The Catholic Doctrine of the Eucharist in All Ages, Book 4 · Chapter 10

The Catholic Doctrine of the Eucharist in All Ages · Book 4 · Chapter 10

p. 339CHAP. X.

An Examination of the Advantages which Mr. Arnaud draws from the two Councils held in Greece in the eighth Century, upon the Subject of Images, the one at Conſtantinople, and th'other at Nice.

IT cannot without doubt but trouble good People to ſee how Mr. Arnaud ſuffers his Pen to be guided by his Paſſion, and fills up his Book with Injuries, ſo ill becoming a Man of his Age and Profeſſion; making them continually the Subject of his Eloquence: Yet in truth are we obliged to him for this way of proceeding, not only for that thereby he gives us Occaſion to exerciſe our Chriſtian Patience, but does alſo himſelf furniſh us with an aſſured means of bringing his Chapters into a leſſer Compaſs. And to this end we ſhall paſs by all his perſonal Reflections as Matters which concern not our Diſpute. Let us then conſider thoſe four terrible Chapters wherein he Treats of the two Councils which were held in the eighth Century, the one at Conſtantinople againſt Images, and the other at Nice for them.

MR. Arnaud begins with the Council of Nice, that is to ſay with a Writing Lib. 7. c. 5. p. 661.which the Fathers of this Council cauſed to be read in the ſixth Seſſion, from whence he forms theſe five Propoſitions. 1ſt. That the Euchariſt was not called by the Name of Image or Figure, by the Apoſtles and Fathers after Conſecration. 2dly. That they have called it the Body it ſelf, and the Blood it ſelf. 3dly. That the Gifts are properly Body and Blood. 4ly. That they are not Images, but Body and Blood. 5ly. That it is impoſſible they ſhould be both the Image and Body of Chriſt, ſo that being the Body, they are not the Image. He moreover tells us that Anaſtaſius made uſe of the ſame Reaſoning to ſhew the Euchariſt is not an Image. That John Damaſcen likewiſe uſed it, and Nicephorus the Patriarch of Conſtantinople concludes after the ſame manner, that the Eucharist is not the Image of Chriſt, becauſe it is his Body. Whereupon Mr. Arnaud cries out, Theſe are the very things wherein Arguments are uſeleſs, and wherein the Impreſſion of Truth appears ſo plainly, that thoſe that deny it are P. 663.to be regarded as Perſons no longer to be reaſoned with. But how clear ſoever his Motives may be, we can aſſure him this comes from his Prejudice, and not from the Truth. The Underſtanding of all theſe Diſcourſes of the Adverſaries of the Iconoclaſtes, depends only on the knowing in what Sence they meant the Euchariſt is properly the Body and Blood of Chriſt. For this Point being once diſpatched, we ſhall ſoon perceive why they denyed it was an Image, and wherefore they thus reaſoned, that being an Image, it could not be the Body. p. 340We muſt obſerve all theſe Greeks have followed the Opinion of Damaſcen, and ſpeak as he does; that they borrow all his Conceptions and Expreſſions, as appears by the Writing which was read in the ſecond Council of Nice, by the Fragment of Theodorus Graptus, and Mr. Arnaud's own Author Nicephorus.

NOW after the Notices Damaſcen has given us, we can no longer doubt but their Sence is, that the Bread and Wine are made the Body and Blood of Chriſt, inaſmuch as that receiving the Supernatural Virtue of this Body and Blood, they are a Growth and Augmentation thereof, and therefore are not two Bodies, but one and the ſame Body, the proper Body of Chriſt, as the Food becomes our proper Body.

AND this will appear from the bare reading of a Paſſage in Nicephorus, Allat. de Eccleſ. Occid. & Orient. Perp. Conſenſ. Lib. 3. cap. 15.which Mr. Arnaud himſelf has related and taken from Allatius: And if it be needful, ſay's he, to explain theſe things, by what paſſes in our ſelves, as the Bread, Wine, and Water are naturally changed into the Body and Blood of thoſe that eat and drink them, and become not another Body, ſo theſe Gifts by the Prayer of him that Officiates, and Deſcent of the Holy Spirit are changed ſupernaturally into the Body and Blood of Chriſt. For this is the Contents of the Priest's Prayer, and we do not underſtand they are two Bodies; but we believe it be but one and the ſame Body. And this is the Greeks Hypotheſis, the Bread is made the proper Body of Chriſt, as the Meat we eat becomes our Body; to wit, inaſmuch as it is united to it, and receives its Form, increaſes and augments it.

THE ſame will appear if we compare the Diſcourſes of the Fathers of Conſtantinople with the Cenſure paſt on them in the Council of Nice. The Fathers of Conſtantinople called the Euchariſt, a choſen Matter, a Subſtance of Bread. Thoſe of Nice were not offended thereat; Neither at the others calling the Euchariſt, Bread filled with the Holy Spirit, an Oblation tranſlated from a common State, to a State of Holyneſs, a Body made Divine by a Sanctification of Grace: So far they agree. But when the Fathers of Conſtantinople call the Bread an Image, thoſe of Nice could not ſuffer it, neither could they bear with them in ſaying it is the Body by Inſtitution. Why do they make this Difference, but becauſe theſe firſt Expreſſions which are contrary to Tranſubſtantiation and the ſubſtantial Preſence, yet do not contradict their Hypothefis of Augmentation by an Impreſſion of Virtue, whereas the others oppoſe it? For they do not ſay the Food is the Image of our Body, nor our Body by Inſtitution, but that it becomes our Proper Body, not another; but the ſame we had before.

THIS Point being thus cleared up, it is eaſy to perceive why theſe Perſons deny'd the Euchariſt to be an Image. For it was not becauſe they believed the Subſtance of Bread did not remain, or imagined it 'twas abſolutely and by a numerical Identity (as the Church of Rome ſpeaks) the ſame ſubſtance of the Natural Body; but becauſe they believed that the Bread keeping its proper Subſtance became the proper Body of our Lord by this way of Growth or Augmentation, in receiving the Impreſſion of his Supernatural Virtue, ſo that in this Reſpect it was the ſame thing with them, whether the Bread was Virtually the Body of Chriſt, or properly. They found then that the ſimple Notion of Image was inconſiſtent with that of Propriety, and thereupon p. 341denyed the Euchariſt to be an Image or Repreſentation.

THEY Argued from the ſame Principle, when they ſaid 'tis not poſſible theſe Gifts could be both, The Body, and the Image of the Body, and being the Body, they could not be the Image of them. For they believed the Term of Image excluded this propriety of Virtue which they eſtabliſhed, and that to call them Image, was to regard them in no other manner than that wherein they were before their Conſecration.

IT is eaſy to perceive that their Arguing on the Diſcourſe of the Fathers of Conſtantinople is but a mere Sophiſm. For beſides that theſe Fathers, termed not the Euchariſt, the proper Body of Chriſt, and conſequently could not be charged with Contradiction, nor told, Si imago eſt, non poteſt eſſe hoc Divinum: beſides this I ſay, all their Subtilty lyes in a mere Quible about Words. They will not receive the Term of Imago, and yet admit thoſe of Repreſentation, a Remembrance and Symbol, as Mr. Arnaud himſelf acknowledges. We do not call (ſay's Theodorus Graptus (an Author of the ninth Century) Origin rerum que Conſtantinopl. variis autor. manipulus a Franciſ. Combefix. ubi ſupra.the ſacred Myſteries of Chriſt, the Images of his Body, altho they become Symbols thereof, foreign. Nicephorus ſay's the ſame thing, We do not call theſe Gifts, either Images or Figures of this Body, altho they be Repreſentations thereof: Which ſhews they regarded more the manner of expreſſing the Thing, than the Thing it ſelf.

