The Catholic Doctrine of the Eucharist in All Ages, Part · Book 5 · Chapter 6
CHAP. VI.
Of the Neſtorians, Maronites, Jacobites, Copticks, and Aethiopians. That they hold not Tranſubſtantiation.
WEE ſhall treat in this Chapter of the other Eaſtern Sects that profeſs the Chriſtian Religion. Mr. Arnaud Lib. 5. C. 10. p. 491.pretends they all of 'um hold the real Preſence and Tranſubſtantiation.
AS to the Neſtorians he grounds his Opinion concerning them on the ſilence of Ancient and Modern Authors, who never told us the Neſtorians differ from the Church of Rome in this particular. He adds that the Emiſſaries ſent by the Pope into theſe countrys to endeavour their reduction to the Obedience of the Roman See, never diſcovered any thing to make 'um ſuſpect the Faith of the Neſtorians touching the Euchariſt. He ſay's in fine, that when the Neſtorians reunited themſelves to the Church of Rome, they were never required to make any particular declaration of their belief in reference to the Euchariſt.
BUT as to what reſpects the ſilence of Authors, we have already anſwer'd in the caſe of the Moſcovits, that they do only chiefly obſerve thoſe points which are expreſly controverted between the other Churches and the Roman, deſcending not ſo far as to particularize all other matters, which theſe Churches do or do not hold.
THE ſame may be ſaid touching the ſilence of the Emiſſaries. The Emiſſaries have contented themſelves in mentioning thoſe Errors from which they have freed the Neſtorians, without mentioning the new Doctrines which they have taught 'um; and this indeed concludes they have not bin obliged to introduce Tranſubſtantiation amongſt theſe People by way of diſpute, being a Point, againſt which the Neſtorians were prejudic'd; but this do's not hinder them from being oblig'd to bring it in by way of inſtruction, as being a Doctrine not compriſed in their Ancient Religion, and which they ought now to receive, to the end they may become conformable to the Roman Church.
WHICH juſtifies it ſelf by the conduct of the Popes themſelves, who have ſent the Emiſſaries, for they ever recommended to them this profeſſion of Faith which we have ſo often already mention'd, and which expreſly contains the Article of Tranſubſtantiation in theſe terms, Sacramentum Euchariſtiae ex azymo conficit Romana Eccleſia, tenens et docens, quod in ipſo Sacramento, Panis verè Tranſubſtantiatur in Corpus, & Vinum in Sanguinem Domini noſtri Jeſu Chriſti. The Roman Church Celebrates the Sacrament with Unleavened Bread, holding and teaching, that in this Sacrament the Bread is really Tranſubſtantiated into the Body, and the Wine into the Blood of our Lord Jeſus Chriſt.
THE Popes have ever earneſtly recommended to the Miſſionaries the inſtructing of the Neſtorians, and other Eaſtern Chriſtians according to this Formulary. They have ſent it to the Neſtorian Proſelyte Biſhops, enjoyning 'um to have it continually in their minds, and to teach it their People, as we may ſee in Raynaldus. In the profeſſion of Faith which Raynaldus ad ann. 1445.Timotheus a Neſtorian Arch-Biſhop of the Iſle of Cyprus made in the year 1445. not long after the Council of Florence, he was made to ſay that he confeſſed and approved of the Seven Sacraments of the Roman Church, and Raynaldus ad ann. 1445.of the manner after which ſhe holds, teaches, and Preaches them. And in the Reunion made in the year 1583. of certain Neſtorian Chriſtians of St. Thomas whom the Portugaiſes found in the Kingdoms of Cochin, Coulan, and Cranganor, Du Jarric obſerves their Arch-Biſhop was Du Jarric's Hiſtory of the Eaſt Indias.cauſed to profeſs what the Council of Florence had decreed touching the Doctrine which muſt be held concerning the Sacraments. He means without doubt that which was ſet down in the Inſtruction given to the Armenians, in which we ſee the Article of Tranſubſtantiation. All which ſhews us they well knew the Neceſſity there was of introducing Tranſubſtantiation into the Neſtorian Church, to make it conformable to the Roman; whence 'tis not difficult to conclude that this Doctrine was not eſtabliſht in it before.
