The Catholic Doctrine of the Eucharist in All Ages, Book 4 · Chapter 8
CHAP. VIII.
The Profeſſion of Faith which the Sarracens were cauſed to make in the twelveth Century, conſidered; ſeveral Paſſages out of Cabaſilas, Simeon Archbiſhop of Theſſalonica, Jeremias the Patriarch of Conſtantinople, and ſeveral others, Collected by Mr. Arnaud out of Greek Authors: Examined.
VVE have already rehearſed the Profeſſion of Faith which the Greeks of the twelveth Century cauſed the Sarracens to make, that imbraced the Chriſtian Religion; to ſhew the Greeks kept themſelves to the general Expreſſions of the Bread and Wines being the Body and Blood of Chriſt, and how they are changed into this Body and Blood; leaving to God the Knowledg of the manner thereof. It is certain this is all can be concluded thence, and yet Mr. Arnaud has not fail'd to draw this Profeſſion of Faith to his Advantage: But ſeeing he deſigned to make a Proof of it, it ſeems to me, he ought at leaſt to rehearſe truly the Terms of it, and not alter them as he has done in his Verſion. I believe, ſay's the Convert, and confeſs the Bread and Wine which Bibl. Patr. tom. 2. Grec. Lat.are mystically Sacrificed by the Chriſtians, and of which they partake in their Divine Sacraments. This Clauſe thus expreſſed, has not contented Mr. Arnaud, and therefore he has not thought good to relate it in this Form, altho it be ſo in the Greek and Latin Verſion. I believe alſo, ſay's the Sarracen, that theſe things are in truth the Body and Blood of Chriſt, being changed by his Divine Virtue intellectually and inviſibly above all humane Underſtanding, AS IS BEST KNOWN TO HIMSELF. Theſe are ſo far the true Expreſſions of the Profeſſion; Here follows Mr. Arnaud's Verſion. I am perſwaded, Lib. 2. c. 15. p. 247.I believe, I confeſs that the Bread and Wine myſtically Conſecrated by the Chriſtians, and of which they partake in the Celebration of the Holy Myſteries, are in truth the Body and Blood of our Lord, being changed by his Divine Virtue, in a manner not to be perceived by our Eyes, and diſcernible only to the Mind, but ſurpaſſing all the Thoughts of Men, and which is only comprehended by God alone, and ſo I promiſe that I will partake of it with other faithful People, as being in truth his Fleſh and Blood. By this means. 1ſt. He confounds two things which the Proſelyte diſtinguiſhes; The one is to Confeſs the Bread and Wine of which the Chriſtians partake, and the other, to Confeſs that this Bread and Wine are in truth the Body and Blood of Jeſus Chriſt. Theſe two Clauſes being thus diſtinguiſhed, it is clear the firſt ſuppoſes that 'tis Bread and Wine; and this Mr. Arnaud would conceal by confounding them in one. 2dly. Inſtead of rendring foreign Intellectually and Inviſibly, he has taken ſuch a Circuit as changes the Sence: In a manner, ſay's he, which our Eyes do not diſcover, and which is diſcernable only to the Mind: To hinder the Readers from obſerving that the Change in Queſtion is Spiritual and Myſtical, not Senſible, or Material, for this is preciſely what is meant by this foreign. 3dly. Inſtead of theſe Terms, As he alone knows foreign which gives us to underſtand that God only determinately knows what this Spiritual and Myſtical Change is; He has Tranſlated, In a manner Comprehended by God alone, to accommodate this to the Doctrine of the Roman Church, which expreſly determines the Change of one Subſtance into another; But not being able to diſintangle herſelf from the Difficulties ſhe finds in this Doctrine, ſends us to God.
AND yet with all theſe Alterations Mr. Arnaud can conclude nothing from this Profeſſion of Faith, unleſs it be, that the Bread and Wine are in truth the Body and Blood of Jeſus Chriſt, and that they are changed by his Divine Virtue: But this is not the Point we diſputed on: They are then changed in reſpect of their Subſtance: It is this Conſequence which we deny▪ In Effect, whether the Bread and Wine are the Body and Blood of Chriſt by a change of Virtue, and by way of Augmentation, as the Greeks explain it, or otherwiſe; it is certain that they are ſo truly, and not falſly; So th…s Profeſſion of Faith then means no more than this, that we muſt believe the Bread and Wine are not vainly and imaginarily the Body and Blood of our Lord, but really and truly, altho God only knows how they are changed, or what kind of Change happens to them. Now this ſuppoſes on one hand that they are ſtill Bread and Wine, and on the other, that we muſt not proceed ſo far as to a change of Subſtance.
