The Catholic Doctrine of the Eucharist in All Ages, Book 4 · Chapter 9
CHAP. IX.
Several Paſſages of Anaſtaſius Sinaite, Germane the Patriarch of Conſtantinople, and Damaſcene, Examined.
HAVING ſatisfied Mr. Arnaud's Objections concerning the Greeks ſince the eleventh Century to this preſent, we muſt not any longer defer the Conſideration of his ſeventh Book, wherein by an odd kind of Humour he aſcends upwards to the ſeventh Century, and ſo deſcends down again incluſively to the tenth. I call this an odd and propoſterous way of proceeding; For why, begin at the eleventh Century, ſeeing he deſigned to treat of the ſeventh and following Ages? Why skip over the firſt and ſix Centuries, if he ſincerely deſign'd to prove the Perpetuity of the Doctrines of Tranſubſtantiation and the real Preſence? The Queſtion being to know whether theſe Doctrines were ever believed and taught in the Chriſtian Church, and eſpecially in Greece, there is no other direct way than that of taking Tradition from the Source, and to paſs on from the firſt Century to the ſecond, from the ſecond to the third, and ſo on to the laſt. If he thought this Method tedious, he would have done better to have abridged it in ſhewing theſe Doctrines were taught in the firſt ſix Centuries, and ſuppoſe the ſame in thoſe that followed, than to ſhew them eſtabliſhed from the eleventh and ſeventh, whereby to ſuppoſe the ſame in the ſix foregoing Centuries. To ſpeak ſincerely there ought to be neither of theſe Suppoſitions made; for it does not abſolutely follow from a Point's being held in the firſt Ages, that it has been likewiſe held in the laſt, neither does it any more follow from a Points being held in the laſt, that it was ſo in the firſt. This does not follow in reſpect of Fact: Yet it is certain that in reſpect of Right, which is far more conſiderable than Fact, 'tis more advantageous to ſhew a Doctrine in the beginnings of Tradition, than in the ſequels of it. For it rather follows from a Doctrine's being held in the beginnings of Tradition, that it ought to be held ſtill, than it does follow from its being held at preſent, or ſince the eleventh, or ſeventh Century, that it ought to be held, or that it was held in effect in the firſt Ages of the Church. Why then has Mr. Arnaud divided his Tradition into three parts; one ſince the eleventh Century, to this preſent, th'other ſince the ſeventh to the tenth, and the third, from the firſt Century to the ſixth, ſeeing Tradition ought to be taken ſucceſſively in order? Why has he in his Diviſion made the laſt part the firſt, ſeeing in effect it is the laſt in order? Why in ſhort, thus injure his Cauſe in ſpending all his time upon the two leaſt important, and which ſignify nothing, as to the main of our Queſtion, and remit the moſt important to another time, when his Conveniency will ſerve him to conſider them? Howſoever we purpoſe to follow him every where, and therefore ſhall examine here his ſeventh Book, becauſe it treats ſtill of the Belief of the Greeks; For by this means the Readers will ſee in order whatſoever Mr. Arnaud has alledged in relation to this Church.
THE Publick having nothing to do with our perſonal Quarrels, and the Cauſe which I defend, depending neither on what I am, or am not, I ſhall therefore paſs by all the Invectives with which the firſt Chapter is filled. The firſt thing which appears in it is my Picture, which cannot but be well done, coming from his Hands; for perſons Characters are the chief Weapons Mr. Arnaud and his Friends uſe in their Diſputes. But he may deſcribe me how he pleaſes, for I ſhall not be much moved thereat. Thoſe that read our Diſcourſes, will do us both right I hope. I ſhall only ſay then that Mr. Arnaud has captiouſly abuſed my Words touching the eight firſt Centuries when I called them, The Churches happy Days, peaceable and bleſſed Days, wherein the Paſtors took care to instruct their Flocks, and remove all the Difficulties which might ariſe Anſwer to the 2d. Treat. 2, p. c. 3.from the Sacrament's being commonly called the Body of Chriſt. 1ſt. I joyned all theſe Centuries together, when I ſpake of them in this ſort, and Mr. Arnaud only conſiders the two laſt of them, taking no notice of the other ſix, as if what I ſaid of theſe two laſt were to be taken alone and apart. 