The Catholick doctrine of the Eucharist in all ages in answer to what H. Arnaud, Doctor of the Sorbon alledges, touching the belief of the Greek, Moscovite, Armenian, Jacobite, Nestorian, Coptic, Maronite, and other eastern churches : whereunto is added an account of the Book of the body and blood of our Lord published under the name of Bertram : in six books.

CHAP. X.

The Nineteenth Proof, that, we do not find the Greeks do teach the Do∣ctrines which necessarily follow that of Transubstantiation. The Twen∣tieth, is, the Testimony of sundry Modern Greeks that have written several Treatises touching their Religion. The One and Twentieth, from the Form of Abjuration which the Greeks are forc'd to make when they embrace the Religion of the Latins.

I Did affirm in my Answer to the Perpetuity, that we donot find the Greeks do teach any of those Doctrines which necessarily follow the Belief of the change of Substances, whence I concluded, there was no likelyhood they were in this Point agreed with the Latins. This Consequence has disturbed Mr. Arnaud, and as he makes his own Dictates and those of Reason to be one and the same thing, so he has not scrupled to affirm, That Reason re∣jects this as a silly extravagancy. But forasmuch as we have often experienced * 1.1 that in matters of Reason, Folly and Extravagancy, it is no sure course abso∣lutely to rely upon Mr. Arnaud's words, therefore will we again lay aside the

Authority of his Oracles, and examine the thing as it is in it self.

FIRST, The Greeks do not teach the Existence of the Accidents of Bread and Wine in the Eucharist without any Subject, or Substance which sustains them. Now this is so necessary a Consequence of Transubstantiati∣on, that those which believe this last, cannot avoid the teaching and acknow∣ledging of the other, supposing they are indued with common sence. In ef∣fect it would be to charge the Greeks with the greatest folly, to suppose they imagin'd that the proper Substance of the Body of Jesus Christ, even the very same Body which was born of the Virgin, and is now in Heaven, does really exist on the Altar being the same in all respects, as the Bread of the Eucharist does appear to us to be, that is to say, white, round, divisible into little pieces, &c. and that the same things which, (as they speak) did qualifie and affect the Bread before, do qualifie and affect the same Body of Jesus Christ. We must not charge the whole Greek Church with such an absurdi∣ty. Whence it follows we must not attribute to her the belief of Transub∣stantiation; for did she make profession of believing and teaching it, she would teach likewise the existence of Accidents without a Subject; these two Doctrines being so closely linked together, that 'tis impossible to sepa∣rate them unless they fall upon this fancy, that the Accidents of Bread do exist in the Body it self of Jesus Christ, or this other, namely, that which appears in the Eucharist is not really the Accidents of Bread, but false appearances, and pure Phantasms which deceive our sences, which is no less absurd, nor less contrary to the Doctrine of the Greeks.

SECONDLY, Neither do we find that they teach what the Latins call the Concomitancy, which is to say, that the Body and Blood are equally contained under each Species; but we find on the contrary, that they esta∣blish the necessity of communicating of both kinds, and ground it on the necessity there is of receiving the Body and Blood of Christ, as will appear in the Sequel of this Chapter; which is directly opposite to this Concomitan∣cy. Yet is it not to be imagined but that those People who believe the Con∣version of Substances, do at the same time establish this other Doctrine. For if we suppose as the Church of Rome does, that we receive with the mouths of our Bodies, this same Substance of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, which he had when on Earth, and has still in Heaven, it is not possible to se∣parate in such a manner his Blood from his Body, and his Body from his Blood, as to reckon the Body to be contain'd in the only Species of Bread, and the Blood in the only Species of the Wine, seeing 'tis true that this Se∣paration cannot be conceived without breaking the Unity of the Life which is in Jesus Christ.

THIRDLY, Neither do we find the Greeks have ever applied them∣selves to shew, how 'tis possible for our Lord's Body to exist in the Eucharist, stript of its proper and natural Figure, deprived of its dimensions, impalpa∣ble, indivisible, without motion and action, which is moreover another Con∣sequence of Transubstantiation.