MR. Arnaud then advertiſes the World to no purpoſe, That theſe kind of Writings are deſign'd to repreſent the General, Publick, and Univerſal Sentiments of the Church, and not the Particular Sentiment of Authors. That they contain an P. 246.Exact, Preciſe, and Plain way of Speaking without Figure, or Metaphor, their End being only to give an Exact and True Account of Points of Faith. It is eaſy to turn theſe Remarks againſt himſelf; For ſeeing theſe kind of Writings ſpeak Preciſely, and Exactly, he ought to ſhew us Diſtinctly, and Exactly the Converſion of Subſtances contained in them: And ſeeing it is not to be found in them, and yet this Profeſſion of Faith repreſents the General, Publick, and Univerſal Sentiment of the Greek Church; It follows that this Publick, General, and Univerſal Sentiment is not Tranſubſtantiation.
TO little Purpoſe likewiſe does he add, That the Church would not have the P. 247.Converted Sarracens believe that the Bread and Wine were not truly the Body and Blood of Christ, but only his Figure indued with their Virtue. This is not the Point; the Queſtion is to know whether they were taught the Converſion of Subſtances, which is what he ought to ſhow, but this he will be never able to do. For, for to teach that the Bread and Wine are really the Body and Blood of Jeſus Chriſt, (which is what is preciſely contain'd in this Profeſſion of Faith) is not as (as I have already ſaid) the teaching the Converſion of Subſtances. Moreover I never told him the modern Greeks aſſerted the Euchariſt to be a Figure: And as to the Change of Virtue we do not prove it, it is true by this Profeſſion of Faith, but we prove it by other Teſtimonies, which are ſo plain and expreſſive that Mr. Arnaud can give no ſolid Anſwer to them.
THERE only remain now of all thoſe pretended Proofs of Mr. Arnaud, ſome Paſſages out of Cabaſilas Biſhop of Theſſalonica, Simeon Biſhop alſo of Theſſalonica, Jeremias the Patriarch of Conſtantinople, and ſome other Greek Authors. They all ſay near upon the ſame thing, which is, That the Bread and Wine are the Body and Blood of Chriſt: This very Body and Blood. That they are changed into this Body and Blood. But Mr. Arnaud muſt diſabuſe himſelf once for all, touching the Thoughts he has, that from theſe kind of Expreſſions may be concluded the Doctrine of the Converſion of Subſtances: For ſo far are we from granting this Concluſion to be good, that we pretend we have Reaſon to draw a contrary Conſequence. In effect. 1ſt. There is nothing more uſual in Authors than to ſay, That the Poor are Jeſus Chriſt, even Chriſt himſelf, that the Church is the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, the very Body of Jeſus Chriſt, that we are changed into Jeſus Chriſt, changed into his Body, tranſformed into him, changed into his Fleſh: and ſuch like ways of ſpeaking, Examples of which are infinite. It is then a great Abuſe to pretend theſe Terms are to be underſtood in a Sence of Identity and ſubſtantial Converſion, as they term it. For (as I ſaid elſewhere,) theſe Expreſſions being lyable to be Expounded in divers particular Sences, and ſeeing they may be taken in a general and indiſtinct one, there can be no Reaſon for the taking them, in the Sence which Mr. Arnaud gives them.
II. THE Converſion of the Subſtances of Bread and Wine into thoſe of the Body and Blood of Chriſt, does of it ſelf, form ſo preciſe and diſtinct a Sence, that when Authors would aſſert it, they explain it in clear and diſtinct Terms, which anſwer the diſtinct determinate Conception they have of it. Whence it follows, that if the Greek Authors had on this Subject the ſame Belief as the Roman Church, they would explain themſelves ſo clearly, that there would be no need of running to the Baron of Spartaris, nor Payſius Ligaridius, nor yet to the ſix Syrian Prieſts to make us underſtand it.
FOR whilſt he produces no other kind of Paſſages but ſuch as theſe, we ſhall have ſtill Reaſon to conclude from hence, that the Greeks do not believe Tranſubſtantiation, becauſe if they did believe it, they would without doubt ſpeak otherwiſe of it.
III. BUT ſuppoſing theſe Reaſons Invalid, we have ſhewed (when we treated of the real Belief of the Greeks) in what Sence they underſtand theſe Expreſſions. In effect, if we compare the Doctrine of the Greeks with that of the Latins, and throly comprehend what they hold in common, and wherein they differ, we ſhall eaſily perceive Mr. Arnaud's Sophiſm, for whatſoever he alledges from Greek Authors, reſpects this Equivocal part of their Hypotheſis, which he believed to be like that of the Latins, altho at bottom 'tis not ſo; but he has ſtudiouſly avoided the relating any thing concerning this other Part, by which the two Hypotheſis's diſtinguiſh themſelves, and vary from one another. The Greeks and Latins agree in theſe general Expreſſions, The Bread is made the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, The Bread is changed into the Body of Christ, it becomes the very Body, the proper Body, the real Body of Chriſt. They are not two Bodies, but one Body. So far you ſee they hold the ſame Language.