2dly. That altho the two laſt are comprehended amongſt the number of the eight, yet I never meant that the Title of happy Days, Days of Peace and Bleſſing, belongs equally to all of them. The happy Days have an end, and altho their laſt Hours which draw neareſt to Night, are darker than thoſe which preceded them, yet are we wont to comprehend them amongſt the reſt, under the Name of happy Day, becauſe when we diſtribute the Sence of theſe kind of Expreſſions to all the Parts, or Hours; rational Perſons make this Diſtribution proportionably to what each of them deſerves. May not that Perſon be juſtly derided for his Impertinency that carps at the calling of a happy Day a time wherein there's ſcarcely any longer Light, under pretence that the laſt Hour, which approaches nearer the Night, is darker than the reſt. Now this Mr. Arnaud exactly does, he pretends 'tis impertinently that I call the eight firſt Centuries, The Churches happy Days, ſeeing the other Miniſters aſſert the ſeventh and eighth, that is to ſay, the two laſt were Ages of Ignorance and Superſtition. To diſſipate all theſe Subtilties, we need but diſtinguiſh theſe Centuries in two reſpects, in which we may conſider them, either by comparing them with the preceeding, or following Ages. In the firſt they were Ages of Ignorance, and Superſtition. And in the ſecond, they were the laſt Hours of the Churches happy Days, or the approaches of a Night, that is to ſay in one Word, that altho Knowledg and Zeal ſuffered very much Diminution in them, and ſeveral Errors troubled the Purity of Religion, yet this was nothing in compariſon of what followed afterwards. This is the Judgment I think we ought to make of them in general. But in particular, in reſpect of the Myſtery of the Euchariſt, I firmly believe that the Doctrine of the real Preſence and Tranſubſtantiation, were not then eſtabliſhed in the Church during theſe two Centuries; we may indeed meet with ſome hard Expreſſions, and ſuch as are contrary to thoſe of the preceeding Ages, but no ſubſtantial Converſion. We ſhall find the care of inſtructing the People in the ſound Knowledg of the Sacrament greatly ſlackned in compariſon of the preceeding Ages, yet were they not wholy ignorant how the Euchariſt is the Body of Chriſt; to wit, in that it is the Sacrament or Myſtery of it. It was in this Sence I underſtood the ſeventh and eighth Centuries were comprehended amongſt the Churches happy Days. Let any Man judg now what Reaſon Mr. Arnaud has to repreſent me as a Perſon, That never reſpect Lib. 7. c. 1. p. 614.things as they are in Effect, but only as I would have them, that has no regard to Truth, nor Probability, but only the advantaging of my Cauſe, that diſpoſes of Hiſtorical Paſſages and real Events with more liberty than Adventures are dealt out in Romances, that builds Caſtles in the Ayr, and makes all Men in the World Senceleſs, provided they ſpeak and think according to my Deſires and Pretenſions, that prefers the ſmalleſt Reaſons, before the strongeſt and cleareſt Proofs, and propoſes all this in a confident inſulting manner, giving myſelf thoſe Applauſes which I would willingly receive from others, and treating my Adverſaries with Contempt and Diſdain. And here is the Tempeſt which has followed my Sun-ſhine, my happy Days. But I am ſorry Mr. Arnaud ſhould be thus angry upon no occaſion: Howſoever we will Examine the Paſſages he has offered.
THE firſt is a Paſſage taken out of Anaſtatius Sinaite, wherein a Monk argues againſt Hereticks who aſſerted Chriſt's Body was incorruptible before his Reſurrection. To prove that it was Corruptible, he takes it for granted by his Adverſaries, That the Euchariſt is really the true Body and Blood of Chriſt, Anaſt. Sin. foreign.not mere Bread, ſuch as is ſold in the Market; nor a Figure, ſuch as was the Sacrifice of the paſchal Lamb amongſt the Jews. To this Principle he adds another, which is, That the Euchariſt is corruptible, as Experience ſhews us; and from theſe two Propoſitions he concludes, That the Body of Chriſt was Corruptible before his Reſurrection. Every Man ſees this Reaſoning is grounded on this Suppoſition, That the Euchariſt is the Body of Chriſt, ſuch as it was before his Reſurrection, that is to ſay in the ſame State. Now it is likewiſe manifeſt that this Suppoſition is wholy inconſiſtent with the Doctrine of Tranſubſtantiation, and that of the ſubſtantial Preſence. For beſides that, 'tis both fooliſh and impious to imagine that our Lord's Body which is riſen out of its State of Humiliation deſcends into it again, and exiſts ſtill Mortal, Corruptible and Paſſible, as it was heretofore: This is moreover directly contrary to his Sacramental State, wherein we muſt neceſſarily ſuppoſe it, if we would have it to be in the Euchariſt in proper Subſtance. For it is not to be imagined that a Body which exiſts after the manner of a Spirit impalpable and indiviſible, which can be neither ſeen nor touched, ſhould be at the ſame time Mortal, Corruptible, and Paſſible, as our Saviour's Body was before his Reſurrection: Theſe two States are inconſiſtent with each other; whence it follows that whatſoever otherwiſe the Sence of this Author might be, he held neither Tranſubſtantiation, nor the Reality which the Church of Rome holds.