IN effect had the Emiſſaries and other travellers into theſe Countrys found the belief of the Subſtantial Converſion eſtabliſhed in them, 'tis not to be doubted but they would have proclaimed it to the World, and made this a Proof of the Antiquity of that Article. Mr. Arnaud would not have bin reduced to the Neceſſity of drawing a Proof from their ſilence, ſeeing they would have poſitively declared they found theſe People imbued with this ſentiment, that the ſubſtance of Bread is changed into the proper Subſtance of the Body of Jeſus Chriſt. The Popes would have loudly Gloryed in it, and certainly there would have bin ſome Body or other that would have taken Notice of the contradictions of the Proteſtants in Europe: but inſtead of this neither the Popes nor Emiſſaries make mention of this pretended conformity, and Mr. Arnaud Philoſophiſes upon their not charging the Neſtorians with their being Calviniſts, and upon ſome paſſages of their Liturgies which are very uncertain, and which at bottom are of no conſideration in reſpect of our difference.
LEONTIUS of Byzanejus recites a Diſcourſe concerning theſe Neſtorians from whence we may eaſily gather their Opinion touching the Bread of the Euchariſt. They were very earneſt (according to his Relation) Leontius Biz. adverſ. Neſt. & Eutych. Lib. 3. Bibl. patr. tom. 4.with an Orthodox Chriſtian to communicate with them, and this Perſon telling them he could not have Communion at the ſame time with the Catholick Church and theirs, they anſwered him, that this need not trouble him becauſe the Bread which is propoſed as a Type of the Body of Jeſus Chriſt contains a greater bleſſing than that ſold in the market, or the Bread which the Philomarianites offered in the name of Mary. 'Tis apparently ſeen theſe are not the expreſſions of Perſons that believe the real Preſence which the Roman Church holds. This ſhews they acknowledged no other effect from the Conſecration than that of a Vertue of Benediction, or Grace, and 'tis alſo very Remarkable that in this Diſcourſe they do not give any other title to the Bread of the Sacrament than that of the Type of the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, in which they follow the expreſſion of Apud. Cyrill. alex. contra Neſt. Lib. 4. Cap. 6. See the Eight Chapter wherein are ſeveral paſſages of the Liturgy of the Neſtorians, and Indians. Lib. 5. C. 12. p. 508.Neſtorius himſelf the Author of their Sect, who ſpeaking of the Bread of the Euchariſt ſay's, that the Body of Jeſus Chriſt is the Original of it, which is as much as to ſay that the Bread is a figure which repreſents this Body. And thus far concerning the Nestorians.
AS to the Maronites their profeſſion of Obedience, ſince ſo long a time, to the See of Rome, receiving their Patriarchs from the Pope, do's evidently exclude them from this diſpute. Yet we cannot but obſerve how little exact Mr. Arnaud is, when deſigning to ſhew that the Maronites believed Tranſubſtantiation and the real Preſence even before their Reunion to the Roman Church, ſay's, that Thomas a Jeſu mentions an extract made by the Popes Legats of the bad Propoſitions they found in the Books of the Maronites, amongst which they comprehend the different Ceremonys, ſuch as Comunicating of both kinds, giving the Communion to Children. Yet in this Catalogue of ſuſpected Propoſitions, there's not one relating to the Euchariſt. 'Tis certain Mr. Arnaud is miſtaken, having peruſed this extract a little careleſly, for otherwiſe he would have obſerved three Propoſitions which evidently ſhew that theſe People did not believe Tranſubſtantiation, nor yet the Subſtantial Preſence. The firſt is, That our Saviour Chriſt dipt the Bread he gave to Judas, to 'the end he might thereby take off the Conſecration. Chriſtus intinxit Panem quem erat Judae porrecturus ad Conſecrationem tollendam. We have already obſerved that this Errour muſt be grounded on this Principle, that the Bread is a Subject that receives Grace as a quality, which imprints its ſelf in its Subſtance, and which may be effaced in waſhing the Bread. For what likelyhood is there had they believed that the effect of the Conſecration was to change the Subſtance of Bread into that of the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, that in dipping the Bread the Subſtance of the Body of Jeſus Chriſt would be waſhed off?