FOURTHLY, We do not find the Greeks do in any sort trouble themselves, touching the nourishment, our Bodies receive when they partake of the Eucharist, and yet is it certain that if we suppose they believed Tran∣substantiation 'tis impossible for them to obtain any satisfaction touching this matter. For should they deny this nourishment, they may be convinced of

it by experience, and if it be referred to the proper Substance of Jesus Christ, they plunge themselves into an Abyss of Absurdities and Impieties. If it be said the Accidents nourish, besides that common sence will not suffer us to say that Colours and Figures nourish, they that affirm this do expose them∣selves to the derision of all the World, who know our nourishment is made by the Addition of a new Substance to ours. To affirm that God causes the Bread to reassume its first Substance, or that he immediately creates another, this is to make him work Miracles when we please, and to be too free in our disposals of the Almighty Power of God. And therefore the Latins have found themselves so perplexed, that some of 'em have taken one side, and some another. Some have boldly denied this nourishment, whatsoever ex∣perience there is of the contrary, as Guitmond, and Algerus, others, chosen rather to affirm the Accidents do nourish, as Thomas Aquinas and Bellarmin. Others have invented the return of the first Substance of Bread, as Vasquez; and others the Creation of a new Substance, as Suarez and others. Mr. Ar∣naud has chosen rather to affirm, That we are nourished, not with the Body of * 1.2 Jesus Christ, but after another manner known only to God, which shews his per∣plexity to be so great in this particular, that he knew not on which side to turn himself. Whilst the Greeks possess so great Tranquility in this Point, that it does not appear they ever found the least difficulty in it. They assure us the Eucharist does nourish our Bodies; but they see none of those inconvenien∣cies which disturb the Latins; which clearly shews they do not believe the Conversion of Substances. For did they believe it, they would not fail to see what common sence discovers to others; and seeing it, how is it possible they should express no astonishment, nor any difficulty therein, or at least not take that side which Mr. Arnaud has taken, which is to leave these difficulties to Almighty God?

NEITHER do we find that the Greeks do trouble themselves about the alteration, or corruption which frequently happens in the Substance of the Eucharist, as the Latins do, altho the former of these have more reason for it, than the latter. For the Latins take all possible care to keep their Hosts from corrupting; but the Greeks on the contrary take none at all. And keeping as they do the Sacramental Bread sprinkled with consecrated Wine, the space of a whole year, for the use of the sick, it often happens that 'tis corrupted and full of Maggots, as it is observ'd by Sacranus, and the Archbishop of Gnesne, and consequently are more exposed to these inconveniencies than the Latins. Yet do they not seem to be concerned, nor inform themselves whence come these Worms, which being as they are Substances, it cannot be said they generate from bare Accidents. Neither can it be said without blas∣phemy, that they are made of the proper Substance of Jesus Christ.

THIS Proof may be extended farther; for 'tis certain we do not find a∣mongst the Greeks any of these kind of things which depend on Transub∣stantiation. I mean which necessarily and wholly depend thereon. They are in this respect in a most profound silence. But it's worth our while to hear Mr. Arnaud. It is indeed, say's he, a real truth, that the Greeks take lit∣tle * 1.3 notice of these Philosophical Consequences. Samonas speaks occasionally of a Body in two places, and of Accidents without a Subject, the Archbishop of Gaza does the same, but both one and the other of these do this by constraint. What signifies this tergiversating, for he ought not to say the Greeks speak but little hereof, seeing they speak not at all of it. This Samonas and this Archbishop of Gaza are not Authors to be quoted, seeing we shall make it appear in its

place, that the Book which bears the name of the first of these is deserved∣ly suspected to be counterfeit, and that the other is a Roman Proselyte wed∣ded to the Interests of the Court of Rome. It is evident that to establish a restriction of this Consequence, Mr. Arnaud should have better Proofs. But that we may do him right, we will not conceal what he adds afterwards. I drew from the silence of the Fathers touching the Miracles of Transubstanti∣ation, and its Consequences, an Argument to conclude they believed it not. He answers, that instead of Fathers, I should substitute the Greeks, Armeni∣ans, * 1.4 and Copticks of those times, for, say's he, 'tis certain that all these Christi∣ans believed Transubstantiation, as we do, and yet take no notice of all these diffi∣culties which Mr. Claude's head is full of. This acknowledgment is sincere, and we need desire no more. The Greeks take no more notice of the diffi∣culties arising from Transubstantiation than the Armenians and Copticks, and Mr. Arnaud grants this to be so undeniable a Truth, that he makes it the ground of an Answer.