YET if we believe Mr. Arnaud he is a Witneſs for him. For as ſoon as ever he finds in any Paſſage that the Euchariſt is not a Figure, but the true Body of Chriſt, he requires no more for the making of a Proof, altho he ſees otherwiſe ſeveral things abſolutely contrary to him. One of the uſual Artifices with which he impoſes on his Readers; is, that when he offers any Paſſage importing what I now mentioned, or ſomething like it, he ſets himſelf to ſhew not that 'tis the Romane Tranſubſtantiation therein contained, but that 'tis not our Doctrine. And thus has he done in that Paſſage of Anaſtaſius's, Can any Man, ſay's he, that has but the leaſt ſpark of Sence, and believes the Ibid. p. 625.Euchariſt to be only a Figure of Chriſt's Body, and not the real Body of Chriſt, Expreſs this his Opinion by theſe Terms. The Euchariſt is not the Figure, but really the true Body of Chriſt. Can any Calviniſt in the World refuſe to acknowledg this Diſcourſe overthrows his Doctrine? And I ſay, can there be any Man that has but the leaſt dram of Sence, that believes the Body of Chriſt exiſts in the Eucharist after the manner of a Spirit, and is therein in a Sacramental State, and yet expreſſes this his Belief in ſaying the Euchariſt is ſubject to Corruption; and concluding from thence that the Body of Chriſt was then Corruptible before his Reſurrection? Is there ever a one of Mr. Arnaud's Friends that can contain himſelf from believing this Diſcourſe overthrows his Doctrine? When I ſpeak in this manner, I keep to the State of our Queſtion, and deceive no body; But when Mr. Arnaud ſpeaks as he does, he wanders from the Point in hand, and deludes his Readers.
WHATSOEVER Anaſtaſius his Doctrine may be, 'tis certain 'tis not that of the Church of Rome, which cannot conſiſt with the Principle on which Anaſtaſius argues. He expreſſes himſelf, ſay's Mr. Arnaud, a little crabbedly towards the end of his Diſcourſe, in making uſe of weak Arguments, not only here, but in almoſt all parts of his whole Diſcourſe. But if Mr. Arnaud be forced to confeſs that this man's Expreſſions are of hard digeſtion, when applyed to the Hypotheſis of Rome; Why may not I as well ſay they are ſo, being applyed to our Hypotheſis, and conſequently they muſt not be urged againſt us? If Anaſtaſius could not carefully conſider the Conſequence he drew himſelf, how could he foreſee that which Mr. Arnaud would one Day draw from his Diſcourſe? If it be uſual with Anaſtaſius to argue weakly, why may it not alſo be uſual with him to Diſcourſe with little foreſight? Why muſt Advantage be taken from ſome of his Expreſſions againſt us, and we withheld from taking any againſt Mr. Arnaud, from the whole Sequel of his Diſcourſe, and Coherence of his Thoughts, which a Man more minds than his Terms, or manner of expreſſing himſelf?
MR. Arnaud endeavours, but all in vain, to molify Anaſtaſius's Sence, in ſaying, That he concludes the Body of Chriſt was corruptible before his Paſſion, Ibid. p. …3….ſeeing he ſuffers ſtill in the Euchariſt an apparent Corruption, by the ſenſible Corruption of the Species, which are the Symbol of the State wherein he was before his Death. This Arguing, adds he, is very weak and roughly Expreſſed, but 'tis no unuſual thing for this Author to Reaſon weakly, and it would be but a bad Conſequence to conclude that an Argument is not his, becauſe 'tis weak. It is ſufficient that it be not extravagant in the higheſt Degree, as is that which Aubertin attributes to him.