THE II. Propoſition which the Legats expunged out of the Maronites Books was, That when we receive the Euchariſt, it Deſcends not into the Stomach, but immediately diſperſes it ſelf to every member of our Body. This Propoſition was deem'd Heretical, and in effect, we cannot believe that the matter of the Sacrament diſperſes its ſelf to all the Members of our Body without ſuppoſing it to be the Subſtance of Bread, there being too many abſurdities to make the proper Subſtance of Christs Body paſs into the Subſtance of our Fleſh. Yet this Sentiment is grounded on the Doctrine of Damaſcene who expreſly aſſerts, That the Sacrament paſſes Damaſcen. Lib. 4. de fide Orthodox. C. 14into the Subſtance of our Souls and Bodys, that 'tis neither Conſumed or Corrupted, nor paſſes into excrements, but into our Subſtance and for our Conſervation. We made uſe of this Paſſage of Damaſcene to ſhew he believed the Euchariſt to be a real Subſtance of Bread, ſeeing it paſſes into that of our Bodies. Mr. Arnaud derides this Conſequence. Do's Mr. Claude, ſay's he, pretend that Damaſcene believed the Euchariſtical Lib. 7. C. 4Bread paſſed into our Souls to become a part of them? Surely he will not proceed ſo far. How then will he conclude it enters into our Bodies to become a part of their Subſtance? And why do's he not conclude on the contrary, that as theſe words, in Conſiſtentiam animae vadit, do ſignify nothing elſe in reſpect of the Soul, but that the Body of Jeſus Chriſt unites its ſelf to the Soul, to conſerve, fortify and operate in it his Graces; ſo this expreſſion, in Conſiſtentiam Corporis vadit, do's ſignify nothing elſe, but that the Body of Jeſus Chriſt unites it ſelf to our Bodys to preſerve and ſow on them according to the Fathers the ſeeds of a Glorious immortality.
BUT Mr. Arnaud deceives himſelf, not comprehending that according to Damaſcene and the Greeks, there are two things in the Euchariſt, the Subſtance, and the Spiritual and divine vertue, which is imparted to it by means of the Conſecration, ſo that Damaſcene making a diſtribution of theſe two things, attributes one of 'um to the Soul, to wit the Divine Vertue, and th'other to the Body, to wit the Subſtance, and 'tis in reſpect of this latter that he ſay's foreign. Not conſuming nor Corrupting it ſelf, nor paſſing into Excrements, God forbid, but paſſing into our Subſtance and preſervation. He ſay's expreſly it paſſes into our Subſtance. Why will not Mr. Arnaud ſuffer me to ſay it after Damaſcene himſelf? Had he well examined the Doctrine of the Fathers, he would have found in 'um this diſtinction of two things whereof the Sacrament conſiſts, one of which reſpects immediately the Body and th'other immediately the Soul. Under the new Law, ſay's Cyrill of Jeruſalem, the Heavenly Bread and Cup of Salvation Sanctify the Soul and Body, for as the Bread reſpects the Body, ſo the word (that Cyril Hie Cal. myſt. 4. Epiphan. in Anapc…hal.is to ſay the Conſecration performed by the word) relates to the Soul. The Bread, ſay's Epiphanius, is an aliment, but there is in it a quickning Vertue. And Origen before 'um diſtinguiſhed the Bread from the Euchariſt, in reſpect of what it has material, and in reference of the Prayer ſay'd over Origen. Comm. in Matt. 1….it.
THE III. Propoſition, cenſured in the Books of the Maronites is contained in an Article of the extract, which has for its title, Nonnulla loca ſacrae Scripturae pravè intellecta, ſome places of Scripture miſunderſtood, and is thus deſcribed, Aſſerunt Legendum eſſe, hoc eſt Sacramentum Corporis, &c. They affirm we muſt read, this is the Sacrament of my Body, &c. Would Mr. Arnaud without Prejudice or Paſſion but conſider a while the importance of this Propoſition. For whether theſe People pretended we muſt read the Text, not, this is my Body, but, this is the Sacrament of my Body, or meant only that this was the ſence we muſt give to the words of Chriſt, as the title of the Article inſinuates. Is it poſſible that Perſons who believed the ſubſtantial Preſence and Tranſubſtantiation of the Roman Church, ſhould either make this correction, or ſeek this explication? Was there ever a one of the Latins that ever had ſuch a thought in his mind, that we muſt not read, this is my Body, but this is the Sacrament of my Body? Do they not all on the contrary affirm that we muſt keep ſtrictly to the literal ſence? Let Mr. Arnaud conſult himſelf hereupon, and tell us whether he could offer ſuch a Propoſition and whether he would not eſteem it Scandalous and Heretical ſhould any other propoſe it.
YET muſt we obſerve that Thomas a Jeſu who recites the Extract which the Popes Legats made, ſay's expreſly that theſe Propoſitions which they found in proper terms in the Books of the Maronites, or received by the Publick Conſent, and by Tradition, and which they condemned as manifeſtly Heretical, or Erroneous, or Superſtitious, were Errors common to the other Eaſtern Nations, ſo that what we now Rehearſed concerning the Maronites muſt be extended in general to all the Schiſmatical Churches.