BUT let us ſee what Advantage Mr. Arnaud pretends to draw hence. P. 664. 665.Firſt, he endeavours to prove that theſe Authors who wrote againſt the Iconoclaſtes did not believe 'twas contrary to the notion of an Image to contain the Virtue of the Original, nor eſtabliſhed this Principle: The Image is not the thing it repreſents, in this Sence here; The Image is not virtually the thing it repreſents. For ſay's he, In the ſame place wherein they eſtabliſh this Principle, the Image is not the thing it ſelf which it repreſents, they bring Inſtances of Images which contain really the Virtue of their Original, and even its Eſſence. Nicephorus the Patriarch of Conſtantinople who Refutes the Iconoclaſtes by the ſame Argument, by which the ſecond Council of Nice ſay's, That that which is the Image of a thing, cannot be its Body, for every Image is another thing than what it repreſents. It is True, adds he, That the Scripture calls the Son the Image of the Father, but he is likewiſe diſtinguiſhed from him by an Hypoſtaſis and Perſon.

I Anſwer Nicephorus his Sence is, that to exclude the Notion of Image, we muſt ſay it is the thing it ſelf: And on the contrary to eſtabliſh it, there muſt be no means left to ſay, it is the thing it ſelf. Now altho the Son hath the ſame Nature and Eſſence as the Father, yet we cannot ſay he is the Father, for they are different Perſons: So the Son may be well called the Image of the Father. But altho the Euchariſt be not in Subſtance the Body of Chriſt, and contains only its Virtue, yet we may very well ſay, it is this very Body, becauſe an Augmentation does not make another Body than that which was before, but is the ſame; and thus the Euchariſt cannot be called an Image.

BUT, ſay's Mr. Arnaud, The Son contains the Virtue of the Father, Nicephorus underſtands not then his own Principle, That the Image is not the thing Ibid.which it repreſents; in Mr. Claude's fantaſtical Sence, that it is not virtually the thing whoſe Image it is: For it would neceſſarily follow hence that the Son of p. 342God is not an Image, ſeeing he contains not only the Virtue, but the very Eſſence of his Father. This muſt neceſſarily follow according to Mr. Arnaud, but not according to right Reaſon; For it is true the Son contains the Eſſential Virtue of the Father, as being not the Image of his Eſſence; but he does not contain the perſonal Virtue of it, for he has not the Virtue of begetting another Son, nor according to the Greeks, that of the Emanation of the Holy Spirit, and conſequently he may well be called the Image of the Father's Perſon. Had Nicephorus underſtood his Principle in this Sence, no Image is in Subſtance the thing it repreſents, as Mr. Arnaud ſuppoſes he did, and as in Effect he muſt underſtand it to add, But the Euchariſt is in Subſtance the Body of Chriſt, it is not then the Image of it, It would ſooner and more naturally follow, that the Son of God would be in no wiſe an Image; for he moſt really contains the Nature, Eſſence, and Subſtance of his Father.

Nicephorus, adds Mr. Arnaud, Suppoſes the Euchariſt is not really diſtinguiſhed from the Body of Chriſt, and thereby proves that it is not the Figure Ibid.of it. Si igitur Sanctum corpus quod in communione ſumitur, imago Chriſti eſt, aliud dicitur eſſe praeter corpus Chriſti; That is to ſay, if the Euchariſt were an Image, it would be really a diſtinct thing from the Body of Chriſt: But it is not diſtinct from it; Therefore it is not an Image. Nicephorus will ſuppoſe the Euchariſt is not a real diſtinct thing from the Body of Chriſt, when we admit Mr. Arnaud's that is to ſay; but he will not ſuppoſe it when we ſhall conſider that the Propoſition he rejects is this, Sanctum corpus in communione quod ſumitur eſt aliud praeter corpus Chriſt. The Holy Body we receive in the Communion, is ſomething elſe beſides the Body of Chriſt: and that the contrary Propoſition which he eſtabliſhes is, Sanctum corpus quod in communione ſumitur non eſt aliud praeter corpus Chriſti: The Holy Body we receive in the Communion is nothing elce but the Body of Chriſt; That is to ſay in a Word, that they are not two Bodies, but one, becauſe the Growth of a Body does not make another Body. But this is not to ſay but that there is a true and real Difference between the Subſtance which encreaſes a thing, and the thing it ſelf which is encreaſed.

The Biſhops of Nice and Nicephorus, (ſay's moreover Mr. Arnaud) did they not know that the Water of Baptiſm and Oyl, are the Figure of the Holy Spirit according to the Fathers; which made Aubertin himſelf ſay: Docent veteres aquam & oleum poſt conſecrationem repraeſentare ſpiritum ſanctum. And were they ignorant that they contained and communicated the Virtue of it? It is ſtrange a Perſon ſo confident of his own Abilities, ſhould be ſo groſly miſtaken in what he alledges concerning Mr. Aubertin, and not obſerved that in this place Mr. Aubertin takes the Term of Repraeſentare in the Sence which Cardinal Perron gives it, for Praeſens reddere, exhibere; that is to ſay for, to make preſent, give, communicate, and not for to figurate, as appears thro the whole Sequel of his Diſcourſe. The Queſtion concerned a Paſſage of Tertullian, which bears That Chriſt repreſents his Body by the Bread: Cardinal Perron alledged that by Repreſent, we muſt underſtand, make Preſent, Communicate, Exhibit. Mr. Aubertin having ſhewed that this Expreſſion was uſed by the Fathers to ſignify to Figure, ſuppoſes Perron's Sence to be good, and ſhews thereupon that the Paſſage out of Tertullian does notwithſtanding overthrow Tranſubſtantiation; for it muſt ſtill be ſaid that the Bread remains Bread. And becauſe it might be anſwered that by the Bread we may underſtand Albertin. de Sacram. Euchar. Lib. 2. Pag. 322.the Accidents of Bread: He Refutes this Evaſion and ſay's, Docent veteres aquam & oleum poſt conſecrationem repraeſentare ſpiritum ſanctum ſicut ait p. 343Tertullianus pane repraeſentaricorpus Chriſti, ſic enim Cyrillus, ſive Author Catecheſeon illi tributatum, oleum poſt invocationem, &c. Chriſti & Spiritus ſancti chariſma eſt & divinitatis ipſius praeſentiae operativum, Sic Baſilius & Ambroſius in aqua Baptiſmi praeſentiam ſpiritus eſſe aſſerunt, Nec tamen quis dixerit per oleum & aquam intelligenda eſſe accidentia olei & aquae, Whence it appears that Mr. Arnaud can be miſtaken as well as other People, for this Paſſage of Mr. Aubertin cannot be alledged to prove the Fathers taught that Baptiſm and Oyl are the Figures of the Holy Spirit, but by a very great Miſtake.

BUT to proceed, I ſay it is not ſufficient to ſhew what the Fathers taught concerning Baptiſm and Oyl; it muſt be ſhewed that Nicephorus and the Council of Nice have expreſly called them Images of the Holy Spirit, for otherwiſe there can be nothing concluded in reſpect of them. They knew, ſay's he, that they are the Figure of the Holy Spirit according to the Fathers. But they might likewiſe as well know that the Euchariſt is the Figure, and Image of the Body of Chriſt according to the Fathers, and yet they for all that deny it, and affirm none of the Fathers ſo term it after Conſecration. Moreover Nicephorus and the Fathers of Nice may tell him, that whatſoever Virtue accompanies Baptiſm and Oyl, yet they are not made the Growth of the Holy Spirit, as the Bread and Wine of the Euchariſt are made the Growth of the Body and Blood of Chriſt, and conſequently they are not Virtually the ſame thing.