ANASTASIUS his Argument according to Mr. Arnaud, muſt be put in this Form. The Body of Chriſt before his Reſurrection was ſuch, as is in the Euchariſt, the Symbol of the State wherein he was before his Death; But this Symbol is corruptible: Therefore the Body of Chriſt was then Corruptible. This Argument is like that which Mr. Aubertin imputes to him according to Mr. Arnaud. That which happens to the Figure of Chriſt's Body; P. 629.happened to his Body before his Paſſion. Now it happens to the Bread which is the Figure of it, to be ſubject to Corruption: The Body then of Jeſus Chriſt was Corruptible before his Paſſion. Take the Word Figure from this Argument, inſert that of Symbol, which Mr. Arnaud has uſed in his, and the two Arguments are the ſame. Yet he will have his to be good, and Mr. Aubertin's ridiculouſly Extravagant.
BUT, it will be perhaps replyed, theſe two Arguments which in reſpect of Terms are alike, yet do differ in Sence; For Mr. Arnaud by the Symbol, means the Accidents or Species which cover the Body, and Mr. Aubertin by the Figure underſtands a real Subſtance of Bread. So that howſoever alike theſe Arguments do at firſt appear, one of 'em may be reaſonable, and th'other Extravagant. I grant all this; but I ſay if Mr. Arnaud's Argument be good, Mr. Aubertins is ſo likewiſe, and that if there be any Extravagancy in either of them, it muſt be in the firſt, and not in the ſecond. Why muſt Anaſtaſius rather argue on the State of the corruptible Species, than on that of the corruptible Bread? His Arguing, take we it how we will, muſt be grounded on two Qualities attributed to the Euchariſt, one, That it is a Sign, and th'other, That it is a corruptible Sign, and from hence he will conclude that Chriſt's Body before his Reſurrection was Corruptible as well as its Sign. Now theſe two Qualities of Sign and Corruptible, are found as well, or rather better in the Bread which Aubertin means, than in the Accidents, or Mr. Arnaud's Species. It will no ways avail to ſay that Anaſtaſius denies the Euchariſt to be a Figure, and that thus he would contradict himſelf, ſaying on one hand that it is not a Figure, and ſuppoſing on the other that it is one. This I ſay ſignifies nothing, for 'tis only changing the Term of Figure, into that of Symbol, which Mr. Arnaud uſes, and which he believed not to be comprehended in the Rejection of the Word Figure. Neither ſignifies it any thing to ſay Anaſtaſius aſſures us the Euchariſt is the real Body, which hinders us from underſtanding by the Term of Symbol, contained in his Argument, that 'tis Bread in Subſtance. For I deny that by the true Body he mentions, we muſt underſtand the Body in proper Subſtance. It is then certain that if we may attribute Mr. Arnaud's Argument to this Author, we may as well attribute to him that of Mr. Aubertin.
BUT I ſay moreover, that if there be any Extravagancy in either of theſe two Arguments, it will be found to be rather in that which Mr. Arnaud imputes to him, than the other: Which we ſhall ſoon find if we conſider what means in Anaſtaſius his Diſcourſe the Term of Euchariſt, according to Mr. Arnaud's Commentary; for it ſignifies, the Incorruptible Body, Inviſible and Impaſſible of Chriſt, under the Corruptible Species of Bread and Wine. Anaſtaſius then will Reaſon after this manner, The Body of Chriſt before his Reſurrection was immediately Corruptible in it ſelf. Why? Becauſe now in the Euchariſt it is Incorruptible in it ſelf, and Corruptible in reſpect of the Species which cover it. Was ever ſuch abſurd Arguing known? Would not the Heretick Gayanite ſay the contrary hence followed; for ſeeing our Lord is Incorruptible in himſelf in the Euchariſt, this is a Token he was ſo before his Reſurrection. And as to the Species, being only Appearances of Bread, the Corruption which happens to them, is no more than an appearance of Corruption, which can at fartheſt but figurate an apparent Corruption in our Lord's Body before his Reſurrection; which does not differ from the Doctrine of theſe Hereticks. Moreover Anaſtaſius eſtabliſhes in his Argument this Principle, That an incorruptible Nature can neither be Cut, nor Wounded in the Side and Hands, nor Pierced, nor put to Death, nor Eaten; That it can neither be held, nor touched. Now is it not a moſt extream folly to ſtrengthen this by inſtancing the Euchariſt, that is to ſay the real Body of Chriſt which is Cut, Pierced, Chewed, in reſpect of the Appearances which cover it, and which are yet incorruptible. For this is juſt as if a Man ſhould prove 'tis Night in pointing to the Sun ſhining. In effect, if we introduce the Heretick defending himſelf againſt Anaſtaſius his Propoſition, by the Example of the Euchariſt, and ſaying, I diſtinguiſh an incorruptible Nature can neither be Hurt, nor Cut, nor Pierced, nor put to Death, immediately and really in it ſelf: I acknowledg it, in reſpect of the Appearances which cover it, and I prove my Negative by the Example of the Euchariſt, wherein the Body of Chriſt wholy incorruptible as it is, is yet Cut, Chewed, Pierced, in reſpect of the Appearances which are to it inſtead of a Vail. Should (I ſay) the Heretick be brought in Diſputing againſt Anaſtaſiu's Principle in this manner, he would make a very juſt and reaſonable Anſwer, whence it appears that this Example of the Euchariſt, if taken in the Sence Mr. Arnaud gives it, is an extravagancy and Folly in Anaſtaſius his own Mouth.
