The Catholic Doctrine of the Eucharist in All Ages, Book 4 · Chapter 2
CHAP. II.
Mr. Arnaud's Second Proof, taken from Cardinal Humbert's Dispute with Nicetas Pectoratus, examined. His Third Proof from the Teſtimony of Lanfranc, and Silence of the Berengarians examined. The reſt of Mr. Arnaud's Deluſions conſidered.
MR. Arnaud's Second Proof taken from Cardinal Humbert's Diſpute with Nicetas Pectoratus, conſiſts of Deluſions as well as the former. He immediately tells us, this Diſpute, does invincibly Lib. 1. cap. 2. pag. 150.prove theſe Four Points. 1. That the Roman Church held at that time the Doctrine of the real Preſence and Tranſubſtantiation. 2. That this Doctrine was declared to the Greeks in ſuch a manner, that they could not be ignorant of it. 3. That Cardinal Humbert poſitively believed the Greeks held the Doctrines of the real Preſence and Tranſubſtantiation. 4. That the Greeks did in effect believe this Doctrine, and elearly expreſſed the ſame. But having thus diſtinguiſhed theſe Four Propoſitions, and aſſured us they are the plain reſult of Humbert's Diſpute with Nicetas, his firſt Deluſion conſiſts in leaving them, and expresſly proving neither of 'em. He contents himſelf with alledging to us a Paſſage of Humbert's, wherein there is not the leaſt mention of the Converſions of Subſtances, nor ſo much as one Clauſe, but what is expreſſed in ſuch Terms as may be well underſtood without Tranſubſtantiation. Which will plainly appear, if we take the pains to read over again this Paſſage, as Mr. Arnaud has produced it, in the Sixth Chapter of his Second Book.
I confeſs, he endeavours to infer it thence by way of Conſequence, Becauſe, ſay's he, that Humbert, denying as he does, that the Euchariſt is digeſted, Ibid. pag. 151.and breaks the Eccleſiaſtical Faſt, he can therefore acknowledge no other Subſtance, but that of Chriſt's Body.
BUT, beſides that, this is not clearly to prove the Church of Rome then believed Tranſubſtantiation, and that her Belief on this Point was declared to the Greeks in ſuch a manner, that they could not be ignorant of it, but muſt perceive it to be the Conſequence of Humbert's Terms, ſeeing on one hand we may ſtill doubt whether Humbert ſpake his own Sence, or that of the Church which ſent him, and ſo much the more, becauſe Mr. Arnaud acknowledges this Cardinal was very hot in this Diſpute, and on the other, 'tis very uncertain whether the Greeks went ſo far as this Conſequence. Beſides this, I ſay, the Conſequence it ſelf is neither demonſtrative nor unavoidable; for it does not follow from a mans denying the Euchariſt is digeſted, and breaks ones Faſt, that he acknowledges no other Subſtance than that of the Body of Chriſt. He may believe, the Subſtance of Bread becomes incorruptible as ſoon as 'tis in the Stomach, and that it paſſes immediately without Digeſtion into our Subſtance, according to the Opinion of Damaſcen, Zonaras, and almoſt all the Eaſtern Churches, as we ſhall ſee hereafter. For in Humbert's ſence, all Food that breaks our Faſt is digeſted, and paſſes into Excrements, as the common nouriſhments do. Whence I conclude that Mr. Arnaud deceives us, when he ſay's, this Diſpute does invincibly prove the Roman Church then believed Tranſubſtantiation, and that her Belief was ſufficiently made known to the Greeks; for neither one nor the other of theſe do hence neceſſarily follow.