WHAT Mr. Arnaud adds, That they themſelves made uſe of the Miracles Ibid.wrought by Images, to eſtabliſh the Worſhip of them, and that the Author of the Theory of Eccleſiaſtical Matters, ſay's, That the unconſecrated Bread, which is the Type of the Virgin Mary's Body, communicated to thoſe that participated of it an ineffable Benediction. This I ſay, does not deſerve an Anſwer, for it does not appear theſe People ever attributed to Images a ſupernatural Virtue, ordinarily reſiding in them, which might make them ſay that the Images are changed into the Virtue of Chriſt, or his Saints; much leſs that the Image is a Growth of Chriſt or his Saints. And as to the Bread which according to Germain is the Type of the Virgin Marry's Body, the ineffable Benediction which he ſay's it communicates, is not the Virtue of the Virgin's Body, of which it is the Type.

NEITHER does it in fine, ſignify any thing to ſay, That the Figure refers P. 665.it ſelf to the Original, and not to the Virtue; that it is oppoſite to the Original, that 'tis from the Original from which 'tis diſtinguiſhed, that when it is deprived of Virtue, it is by Accident, and that 'tis every whit as ridiculous to ſay a Figure ceaſes to be a Figure, becauſe it becomes Efficacious, as to ſay a Statue ceaſes to be a Statue when it is gilt. For it is true that the firſt and moſt natural Oppoſition is between the Figure and the Original, and that the Figure is only oppoſed to the Virtue, inaſmuch as that by the Impreſſion of Virtue, a thing becomes in ſome ſort the Original in a proper Sence. Thus the Food we eat becomes in ſome ſort in a proper Sence the Body we had before, altho it be in effect of a diſtinct Subſtance, or Matter, ſeeing it is not the ſame Subſtance, or the ſame Matter in number, but an addition to our former Subſtance, yet do we oppoſe it to the Figure, and ſay 'tis not the Image of our Body, but our Body, our proper Body, the very Body which we had before and not another. Now it is thus the Fathers of Nice oppoſe the Figure to the Euchariſtical Bread, and ſay it ceaſes to be a Figure; to wit, then when by the Impreſſion of the ſupernatural Virtue of our Lord's Body it becomes p. 344this proper Body, not another, as we have already a thouſand times explained.

AND this is what Mr. Arnaud has ſaid of moſt Moment touching the ſecond Council of Nice, and other Adverſaries of the Iconoclaſtes. What he after adds conſiſts only in Repetitions, or Matters of ſmall Importance, and Lib. 7. c. 6. p. 678.which may be eaſily Refuted by his own Words. For Example, what he ſay's touching the Water of Baptiſm, and Oyl, that they are Figures which contain Virtue, is an Objection he has ſeveral times made, and which we have already anſwered. What he ſay's touching the State of an Image, that it has C. 6. p. 674.not any Inconſiſtency in it ſelf, neither Real nor Apparent, with a Conſecration which would fill the Bread and Wine with the Virtue of Chriſt's Body, has been already refuted; For in the Sence of the Greeks the State of Image is Inconſiſtent, with what the Bread and Wine become by the Impreſſion they receive from the Virtue of Chriſt's Body, becauſe they become in a certain Sence, the proper Body and Blood of Chriſt. So that whatſoever Mr. Arnaud ſay's in general touching the two States, the one Conſiſtent, and the other Inconſiſtent, has no Foundation. We know there are Conſiſtent and Inconſiſtent States; but the Queſtion is whither the Greeks might not believe without being Extravagant and Senceleſs, that there was an Inconſiſtency between theſe two Expreſſions, The Euchariſt is the Image of the Body of Chriſt, and the Euchariſt is the proper Body of Chriſt, altho they underſtood a Propriety by an Impreſſion of Virtue. I confeſs there is not between theſe two States of Image, and proper Body in the Sence wherein thoſe of Nice underſtood them, a real Inconſiſtancy; But we muſt likewiſe acknowledg that there is an apparent one, eſpecially when 'tis made to conſiſt only in the Terms, as I believe theſe Greeks have made it. If Mr. Arnaud will have them make it to conſiſt in the ſame thing, beſides that this Difference will be of ſmall Importance as to the Main, I need only offer him what himſelf has told us concerning Anaſtaſius and others, who denyed the Euchariſt was a Figure. That Lib. 7. c. 2. p. 630.theſe were not two inconſiſtent Principles, nor two contrary Expreſſions in the Language of thoſe Times, to ſay that the Euchariſt is not the Figure of Chriſt's Body, and yet a Repreſentation of the Myſteries of his Life, and that the ſame Authors that teach the one, teach us likewiſe the other. I need only tell him that in the ſame Place wherein they earneſtly deny the Euchariſt to be an Image, they acknowledg it is a Symbol, and that Damaſcen himſelf who will not ſuffer it to be called an Image or Type, yet aſſures us that the ſame Oeconomy which was obſerved in Chriſt's natural Body, is obſerved in the Bread; which eſtabliſheth a true Reſemblance at bottom. I need only offer him the Expoſition Beſſarion makes of Damaſcen's Words. By the Figure, ſay's he, he means a Beſſarion de de Sacram. Euchariſt.Shadow which is no more than a Figure barely ſignifying another Subject, yet without having any Subſtance for acting.

MR. Arnaud anſwering this Paſſage of Beſſarion, which I offered againſt the Author of the Perpetuity, ſay's, That Beſſarion had reaſon to ſay St. John Damaſcen, in denying the Euchariſt to be a Figure, means a bare Figure without C. 6. p. 680.Efficacy. Not that he pretends an efficacious Figure is not a Figure; but he ſuppoſes to ſay the Euchariſt is the Sign of Jeſus Chriſt, and not his Body; is aſmuch as to ſay it is a bare Figure without Virtue and Efficacy, becauſe the Quality of a Figure does not include any Virtue, and that it would have no other which could give it this Virtue. So that according to Beſſarion 'tis certain that Damaſcen in denying the Euchariſt to be a Figure of Jeſus Christ, means by the Word Figure a Shadow, and a Figure without Efficacy, becauſe that in effect p. 345if the Euchariſt be a bare Figure, it would be a Figure without Efficacy, and there would be no place of Scripture which could prove this Efficacy, as we will ſhew elſewhere. This Propoſition then is true in one Sence, if the Euchariſt were but a Figure, it would be but an empty Figure. But this is not true in any Sence, ſeeing if the Figure were an Efficacious Figure, it would not be a Figure.