OUR present business then is to know whether the Consequence I hence draw be just and good. Which he contests me, and first he say's, that all these Eastern Churches profess to believe original sin, and yet their Divines trouble not themselves about explaining this Doctrine. He adds, that they observe * 1.5 the same silence in all the Questions and difficulties which the Socinians propose against the Trinity, the Person of the Holy Spirit, and the satisfaction of Christ, altho these difficulties are as obvious and sensible as those alledged against the real Presence.

BUT 'tis his prejudice, and not his reason that has dictated to him this Answer. For first, there is a vast difference betwixt the incomprehensible Mysteries respecting the Divinity, which being above the natural light of reason require a profound submission, and the Doctrine of Transubstantiati∣ation. The nature of the Sacraments is well known, and the matter and signs thereof are better known, which are Bread and Wine. Even the thing signifi'd, to wit, the natural Body and Blood of Jesus Christ are not only the natural Object of Reason, but likewise of Sence, and both one and the other of these Faculties can judge of it, nay, they do judge of it by a spontaneous motion, even when we would not our selves. Secondly, besides this infinite difference, which yields no room for Mr. Arnaud's comparison, the Point in hand concerns not the difficulties touching Transubstantiation, or the real Presence, but the Doctrines which necessarily attend them, and Questions which immediately arise thence of themselves. There is a great deal of difference between these two Particulars. The difficulties which are raised against a Truth, are commonly false Consequences which the Adversaries draw thence; and I confess it would not be to reason aright, absolutely to conclude that a Church holds not a Doctrine, because she troubles not her self in answering all the Objections which may be made against it. To al∣low these kinds of Arguments, there are distinctions to be made, and parti∣cular circumstances to be observed, without which there can be nothing con∣cluded. But we speak here of real Consequences of a Doctrine, of Conse∣quences, I say, which immediately shew themselves to the ordinariest capaci∣ty, without any great Meditation and Study. Now altho the Greeks do not apply themselves to answer the Objections of the Socinians, against Original Sin, against the Mystery of the Trinity, the Person of the Holy Spirit, and Satisfaction of Christ, being perhaps not acquainted with them, yet do we plainly see amongst them the Consequences of these Doctrines. They baptise

little Children, and baptise them in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, they believe the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are consubstantial; they adore the Person of the Holy Spirit, they put their trust in the death of Jesus Christ, and such like things. Wherefore should it not be the same in respect of the Consequences of Transubstantiation? Is it possible to hold this Doctrine, without thinking at the same time at least on some one of these Consequences, on the actual existence of a humane Body in several places, the existence of this Body without its usual Dimensions, the concomitancy of the Body and Blood, and on the Accidents of Bread which remain after Consecration.

THE difficulties which the Socinians object against the Trinity and o∣ther Doctrines mentioned by Mr. Arnaud, are for the most part false Conse∣quences which these Hereticks draw from these Doctrines. It is no wonder if almost all Christians be ignorant of these Consequences. They do not spring up naturally: For 'tis passion and blindness that produces them. For I call blindness those false Lights which cause these Hereticks to behold that which is not. But that which Mr. Arnaud calls the difficulties of Transub∣stantiation are real Consequences of this Doctrine, and acknowledged to be such by them of the Church of Rome. Let him say as long as he will these are Philosophical Consequences, I affirm they are not so Philosophical as to hinder them from being very natural, appearing to be so, even to the light of common sence. It is most natural for a man that believes the Substance of Bread ceases to be, to think on the Accidents which remain. It is very na∣tural for him that believes the Body of Jesus Christ, and his Blood to be substantially therein, to imagine that where the Body or Flesh is, there must the Blood be also, which is called in one word the concomitancy. It is most natural, for him that believes that 'tis not the Substance of Bread that nou∣rishes, to consider what should cause this nourishment. It is very natural for a man that believes the Body of our Lord to be a real humane Body, to inquire how this Body can be stript of the proprieties of its Nature. It is natural, when we see Worms which ingender in the Eucharist, to inquire whence they take their matter. It is likewise certain that Philosophy is not properly any more concerned in these Consequences than barely to defend them, and not to illustrate them. And yet when they should not appear in themselves to the eyes of the Greeks, and we suppose the whole Body of this Church to be in such a prodigious stupidity, that for so many Ages since they have discovered nothing of themselves touching these things, which would be in my mind one of the boldest suppositions imaginable, yet it must be ac∣knowledged they have seen them in the Doctrine and common belief of the Latins, who have filled their Religion with them since Beringarius his time.