AS to the paſſages related by Abraham Echellenſis a Maronite, who was of the Seminary at Rome, Mr. Arnaud muſt bear with me if I tell him, (that conſidering the Character which Gabriel Sionita gives us of this Perſon, whom he perfectly knew, being both of the ſame Country, and having paſſed over a great part of their Lifes together) he ought to be aſhamed to offer any thing grounded on theſe kind of Teſtimonies, and to ſuppoſe us ſuch Fools to give credit to the Relation of a Man ſo cryed down.
COME we now to the Jacobites, Copticks and Ethiopians, Mr. Arnaud brings again upon the Subject of theſe three Churches the ſame Negative Arguments drawn from the ſilence of Authors and Emiſſaries, which he uſed in reference to the Moſcovites, and Neſtorians; ſo that we need do no more than to return the ſame anſwers already made, and tell him that, if theſe People had the ſame belief as the Roman Church touching the Subſtance of the Sacrament, ſeveral Authors and Emiſſaries, would without doubt, have informed the World thereof; and make advantage of this conformity which they diſcovered between the Latins and them.
I ſhall tell him here again what he has bin told elſewhere that, when the Emiſſaries were ſent to theſe People to inſtruct them, they ever carried along with them the profeſſion of faith of Clement VI. which contained expreſſly the Article of Tranſubſtantiation; that the Popes have ſent it to their Patriarchs and Proſelyte Biſhops; and that when Eugenius IV. Raynald. ad. ann. 1442.reunited to the Latin Church John the Patriarch of the Jacobites, he made him accept the decreee of the Reunion of the Armenians which contains in proper Terms the Doctrine of Tranſubſtantiation.
BUT after all we may tell him it cannot be ſuppoſed the Jacobites, Copticks or Ethiopians were conformable to the Roman Church in the Doctrine of the Euchariſt, holding as they do, that there is but one Nature in our Saviour Chriſt which is the Divine, according to the Opinions of Eutiches and Dioſcorus. We cannot without charging them with the greateſt Abſurdity ſuppoſe they believe the Subſtance of Bread is really converted into the Subſtance of the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, ſeeing they hold that Jeſus Chriſt has not a Body, there being only the Divine Nature in him. Now that they hold this laſt Error, may be proved by infinite Teſtimonies.
NICEPHORUS a Greek Hiſtorian affirms the Jacobites aſſert, Nicephor Cali. Eccleſ Hiſt. Lib. 18. Cap. 52. The wonderfull H…t. of the Great Cham of Tartar.that after the Union there was only one Nature in Jeſus Chriſt.
BROTHER Bieul, of the Order of Preachers, affirms the ſame in the Relation of his Travels, The Jacobites, ſay's he, are Hereticks and Schiſmaticks. They ſay there is in Chriſt but one Subſtance, one Operation, and one Will, which is the Divine. This is falſe and contrary to our Catholick Faith. For in Chriſt with the Divinity is a true Subſtance, Operation and Humane Will. For the true Faith is, that God was real God, and real Man. And a little further ſpeaking of a Diſpute which he had with them. We ſhewed them, ſay's he, wherein they erred, when they denyed our Saviour Chriſt to be real God and Man, and yet would ſtill retain and affirm that in Jeſus Chriſt there was only one Substance, one Operation, one Nature and one Will which according to them is the Divine.
POPE John XXII. writing to Raymund the Patriarch of Jeruſalem Raynald ad ann. 1…26. num. 28.complains to him of the Jacobites being tolerated in the Kingdom of Cyprus, and grounds his complaint on that theſe Hereticks dared maintain againſt the truth of the Orthodox Faith that there was but one Nature in our Saviour Chriſt.
GUY Carmes expreſly obſerves this amongſt the reſt of their Errors, Guid. Car. ſum. de bae…ſ tit. de Jacob. Barth. a Salignaico itiner. terrae Sanctae fol. 31. de Jacobitis. Pratcol. Elench. haret. Lib. 7. de Jacob. art. 3. Joann. Cotov. Itiner Hieroſ. & Syriac. Lib. 2. Cap. 6.that they affirm there is in Jeſus Chriſt but one Nature, no more than one Perſon, and therefore they make the ſign of the Croſs only with one finger.