NEITHER can it be thence concluded ſhe believed the real Preſence, I mean this local and phyſical Preſence of the proper Subſtance of the natural Body of Jeſus Chriſt, as ſhe does believe it at this day, nor that Humbert thought the Greeks believed it, and this Mr. Arnaud's laſt Conſequence is moreover found defective, altho this is not the Point in queſtion betwixt us. For ſuppoſing the Bread remaining Bread, becomes the Body of Chriſt by way of Augmentation of this Body, being united to the Divinity, and receiving by the Holy Spirit the impreſſion of the inlivening virtue, which is Jeſus Chriſt, according to the Sentiment of the Greeks, Humbert might (without being thought ſenceleſs or extravagant) tell Nicetas that in teaching the Eucharist breaks our faſt, he expoſed the Body of Jeſus Chriſt to the condition of common Food. For altho on this Hypotheſis, the Bread is not the Body of the Son of God in propriety of Subſtance, yet is it his Body in ſuch a manner, that ſeems to exempt it from the quality of other Food; which is ſufficient to occaſion Humbert's Reproach, and render ineffectual all theſe little Subtilities of Mr. Arnaud.
I replied, in my Anſwer to the Perpetuity, that this Diſpute of Humbert Anſwer to the ſecond Treatiſe.and Nicetas furniſhed us wherewith to ſhew that, the Greeks did not believe the Tranſubſtantiation of the Latins, foraſmuch as Nicetas maintains therein that, the Eucharist breaks our Faſt; which ſuppoſes it conſerves its firſt nature of corporeal Aliment, and that, he believed it deſcends into the Stomach like other Food, which moreover ſhews, he held it ſtill for real Bread. I ſtrengthened this Propoſition by the Teſtimony of Humbert, Algerus, and Cellot the Jeſuit. I added likewiſe that Durand Abbot of Troarn, tells us, that thoſe heretofore called Stercoraniſts were the Berengarians, which is to ſay, thoſe held the Bread keeps its firſt nature, and I confirmed my Proof by ſeveral weighty Conſiderations, as that it was not to be imagined men that were Chriſtians would expoſe the proper Subſtance of the Son of God to theſe Accidents of Corporeal Food, that this Opinion would be inconſiſtent with that State of Glory, wherein we all believe it to be, as alſo with that Sacramental State wherein 'tis made to be in the Euchariſt.
MR. Arnaud finding he could not eſtabliſh his own Proof, applies himſelf to the refuting of mine, and immediately making uſe of his Priviledge, he ſingles out what he pleaſes, and leaves the reſt. He takes no notice of Cellot the Jeſuit's Teſtimony, for what reaſon he beſt knows. He paſſes over in ſilence what I ſaid touching the State of Glory, wherein the Son of God now is, and ſo likewiſe what I mentioned concerning his Sacramental State. And from the remaining part of my Proof he is pleaſed to make this Argument. The Greeks are Stercoraniſts according to Humbert and Algerus. The Stercoraniſts are Berengarians according to Durand. The Greeks Lib. 2. cap. 6. pag. 153.then are Berengarians. But ſeeing my Proof is to be modelled, I crave leave to take it out of his hands, and ſtate it my ſelf. Obſerve here then how I reaſoned. Thoſe that believe the Euchariſt breaks our Faſt, and give cauſe to charge them with Stercoraniſm, hold the Subſtance of Bread remains. But the Greeks believe the Euchariſt breaks our Faſt, and yield occaſion to accuſe them of Stercoraniſm. They hold then the Subſtance of Bread remains. And thus do I reaſon; but by misfortune Mr. Arnaud can neither deny the major, minor, nor Concluſion of this Argument. He was conſtrained therefore to new mould it, and then knew not how to give it a direct Anſwer.