HE means it is impoſſible to attribute any Virtue to the Euchariſt, if it be not acknowledged the Body of Chriſt in Subſtance. But 1ſt. This Principle is falſe in it ſelf, and the contrary may be proved by an Inſtance from Scripture, which St. Paul calls The Power of God to Salvation, Rom. 1. And by the Example of Baptiſm, which is accompanied with the Virtue of Chriſt's Blood, and which according to the Scripture is the Laver of our Regeneration. In effect, to apply to us the ſupernatural Virtue of the Body of Chriſt, it is not neceſſary that the Subſtance of this Body be locally in the Euchariſt, it is ſufficient that his Spirit be in it, and operates therein. 2ly. It is falſe, there is no Paſſage of Scripture whereby to prove this Efficacy. That which our Saviour himſelf ſay's, Do this in Remembrance of me; and what St. Paul adds, That as often as we eat of this Bread, and drink of this Cup, we ſhew forth the Lord's Death till he comes; this I ſay includes the Communication of his Virtue. For Chriſt and his Death, are not Objects of a mere hiſtorical Conſideration. It is the ſame with this Divine Saviour as with the Sun; which it is impoſſible to behold without being inlightned by it, and cheared with its Rays. If we behold him, ſay's one of the Prophets, we are inlightned by him. To declare his Death as we ought, is without doubt an Action inſeparable from the feeling of his Efficacy; and that Man who deny's this Truth, knows little of Chriſt. 3ly. Neither is it true that Damaſcen oppoſes thoſe that deny the Euchariſt to be the Body of Chriſt in Subſtance, and ſay it is only ſo in Virtue, neither is it true Beſſarion imputes to him this Reaſoning, Were not the Euchariſt the proper Subſtance of Chriſt's Body, it would be no more than a mere Figure without Virtue and Efficacy. This is one of Mr. Arnaud's Circuits which has no Grounds either in the Paſſage of Damaſcen, nor in that of Beſſarion. Beſſarion indeed would have Damaſcen to believe Tranſubſtantiation and the ſubſtantial Preſence; for being a Cardinal in the Roman Church, 'tis no marvel he maintained not the contrary; but he does not ſay Damaſcen argued as Mr. Arnaud ſuppoſes. 4ly. Mr. Arnaud does himſelf furniſh us wherewithal to diſſipate all his Subtilties touching the Council of Nice; for we need only apply to the Council of Nice what he ſay's concerning Damaſcen, in making theſe Fathers argue after this manner; To ſay the Euchariſt is an Image of Chriſt, is the ſame as to ſay 'tis no more than a bare Image without any Efficacy, becauſe the Quality of an Image includes not any Virtue, and the Euchariſt cannot have elſewhere this Virtue, there being no place of Scripture which attributes it to it, nor from whence it can be concluded. Now the Iconoclaſtes affirm the Euchariſt to be an Image. They ſay then that 'tis a bare Image without Virtue and Efficacy, and conſequently they contradict themſelves, when they afterwards call it the Body of Jeſus Chriſt; for if it be a mere Image, it cannot be Virtually this Body. This Reaſoning attributed to the Fathers of Nice, would be better grounded than that which he Imputes to Damaſcen, becauſe it does not appear Damaſcen Diſputes againſt Perſons that Expounded the Words of Chriſt, This is my Body in this Sence, This is the Figure of my Body; whereas it appears that the Iconoclaſtes had Expounded them in this Sence, This is the Image of my Body; whence it follows they might been told better than they have been by Damaſcen, that having no other Paſſage of Scripture whereby to prove it was the Body of Chriſt in Virtue, p. 346it was no more according to them, than a mere Image without any Efficacy.

AS to what Mr. Arnaud ſay's, That altho Paſchaſius his Adverſaries Expounded C. 6. p. 683.theſe Words, The Body of Jeſus Chriſt, the Virtue of Jeſus Chriſt, yet did they not ſay it was the Body it ſelf, that they made not uſe of this Principle, the Figure is not the Original, to ſhew the Euchariſt was the Original and not the Figure; That they did not make this ridiculous Argument, The Euchariſt contains the Virtue of Chriſt's Body; It is not then the Figure of it. I anſwer, we Cited not Paſchaſius his Adverſaries for that purpoſe. We inſtanced them to ſhew, that it is no new or extraordinary Matter, to underſtand by the Body of Chriſt, his Body in Virtue, ſeeing ſeveral in the ninth Century underſtood it in this manner. But, ſay's he, they ſaid not the Euchariſt was properly and Ibid.truly the Body of Chriſt. It does not in effect appear to us they did ſay it, nor denyed it was a Figure, nor reaſoned like the Adverſaries of the Iconoclaſtes, and from thence we may well conclude they admitted not the intire Hypotheſis of the Greeks, which is, that this Body of Chriſt in Virtue, is an Augmentation of the natural Body, to infer from thence that it is properly his Body, and not the Figure of it. But this does not hinder but that by the Term of Body, they underſtood the Virtue of the Body. Had their Error, ſay's Mr. Ibid.Arnaud, led them to underſtand by the Word Body, the Figure and Virtue, common Sence would have forced 'em to explain themſelves in proper Terms, to make themſelves underſtood. But I ſay the Greeks do explain themſelves in proper Terms. Ely de Crete who aſſiſted at the Council of Nice, does not he Com. in Greg. Naz.plainly ſay, That the Bread is changed into the Efficacy of Christ's Body? Did not Cyrillus of Alexandria, and Eutychius, ſay the ſame thing? Did not Theophylact Expreſs himſelf in the ſame manner? Has not Damaſcen ſaid That it is Bread united to the Divinity, a Growth of the Body of Chriſt? Does not Nicolaus Methonienſis tell us, That Chriſt Joyns his Divinity to theſe Things which are familiar to our Natures? And how many more ſuch like Expoſitions are to be met with in the Paſſages I already produced? Let Mr. Arnaud ſay as long as he pleaſes, This Language is ſo Unnatural and Strange, that to make this pretended C. 5. p. 669.Sence of it Intelligible, it ought to be proclaimed with ſound of Trumpet throughout all the Eaſt, and Notice given to all People that theſe Words were to be underſtood in this unheard of Sence: Otherwiſe all theſe Authors ought to be eſteemed as Cheats and Impoſtors. The Greeks will anſwer him that all his Rhetorick is void of Reaſon, in whatſoever Humour it comes from him: They have ſufficiently Explained themſelves to thoſe that have Ears: They are not Deceivers; for they never ſo much as once ſaid the Euchariſt was the natural Body of Chriſt in Propriety of Subſtance, but often the contrary, namely his Body in Virtue.

IT were better in my Mind to reſerve theſe Proclamations he ſpeaks of, to publiſh to the World there ought no more of thoſe Paſſages of the Fathers to be alledged, ſeeing they are ſo troubleſom to Mr. Arnaud. For ſeeing I have incurred his Indignation, for quoting a Paſſage out of Facundus, it is fitting the World ſhould henceforward know how to avoid offending him. This Paſſage, ſay's he, of Facundus muſt be brought in every where right or wrong.—The Queſtion is whether the Term of the Body of Jeſus Chriſt may C. 6. p. 684.be taken for the Virtue and Efficacy of this Body, in which Point Facundus is ſilent. The Queſtion is whether the Term of the Body of Chriſt can be taken in another Sence, than for the Subſtance of Chriſt's natural Body, and of this Facundus ſpeaks. To contain the Myſtery of Chriſt's Body, and to contain p. 347the Virtue of it, are two Expreſſions which ſignify at bottom the ſame thing in Facundus his Sence, and it is upon good Grounds we have alledged him. But when a Paſſage perplexes Mr. Arnaud, it muſt be laid aſide, becauſe it diſturbs his Brain. Omitting then Facundus for this time, in compliance to Mr. Arnaud; paſs we on to the Council of Conſtantinople, termed Iconoclaſtes.