THE ſame may be ſeen in Barthol. Salignac's Voyages into the Holy Land. They hold, ſay's he, (ſpeaking of the Jacobites) that there is but only one Nature in Jeſus Chriſt which is the Divine.
THEY profeſs to believe but one Nature in Jeſus Chriſt, ſay's Prateolus.
THEY are corrupted by ſeveral Errors, ſay's Cottovic, and eſpecially in reference to our Saviour Chriſt. For they confound our Saviours Divine and Humane Nature, and make thereof but one Will and one Operation. They deny there was in Jeſus Chriſt after the Union of the Word with the Fleſh two Natures intire and perfect without confuſion of Perſon. Moreover they maintain that the Fleſh which our Saviour Chriſt took was not of the ſame Nature as ours, and that the Word was not changed into true Fleſh, but into I know not what kind of Phantastical and apparent Fleſh, and that he rather ſeemed to be a Man, to be born and dye than really to do and be ſo. Thus do they teach that all the Myſteries of our Salvation, the Incarnation, Paſſion, Reſurrection of our Saviour, his Aſcenſion into Heaven, and his Second Coming, are only things feigned and appearances, and by this means make invalid all theſe Myſteries. And to confirm their Hereſy by an external Teſtimony, Cottovic. Ibid. Voyages and Obſerv. of the Sicur de la Boulay le Goux 3. part. ch. 12. pag. 371they make the ſign of the Croſs only with one finger thereby repreſenting that there is but one Nature in Jeſus Chriſt.
HE tells us the ſame thing of the Copticks. They follow, ſay's he, the Hereſy of Dioſcorus and Eutiches, which is common to them with the Jacobites.
THE Copticks are Schiſmatical Chriſtians, ſay's the Sieur Boulay le Goux, and hold the ſame Errors as the Armenians, Jacobites, and Aethiopians following in every thing the Opinion of Dioſcorus and Eutyches.
THE Copticks, ſay's Mr. Thevenot, are Chriſtians but Jacobites, Thevenot's Voyages part 2. Ch. 75. p. 501.that is to ſay, followers of Eutyches and Dioſcorus.
IT will be needleſs to produce any more Teſtimonies for the confirming a thing ſo well known that Mr. Arnaud cannot but acknowledge it: neither need we ſay much concerning the Ethiopians who are in all particulars like to the Copticks, and receive from them their Abuna, that is to ſay, their Patriarch, as Mr. Arnaud acknowledges. Yet will I here relate the Anſwers which an Abyſſin Prieſt named Thecla Maria returned to the queſtions offered him at Rome by ſome Cardinals who Colloquy'd with him by order of Pope Sixtus V. in the year 1594. as we find them ſet down by Thomas a Jeſu. Being aſkt, ſay's he, how many natures, Thomas à Jeſu. Lib. 7. p. 1. C. 13.wills and operations the Aethiopians held to be in our Lord Jeſus Chriſt, He anſwered that the Aethiopians profeſſed to believe only one Nature in Jeſus Chriſt after the Union, one Will, and one Operation, yet without confuſion, and he added he knew well that the Aethiopians, Copticks and other Eaſtern Chriſtians that hold this Opinion deviated greatly from the truth. Being askt whether the Aethiopians believe one Nature in Jeſus Chriſt reſulting from two. He anſwered that the Aethiopians do not ſay ſo, but profeſs to believe that there is only one Nature in our Saviour without mixture or confuſion, which they affirm to be the Divine. Being moreover demanded whether the Aethiopians received the Decrees of the Council of Chalcedon. He anſwered they condemned this Council, becauſe therein was confirmed the two Natures in Jeſus Chriſt, and that therein was Condemned Dioſcorus the Patriarch of Alexandria. The Relations of Ethiopia confirm the ſame thing.
IT now concerns us to know whether all theſe Nations, to wit, the Jacobits, Copticks, and Ethiopians can hold Tranſubſtantiation, that is to ſay, the queſtion is whether they be People indued with common ſence. For what can be more contradictory than to maintain on one hand that our Saviour Chriſt has no real Body, that there is nothing in him but the Divine Nature, that his whole converſe in the World, his Birth, Death and Reſurrection, were only bare Appearances without any Reality. And to believe on the other, that the Subſtance of Bread is really changed into the proper Subſtance of his Body, into the ſame Subſtance he took of the Virgin, and which he retains ſtill in Heaven. Mr. Arnaud will tell us they hold Tranſubstantiation after their manner. But let him ſhew us then what this manner is. Will he have 'um believe the Subſtance of Bread is inwardly changed into the Subſtance of theſe Appearances with which they ſay the Divinity heretofore clothed it ſelf? Beſides that it would be ridiculous to attribute a Subſtance to ſimple Appearances which are nothing, and that according to them theſe appearances are no longer in being having ceaſed with the Oeconomy; will not this be excellent ſence to ſay that the Subſtance of Bread changes it ſelf into the Appearances which do not appear? for they will be concealed under the Vail of the Accidents of Bread, that is to ſay, they will be inviſible Appearances lying hid under other Appearances.