MR. Arnaud then may be pleaſed to acknowledg that he cannot rely on this Hypotheſis, neither juſtify the other Evaſion; which is, That Anaſtaſius believed this whiteneſs, and other ſenſible Accidents of the Euchariſt, to be the Ibid. p. 631.Accidents of the Body of Chriſt, and ſo that when the Bread is broken, it is the Body of Chriſt that is broken. By the Body of Chriſt Mr. Arnaud underſtands not the Myſtical Body only, but the Natural Body in proper Subſtance. Now what greater Extravagancy can we charge a Man with, than to impute to him the Belief, that the Subſtance of the Body is in Effect, of the ſame Form, and Figure as the Bread in the Euchariſt, that 'tis divided, and broken in ſeveral Particles, as the Bread is divided; that each Particle is a part of this Body, and that the Subſtance of this Body has really the Savour and Colour which Bread has? And ſeeing we muſt believe the Concomitancy, in the ſame manner as the Subſtance of Bread will be liquid, and fluid as Wine in the Cup, ſo that of the Blood will be in the other Species, hard and ſolid as Bread. In Truth, if Anaſtaſius could have this Sentiment, we muſt ſay he was a Perſon unfit to be inſtanced in this Diſpute, add Mr. Arnaud cannot render him more contemptible than in attributing to him ſuch kind of Fooleries. What he alledges concerning Tertullian, that he believed the Divinity had a Body, is lyable to be queſtioned. There are abundance of Paſſages in this Author which will not ſuffer us to entertain ſuch a Thought of him, and which oblige us to expound in a good Sence what he has otherwiſe expreſſed a little roughly. Theodoret makes the Euthychiens fall into Contradictions it is true, but they are different from the Extravagancy with which Mr. Arnaud charges Anaſtaſius, for they do not immediately diſcover themſelves, whereas th'others preſently manifeſt themſelves. In ſhort, if Mr. Arnaud cannot make uſe and advantage of his Authors, unleſs he accuſe them firſt of Extravagancy, and afterwards excuſe them by Example of the Extravagancies of others: Let me tell him, he muſt get better Witneſſes, and not think to weary us out with the Language of Perſons, who neither know what they ſay, nor what they believe.
WAS there ever any thing more impertinent than Anaſtaſius his Argument, if what Mr. Arnaud imputes to him be true? He concludes that the Body of Chriſt was corruptible before his Reſurrection (that is to ſay) whilſt he was in the World, becauſe it is corruptible in the Euchariſt. Now to the end his State in the Euchariſt may be of Conſequence, to that wherein he was before his Reſurrection; It follows that when he was in the World, he was in it under the Senſible Accidents of Bread, intirely ſuch as he is in the Euchariſt; Which is to ſay, that when he Talked, Walked, and Converſed, he did all theſe things under the form of Bread. For unleſs this be ſo, there can be no Conſequence drawn from one to the other. Anaſtaſius could not have denyed that the incorruptible Body of Chriſt could not take on it a corruptible Form, ſeeing he knew that this Body is now incorruptible in Heaven, and that yet according to the Hypotheſis which Mr. Arnaud attributes to him, it becomes every Day corruptible in the Euchariſt, which cannot be but by changing its Form. It muſt needs be then that Anaſtaſius ſuppoſed the Body of Chriſt was in the World, in the ſame Form 'tis now in the Sacrament, for ſuppoſing it changes its Form, I underſtand not the Concluſion. The Heretick Gaynite might ſtill alledg, that as it does not follow this Body is corruptible in Heaven, altho it be ſo in the Euchariſt, neither does it follow that it was corruptible during the time he was on Earth; and that 'tis the Form he takes upon him in the Sacrament that renders him corruptible. And thus Anaſtaſius his Argument concludes nothing, unleſs we ſuppoſe Chriſt's Body had abſolutely the ſame Form when he was converſant on Earth, that it has now in the Sacrament. Now this Suppoſition being the greateſt Degree of Folly, (there being no Man of Sence that will own it,) we may eaſily then perceive what Judgment to make of Anaſtaſius, as Mr. Arnaud handles him.