BUT go farther, ask them whether the nature of Bread ceaſes to be. The Latins anſwer, there remains nothing of its Subſtance, nor Matter, nor inward Form, but only the Accidents. The Greeks on the contrary ſay, That the Bread is joyned to the Divinity, that from this Union reſults one compoſed of two Natures, that there is made a Compoſition of Bread and the Holy Spirit. Ask the Latins how the Bread is made the Body of Jeſus Chriſt; They Anſwer, by the Converſion of its whole Subſtance, into the Subſtance which this Body had before the Converſion. The Greeks on the contrary ſay, the Bread becomes an Augmentation of the natural Body of our Lord, and is made by this means his Body: Ask them what Change the Bread receives; the Latins ſay it is a real Tranſubſtantiation, (that is to ſay) the change of one Subſtance into another. The Greeks on the contrary anſwer, that it is a Sanctification which the Bread receives, and that it is changed into the Supernatural Virtue of Chriſt's Body. Ask the Latins how the Bread becomes the real Body, the very Body, the proper Body of our Lord born of the Virgin Mary: They anſwer, 'tis becauſe in effect the ſame numerical Subſtance, without any Difference. The Greeks on the contrary ſay, that 'tis becauſe an Augmentation makes not another Body, than that which receives Augmentation, and they make uſe of the Example of a Child, which Eating, and Drinking and Growing by this means, has not two Bodies, but one.
MR. Arnaud then has in vain, collected all the Paſſages of Cabaſilas which aſſert, The Gifts are changed into the Body and Blood of Chriſt, that the Bread is Lib. 3. c. 8.the very Body of our Saviour, the Sacrifice offered for the Salvation of the World, that the Lord is ſeen and handled by means of the Holy and Dreadful Myſteries, and that we receive him in the Euchariſt. Theſe Expreſſions are common both to the Latins and Greeks, from whence he can conclude nothing, to the Prejudice of theſe Differences we have obſerved, and which decide the Queſtion.
IT is in vain he tells us, that Cabaſilas Diſputing againſt the Latins, on the Subject of this Prayer which they make after the Conſecration: Jube ſurſum ferri dona haec in manu angeli ad ſupercaeleſte tuum Altare: Reaſons on theſe four Principles which include the real Preſence, and Tranſubſtantiation. 1ſt. That we ought not to wiſh the Body of Chriſt be taken up from us. 2ly. That the Body of Chriſt being in Heaven and on Earth, we ought not to deſire it ſhould be carried up into Heaven, becauſe it is there already. 3dly. That it cannot be offered by Angels, becauſe it is above Angels. 4ly. That we cannot without Impiety wiſh the Gifts a greater Dignity, ſeeing they are the Body of Jeſus Chriſt.
AS to what concerns the firſt of theſe: Cabaſilas ſay's only, We muſt not pray that the Holy Gifts be taken away from us, but on the contrary, that they may remain with us, and muſt believe they do ſo, becauſe it is thus that Chriſt is with us to the end of the World: Hitherto we ſee neither Tranſubſtantiation, nor Cabaſ. expoſ. Liturg. c. 30.real Preſence. As to the 2d. Cabaſilas ſay's, That if the Latins acknowledged it to be the Body of Chriſt, they muſt believe he is with us, and that he is above the Heavens, ſeated at the right Hand of the Father, in a manner known to him, which ſtill ſuppoſes neither real Preſence, nor Tranſubſtantiation. For according to the Greeks, the Euchariſt which is on the Earth, being the Growth of the Body of Chriſt, is one and the ſame Body with that in Heaven. So that in manner, the ſame Body is in Heaven and on Earth; In Heaven, in reſpect of its natural Subſtance, and on Earth, in reſpect of the Myſtery, which is its Growth; which is far from the Sence of the Latins, and does not ſuppoſe any Tranſubſtantiation. As to the 3d. How, ſay's Cabaſilas, can that be carried up by an Angel which is above all Principalities and Powers, and above every Name. But, methinks this would be to extend the uſe of Conſequences too far, to conclude from hence that the Euchariſt is the Body of Chriſt in propriety of Subſtance. For it is ſufficient to eſtabliſh the Truth of what Cabaſilas ſay's, that the Bread is the Body of Chriſt in Virtue, and by way of Growth, as we have already obſerved the Greeks explain it, ſeeing it is true that this Dignity raiſes it up in ſome Sence above the Angels themſelves, not in reſpect of its Nature or Subſtance, but in reſpect of the Virtue which accompanies it, which is the ſupernatural Virtue of our Lord's Body. As to the 4th. It is certain that Cabaſilas has had reaſon to ſay that if the Latins deſired the Gifts might after their Conſecration receive ſome new Dignity, and a Change into a better State, their Prayer would be impious, ſeeing they acknowledged they were already the Body of Chriſt. For, as he afterwards adds, to what more excellent or Holy State can we believe they paſs into? His Reaſoning is good, but I do not ſee it includes (as Mr. Arnaud tells us) the real Preſence, and Tranſubſtantiation: He ought to ſhew us this, and not aſſert it without Proof; for it may very well be ſaid in the Sence of the Greeks, that the Bread is capable of no higher a Dignity, than that of receiving the Impreſſion of the Virtue of Chriſt's Body, and to be made this Body by way of Growth and Augmentation.