WILL Mr. Arnaud, ſay they, hold the Tranſubſtantiation of Bread into the Nature of the Divinity, which is to ſay that the Subſtance of Bread becomes it ſelf the Divine Eſſence? But if it be true that theſe People hold ſo monſtrous an Opinion, whence comes it that both Ancient and Modern Authors make no mention of it; never examined the Conſequences of ſuch a Converſion; have vehemently argued againſt the converſion of the Humane Nature into the Divine to ſhew that 'tis impoſſible, and not mentioned a word of this converſion of Bread into the Divinity? How happens it the Emiſſaries never diſcovered to the World ſo important a ſecret, never diſputed againſt them on this point, nor the Popes ever made them abjure ſuch an abſurd Opinion in the reunions made between theſe People and the Church of Rome? Whence comes it the Greeks who have bin mixtwith them, ſince ſo many ages never reproached 'um with this kind of Tranſubſtantiation about which there may be great Volumes written? Mr. Arnaud who is ſo ready at arguing from the ſilence of all theſe People, Authors, Travellers, Emiſſaries, Popes, Greeks, &c. ought to inform us of the reaſon why not one of 'um has mentioned a word of this pretended change of Bread into the nature of the Divinity.
ALL this I think ſhould oblige Mr. Arnaud to ſuſpend a while his judgment touching Mr. Picquet's Letter which ſay's, that all the Levantine Chriſtians, who are Hereticks, and conſequently ſuch as have entred into a Confederacy againſt the Roman Church, yet hold as an Article of Faith, the real Preſence of Jeſus Chriſt, and Tranſubſtantiation of the Bread and Wine into the Body and Blood of our Lord. He ought at leaſt to deſire him The Contents of this Letter are thus elated by Mr. Arnaud in his 12 Book.to conſult what they mean in ſaying there is but one Nature in Jeſus Chriſt, and that the Divine one, and yet the Subſtance of Bread to be really changed into the Subſtance of Christ's Body.
BUT this ought to oblige him likewiſe not to draw ſo lightly his Conſequences from ſeveral Paſſages of the Liturgies which are attributed to theſe People, wherein the Euchariſt is called the Body and Blood of Jeſus Christ, and ſaid to be truely this Body and this Blood. For beſides that theſe Expreſſions import not Tranſubstantiation, as I have often proved, and ſhall farther prove in what follows, 'tis to be conſidered that we have no certainty that theſe pieces are real or faithfully Tranſlated, ſeeing that in thoſe few Paſſages which Mr. Arnaud produces, there may be obſerved a Remarkable difference. The Liturgy which is in the Biblictheca Patrum under the Title of Canon generalis Aethiopum, mentions that the People ſay after the Prieſt has Conſecrated, Amen, Amen, Amen, credimus & confidimus, & laudamus te Deus noſter, hoc verè Corpus tuum eſt, We believe it, We truſt in thee and praiſe thee O Lord our God, this is really thy Body; but Athanaſius Kircher otherwiſe relates theſe words, Amen, Amen, Amen, credimus, & confidimus, & laudamus te, Mr. Arnaud Lib. 5. C. 13. p. 518.O Domine Deus noſter, hoc eſt in veritate credimus caro tua. We believe thee, we truſt in thee, we praiſe thee O our God, this, we believe is thy Fleſh in truth. In one place the People are made to ſay they believe, that 'tis truely the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, and here, that they believe 'tis the Body of Jeſus Chriſt in truth. Now there is a difference between theſe two Propoſitions, for in one the Adverb truely, refers to the Body, and in th'other to the Faith of the People. This alteration is not ſo inconſiderable but that we may ſee by this Example that thoſe who have given us this Liturgy which is in the Bibliotheca Patrum have not ſcrupled to accommodate their Tranſlation as much as in them lay to the ſence of the Roman Church, and to wreſt for this effect the Terms of the Original. I never ſay'd this whole Piece was abſolutely fictitious as Mr. Arnaud wou'd make the World believe. But only that that paſſage which ſpeaks of the Elevation of the Hoſt is Anſwer to the Perp. part. 2. C. 8. Lib 5. C. 13. p. 516.a mere Forgery, and this we have proved by the Teſtimony of Alvarez and Zaga Zabo, one of which poſitively denies the Ethiopians elevate the Sacrament, and th'other declares they do not expoſe it. 