IT is true, ſay's he, that Humbert charges Nicetas with believing the Body Ibid.of Chriſt was digeſted; but this is only as a Conſequence of what he offered, touching the Euchariſt's breaking our Faſt, and not as a Doctrine which he expreſly aſſerted. It is all one to me whether he attributes to him this Opinion, either as a Doctrine or a Conſequence, either of 'em being ſufficient to eſtabliſh the ſolidity of my Proof. Mr. Arnaud may diſpute this Point with Cellot or Algerus, it not lying upon me to prove it. When it ſhould be true this Conſequence were not well drawn from the Principle which Nicetas lays down from the part of the Greeks, and that the Greeks might reply thereunto, there would be ſtill enough in the Principle it ſelf, to make my Concluſion juſt and neceſſary. For thoſe that abſolutely and ſincerely believe the Euchariſt breaks our Faſt, cannot but likewiſe believe that it nouriſhes after the manner of Food, which is to ſay, that it diſtributes it ſelf through all the parts of our Body, being added to our Subſtance, and conſequently that 'tis ſtill real Bread. And it will be to no purpoſE to ſay, the Greeks might believe, That the troubleſomeneſs of faſting is effectually eaſed thereby, and that we are really Ibid pag. 155.nouriſhed, not with the Body of Chriſt, but by ſome other means known only to God. For there being in the Euchariſt only the Subſtance and Accidents, thoſe that believe 'tis in Subſtance the proper Body of Chriſt, and yet affirm it nouriſhes, muſt attribute this nouriſhment either to the Body of Chriſt, or to the Accidents. As to the Body of Chriſt, it is abſurd to affirm that a Subſtance which exiſts after the manner of an inviſible and inſenſible Spirit, can nouriſh our Bodies, that is to ſay, augment the Subſtance of them. And as to the Accidents, beſides the abſurdity there is in ſuppoſing Accidents alone nouriſh us, the Greeks know not what belongs to the exiſtence of Accidents without a Subject, which Mr. Arnaud himſelf grants, when he ſay's, they trouble not themſelves with theſe Phyloſophical Conſequences. To affirm likewiſe, as Mr. Arnaud does, that the Greeks, perhaps only aſſerted the Lib. 2. cap 6. pag. 155.Euchariſt broke our Faſt, becauſe they believed the Oblation of the Sacrifice, did not belong to the Fast, and that they were permitted to eat after they had communicated, is a mere Evaſion, which plainly denotes Mr. Arnaud's perplexity. For the Greeks accuſe the Latins, not for their eating ſo ſoon after the Communion in Lent, for this Accuſation would be falſe and ſlanderous, ſeeing they know the contrary. But he accuſes them in that they break their Faſt, by receiving the Euchariſt. Whence have you this Cuſtom, ſay's Nicetas, to celebrate Nicetas Contra. Lat. Bibl. Patr. Tom. 4. Edit.the Oblation of the Paſchal Maſs every day, even on the Holy days of faſting, as well as on Saturday and Sunday? What Doctors thus taught you? Were they the Apoſtles? No; For the Apoſtles made a Canon, to this effect, that if any Biſhop, Prieſt, Deacon, Reader, or Chanter, that is in health, faſts not, on the Fridays and Saturdays in Lent, he ought to be degraded; Seeing then you celebrate Maſs at nine of the Clock; which is the hour in which the Sacrifice is to be offered, how then keep you the Faſt till three in the Afternoon, breaking it as you do, in the time of the Adminiſtration? You do not at all obſerve it, and therefore you are accurſed. It is plainly ſeen here the matter concerns the reception of the Eucharist, and that he means it breaks the Faſt, for he ſay's they break it, in tempore miniſtrationis Miſſae. Where then has Mr. Arnaud found this Evaſion, that the Greeks ſay the Euchariſt breaks the Faſt, only becauſe they believe, the Oblation of the Sacrifice does not belong to the Faſt, and that it was lawful to eat after the participation of the Communion? This is, ſay's he, the conjecture of a very Learned man, who has taken the pains to read over this Treatiſe. Is Mr. Arnaud ſo tired with his Work, and his time ſo mightily taken up, that he cannot afford one half hour for the reading this Treatiſe himſelf, for it requires no more? Theſe Anonymous Learned men do often deceive us with their Conjectures, and when a Perſon makes a Book which he deſigns to render famous throughout all Europe, in ſending it to all the Courts in Chriſtendom, it is abſolutely requiſite, not to truſt all ſorts of People. He ſay's in his Epiſtle Dedicatory to the Pope, that his Friends have laboured with him. In the Twelfth Book he gives us a Diſſertation of a Religious man of Saint Genevieve on John Scot's Caſe, and that of Bertram. Moreover, he tells us, he has deſired ſome Perſons to tranſlate for him, that Paſſage of Herbert's, about which we have made ſuch a noiſe, here he gives us the conjecture of an Anonymous. I am afraid ſome indiſcreet Perſon or other will judge hereupon, that Mr. Arnaud's whole Book is made up only of incoherent Fragments. As for my part I do not thus judge, but I wiſh Mr. Arnaud had rectified and digeſted himſelf, what others have furniſhed him with, and not been like the Sea in this particular, which receiving into its Womb all the Waters of Rivers, communicates only to them its brynineſs.