IT is moreover in Vain Mr. Arnaud endeavours to ſhew that in the Sence of Cabaſilas Chriſt does not really dye in the Euchariſt, for we never imputed Lib. 3. c. 8.to this Author ſo ſtrange a Doctrine: Neither have we ween deceiv'd touching the Participles foreign as Mr. Arnaud has imagined. For we find that Cabaſilas calls the Body of Chriſt not foreign as Mr. Arnaud ſuppoſes, this is a Fault in Grammar which has ſcaped his Pen for want of heed, and which we muſt not impute to a Greek; but foreign, we have ſeen likewiſe he deny's the Body is, not foreign as Mr. Arnaud does again aſſert by a Miſtake thro Incogitancy, for we are not willing to attribute it to any thing elſe. The Greeks do not ſay foreign in that Sence, to ſay the Sacrificed or Slain Body, no more than foreign; but foreign, which is to ſay that Cabaſilas means that the Body has been ſlain heretofore, and not at preſent. But this does not hinder it from being true, as I ſaid in my Anſwer to the Perpetuity, that Cabaſilas has reſpect to the Body of Chriſt in the Euchariſt, as dead, that is to ſay under a reſpect or quality of Anſwer to the 2d Treat. c. 8.Death. Which appears by what he ſay's, that it is not an Image or Repreſentation of a Sacrifice, but a real Sacrifice, not of Bread, but of the Body of Chriſt, Cabaſ. expoſ. Lit. cap. 32.and that there is but one Sacrifice of the Lamb, of him which was once offered. Whence it follows that Chriſt is in the Euchariſt as Dead, and Sacrificed on the Croſs, which is preciſely what I ſaid.
MR. Arnaud will ſay that the Conſequence which I draw, to wit, that Chriſt is not ſubſtantially preſent in the Euchariſt, is contrary to Cabaſilas his Diſcourſe, who aſſures us, That the Bread is changed into the thing Sacrificed, altho the Sacrifice is not preſently offered; But Mr. Arnaud having never well Ibid.comprehended the Hypotheſis of the Greeks, it is no marvel if he has miſunderſtood Cabaſilas his Sence in this Diſcourſe which he makes of the Sacrifice in his thirty ſecond Chapter. The Greeks will have the Bread paſs thro all the Degrees of the Oeconomy, thro which the Body of Chriſt has paſſed, that as the Holy Spirit came upon the Subſtance of the Holy Virgin, ſo does he come upon the Bread; that as the Body of Chriſt was in a corruptible ſtate, Crucifi'd, and Buried; ſo in like manner the Bread is firſt Corruptible, lifted up as it were upon a Croſs, and buried in our Bodies, as in a Sepulchre. That, in fine, it becomes incorruptible as the Body of Chriſt was after his Reſurrection: which they eſtabliſh by this Reaſon, that the Bread is an augmentation of the Body of Jeſus Chriſt; and that as Nature obſerves on the Food which nouriſhes us, and augments our Body, the ſame order ſhe kept in the firſt matter from which we were formed. So Grace obſerves in the Euchariſtical Bread, the ſame order ſhe obſerves in the Natural Body. By this means they will have the Bread become firſt the Body of Chriſt, in aſmuch as 'tis Mortal and Corruptible, that it be afterwards this dead Body; and in fine, this Incorruptible and Raiſed Body. Cabaſilas his Sence then is, that when the Bread is myſtically ſacrificed, it is made the dead Body of Jeſus Chriſt, as he ſpeaks himſelf, the Lamb ſlain, not that the Body ſuffers Death in this Moment, but becauſe in this Moment the Bread paſſes thro the Oeconomy of Death. And thus the Bread is changed into the dead Body of our Lord, not that our Saviour dyes in effect, but becauſe the Bread which is the Growth of his Body, is then changed into this Body, in as much as it ſuffered Death heretofore. And this is Cabaſilas his real Sence, which is conformable to the Hypotheſis of the Greeks, and not that which Mr. Arnaud attributes to him.