BUT 'tis certain by what I now ſaid that Anaſtaſius believed neither Tranſubſtantiation, nor the real Preſence, for had he believed it, he would never have reaſoned as he does, nor ſuppoſed (as he has done) a Principle altogether inconſiſtent with the Romane Doctrine.
BUT what is then this Author's Sence? I anſwer, that when he ſay's the Eucharist is not common Bread, ſuch as is ſold in the Market: His meaning is manifeſt; to wit, that it is conſecrated Bread; when he adds, That it is not a Figure as that of the He-goat, which the Jews offered: It is clear he does not abſolutely reject the Figure, but in the Sence of a legal Figure, which repreſented Chriſt only obſcurely and imperfectly, whereas the Euchariſt is a Myſtery, which clearly and perfectly repreſents the whole Oeconomy of Chriſt's Incarnation, and Mr. Arnaud himſelf acknowledges, That altho the Greeks deny the Euchariſt to be the Figure of Chriſt's Body, yet do they affirm it Ibid. p. 630.is a Repreſentation of the Myſteries of his Life, and that the ſame Authors which teach the one, teach the other. So that ſo far, there is nothing in Anaſtaſius's Diſcourſe but what is eaſy. When he adds, That it is the real Body of Jeſus Chriſt: He means that it is the Myſtery of his Natural Body, which not only is ſo perfect a Repreſentation of it, that one may ſay it is the true Body, and not a Figure; but which even has received the ſupernatural Form thereof, or if you will, the Character of it, which is its Virtue, in the ſame Sence that we ſay of Wax, which has received the Impreſſion of the King's Seal, that it is his real Seal. If we find any roughneſs in this Expreſſion, we muſt remember Mr. Arnaud finds the ſame in the Sequel of his Diſcourſe, and that we have ſhewed that what he calls Roughneſs is meer Abſurdity. Whence it follows that it is more reaſonable to ſuffer that which is only a bare Roughneſs and Offenſiveneſs in the Terms, and which moreover does well agree with Anaſtaſius his Reaſoning, than that wherein common Sence is not to be found. We muſt likewiſe remember the Expoſition which the Greeks themſelves do give to theſe kind of Expreſſions, that the Euchariſt is the true Body, the Body it ſelf, the proper Body of Chriſt; to wit, inaſmuch as it is an Augmentation thereof which makes not another Body, but is the ſame, as we have already ſhewed in the foregoing Book. We muſt know, in fine, that the Eutychiens againſt whom Anaſtaſius Diſputes were wont to attribute to Chriſt in their Diſcourſes when urged, no other than a phantaſtical and imaginary Body, and not a real humane Body, which obliged Anaſtaſius to ſay that the Euchariſt is the real Body of Chriſt, that is to ſay, the Myſtery, not of a chimerical, but real Body.
THIS being thus cleared up, the Sence of Anaſtaſius his Argument lyes open before us. He means, that ſeeing the Bread is a Myſtery in which is expreſſed the whole Oeconomy of Chriſt's Incarnation, being as it is corruptible, it muſt neceſſarily be concluded, that the Body of Chriſt was in like manner corruptible before his Reſurrection, becauſe the Bread was the Myſtery of the Body before its Reſurrection, and that the ſame Oeconomy which was obſerved touching the natural Body, whil'ſt it was in the World, is obſerved in the Bread. Let but Anaſtaſius his Diſcourſe be compared with that of Zonaras, which I related in the ninth Chapter of the foregoing Book, and Damaſcen's in the ſhort Homily which I likewiſe mentioned in the Chapter touching the Belief of the Greeks, and with what I ſaid in the eighth Chapter of this Book, for the explaining Cabaſilas his Sence, and there will appear no difficulty in it.