HUMBERT never thought of giving any of theſe Sences, to the Paſſage propoſed to us out of Nicetas. He never imagined that the Greeks believed the Communion breaks the Faſt, either becauſe they were permitted to eat immediately after, or becauſe our Bodies receive the ſame impreſſions, and the ſame ſtrength by receiving of the Euchariſt, as by any other common Food. But he only underſtood they taught that the Euchariſt does really nouriſh us, in the ſame manner, as other Food, which changes it ſelf into our Subſtance, and 'tis thereupon that he grounded his charge of Stercoraniſm. Do Mr. Arnaud and his Anonymouſes, know better now in Paris the true meaning of Nicetas, than Humbert who lived in that time, and was at Conſtantinople with this Religious, Leo the Ninth, having affirmed the latins have the ſame Faith as the Greeks? Mr. Arnaud thereupon takes occaſion to inſult over me, and tells me, he will be judged by my ſelf, Whether 'tis likely Lib. 2. cap. 50 pag 141.Leo that lived amongſt the Greeks, did not know better than I their Opinion, who now come ſix hundred years after, aſſuring the World upon my own bare word of the contrary, without any Proof or Teſtimony. And ten or twelve Pages further, he would perſwade us, that Humbert, who was Contemporary with Nicetas, and in the ſame City with him, did not well comprehend Nicetas his meaning; and that himſelf, Mr. Arnaud, and Mr. his Anonymous underſtand it better than Humbert. Whence comes this partiality?
BUT, ſay's he, Nicetas aſſerts Tranſubſtantiation, as fully as Humbert Lib. 2. cap. 6. pag. 1….could do. Which we muſt examine. Thoſe, ſay's Nicetas, who walk in the Light, eat the Bread of Grace, which is the Body of Chriſt; and drink his immaculate Blood. In the Bread, ſay's he, moreover, that is to ſay, in our Saviour's Body there are three living things, which give life to thoſe that eat worthily thereof, to wit, the Spirit, the Water and Blood, according to that ſaying, there are three that bear witneſs, and theſe three are in one. He proves the Water and Blood are in our Saviours Body, by the Water and Blood which guſhed thence in his Crucifixion, and as to the Spirit, obſerve here what he ſay's; The Holy and living Spirit remains in his inlivening Fleſh; and we eat this Fleſh in the Bread, which is changed by his Holy Spirit, and made the Body of Jeſus Chriſt. We live in him by eating his living and deified Fleſh. Could Nicetas, adds Mr. Arnaud, more plainly ſhew his Opinion touching the Euchariſt, and more poſitively exclude Mr. Claude's vain Conjectures?