'Tis to no purpoſe for Mr. Arnaud to endeavour to juſtify this alteration in ſaying perhaps there be different Ceremonies in Ethiopia, that they elevate the Sacrament in ſome places, and not in others, that they elevate it in a manner ſo little Remarkable that it has given Occaſion to Alvarez and Zaga Zabo in comparing it with the elevation of the Roman Church to ſay they elevated it not at all, that is, they do not elevate it ſo high as to make it be ſeen, as is uſual amongſt the Latins. 'Tis plainly ſeen theſe are mere Subterfuges and vain Conjectures: Had Alvarez and Zaga thus meant they would have ſo explain'd themſelves, and diſtinguiſhed the Places, or the manner of the Elevation, whereas they ſpeak abſolutely. Mr. Arnand do's not know more than theſe two Authors, and were he to correct or expound them he ought at leaſt to offer ſomething that might juſtify his Correction or Expoſition. We may confirm the Teſtimony of Alvarez and Zaga Zabo by that of Montconies a Traveller into thoſe parts, who deſcribing the Maſs of the Copticks, who, as every Body knows are of the ſame Religion, and obſerve the ſame Ceremonies as the Abyſſins, ſay's expreſly that they uſe no Elevation.
IT is then certain that this Liturgy ſuch as it is in the Bibliotheca Patrum is an altered Piece, and therefore 'tis inſerted in it without any mention whence 'twas taken, or who Tranſlated it, as I already obſerved in my anſwer to the Perpetuity. Yet foraſmuch as the Almighty taketh the crafty in their own Nets, there are ſeveral things left untouch'd which do not well agree with the Doctrine of Tranſubſtantiation, ſuch as for Inſtance is this Prayer which the Prieſt makes after the Conſecration, commemorating, ſay's he, thy Death, and Reſurrection, we offer thee this Bread and Miſſa ſive Canon univerſ. Aethiop. Bibl. patr. tom 6.Cup, and give thee thanks inaſmuch as that by this Sacrifice thou haſt made us worthy to appear in thy Preſence, and exerciſe this office of Prieſthood before thee. Wee moſt earneſtly beſeech thee O Lord to ſend thy Holy Spirit on this Bread and Cup, which are the Body and Blood of Jeſus Chriſt our Lord and Saviour for ever. Did they underſtand the Bread and Wine were the Body and Blood of the Son of God in proper Subſtance, would they ſay to him himſelf that they offer to him the Bread and Cup in Commemoration of his Death and Reſurrection, and would it not likewiſe be impious to deſire him to ſend on this Bread and Cup his Holy Spirit? 'Tis not to Jeſus Chriſt himſelf that the Latins do offer his Body and Blood; thoſe that believe the Roman reality do not expreſs themſelves in ſuch a manner, much leſs can they deſire of him to ſend down his Holy Spirit on them; for as ſoon as ever 'tis conceived to be the proper Body and Blood of our Lord in the ſence wherein the Latins underſtand it, 'tis believed there is a fulneſs of the Holy Spirit in them.
I cannot but here relate what Mr. Faucheur has obſerved touching the Egyptian Liturgy commonly called St. Gregory's, by which will appear that the complaints we make concerning theſe pieces are not without cauſe. The Egyptian Liturgy, ſay's he, attributed to St. Gregory imports, I offer to thee O Lord the SYMBOLS OF MY RANSOM. For Faucheur on the Lords Supper. Book 3. C. 6.there is in the Egyptian NICYMBOLON, that is to ſay foreign as I have bin informed by Mr. Saumaiſe, who has an ancient Manuſcript of it, and not as Victor Scialach a Maronite of Mount Libanus has Tranſlated it, (who being of the Seminary at Rome, deſigned by a Notorions falſity to favour the cauſe of our Adverſaries,) praecepta liberationis meae.