THIS Council ſay's firſt, That our Saviour has commanded us to offer an Image, Apud. Concil▪ Nicen. art. 6.a choſen Matter, that is to ſay the Subſtance of Bread. It is clear their Sence is, that that which is offered in the Euchariſt, and which is an Image, is the Subſtance of Bread. To ſay thereupon their Sence is, not that it is in Effect a Subſtance of Bread, but only a Matter which keeps the Figure and Reſemblance of it, is in my Mind as frivolous a Shift and Evaſion as ever was uſed; for what may not a Man elude if he may expound theſe Terms, The Subſtance of Bread, by theſe, Not the Subſtance of Bread, but the Figure and Reſemblance? Beſides this Mr. Arnaud tells me, That I may not ſo much as humbly C. 7. p. 689.propoſe my Doubts, and muſt be known to be a Perſon extream modeſt, otherwiſe all People will wonder ſo eaſy a matter ſhould ſtartle me, that I conſult not common Sence, touching what I ought to ſay, and that my Head is ſo full of Calviniſtical Subtilities, that I cannot ſpeak after the rate of other Men. He afterwards Ibid. c. 7.falls upon a Diſcourſe which takes up ſix great Pages, which amount to this; That when the Judgment of Reaſon or Faith, is contrary to the Ideas of Sence and Concupiſcence, there is form'd two ſorts of Languages which ſubſiſt together, the one Conformable to the Ideas of Sence and Concupiſcence, and the other to Faith and Reaſon. To eſtabliſh this Principle he ſay's, That Faith changes the Judgment of Sence and Concupiſcence, and ſhews us that what we call Good is a real Evil, that our Evils are reall Goods, that thoſe who are called Happy, are really Miſerable; the Rich, Poor; the Poor, Rich; the Wiſe, Foolls; the Prudent, Imprudent; and the Knowing, Ignorant. He adds, That Philoſophy oft overthrows the common Notions of things: That the Thomiſts affirm Matter has no Exiſtence, that a dead Body has nothing in common with a living one, that ſome Philoſophers of this Age teach that Animals are only Machins, and Automates, and ſenſible Qualities are not in the things themſelves, but are the Impreſſions of our Sences. That ſeveral of the moſt profound Aſtrologers believe with Copernicus, that the Sun and Stars are unmovable, and that 'tis the Earth which by its various Motions makes Day and Night, and Variety of Seaſons. He tells us afterwards, That there is in all theſe things a two-fold Language, the one according to Appearance, and the other according to Truth. That 'tis the ſame in reſpect of the Euchariſt, Faith correcting in it the Ideas of Sence, and from thence comes this twofold Language, the one by which we call the Euchariſt Bread, Subſtance of Bread, Matter of Bread, and the other by which we call it the Body of Chriſt.

NOT to proceed without profiting by Mr. Arnaud's Advertiſement, leſt he ſhould accuſe me of Dulneſs: I ſhall venture again humbly to offer the Doubts wherewith common Sence furniſhes me after Conſultation with it, againſt his pretended Solution. 1ſt. It ſeems to me to contain all the Characters of a Mind perplext and tormented with Study, how to extricate it ſelf out of a Difficulty, through which it can find no natural Paſſage. What relation has the Ideas of Concupiſcence, the Philoſophy of the Thomiſts, Carteſians, Coperniciens, with the Diſcourſe of theſe good Greek Biſhops who lived in the eighth Century, and who without doubt had none of this Philoſophy in their Heads? Who can Imagine that their Expreſſions which are plain and p. 348ſimple, ſhould be grounded on the Model of theſe twofold Languages, that is to ſay, on an Obſervation which ſcarcely ever any Perſon before thought of, ſo remote are theſe twofold Languages from the Sight and common Uſe of the World? In truth, I could never imagine the Ideas of Concupiſcence, the dead Bodies of the Thomiſts, nor the Impreſſions, or Automates of the Cartheſians, and Copernicus his Syſtems, ſhould ever be brought into our Diſpute, to decide the Queſtion, whether the Greeks believe Tranſubſtantiation or not.

II. WHAT likelyhood is there that Biſhops aſſembled in Council, whoſe Words were to regulate the Peoples Faith, and whom it behooved moreover to ſpeak diſcreetly, having Adverſaries at their Backs, ſhould lay aſide the Style of Religion, if we believe Mr. Arnaud, to take up that of Sence, which Religion condemns? That they ſhould call the Eucharist without any Neceſſity, a Matter, and Subſtance of Bread, conſidering it even after Conſecration, without adding to it either any Expoſition or Mollification, and expoſe themſelves ſo imprudently to the Reproaches of their Enemies, from whom they could expect no Favour nor Support, and who waited for an Occaſion to render them Odious to the People.

III. BUT how came it to paſs their Adverſaries, (who, that they might cenſure them touching the Term of Image, dared aſſert contrary to the Truth, that none of the Fathers gave the Term of Image to the Euchariſt after Conſecration,) were ſo mild and favourable as to pardon them of Subſtance of Bread, were their Faith in effect that of the Church of Rome, that it is no longer the Subſtance of Bread? Did they do this upon the account of the Thomiſts dead Bodies, the Carteſians Automates, or Corpernicus his Syſtem?

IV. IF we examine theſe Inſtances of a twofold Language which Mr. Arnaud propoſes, we ſhall find they are all Defective, either in reſpect of themſelves, or in the Application he makes of them: It is not true Religion abſolutely teaches that what we call Goods, are real Evils; and that our Evils are real Goods; nor that it turns Felicity into Miſery, Riches into Poverty, Poverty into Riches, Wiſdom into Folly, Prudence into Imprudence, and Knowledg into Ignorance. Religion teaches that theſe things are, in Effect and in themſelves, what we term them, becauſe they are either Bleſſings and God's temporal Favours, or Chaſtiſements and Afflictions which come from his Hand; and ſo far its Language agrees very well with the uſual Speech of Men. But it alſo ſhews us that theſe things change their Name and Nature by the good, or bad Uſe which is made of them; that Riches become real Poverty; Happineſs, Miſery; Wiſdom, Folly; Prudence, Imprudence; and Science, Ignorance; to the Vicious who corrupt theſe Gifts of God, and change their natural Deſtination, that Afflictions likewiſe become Benefits; Poverty, Riches; Miſery, Felicity, to a Virtuous Perſon, and one that fears God. If Concupiſcence would oppoſe it ſelf againſt this Language, and ſpeak otherwiſe, Religion will not let her: So that the double Language that there is in reſpect of theſe things, is grounded not on the Ideas of Concupiſcence, but on Truth it ſelf. When we call Riches, Goods; and Afflictions, Evils; we conſider what they are in their own Nature, and when we call them otherwiſe, we conſider 'em in relation to what they are by Accident. Theſe two Languages agree very well, and they are both proper and true, the Ideas of Concupiſcence having no part therein. Beſides Religion moreover conſiders p. 349temporal Goods and Evils, either abſolutely in themſelves, or by Compariſon with Spiritual Goods and Evils. In the firſt reſpect it tells us that theſe are Goods and Evils, as they are in effect. In the ſecond ſhe can hardly give them that Name, becauſe they are not conſiderable in compariſon of eternal Goods or Evils. If Concupiſcence oppoſes it ſelf againſt this Language, and ſpeaks otherwiſe, Religion reſtrains Her. It is then certain that the double Language is grounded on various Reſpects, and is ever true: But it is not the ſame with the Point in hand. For ſuppoſing Tranſubſtantiation we cannot in any reſpect call the conſecrated Euchariſt a Subſtance of Bread, nor ſay that we Offer the Subſtance of Bread, and that the Subſtance of Bread is the Image of the Body of Jeſus Chriſt. But Religion will Condemn theſe Expreſſions as Falſe in every Sence, and contrary to that Faith which injoyns us to believe the Subſtance of Bread does no longer remain. To ſay that by the Subſtance of Bread is meant, the bare Figure and Reſemblance thereof, as the Author of the Perpetuity does: This cannot be, for the Subſtance, and the ſimple Appearance are two Terms directly oppoſite in the Language of Men; and to ſay the Subſtance of Bread, is as much as to ſay Real, and not barely Bread in Appearance. Moreover the Fathers of Conſtantinople compare this Subſtance of Bread, with the Humane Subſtance which Chriſt aſſumed. As our Lord, ſay they, took on him the Matter only, or Humane Subſtance, without the Perſonal Subſiſtence, ſo he commanded us to Offer an Image, a choſen Matter, that is to ſay the Subſtance of Bread; which ſhews they took the Term of Subſtance in a proper Sence, and not for a ſimple Appearance. In fine, they ſay that as the Humane Subſtance which Chriſt aſſumed has not the Perſonal Subſiſtence, ſo this Subſtance has not the Form or Humane Figure, which clearly ſhews that as by the Humane Subſtance they meant a Subject capable of having perſonal Subſiſtence, ſo they likewiſe underſtood by the Subſtance uſed in the Euchariſt, a real Subject which may have a Form or humane Figure, and conſequently a real Subſtance, capable of Repreſenting an external Form and Figure.