NEITHER is it true, that 'twas mens Disputations which occasion'd all these Questions on the Subject of the Eucharist, or discover'd these Con∣sequences we speak of. Mr. Arnaud would fain perswade us to it, but we know the contrary, and that 'tis the very Doctrine it self of Transubstantia∣tion which has produced them. For they take their birth from what our eyes see, and hands touch, and experiences, which cannot but be acknow∣ledged. In effect, they are to be found more amongst the Schoolmen than Controvertists, more amongst Authors of the Church of Rome than Prote∣stants.

THERE is so great absurdity in saying the Greeks are ignorant of the Consequences of the Doctrine of Transubstantiation, supposing they be∣lieved

it, that Mr. Arnaud seems to be ashamed to maintain it to the end. * 1.6 He turns himself on another side, and tells us that 'tis the docility of the Faith of the Greeks which will not permit them to behold these difficulties. But this is very absurdly answered again. For were it thus, the Greeks themselves would at least tell us something of it. I mean they would tell us themselves in some sort, that they know well all these Consequences, and are not so stu∣pid, but that they see such and such Questions which arise from the Conver∣sion of the Substances, but that they behold them as an Abyss which cannot be fathomed, or to use Mr. Arnaud's Eloquent Expression, That they stifle and * 1.7 drown all humane thoughts in the absolute certainty of the Word of God, and in∣fallible Authority of his Church. They would give some reason for their si∣lence, and endeavour to hinder its being interpreted in an ill sence. They would instruct their People in the same Modesty and Docility, and observe, that their Conduct in this particular was more discreet than that of the La∣tins. And this is what the Greeks would do, did they believe Transubstan∣tiation after this gentle and quiet manner Mr. Arnaud attributes to them. Yet do they not so much as mention these Consequences or difficulties, they take no notice of their own silence in this respect. But Mr. Arnaud speaks for them without any call or order from them. He tells us his Conceptions, and those of Ernulphus an English Bishop of the Twelfth Century, but not a word of the Greeks. The Greeks are in such an absolute silence on this Subject, that this silence cannot come from any other cause than the nature of their Doctrines, which not having the Consequences of Transubstantiation, do no ways oblige them to take notice of these same Consequences.

AND thus far I think my Argument may pass for good in the Opinion of those People that understand reason. Yet Mr. Arnaud will have this to be * 1.8 meer Folly and Extravagancy. And to shew it to be so, he tells us, That rea∣son it self shews us we must not disown certain and undoubted Truths under pre∣tence, they appear contrary amongst themselves on weak conjectures; but the certainty of these Truths should make us conclude touching the falsity of these Reasonings and pretended Contrarieties. It is, adds he, as certain a Truth as any thing of this kind can be, that the Greeks and other Eastern Churches do believe the real Presence and Transubstantiation, and there is nothing but may be called in question upon the same grounds, if we may doubt of the consent of all the Churches with the Church of Rome in this Doctrine. This is another Truth, that the Greeks take little notice of the Philosophicl Consequences. Whence he con∣cludes, that these two Truths being equally certain, they cannot be contrary, and that they shew us the falsity of Mr. Claude's Consequence.