HE likewiſe uſes to no purpoſe ſeveral Paſſages out of Simeon of Theſſalonica. They ſay nothing but what I already often anſwered, to wit, That the Bread is the real Body of Jeſus Chriſt, that it is the very Body of Chriſt, and I ſhewed in what Sence the Greeks uſe theſe Expreſſions, and therefore will not any more repeat it. I likewiſe anſwered what he alledged touching the Adoration and the unconſecrated Particles.
AS to Jeremias the Patriarch of Conſtantinople, we may well wonder that he ſhould ſo confidently offer him us as a Perſon that teaches Tranſubſtantiation, ſeeing that not only Jeremias holds the ſame Language as the others, but aſſerts ſeveral things which oppoſes the Roman Doctrine. Mr. Arnaud having according to his Cuſtom impertinently related ſeveral hiſtorical Paſſages, Lib. 4. c. 4.tells us, That the Article of the Ausbourg Confeſſion, which reſpects the Sacrament, expreſly aſſerting the real Preſence, but not mentioning Tranſubſtantiation; Jeremias anſwers, that Point is handled in it very briefly and obſcurely, and adds, that the Catholick Church holds the Bread is changed into the very Body and Blood of our Lord thro the Holy Spirit. So that then Jeremias held Tranſubſtantiation: And thus does Mr. Arnaud draw his Conſequences; But he is too quick. Some Proteſtants in Germany ſent the Auſbourg Confeſſion to the Patriarch of Constantinople without any Commentary or Expoſition on it. The Patriarch examining its tenth Article, which runs thus, Touching the Lord's Supper, they hold the Body and Blood of Jeſus Chriſt are really preſent in it, and are diſtributed to thoſe that participate thereof, and condemn the Opinion of thoſe that hold the contrary: He ſay's, This Article treats of the Lord's Supper very briefly, and to ſay the Truth, ſomewhat obſcurely; For, adds he, we are told ſeveral things of you which we do not approve. To ſay hereupon that the Lutherans underſtood this Article in the Sence of the real Preſence, and that the Greeks could not be ignorant of it, ſignifies nothing. For it appears that the Patriarch only conſidered the Expreſſions of the Article barely as they are laid down, and found them obſcure. And as to thoſe things which were told him of them on this Subject, and which he diſapproved, he does not ſpecify them. When then he adds, That the Catholick Church holds, the Bread is changed into the Body and Blood of our Lord thro the Spirit. It is clear his Deſign is without proceeding any farther into the Examination of their Belief, to tell them that of his Church, and oppoſe it againſt their Article, ſo that we muſt always return to the Inquiry whether by theſe Expreſſions, The Bread is changed into the real Body, he means Tranſubſtantiation, or the other Change by way of Augmentation, and Impreſſion of Virtue; for 'tis certain, the Article of the Auſbourg Confeſſion reſpects neither of theſe Changes.
MR. Arnaud tells us, This was a proper place wherein to aſſert the Body and Ibid. p. 361.Blood of Chriſt are not really preſent in the Sacrament, ſeeing only their Virtue is in it. I anſwer, a preſence of Virtue, is a real Preſence of the Body and Blood of Chriſt, even as the Sun is really preſent with us by the Efficacy of its Beams, ſo that Jeremias had no reaſon to oppoſe the reality of the Preſence; but 'twas better ſaid by him, that the Terms of the Confeſſion were Ambiguous, and that they ought to acknowledg clearly, the Body and Blood are ſubſtantially preſent in it, ſuppoſing he believed this ſubſtantial Preſence.
MR. Arnaud adds, That the Patriarch does not ſay the Bread is changed in p. 362.Virtue, Power and Efficacy. I anſwer, neither does he ſay 'tis changed in Substance, and there is this Difference betwixt Mr. Arnaud and I, that I add it was not neceſſary that Jeremias ſhould explain himſelf touching this change of Virtue, becauſe the Greeks who preceded him, had already plainly done it; but the ſame cannot be ſaid touching the change of Subſtance, for not one of the Greeks ever mentioned it any more than he, ſo that he was neceſſarily obliged clearly to expreſs it, if he intended it ſhould be underſtood.
BUT Mr. Arnaud further ſay's, The Divines of Wittemberg, and Tubinga, believed upon the Anſwer of the Patriarch, that he taught the real Preſence and p. 370.Tranſubſtantiation. When this were true we need not be aſtoniſhed thereat: For it might well be that Divines who held the Conſubſtantiation ſhould take the Words of Jeremias in a Sence which oppoſed only one part of their Opinion, rather than in another which would wholly overthrow it. Their Prejudication ſignifies nothing, to the Expoſition which the Greeks make themſelves of their own Opinion.