AS to that other Paſſage of Anaſtaſius which Mr. Arnaud propoſed, wherein this Author diſputes againſt an Heretick called Timotheus, who affirmed Ibid. p. 634.the Nature of Chriſt after the Incarnation, to be the only Divinity. We muſt make the ſame Judgment of it as the former. For as to what he ſay's, That the Divinity cannot be Detained, Chewed, Divided, Changed, Cut, &c. as is the Euchariſt, and that we muſt according to this Hereticks Doctrine deny the Euchariſt to be in truth Chriſt's viſible, terreſtial, and created Body and Blood; He means that the Accidents which happen to the Euchariſt, being in no wiſe agreeable to the Divinity of Chriſt who is not ſubject to Change and Alteration; but only to his Body, we muſt therefore ſay the Bread does not paſs through the ſame Oeconomy under which our Saviour paſſed; whence it follows that it could not be ſaid as it is, that the Bread was in truth the Body and Blood of Chriſt, being ſaid to be ſo only upon the account of the Unity and Identity of this Oeconomy. Had he believed Tranſubſtantiation, how could he miſs telling his Adverſary, 'tis not to be imagined the Subſtance of Bread is really changed into the very Subſtance of the Divinity, and that he muſt of neceſſity either deny what the whole Church believes; to wit, the Converſion of the Subſtance of Bread, or fall into this other Abſurdity of maintaining that this Converſion is made in the Divine Nature? Common Sence leads him to this, and yet we find no ſuch thing in all his Diſcourſe.
AFTER Anaſtaſius comes Germain the Patriarch of Conſtantinople. Mr. Aubertin has placed him according to the common Opinion in the eighth Century; but in effect, there is more likelyhood, according to Allatius his Conjecture that he lived in the twelveth, and the Reflections Mr. Arnaud makes on this Subject, ſeem to me juſt enough to be followed till we have greater Certainty. But howſoever this Author ſay's no more than, That the Bread is changed into the Body of Chriſt, and that it is his Body. To which we have Lib. 7. c. 3.ſo often already anſwered that it will be needleſs to ſay any more. Mr. Arnaud ſets to Phyloſophiſing on ſome Paſſages which Mr. Aubertin alledged in his Favour, but this is an Illuſion; for when what Mr. Aubertin alledges concerning Germane to ſhow that 'tis contrary to Tranſubſtantiation, ſhould not be Concluſive, 'twould not thence follow he believed it, nor Taught it, if this does not appear elſewhere from good Proofs, and Mr. Arnaud is obliged to produce ſuch, without ſuppoſing it is ſufficient he Refutes Mr. Aubertin's Conſequences: For Refuting is not Proving.
GERMAIN ſufficiently ſhews us towards the end of his Treatiſe, in what Sence he underſtood the Bread to be the Body of Chriſt. Moſes, ſay's Germ. Theor. rer. Eccleſ ſub finem.he, ſprinkling the People with the Blood of Goats and Heifers, ſaid, This is the Blood of the Covenant. But our Saviour Chriſt has given his own proper Body, and ſhed his own Blood, and given us the Cup of the new Teſtament; ſaying, This is my Body which was broken for you, this is my Blood ſhed for the Remiſſion of your Sins. As often then as ye eat this Bread and drink of this Cup, ye declare my Death and Reſurrection. Thus believing then we eat the Bread and drink of the Cup, as of the Fleſh of God, declaring thereby the Death and Reſurrection of our Lord Jeſus Christ. We have already obſerved in the foregoing Book, that the Greeks do often uſe this Expreſſion, As the Fleſh, As the Body, to mollify and abate in ſome ſort their uſual way of ſpeaking, which is, that the Bread is the Body of Chriſt, and to ſignify that the Bread is to us inſtead of this Body. It appears from the ſequel of Germain's Diſcourſe, his Sence is, that for the better applying our Minds to the Death and Reſurrection of our Lord, we eat the Bread and drink of the Cup, in the ſtead of his Body and Blood.
AS to John Damaſcen, the Author of the Perpetuity having alledged him as a Witneſs of the Doctrine of the ancient Church. I ſaid, He ought not Anſwer to the 2d. Treatiſe of the Perpet. c. 2.to produce the Teſtimony of a Perſon whom we except againſt, and that with good Cauſe, ſeeing he was one of the firſt that left the common Road of the Churches Expreſſions, and betook himſelf to affected and ſingular ones, which are at as great diſtance from the Roman Church as the reformed one. Now this Exception is ſo juſt in reſpect of the Queſtion concerning the Sentiment of the ancient Church, that excepting Mr. Arnaud, I do not believe there is any Man, how little Converſant ſoever in the Writings of the Fathers, but grants it. For all the Ancient Fathers term the Euchariſt a Figure or Repreſentation of our Lord's Body, and Damaſcen not only deny's that it is one, but alſo that the Fathers thus termed it after Conſecration. He is one of the firſt that brought into Credit the Compariſon of Food which changes it ſelf into our Bodies, whereby to explain the Change which happens to the Bread, in as much as it is made an Augmentation of the Body of Chriſt, that of the Bleſſed Virgin which the Holy Spirit overſhadowed, and that of Wood united to the Fire. His Expreſſions being compared with thoſe of the Ancients, are wholly extraordinary. He tells us that the Sacramental Bread, and the Body born of the Virgin, are but one and the ſame Body, becauſe the Bread is an Augmentation of the Body, and that the ſame Oeconomy has been obſerved in both. I ſuppoſe Damaſcen was not the firſt that had theſe kind of Conceptions, ſeeing we have met with ſomething like this in Anaſtaſius his Diſcourſe, and if I miſtake not, ſome Trace of this in Gregory de Nyſſes his Catechiſm; but howſoever it muſt be acknowledged I had reaſon to call theſe Conceptions Affected and Singular in reſpect of the uſual Expreſſions of the Fathers, and to ſay, they vary as much from the Doctrine of the Romane Church as ours.