IT must be acknowledged that never man had less trouble to answer an Adversary than Mr. Arnaud. I prove to him the Greeks do not believe Tran∣substantiation, because they make no mention of its Consequences nor diffi∣culties. He denies my Consequence because the Greeks do believe. Transub∣stantiation and that two Truths cannot be contradictory. It costs little to make such kind of Answers, and it costs no more to tell him that if it were a certain Truth (as he affirms it is) that the Greeks believed the conversion of Substances, he would have no need to trouble himself to answer my Argu∣ments. For the Question being decided, there would be nothing remaining upon this account betwixt us. I believe I established the Negative, which I defend a thousand times more solidly, than he has proved his Affirmative; but if I pretended to elude his Arguments by saying, I deny the Consequence, because the Greeks do not believe Transubstantiation, I should be an imperti∣nent

Disputer. It seems to me I should make it appear, either that the Matters of Fact which Mr. Arnaud proposes are not true, or that he takes them in a contrary sence, and draws from them false Conclusions; but bare∣ly to say I deny the Consequence, because it opposes my Thesis, which I hold for a certain Truth, this would be to make my self ridiculous. I know that a man that answers, supposes always his Thesis to be true, and that he has li∣berty to draw thence, if he can, where withal to solve the Arguments of his Adversary, but he must do it in another manner, than by saying, I deny the Consequence, because my Thesis is true. For otherwise his Adversary will tell him, and I prove that your Thesis is false by the very Argument I offer; so that this would be always to begin again. Mr. Arnaud will re∣ply, he does not barely propose his Thesis for an Answer, but proposes it, as having already solidly established it by a great number of Proofs, and pre∣tends that his Proofs surmount mine. I confess, that if this be his sence, he has right to oppose Proof against Proof, and require a comparison to be made of them, before the Reader passes his final Sentence. But I demand likewise for my part that there be comprehended in this comparison, not on∣ly one o•• my Proofs, but all of them together, with the Answers which I shall return his to shew their weakness and insufficiency. Which is what a judicious Reader ought to do at the end of the Dispute, in the mean time each Proof in particular should have his force, neither must he imagine to elude them, one after another, by barely opposing against them those which seem to establish the contrary. If I pretended by the only force of my Ar∣gument drawn from the silence of the Greeks on the Consequences of Tran∣substantiation to acquit my self of the examination of Mr. Arnaud's Proofs, and end the Dispute by this means alone, he might reasonably bring me back to this Discussion. For this would be to err in the same manner as the Au∣thor of the Perpetuity has done, who would decide the whole Controversie of the Eucharist, by an Argument drawn from the pretended Consequences of a change, without any regard to our Proofs of Fact, which conclude di∣rectly the contrary. It would signifie nothing for me to alledge that my method is a method of Prescription, and not of Discussion; for this would be meer wrangling. But this is not my design. I proposed to my self, (having first established by divers most solid Reason, that the Greeks do not believe Transubstantiation,) to answer in its due order whatsoever Mr. Ar∣naud has offered to shew that the Greeks do believe it. And yet this Proof, which I here treat of, comes with the rest into the order of the Dispute. It hath then, as I said, its particular force and weight, and Mr. Arnaud must not imagine to overthrow it by barely opposing his Proofs against it, for be∣fore the Dispute be ended, I hope to shew, that what he terms Proofs, are but meer Paralogisms and Delusions.

TO the end the Reader may better judge of the solidity of my Proof, * 1.9 he must observe, that I offered it in my Answer to the Perpetuity only on this Ground, that there is no Law amongst the Greeks, or general determina∣tion, that establishes Transubstantiation, that none of their Councils have decided it, none of their Confessions of Faith comprehended it, nor any of their publick Catechisms asserted it. Now when men differ touching a mat∣ter of Fact, they usually have recourse to the place where they may most reasonably expect satisfaction, and if it does not appear there in it self, sence obliges 'em to address themselves to its Consequences, and if the Consequen∣ces do not manifest themselves any more than the Fact it self, they draw thence a negative Argument, which in its place, has all the force that can be

desired. This method have I followed in this Answer to Mr. Arnaud, for I produce not this Argument drawn from Consequences, till I manifested that the Fact it self here in question, that is to say, Transubstantiation, does not appear any where amongst the Greeks, neither in respect of the Terms, nor thing which the Terms signifie, and to justifie it I have produced what Mr. Arnaud has alledged to the contrary.