BUT Mr. Arnaud ſay's moreover, If the Divines of Wittemberg Miſunderſtood the Patriarchs Sence, it lay upon him to rectify their Miſtakes. I anſwer, there cannot be any Advantage made of Jeremias's Silence in this Reſpect. For it is certain that in theſe Divines firſt anſwer, they reckon amongſt the Points in which they agreed with the Patriarch, this, That the Communion, or Supper of our Lord, unites us to him, in as much as we truly partake therein of his Fleſh and Blood: But theſe were the proper Expreſſions which this Patriarch uſed, and ſo far there was no reaſon to ſay they charged him with believing what he did not, ſeeing they only repeated what he ſaid. It is likewiſe true they denyed the Bread was changed therein, which they grounded on the Teſtimony of St. Paul, who calls it Bread; yet did they make uſe of the ſame Term Jeremias did, which is that of foreign, without the leaſt mention of a change of Subſtance. So that ſo far Jeremias had no cauſe to tell 'em they miſtook his Words: Neither does he do it in his Reply or ſecond Anſwer, but ſtill continues to ſay, The Bread is changed, without proceeding any farther. It is true, in fine, that the Divines having replyed to Jeremias his ſecond Letter, they expreſly oppoſe the change of Subſtance, and ſeem thereby to ſuppoſe they had taken the foreign of Jeremias in the Sence of a real Tranſubſtantiation, which might then oblige this Patriarch to explain himſelf more clearly than he had done in his former Writings. But it is alſo true that he returned them no particular Anſwer touching the Article of the Euchariſt. He contented himſelf with telling them in general concerning the Sacraments, That ſeeing they admitted only ſome of them, and moreover erroneouſly perverted and changed the Expreſſions of the ancient and modern Doctrin to obtain their Aim, foreign, They therefore deſerved not the Title of Divines. Which ſufficiently ſhews his Complaint againſt them, for their miſunderſtanding of theſe Terms, in underſtanding them of a change of Subſtance, and at the ſame time certifying them, that for his Part he would not deviate from the general and uſual Expreſſions of his Church.
IT is certain there is in theſe Writings of Jeremias, ſuch Matters which cannot agree with the Roman Tranſubſtantiation, as that which we have already related when we treated on the real Belief of the Greeks, That God has given us the Sacraments double, that is to ſay, conſiſting on one Hand of the Grace of the Holy Spirit, and on the other, of ſenſible things, which are Water, Oyl, Bread, and the Chalice by which our Souls are ſanctifi'd; For a Man that ſpeaks thus, clearly ſhews he underſtands the Subſtance of Bread remains. We may likewiſe reckon in this Rank what he ſays concerning the Church, That ſhe is ſet forth to us in the Myſteries, not as in the Symbols; But as the Members are in the Heart, and the Branches of a Tree in the Root, or as the Branches in the Vine according to our Saviour's Words. For here is not only a bare Communion of Name, or relation of Reſemblance, but the Identity of the thing it ſelf: For the Myſteries are really the Body and Blood of Chriſt, and they are not changed into our Body, but we are changed into them, the ſtrongeſt part prevailing. The Iron when put in the Fire, becomes Fire it ſelf, but the Fire becomes not Iron. As then when the Iron is red-hot, we perceive no more Iron, but Fire, the Fire diſpelling all the Proprieties of Iron, ſo he that beholds Chriſt's Church, in as much as it is united to him, and partakes of his Fleſh, beholds nothing elſe but the Body of our Lord.