YET to hear only Mr. Arnaud, a Man would imagine that Damaſcen clearly taught Tranſubſtantiation. To prove it he alledges theſe ſame Paſſages of his fourth Book touching the true Orthodox Faith wich has been a thouſand times canvaſs'd by Controvertiſts, and which conclude nothing. Damaſcen ſay's, That God makes the Bread the Body of Chriſt, and the Wine his Blood, that it is an effect of his Almighty Power, which has created all things; that ſeeing the Lord took his Body from the pure and immaculate Blood of the Virgin, we muſt not doubt but he can change the Bread into his Body, and the Wine into his Blood; that if we demand how this Change happens, he anſwers, that this is wrought by the Holy Spirit, that the Word of God is True and Almighty; but that the manner is Incomprehenſible. But yet it may be rationally ſay'd, that as the Bread and Wine (wherewith a Man is nouriſhed) are changed into his Body, ſo that they become another Body than that which they were before; ſo the Bread and Wine mixt with Water, are changed into the Body and Blood of Chriſt in awonderful manner, by Prayer and Deſcent of the Holy Spirit, and that they are not two different Bodies, but one and the ſame Body.
HAD not Damaſcen expreſſed himſelf as he has done, it would be to no purpoſe for us to tell Mr. Arnaud the Change he ſpeaks of is not Tranſubſtantiation, ſeeing his Sence is that the Bread becomes a growth of our Lord's Body, and is made by this means one with this Body, that this is the effect he attributes to the Holy Spirit, and Almighty Power of God, acting above Nature, and not that of a real Converſion of the Subſtance of Bread into the ſame Subſtance which the Body had before: Mr. Arnaud would not fail to term this Extravagancy and Dotage. But ſeeing we ſay no more in this matter than what is grounded on Damaſcen's own Words, as it appears by what we related when we treated on the real Belief of the Greeks; This Illuſtration will be ſufficient, without proceeding any farther, to make Inſignificant this long Chapter which Mr. Arnaud has written touching the Equivocal Expreſſions of this Author. In effect, let him ſay as long as he pleaſes, That the Point here concerns neither Figure nor Virtue, that this effect Lib. 7. c. 3. p. 650. 651.which ſurpaſſes humane Conception is in Damaſcen's Sence this; to wit, That the Bread is made the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, that it is the Body really united to the Divinity, the Body taken from the Virgin, becauſe the Bread and Wine are changed into the Body and Blood of God. That Damaſcen ſpeaks of it as if he deſigned to refute expreſly all the Attempts and Shifts of the Miniſters, ſome of whom turn his Words into a change of Virtue, and others to an Imaginary Union of the Holy Siprit, with the Bread remaining Bread. That the Fathers have expreſſed themſelves after two different manners, that is to ſay, ſometimes as Philoſophers, and otherwhiles as Divines. All this ſignifies nothing, conſidering the Explication which Damaſcen himſelf hath given us of his own Sence, in his Letter to Zacharias Biſhop of Doarus, and Homily at the end of it. Theſe two Pieces publiſhed by the Abbot Billius, and which were acknowledged for Authentick by Labbus the Jeſuit, the learned M. de Marca Arch-Biſhop of Paris, and Leo Allatius himſelf, Mr. Arnaud's great Author: Theſe two Pieces I ſay end the Difference, and ſuffer us not any longer to diſpute about Damaſcene. I ſhall only ſay that Mr. Arnaud has not done fairly in relating the Paſſages of the fourth Book of the Orthodox Faith, to leave out this Homily and Letter as he has done.