TO ſay likewiſe as Mr. Arnaud does, that this is the Language of Sence, which is contrary to the Judgment of Faith, is as much as if he had ſaid nothing. For if Faith rectified the Language of Sence, it would not ſuffer its Expreſſions to be Regulated by the Falſity of their Teſtimony, and much leſs in a Decree of Council, whoſe Expreſſions according to Mr. Arnaud's Maxims, or the Church he is of, muſt ſerve for a Law to Poſterity not only for well Speaking, but likewiſe for well Believing. We ought then keep to the Language of Faith, not that of Sence, againſt which we muſt on the contrary Precaution our ſelves to prevent being ſurpriz'd by it. When the Chriſtian Religion came into the World, and reform'd the Abuſes of Men, who believed their Idols were Gods; She at the ſame time Corrected their Expreſſions. She no longer ſuffered Men to ſpeak of Gods in the Plural, nor of Jupiter, and Mercury, and theſe other falſe Divinities as formerly; eſpecially in the Pulpit, and Sermons, or in the Decrees of Councils.

AS to the Example of Philoſophers, we muſt not wonder if they accommodate their Expreſſions to the Language of other Men, altho it be contrary to their Hypotheſes. For they are not the Maſters of it, the neceſſity of making themſelves underſtood, and the fear of paſſing for Extravagants ſhould they affect a new Style, obliges them to expreſs themſelves as the World does, ſeeing they cannot make it unlearn their Language, and accuſtom it ſelf to ſpeak according to their Opinions. This ſhews their p. 350Opinions did not reign when humane Language eſtabliſhed it ſelf, and that moreover at this Day they are not Popular; but this does not ſhew 'twas the ſame in the Chriſtian Religion, in reſpect of the Euchariſt. The Language of the Church touching this Myſtery was not found ready made, it was formed on the Sentiments Men began to have of it, as ſoon as ever 'twas Mention'd. Suppoſing then that from the firſt riſe of Chriſtianity it were believed the Teſtimony of our Senſes was Falſe and Deceitful, and that the Subſtance of Bread was really changed into that of the Body of Chriſt; Men would have avoided ſpeaking according to Senſe, and Religion which was the Maſter of it, would never have ſuffer'd it. And ſo much the rather, (if the Suppoſition be made which I mentioned,) it muſt be neceſſarily acknowledged that this Myſtery is popular, there being none of the People but ought to know that the Subſtance which he receives, is not that of Bread, but of the Body of Chriſt. Beſides this, there is a great deal of Difference betwixt Religion and Philoſophy; Philoſophical Opinions do not ſo greatly concern the World in general, nor in particular thoſe that hold them, that Men ought to be ſo much troubled about common Expreſſions, how contrary ſoever they may be to theſe Opinions, and lyable to Error. No Man will be damned for believing a dead Body is the material Part of Man which remains, that Animals are not Automates, but real living Bodies, nor that Colours really in the Objects, nor for believing the Sun and Firmament move, and not the Earth. Theſe Cartheſians and Coperniciens have not yet aſſerted their Sentiments to be neceſſary to Salvation, nor obligatory on the Conſcience. So that if the contrary Sentiments be erroneous, they are not believed to be ſo dangerous as that humane Speech muſt be therefore altered. But if Chriſtian Religion has propoſed Tranſubſtantiation, or the Subſtantial Preſence, it is to be ſuppoſed ſhe has offered it as an Article of Faith neceſſary to be Believed in order to Salvation, as an Article which obliges the Conſcience, and rejected the contrary Opinion as a damnable Error, inconſiſtent with Salvation, and conſequently ſhe ought to warn Men touching the Expreſſions, and not leave to our Sences; that is to ſay, to Cheats and Impoſtors, the Power of making a Council ſay in a Determination of Faith, that we offer in the Euchariſt a Subſtance of Bread.

TO ſay in fine, this Council only denoted the Matter of the Euchariſt, as Mr. Arnaud does, is an Unjuſtifiable Evaſion. For when we denoted P. 693.the Matter of it, by the Term of Subſtance of Bread, we conſider it before its Conſecration, ſuppoſing 'tis believed that by the Conſecration 'tis no more the Subſtance of Bread, but that of the Body of Jeſus Chriſt. Yet theſe Fathers conſidered it after the Conſecration, as appears by their whole Diſcourſe. Thoſe of Nice have thus obſerved it, for they cenſure them for calling the Euchariſt an Image after Conſecration. Now in the ſame place wherein thoſe of Conſtantinople call it Image, they call it likewiſe a Subſtance of Bread. If the Cenſure of thoſe of Nice be juſt, the Euchariſt muſt be, according to the Council of Conſtantinople, an Image after Conſecration. What likelyhood is there Mr. Arnaud ſhould at this time underſtand better the Sence of this Council of Conſtantinople, than the Fathers of Nice who had amongſt them ſeveral Biſhops that Aſſiſted at that Aſſembly, and amongſt others him who preſided over it? But I will grant the Nicene Fathers were miſtaken, and that Mr. Arnaud underſtands the Point better than they; yet it is certain they ought to have Cenſured the Expreſſion of Subſtance of Bread, ſeeing they could not take it but as ſpoken of the Euchariſt after its Conſecration. Theſe of Conſtantinople call the Euchariſt in the ſame p. 351Place and Period, Image and Subſtance of Bread. They take the Name of Image, as a Quality attributed to the Euchariſt after Conſecration. They muſt then neceſſarily have taken the Subſtance of Bread, as an Attribute applyed likewiſe to the Euchariſt after the Conſecration: Yet thoſe of Nice Cenſure the firſt, and do not in any manner Cenſure the other; they are Offended at the one, and not at the other; which concludes as I already ſaid, that their Hypotheſis was not Tranſubſtantiation.