THIS Diſcourſe is taken Verbatim out of Cabaſilas, as I have obſerved elſewhere, and ſhews the Change of Bread and Wine, muſt not be urged as if they underſtood it of a Change of Subſtance, ſeeing he uſes the ſame Term in reſpect of the Communicants, ſaying, We are changed into the Myſteries. They likewiſe ſhew us we muſt not take in a Counter-Sence what he ſay's concerning the Myſteries, being really the Body and Blood of Jeſus Chriſt, ſeeing he tells us the Church is the very Body of our Lord. I alledged theſe laſt Words in my Anſwer to the Perpetuity, and ſay'd, That Jeremias ſpeaks of the Church which has received the Impreſſion of the Spirit of Chriſt. Mr. Arnaud accuſes me of Falſifying this Paſſage: But this Accuſation comes from his being out of Humor. The original Words I recited are theſe foreign, he will perceive nothing elſe but our Lord's Body: And as to what I ſaid, that he ſpeaks of the Church which has received the Impreſſion of the Spirit of Chriſt, I affirm this is his Sence, and that Mr. Arnaud (as prejudiced as he is) cannot give it any other: For to what relates this Compariſon of Fire which changes the Iron, but to the Impreſſion of the Spirit of Chriſt on the Church, and this Union of the Church with Chriſt, but to his ſpiritual and myſtical Union? It is true he ſay's, That 'tis in as much as ſhe is partaker of his Fleſh: But this does not in any ſort change his Sence. For 'tis from the myſtical Participation of his Fleſh that comes the Impreſſion of his Spirit, and it is the Impreſſion of his Spirit which effects this admirable Change. Theſe two things are ſubalternate, but not contrary to one another: So that Mr. Arnaud impertinently charges me with falſifying the Paſſage of Jeremias. But it is not the ſame with this other Paſſage which Forbeſius alledged, and concerning which I have complained of the Author of the Perpetuity. Mr. Arnaud may ſay if he pleaſes, That my Complaint is unreaſonable; yet will it be found both Juſt and Reaſonable. Forbeſius was a Perſon who making outward Profeſſion of the Proteſtant Religion, yet wrote in favour of the Church of Rome, under the ſpecious pretence of Peace and Agreement. To ſoften what we believe is hard in the Doctrine of Tranſubſtantiation, he aſſures us that almoſt all the Greeks believe it, and inſtances Jeremias who teaches according to what he ſay's, That the Bread is neither a Figure, nor an Azyme, but the real Body of Chriſt contained under the ſpecies of leavened Bread.
The Author of the Perpetuity alledges this Forbeſius as a Perſon whoſe Teſtimony ought to be of great weight with us, being a Proteſtant. The cauſe then of my Complaint is, that we muſt have a falſe Tranſlation of Jeremias impoſed upon us, under the Name of a Proteſtant, without telling us what kind of Man this Proteſtant was. When we make uſe of a Witneſs, we ought certainly to conſider what he is, and if it appears there be juſt Exceptions againſt him, we muſt not offer him; and when we would uſe a Paſſage which he alledges, we muſt take care his Tranſlation be true. It is to no purpoſe to ſay, We are not obliged to juſtify the Tranſlations of Proteſtants, and that if he be miſtaken 'tis his Fault. This might be indeed alledged, ſuppoſing the P. 365.Author of the Perpetuity had diſputed againſt Forbeſius, or were ignorant who this Forbeſius was; but this Mans Character ſufficiently ſhews it ſelf by the bare reading of his Book. Neither does it ſignify any thing to ſay, That Forbeſius is not the Author of this Tranſlation, but Tranſcribed it Verbatim from Socolovius. Neither is it leſs a Deceit in Forbeſius himſelf, who ought not to make us Believe that Jeremias ſaid what he did not, and when a Perſon that pretends to be of our Communion deceives us, we have right to inveigh againſt him. Let us come then to the Point, and inquire whether the Tranſlation of Jeremias be falſe. Mr. Arnaud ſay's 'tis not, and I affirm it is: The Queſtion will be decided by the reading of Jeremias his own Words. The Bread, ſay's he, of the Lord's Body, which is adminiſtred by the Prieſts, is neither a Type, nor an Azyme, but it is foreign, a leavened Loaf, and the very Body of our Lord, and the Tranſlation runs, Illud ipſum verum Chriſti corpus, ſub ſpeciebus fermentati panis contentum, The Body it ſelf, the real Body of Chriſt CONTAINED UNDER THE SPECIES OF LEAVENED BREAD. Mr. Arnaud affirms that this is not a Falſification, becauſe Jeremias his true Sence is repreſented in it. For ſay's he, theſe Words, foreign, are capable of two different P. 366.Sences. Firſt, This Bread is called foreign Leavened, becauſe it remains in effect leavened Bread, and that it is only the Body of Chriſt, in Figure or Virtue. Secondly, It is called by this Name of leavened Bread, becauſe it was originally leavened Bread, and does ſtill appear ſo, altho it be the Body of our Lord. But the firſt of theſe Sences has been ſeveral times excluded by Jeremias his own Words, wherein he clearly aſſerted that after the Conſecration the leavend Bread is changed into our Lord's real Body, that it is not a Figure, but our Lords Body, that it is this Fleſh concerning which he ſpeaks; The Bread which I ſhall give you is my Fleſh. It is excluded in what follows ſundry different ways, and by the very Words of that paſſage which aſſerts it is our Lord's Body. Whence it follows it is not then really leavened Bread.
