? They eat thereof as common Bread till they have glutted themſelves, they bury it, and caſt it into Wells, and when any Crums thereof fall to the Ground, or ſtick on their hair, they are not all concerned thereat. They ſpill the conſecrated Wine on their Beards, on the Altar, yea on the Ground, and matter it not, and their Liturgy enjoyns them to wipe their lips with their handkerchers when they have received the Communion, to which we may add what I related in the foregoing Chapter, that they let the Sacrament hang a whole year in a linnen bag on a nayl, expoſed to the mercy of worms, according to the expreſs teſtimony of Sacranus, and the Archbiſhop of Gneſne. Now what congruity has all this with the belief of Tranſubſtantiation? Mr. Arnaud may diſtinguiſh, if he pleaſes, between the neceſſary Conſequences, and thoſe of congruity, yet all his Philoſophy falls ſhort of perſwading us that theſe practices are conſiſtent with the belief, that 'tis no longer the Subſtance of Bread, but the proper Subſtance of the Body and Blood of Chriſt.
I ſhall finiſh this Chapter with a paſſage taken out of Oecumenius, which ſhall be my Seventeenth Proof. This Author (who is famous amongſt the Greeks and lived in the Eleventh Century) expounding theſe words of Saint Peter, Let your Converſation be honeſt among the Gentiles, that whereas they ſpeak ill of you as of evil doers, they may glorifie God; Saint Peter, ſay's he, ſpeaks here of the falſe Accuſations of the Heathens, and if you would know the particulars thereof, read what Ireneus Biſhop of Lyons has written touching the Martyrs Sanctus, and Blandina, and you will be perfectly informed. This in few words is an account thereof. The Greeks having taken ſome Slaves belonging to the Chriſtian Catecumeniſts, uſed great violence towards them to make them confeſs the Chriſtians Myſteries, and the Slaves not knowing what to ſay to pleaſe thoſe that ſo rudely handled them, remembred they heard their Maſters relate that the Holy Communion was the Body and Blood of Chriſt, imagining that 'twas, In effect Fleſh and Blood. Whereupon they taking this as if the Chriſtians were wont REALLY to eat and drink human Fleſh and Blood made report hereof to all the other Greeks, and by torments forced the Martyrs, Sanctus, and Blandina to confeſs it. But Blandina afterwards very pertinently demanded of them, how they could imagine People who out of Devotion did abſtain from eating Fleſh (whoſe uſe was permitted them,) ſhould do any ſuch thing.
THIS paſſage may be conſidered in two reſpects, either as being of St. Ireneus or Oecumenius. I know very well there are ſeveral Learned men that believe Oecumenius was miſtaken in relating this Story as if it came from Saint Ireneus, and in effect, we do not thus find it in the Letter of the Churches of Vienna and Lyons produced by Euſebius. But in the ſecond reſpect, under which I now offer it, we may certainly conclude that 'twas the Sentiment of Oecumenius himſelf. For how can we ſuppoſe he would call the belief of the Slaves and Heatheniſh Inquiſitors a miſtake, That the Holy Communion did in effect conſiſt of Fleſh and Blood, and that the Chriſtians did really do this. Wherefore would he reckon this Errour amongſt the Slanders of the Heathens? Wherefore ſhould he introduce Blandina refuting this Imagination had he himſelf believed the Communion to be in effect and reality the Fleſh and Blood of Chriſt in its proper Subſtance, and had this been the real Sentiment of his Church? How came it to paſs, he did not endeavour to mollifie and explain theſe Terms, and ſhow that Blandina was miſtaken in denying the Euchariſt to be in effect and reallity Fleſh and Blood, or that what ſhe did in this caſe was only to conceal from the Heathens, the Churches Belief in this particular, or in fine that ſhe only denied it in one ſence, to wit, that it was viſibly and ſenſibly Fleſh and Blood? How happened it, he feared not leſt the Greeks amongſt whom he lived when he gave this account would not be ſcandaliz'd at it, or the weak take hence occaſion to call in queſtion the truth of the Doctrines of Tranſubſtantiation and the real Preſence? Yet does he not trouble himſelf in ſearching after mollifying Terms or Explanations, and the manner in which he has laid this down does clearly ſhew us that he did not in any ſort believe the Holy Communion to be really and in effect the Body and Blood of Chriſt, nor imagin'd, he affirm'd any thing contrary to the Doctrine of his Church, or which might be taken in an ill ſence.