THE Biſhops of Conſtantinople comparing the Eucharist with Chriſt's natural C. 7. p. 6, 6.Body, ſay that as the natural Body is Holy, being made Divine; ſo that which is his Body by Inſtitution, to wit, his Image is Holy foreign. I Tranſlated theſe laſt Words, being made Divine by a certain Sanctification of Grace. Mr. Claude, ſay's Mr. Arnaud, has falſly Tranſlated that the Euchariſt is made Divine by a certain Sanctification of Grace. If this be a Fault in me, 'tis the ſame with the Latin Tranſlator of the Council in Binius his Edition; for he has inſerted theſe very Words, Utpote per quandam ſanctificationem gratiae ſantificata, and in the Margin, deificata, that is to ſay Word for Word, As being Sanctifi'd (or made Divine) by a certain Sanctification of Grace. Mr. Arnaud who juſtifi'd heretofore Forbeſius, ſaying he could not be juſtly accuſed for falſifying the Paſſage of Jeremias the Patriarch of Conſtantinople, ſeeing he only followed the Tranſlation of Socolovius; has he ſo ſoon changed his Mind, and forgot his own Maxim, without any other Reaſon, than that there it concerned Forbeſius, and here my ſelf? Was that which was then Unjuſt, become now Juſt and Reaſonable by the only Difference of Perſons? But let us ſee whether it is in effect a Falſification. He ſay's it ſhould be rendred, Being made Divine by a Favour intirely Gracious by means of a certain Conſecration, becauſe we muſt joyn foreign to foreign, but why rather to foreign, than to foreign? Why rather Tranſlate foreign, gracious Favour, than Grace? Why rather foreign Conſecration than Sanctification? It is certain the Latin Interpreter could not better Tranſlate than he has done foreign, his Image is Holy, why is it Holy? foreign, as being made Divine by a certain Sanctification by Grace. It is Grace which Sanctifies it in making it Divine, which cannot be better Expreſſed in Latin than by theſe Words, Utpote per quandam ſanctificationem gratiae deificata; And in Engliſh, As being made Divine by a Sanctification of Grace. It appears that this is the Sence of this Council by the Words which immediately follow after, For this is what our Lord deſign'd to do, that as by Virtue of the Union he has made Divine the Fleſh he took, by a Sanctification which is naturally proper to him, ſo he would have the Euchariſtical Bread (as being the true Image of his Fleſh) be made a Divine Body by the coming of the Holy Spirit, the Oblation being by means of the Prieſt Transferred from a common Eſtate, to a State of Holyneſs: And therefore as the natural Fleſh of Chriſt indued with a rational Soul, was anointed by the Holy Spirit, being united to the Divinity; ſo his Image, to wit, the Divine Bread is repleniſhed with the Holy Spirit. It is clear that they oppoſe the Sanctification which the natural Fleſh of Chriſt has received by Virtue of the Hypoſtatical Union, to the Sanctification which his Image receives by the coming of the Holy Spirit. There, ſay they, the natural Fleſh was Anointed with the Holy Spirit: Here his Image, to wit, the Bread is filled with the Holy Spirit. The Queſtion then is concerning a Sanctification which the Bread receives in quality of the Image of our Lord's natural Fleſh, and this Sanctification is the Grace of the Holy Spirit wherewith the Bread is filled. The Sanctification which the natural Fleſh has received, is not a Conſecration which has changed the Subſtance of it into another, p. 352but an inherent Sanctification which letting the Humane Nature ſubſiſt, has made it become a Source of Grace; the Sanctification likewiſe which the Bread receives, is not a Conſecration which changes its Subſtance into that of another, but an inherent Sanctification in the Bread, which letting the Bread ſubſiſt makes it full of the Holy Spirit. We could not then better Tranſlate foreign, than by theſe Words, being made Divine by a certain Sanctification of Grace. It will be to no purpoſe for Mr. Arnaud to wrangle about theſe Words, The Oblation being Transferred from a common State, to a State of Holyneſs, foreign, as if they were to be Rendred, from a common State, to a State of Conſecration; for here the Matter is touching a Sanctification, which is the Image of that which the natural Fleſh has received. We muſt then Tranſlate, to a Holy State, or to a State of Holineſs. And the Latin Interpreter of the Council, who had not thoſe particular Intereſts to maintain as Mr. Arnaud has, has faithfully turn'd it; Oblationem de communi ſeparans, ad Sanctificationem pertingere facit.

I am ſorry I have been forced to entertain the Reader with theſe grammatical Niceties, which I ſuppoſe cannot be very pleaſing; but beſides that Mr. Arnaud having charged me with a Falſification, I was obliged to juſtify myſelf: There will redound hence this Advantage, to wit, that the Sence of this Council will more plainly appear, and the ſolid Advantages we draw thence. They make two Bodies of Chriſt, the one his natural Body, th'other his Body by Inſtitution; the one is his natural Fleſh, th'other is the Image of his natural Fleſh; the one a humane Subſtance, th'other a choſen Matter, namely the Subſtance of Bread; the one is Holy by a Sanctification which is naturally peculiar unto it, the other is raiſed from a common State to a State of Holyneſs; the one is the natural Fleſh of Chriſt anointed by the Holy Spirit, the other is Bread indued with the Holy Spirit. There is not any thing in all this that can agree with Mr. Arnaud's Conceptions.

NO more then is there in the Fathers calling the Euchariſt, not a deceitful Image of Chriſt's Fleſh, in oppoſition to the Images which they called Deceitful. C. 7. p. 698.To underſtand rightly their Sence, we muſt ſuppoſe with Mr. Arnaud that they ſaid the Images of their Adverſaries were deceitful, either becauſe they repreſented the Humanity ſeparated from the Divinity, and ſubſiſting by it ſelf, (if it were ſaid they were only Images of the Humanity, they leaned to the Error of the Neſtorians) or becauſe they repreſented the Divinity Confuſed and indiſtinct from the Humanity, if it were ſaid they expreſſed our Saviour intire, thus they led to the Error of the Eutychiens who confounded the two Natures. So far Mr. Arnaud is not miſtaken; but he has not been ſo happy in Diſcovering how they underſtood the Euchariſt was not a deceitful Image. For it is certain that in reſpect of the Error of Neſtorius their Sence is, that as the humane Subſtance in our Saviour had no perſonal Subſiſtance, ſo likewiſe his Image, to wit, the Subſtance of Bread, has not the Form and humane Figure of it, altho it ſeems that an Image ſhould have them: So that by this it repreſented the humane Nature not as a Perſon, but as a Nature bereav'd of its Perſonality, and thus it differed from the Error of the Neſtorians: Which is what they Expreſs in theſe Terms; As our Lord took on him the Matter only or humane Subſtance, without the perſonal Subſiſtance, ſo he has commanded us to offer an Image, a choſen Matter, that is to ſay the Subſtance of Bread, not having the Form or humane Figure. And in reſpect of the Error of the Eutychiens they would have, that as the Body of Chriſt was not Aboliſhed, nor Confounded with the Divinity, but Sanctified and made p. 353Divine by means of the hypoſtatical Union; ſo the Bread is Sanctified and Deified by the Holy Spirit: Which is what they expreſſed by theſe Terms, As by Virtue of the Union our Saviour deified the Fleſh he took by a Sanctification, which is naturally proper to him; ſo likewiſe he would have the Bread in the Euchariſt, as being not the deceitful Image of his natural Fleſh, to be made a Divine Body by the coming of the Holy Spirit, the Oblation being by means of the Prieſt transferred from a common State, to a State of Holyneſs. Now this does neceſſarily ſuppoſe that the Subſtance of Bread Subſiſts, to repreſent againſt Eutychus the Subſtance of the humane Nature in the hypoſtatical Union. Moreover this is not one of my metaphyſical Speculations, as Mr. Arnaud P. 669.is pleaſed to expreſs himſelf; it is the Doctrine of the Fathers, and eſpecially of thoſe who diſputed againſt Eutychus, and I expreſly obſerved it, having for this effect cited Juſtin Martyr, Theodoret, Gelaſius, and Ephraim of Antioch. But Mr. Arnaud has thought good in relating my Words to cut off this Clauſe, for fear the Readers ſhould ſee that the Sence I attributed to the Fathers of Conſtantinople, and which he is pleaſed to call a metaphyſical Speculation of Mr. Claude, is in effect, a Doctrine commonly received in the Greek Church.