I anſwer, that this pretended Sence which Mr. Arnaud attributes to Jeremias is preciſely the Point in Queſtion. Now whilſt a matter is in Diſpute, we muſt never tranſlate a Paſſage according to the Sence of one of the Parties which th'other denies him. To deal ſincerely, the proper and natural Signification of Terms muſt be kept, and every man left at his liberty to judg of them. For when men tranſlate according to the Pretention of one Party, they are no longer the Words of this Author, but the Prejudication of this Party, and conſequently an Alteration, even when the Prejudication of this Party ſhould be juſt and reaſonable in the Main. Moreover Mr. Arnaud is miſtaken, if he believes the other Paſſages of Jeremias determine a Sence of ſubſtantial Reality, for according to the Hypotheſis of the Greeks, the Bread ſtill remains Bread in Subſtance, altho it be changed into the Body of Chriſt, and be the very Body of Chriſt, and not a Figure, as we have often already declared, whence it follows the Tranſlation in queſtion cannot be juſtified.
A Man of never ſo mean Capacity may perceive that Jeremias his Sence, is not that which Mr. Arnaud attributes to him. For in the ſame place where he ſay's, The Bread is changed into the real Body of Chriſt, and the Wine into his Blood, and wherein he alledges the Words of Chriſt which tell us, not, This is an Azyme, or this is the Figure of my Body, but this is my Body; He adds by way of Explication, This is not to ſay that the Fleſh which our Saviour then had, was given to be eaten by his Diſciples, nor his Blood to be drunk, nor that now in this ſacred Ordinance our Lord's Body deſcends from Heaven: This would be Blaſphemy. But then and now by Prayers and the Grace of the almighty Spirit, which operates in the Myſteries by means of the Holy Oriſons, the Bread is changed into our Lord's real Body and Blood. Theſe Words being applyed to the Hypotheſis of the Greeks, that the Bread remaining Bread, and receiving the Impreſſion of the Holy Spirit, is changed into the Body of Chriſt by way of Augmentation, are clear, and void of Difficulty. But if we apply them to the Hypotheſis of the Latins, who affirm the Subſtance of Bread is changed into the natural Fleſh of Chriſt, and becomes the Same numerical Fleſh which our Lord had when on Earth; In what Sence ſhall we underſtand that ſaying of Jeremias, namely that the Fleſh which Chriſt had then, was not given to be eaten by his Diſciples? For if we grant Tranſubſtantiation, it is certain the Diſciples eat the ſame Fleſh which Chriſt then had, and Jeremias his Propoſition can not ſubſiſt. Mr. Arnaud endeavours but in vain, to expound Jeremias his Diſcourſe in ſaying, That Chriſt gave not to be eaten by his Diſciples the Fleſh which he had, in ceaſing to have it, and to appear before them in his uſual manner, in cutting his Body into Morſels, or having no other place of Abode than his Apoſtles Stomach. To make us receive this Gloſs, it muſt be grounded on Jeremias his own Words, and not on Mr. Arnaud's Imagination. Theſe Corrections and fine Explications hinder not, but that the Patriarch's Propoſition is abſolute and contrary to the Doctrine of Tranſubſtantiation. For that which Jeremias denies, is not that our Saviour diſappeared before his Diſciples, nor cut his Fleſh into Morſels, but that he gave them to eat the Fleſh he then had. The Queſtion reſpects not the manner in which our Lord gave his Fleſh to be eaten, but whether he did give it, and Jeremias aſſerts he did not. What likelyhood is there that a Man who believes Tranſubſtantiation, would thus roughly offer a Negative which is directly oppoſite to his Belief? What likelyhood is there he would offer it in the ſame place and Diſcourſe wherein he aſſerts Tranſubſtantiation, without explaining, and leſſening the Offence, which might be taken at his Words? But in ſhort, how is it probable he would treat as Blaſphemous the Propoſition contrary to his Negative? Of theſe two Propoſitions, Chriſt gave to be eaten by his Diſciples the Fleſh he bore, and Chriſt gave not the Fleſh he bare to his Diſciples to eat. The firſt would be the only true one according to the Letter, without Gloſs and Commentary, ſuppoſing Tranſubſtantiation. Th'other taken litterally would be falſe and heretical, and to make it tolerable, it muſt have Expoſitions and Molifications contrary to what the Letter bears. Mr. Arnaud is forced to change the firſt and natural Sence of the Terms, and impoſe on them a forced and unuſual one. Who can then imagine that a Man who believed Tranſubſtantiation, or the real Preſence, and poſitively aſſerted it, ſhould be ſo ſenceleſs as to condemn the firſt of theſe Propoſitions which expreſly contains his Belief, to condemn it I ſay as Blaſphemous, and eſtabliſh the ſecond as the only true one, without uſing any Corrective or Illuſtration? This is wholly improbable.
AND this is what I had to ſay concerning Jeremias. There remains nothing more of all Mr. Arnaud's pretended Proofs, than the Paſſages taken out of ſome common Authors, wherein there being nothing extraordinary, and containing only that the Bread is the Body of Chriſt, and that it is changed into his Body: The ſame Anſwer being applyed to them will be ſufficient.