AND this is that which in the Style of Mr. Arnaud is preciſe and poſitive. I anſwer, that by the Bread of Grace, Nicetas means the Bread of the New Teſtament, in oppoſition to the Azyme of the Law, and that his Sence is, that this Bread is the Myſtical Body of Jeſus Chriſt, which the Azyme cannot be, which he proves. 1. Becauſe the Azyme is not Bread till it receives the perfection of Leaven. 2. Becauſe the Azyme is a dead thing having no inlivening virtue in it; whereas the leavened Bread has Leaven, which is to it as it were Life and Soul; whence he concludes 'tis proper to become the Myſtery of the Body of Chriſt, ſeeing there is in this Body three living things, the Spirit, the Water, and Blood, the Water and Blood, becauſe they run down from his pierced ſide, and the Spirit, becauſe his Fleſh was ever joyned to his Divinity. Whence he inferrs, 'tis in the Bread; and not in the Azyme we eat this Fleſh, and that the Bread being changed by the Holy Spirit, and made Chriſt's Body, we live in him, by eating his living and deified Fleſh. And this is Nicetas his reaſoning, which I confeſs is a little odd; but howſoever, 'tis as I relate it, as plainly appears to him that reads his Writings, his drift being only to ſhew, that the Azyme having nothing in it repreſenting the Life, which is in Jeſus Chriſt, it cannot therefore be uſed for the Myſtery of his Body. He himſelf explains his own meaning in theſe Terms, Saint Peter, ſay's he, tells us that we are Partakers of a Divine Nature, and not of the Azyme of the Murtherers of God. Now what man indued with Reaſon will call the dead Azyme, or the unleavened Bread of the Jews, a Divine Nature? and yet you offer it to God in Sacrifice, and eat it as a Figure of the living Fleſh of Jeſus Chriſt. How have you Communion with Jeſus Chriſt, who is the living God? eating dead and unleavened Bread, which appertains to the ſhadow of the Law, and not the New Teſtament. If we compare what he ſay's touching the Azyme, to what he ſay's afterwards concerning the Leavened Bread, we ſhall find his aim is only to ſhew, that one is not proper to repreſent the living Body of Jeſus Chriſt, and to become the Figure and Repreſentation of it, th'other on the contrary to be moſt proper. 1. Becauſe 'tis Bread, which th'other is not. 2. Becauſe 'tis in ſome ſort living, whereas th'other is dead. 3. Becauſe it reſpects Grace, and the New Teſtament, whereas the other reſpects the Jews, and Shadow of the Law, there is not one word in all this that ſavours Tranſubſtantiation. It appears on the contrary, that he takes for one and the ſame thing, to be a Partaker of the Divine Nature, have Communion with Chriſt in the Euchariſt, and to eat the Bread as a Figure of the living Fleſh of Jeſus Chriſt.
BUT we have had enough of this Illuſion, let us then paſs on to the nineteenth, which conſiſts in alledging the Teſtimony of Lanfranc, whereby to prove to us the Greeks believe Tranſubſtantiation. What can, (ſay's he,) Mr. Lib. 2. cap. 7. pag. 162. & 163.Claude ſay to this Witneſs, who ſo clearly affirms the Greeks were of the ſame Belief as the Church of Rome in the Myſtery of the Euchariſt? I may truly ſay, that Lanfranc looking upon Berengarius his Affair as a cauſe wherein his own credit was concerned; and reſolving therefore to vanquiſh at any rate, he was interreſſed to ſuppoſe, that all the World was on his ſide, and that therefore his prejudice invalidates his Teſtimony. I may alſo affirm Mr. Arnaud's word ſignifies nothing without Proof, altho it may be as well taken as Lanfranc's. I can ſhew that Lanfranc does not ſcruple to offer us a Fabulous Hiſtory (touching what paſſed in Cyrillus of Alexandria's time, and Pope Celeſtin's) and to make thereof a good Proof. Whether through Ignorance, or want of Sincerity, I know not, but ſure I am we have little reaſon to truſt that man's Teſtimony, who has ſo grosſly deceived us. He was, ſay's Mr. Ibid. pag. 162.Arnaud, an Italian by Nation, where there was a great many Greeks. Italy certainly would be a very happy Country, if it produced none but faithful Witneſſes. Had Lanfranc in effect taken care to inform himſelf by the Greeks which were there, what was their Belief touching the Subſtantial Converſion, he would have told us ſo himſelf, and not left it to Mr. Arnaud's gueſſes. It appears, adds he, by his way of writing, that he was a Perſon worthy of Credit. It appears by his Writings, that he was a paſſionate man, and extreamly carried away with vain glory, which are not the beſt marks of Sincerity. But after all this, I can tell Mr. Arnaud he is deceived in Lanfranc's own Teſtimony. For Lanfranc only ſay's, that all Chriſtians do glory in receiving in the Sacrament the true Fleſh and Blood of Chriſt, which he took of the Virgin. That this is the Faith of the Greeks, Armenians, and all the reſt of the Chriſtian World. Which is grounded only on this expreſſion of the Greeks, which bears that the Bread is our Saviour's real Body; and that it muſt not be ſaid, he has two Bodies, but one alone. Now we have already ſhewed what they mean by this expreſſion, namely, that the Bread becomes our Saviour's Body by way of Addition, as the Food we eat becomes our Body, which is very different from Tranſubſtantiation.