BUT beſides this way of corrupting the Liturgies by falſe Tranſlations, it is moreover true that, when theſe Levantine Chriſtians were Reunited as they often have bin with the Latins, the Latins never fail'd to examine their Books, and take out of 'um whatſoever they found therein contrary to the Doctrine of the Church of Rome; for example, there has bin inſerted in the Bibliotheca Patrum the Liturgy of the Neſtorian Chriſtians of Mallabar, but under this title corrected and cleanſed from the Errors and Blaſphemies of the Neſtorians, by the Illuſtrious and Reverend My Lord Alexius Menenſes Arch-Biſhop of Miſſa Chriſtian apud. Indos Bibl. patr. tom. 6. ed. 4. Ibid bibl. patr. tom. 6.Goa. Victor Scialach in his Letter to Velſerus on the Egyptian Liturgies called St. Baſil's, Gregorie's, and Cyril's, ſay's, that the new Manuſcripts have bin corrected by the order of the Holy Roman Church, into whoſe Boſom, as into that of a real Mother, the Church of Alexandria has lately returned under the Popedom of Clement VIII.
THERE's all the likelyhood in the World that this Clauſe which appears in the Egyptian Liturgies of St. Baſil, and Gregory, of Victor Schialch's Tranſlation, and from which Mr. Arnaud pretends to make advantage, is an Addition made thereunto by the Latins, in ſome one of theſe Reunions; for if we examine it well we ſhall eaſily find that 'tis a confeſſion of the reality of the Humane Nature in Jeſus Chriſt, which is a confeſſion directly oppoſite to the Error of the Copticks who only acknowledge the Divine Nature.
OBSERVE here the terms, It is the ſacred and everlaſting Body, and the real Blood of Jeſus Chriſt the Son of God. Amen, it is really the Body of the Emmanuel Ibid.our God. Amen. I Believe, I Believe, I Believe, and will confeſs till the laſt breath of my Life that this is the living Body which thy only Son our Lord God and Saviour Jeſus Chriſt took from the most holy and moſt pure Mary the Mother of God, our common Lady, and which he joyned to his Divinity without converſion, mixture or confuſion. I make the pure confeſſion which he made before Pontius Pilate, he gave his Body for us on the Croſs by his own will. He has really aſſumed this Body for us. I believe that the Humanity was never ſeperate from the Divinity, no not a Moment, and that he gave his Body to purchaſe Salvation, Remiſſion of Sins and eternal life for all thoſe that ſhall believe in him. There needs no great ſtudy to find that the deſign of this whole Prayer is to confeſs the Truth of the Myſtery of the Incarnation, and the reality of the Humane Nature in Jeſus Chriſt, and that theſe words, without converſion, mixture or confuſion, are preciſely thoſe which have bin ever oppoſed againſt the Hereſy of the Eutichiens with which the Copticks are tainted. Whereupon we cannot doubt but that this is an addition of the Latins, who in reuniting theſe People to themſelves have inſerted in their very Liturgy, ſeveral Clauſes expreſly contrary to their old Error, that they might the more abſolutely bring them off from it.
LET not Mr. Arnaud then any longer glory in theſe Eaſtern Liturgies, for if we had 'um pure and ſincere, I do not queſtion but we ſhould find ſeveral things in 'um that do not well agree with the Belief of the Subſtantial Preſence, nor with that of Tranſubſtantiation. Neither has he reaſon to brag of the general Conſent of all the Churches call'd Schiſmatical, with which pretence he would dazle the Eyes of the World. Upon a thro conſideration of what we have ſo farrepreſented to him whether in reſpect of the Greeks, or other Chriſtian Churches, he muſt acknowledge he has overſhot himſelf, and bin too raſh in his Affirmations on this Subject. Which I believe I have evidently diſcover'd, and in ſuch a manner as nothing can be alledged againſt it. I dare aſſure him he will find in this diſpute no Sophiſms on my part. Having proceeded faithfully and ſincerely in it. I have taken things as they lye in their Natural order. I have offered nothing but upon good grounds, from Teſtimonies for the moſt part taken out of Authors that are Roman Catholicks. I have never taken Mr. Arnaud's words (as I know of) in any other ſence than in that wherein he meant them. I have followed him ſtep by ſtep as far as good order would permit me. I have exactly anſwered him without weakning his Arguments, or Proofs, or paſſing by any thing conſiderable. In fine, I have not offered any thing but what I my ſelf before was convinced and perſwaded to be true, and I am much miſtaken if I have not reduced matters to that clearneſs that others will be no leſs perſwaded of what I ſay than my ſelf.