I drew Advantage from the Council's ſaying that our Saviour choſe a Matter which does not repreſent any humane Shape, leſt Idolatry ſhould be thereby Introduced: And pretended that in whatſoever ſort theſe Words were Underſtood, they were Inconſiſtent with the Belief of the real Preſence. Mr. Arnaud Anſwers that this Paſſage is capable of three Sences. The Firſt, That Lib. 7. c. 7. p. 700. 701.God would not let the Euchariſt have a humane Shape, leſt it ſhould be adored. The 2d. That he would not ſuffer the Euchariſt to have a humane Form, leſt Men ſhould commit Idolatry in Adoring it under this humane Figure, altho it be no Idolatry to Worſhip it under the Figure of Bread. The 3d. That he would not let the Euchariſt have a humane Form, leſt the due Worſhip which would be given it under this humane Figure, ſhould carry Men forth to Adore Images of Wood and Stone, which being not our Saviour as the Euchariſt is, could not be Worſhiped without Idolatry. The firſt, adds he, of theſe Sences is that which the Calviniſts give to the Words of the Iconoclaſtes. The 2. Is a ridiculous Sence, and that which never any Perſon yet Imagined. The 3d. Is the Sence which the Catholicks give them. Hereupon Mr. Claude to eſtabliſh his firſt Sence, Declames at large againſt the 2d. which is not a Sence, but an abſurd Imagination which he has form'd.

HAD Mr. Arnaud ſincerely related all that I ſaid on this Subject, and not maim'd my Diſcourſe, and produced but ſome part thereof disjoynted from the reſt, that he might turn it into a wrong Sence: It would have been eaſily perceived that I offered theſe two laſt Sences, and ſhewed that both of 'em were Inconſiſtent, with the Suppoſition of the ſubſtantial Preſence. That I afterwards eſtabliſhed the true Sence of theſe Words, in ſuppoſing the Euchariſt to be an Image really diſtinct from our Lord's Body. I neither attributed to the Author of the Perpetuity, nor to any body elſe any Sence. I only propoſed the two which might be given to theſe Words upon ſuppoſal of the real Preſence, and ſhewed that neither of them were juſtifiable. I am not at all troubled at Mr. Arnaud's calling the Second an abſurd Imagination; I hold it to be ſo as well as he, and as ſuch I have refuted it. But the Laſt is no leſs abſurd than the Second: For the due Worſhip which would be given to the Euchariſt, if it had a humane Shape, would not induce Men to the Worſhipping of Images of Wood and Stone. The Difference would be apparent, p. 354for the Euchariſt would be the Body of Chriſt, the Image of Wood not ſo: The Adoration of the Euchariſt would not be then grounded on the humane Shape or Figure, but on the ſubſtantial Preſence of Chriſt's Body. Moreover what can be more Ridiculous than the Opinion which Mr. Arnaud Imputes to theſe People, which is, that our Saviour would have propoſed his Body really in the Euchariſt, clothed with another humane Figure than his own natural Form: Otherwiſe, ſay's he, it would not be an Image, but our Saviour himſelf without any Vail. It is true, but this ſhould make him comprehend that they underſtood the Euchariſt was not the proper Subſtance of this Body, but an Image which is of another Subſtance than its Original. For a Man cannot be guilty of a greater Abſurdity than to imagine our Saviour's Body is really in the Euchariſt in a humane Shape, not his own; but a borrowed one. Theſe kind of Imaginations reſide not in the Minds of reaſonable People. But ſuppoſing this was their Sence, how could they ſay that our Saviour would not take upon him any other humane Shape than his own to prevent Idolatry? Might not their Adverſaries tell them on the contrary that this very Conſideration ought to prevail on us the more to make Images? For the Original of our Saviour's Body, in whatſoever State it is, takes Men off from Images, but it would carry them further off from them if it had a humane Figure, whatſoever it were, for this is what our Eyes ſeek in Images, and if they found this Figure joyned with the Original, they need not ſearch it elſewhere. I confeſs that the Original Speaking, Moving it ſelf, and Acting under its own proper Figure, would better produce this Effect; but this does not hinder but that it may produce it likewiſe, having a ſimple borrowed Figure, without Speech and Action, ſeeing that alſo Images have neither Speech nor Action, and that the Figure they have is no leſs a borrowed Figure, than that which the Euchariſt would have. It is certain that this ſenſual Devotion which ſeeks after Repreſentations, and viſible Lineaments, would be more ſatisfied in beholding a humane Shape whatſoever it were, applyed on the Original it ſelf, than to behold one repreſented on Cloth, or the Walls of a Houſe. It muſt then be acknowledged that the true Sence of this Council ſuppoſes the Euchariſt to be an Image really diſtinct from the Body of Chriſt, and that our Saviour has choſen for this a Matter, or a Subſtance which has not a humane Figure, leſt this Reſemblance ſhould carry Men forth to render to the Image that which is only due to the Original, and to make others like it, of other matters, to Adore them. Whoſoever ſhall compare my Expoſition with that of Mr. Arnaud, will ſoon acknowledg that mine is Natural, Free, and according to good Sence, whereas his is Forced and Violent, and imputes to Perſons ſuch a kind of Arguing as is abſurd and groundleſs.

BUT, ſay's Mr. Arnaud, the Iconoclaſtes Adored the Euchariſt with a ſovereign C. 7. p. 702.Adoration: For Stephen the Younger ſaid to Conſtantin Copronymus, Do not you deſign likewiſe to caſt out of the Church the Antitypes of the Body and Blood of Chriſt, ſeeing they contain the true Image of them, and we Adore and Kiſs them, and are Sanctified by receiving them? Stephen proves the Worſhip of Images by a Principle common to the Iconoclaſtes. Now according to them, all Worſhip rendred to Images is a real Adoration, and is due to God only, and conſequently they gave to the Euchariſt a Worſhip which they ſuppoſed due only to God.

BUT could not Mr. Arnaud foreſee, that we may argue exactly contrary, and ſay Stephen proves the relative Adoration of Images by that of the Euchariſt. p. 355Neither of them then gave the Eucharist any other than a relative Adoration, and conſequently they neither of them believed, that it was the Body of Chriſt in proper Subſtance. But, ſay's he, the Iconoclaſtes acknowledged but one only Adoration, which is, that which is due to God alone, and conſequently Ibid.they gave the Euchariſt a Worſhip which they ſuppoſed due only to God. There cannot be a weaker Argument; Stephen does not only prove the relative Adoration of Images, by the Example of that which is given the Euchariſt, but likewiſe by the Example of that which is given to the Croſs, Sacred Veſtments and Veſſels. If Mr. Arnaud's Conſequence be good, we muſt ſay likewiſe that the Iconoclaſtes rendred to all theſe things a Worſhip which they acknowledged to be only due to God alone, which is not eaſy to believe. It muſt then be neceſſarily acknowledged either that the Iconoclaſtes rejected not abſolutely the diſtinction of the two Adorations; the one Abſolute, and the other Relative, or that they acknowledged not the Honour given to the Croſs, Sacred Veſtments, and the Euchariſt, was a real Adoration, and there is a greater likelyhood in the laſt, than in the other. So that Stephen proves well the relative Adoration of Images, by the relative Adoration of the Euchariſt, and other ſacred things; but this is not by a Principle common to the Iconoclaſtes and their Adverſaries, but only by external Ceremonies which were common to them both, and which were variouſly expounded by both Parties.