BUT, ſay's Mr. Arnaud, the Silence of Berengarius and his Followers ſeems to me alſo very conſiderable. I anſwer, this is another of his wilful miſtakes. For firſt how can he aſſure us that Berengarius and thoſe of his Opinion, never aſſerted the Greeks did not believe the Converſion of Subſtances? We have ſcarcely any of their Writings, we have no more of their Arguments and Anſwers, than what their Adverſaries have been pleaſed to give us. It is true that Lanfranc ſay's, when they were offered ſeveral Paſſages out of the Holy Scriptures, and Saint Auſtin's Works touching the State of the Church, they anſwered the Church had erred, and all its Members periſhed, except themſelves. But it does not hence follow, that they acknowledged the Greeks believed Tranſubſtantiation. They might ſay the Church had erred, and was periſhed from the Face of the Earth, meaning the Weſtern Church. They might ſay the ſame of the Eaſtern Church upon the account of other Errours beſides Tranſubſtantiation. And then again, who can aſſure us that Lanfranc gives a faithful account of what they ſaid touching this Subject?
IN the ſecond place I will grant that Berengarius, and his Followers never mentioned the Greeks in their Diſputes. Can Mr. Arnaud find it ſtrange, that People who were every where perſecuted, and afflicted, and had enough to do to preſerve themſelves, ſhould be ignorant of the Doctrine of the Greeks? Berengarius, ſay's he, was thrice at Rome, and had opportunity to Ibid. pag. 164.inform himſelf, and we need not doubt but 'twas one of his principal cares. Why not doubt of it? Becauſe Mr: Arnaud ſay's ſo? Thoſe that are not bound to believe him on his own bare word, will ſtill doubt of it: For he is not infallible, and I my ſelf am one of thoſe that doubt of it, till he proves it. The Interest Ibid.of his Cauſe, adds he, ſpeaking of me, is ſo prevalent in him, that he may learn from the Experience of his own Sentiments, what were thoſe of his followers. I confeſs the Intereſt of my Cauſe is a thouſand times more dear to me than my life, and Mr. Arnaud does me right here; But yet 'tis certain, that had I not the Book of the Perpetuity to anſwer, I ſhould not much trouble my ſelf about the Opinion of the Greeks; for the diſcovery of Truth, which ought to be the aim of us all, does not depend on what the Greeks do, or do not believe, and I ſhould eſteem my ſelf in a very miſerable condition, had my Faith and Conſcience no better Grounds than ſuch a pitiful Principle.
BERENGARIUS had the Word of God, which was enough, they need no other Weapons to defend themſelves that have this. But ſuppoſing his curioſity had moved him to inquire after the Sentiments of the Greeks, I know not whether he was in a capacity to ſatisfie himſelf. For as far as I underſtand, he was a Perſon that gave all he had to the Poor. I no where find he was one of thoſe that had great mens purſes at command. And living as he did in the Eleventh Century, wherein there were no other Books than what were Manuſcripts (the Art of Printing not being then found out) neither I ſuppoſe ſo free a Commerce betwixt Conſtantinople and Angers, as at preſent; and having moreover neither Conſuls nor Emiſſaries his Friends to help him in that Country, he may be well excuſed if he did not exactly know their Doctrine.
BUT in fine, ſuppoſing, Berengarius and his Followers, were not ignorant of the true Opinion of the Greek Church, where lies the neceſſity, that they ought to make this an Argument whereby to defend themſelves, ſeeing 'twas never yet pretended that the Opinion of the Greeks was the ſame with that of Berengarius.