IN effect, if you set aside the Latiniz'd Greeks, such as Bessarion, Emanuel Calecas, Plusiadenus, the counterfeit Greeks, such as the Baron of Spartaris, and the Archbishop of Gaza, whom I can prove to be a Pensioner of the Court of Rome, and others that are notoriously suspected, such as the pretended Samonas, the Monk Agapius, the six Priests of the Patriarchate of Antioch, and the Synod of Cyprus in the Year 1668. with some Acts that have been alter'd by the Latins already mention'd by us, all the rest consists only in Ar∣guings and Consequences, which have even in this quality neither Evidence nor certainty, as will appear hereafter. For as to Mr. Arnaud's vaunting, that he has shewed Transubstantiation, hath been defined by Councils, that it is expressly contain'd in the profession of Faith sign'd by the Sarrasins, and in the Ecclesiastical Writings of the Greeks, is what he ought not to affirm on such slight Grounds, seeing People may be convinced of the contrary by the bare reading of these pretended Councils of Cyrillus, Berrhea, and Partenius, and Passages he produces as well of the profession of Faith of these Sarrasin Pro∣selytes, as Ecclesiastical Writings; for 'tis certain we find Transubstantiation neither defined, nor expresly taught therein.

THIS Belief then appearing not of it self in the Greek Church, and the expressions she makes use of being lyable to sundry Interpretations, a prudent man will consider the Doctrines which depend thereon, and which are the inseperable Consequences of it; for if these Doctrines do no more appear than the Substantial Conversion, this must be granted a new Proof which confirms the first, and very much helps us to make our final Judg∣ment. For as I said, it is not possible that the Greeks can be in this Point a∣greed with the Latins, without believing at the same time with them, that the Accidents of Bread which remain, subsist without being upheld by the Substance of Bread, that the Body of Jesus Christ is substantially present in several places at one time, that it exists in the Eucharist void of these natural dimensions, and that the Body and Blood are equally found under both Spe∣cies by vertue of the concomitancy, &c. These are the necessary dependan∣ces on Transubstantiation, and the Greeks are so much the more obliged to explain themselves, in as much as the Terms by which they are said to ex∣press their Belief touching this last particular are equivocal, and capable of several sences, for they ought at least to shew hereupon what is their mean∣ing. So that having not done it, it is a Proof they are not agreed with the Church of Rome on the principal Point of the Conversion. And yet not∣withstanding all this, if we will believe Mr. Arnaud, my Proof is but a foolish and extravagant one. He may say what he pleases, but it seems to me by this, that for the most part there is no agreeing with him under any other Terms than the renouncing of our Reason. But to proceed.

I shall add to what I have already represented, the Testimonies of some Modern Greeks, who have given us exact descriptions of their Religion, and yet not a tittle of Transubstantiation, altho their design and occasions which set them on writing, obliged them not to be silent on so important an Arti∣cle.

I might begin with Jeremias the Patriarch of Constantinople; for let a man read over never so many times his Answers to the Divines of Wittem∣berg, yet cannot he find the least intimation of a substantial Conversion, un∣less he suffers his mind to be corrupted by Mr. Arnaud's Declamations, but it will be more proper to refer this examination to the following Book, where∣in, the order and sequel of this Dispute will oblige us to mention it.

WE have Christopher Angelus his Letter, given us by George Felavius a Lutheran Divine of Dantzic; which Angelus was a Greek, a man both pious and learned. He greatly suffer'd amongst the Turks for his Religion, and at length came into England to end there his Days in peace and quietness. His Letter contains a large Account of the Customs of the Greeks touching the Eucharist, wherein he is so far from asserting the substantial Conversion of the Latins, that he expounds on the contrary these words of Body and Blood by them of Bread and Wine. The Priest, say's he, carrying in his hands * 1.10 the Holy Things, draws near to the People and stops at the door of the Sanctuary, where at once he distributes to every one the Body and Blood of our Lord, that is to say, Bread and Wine mixed, saying, this Servant of God receives, in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, for the Remission of his Sins, Amen.

WE have a Confession of Faith Compiled by Metrophanus Critopulus at * 1.11 Helmstat in the Year 1625. He was not long after made Patriarch of Alex∣andria. There is a whole Chapter in this Confession, the Title whereof is, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, of the Lord's Supper. In which having established the use of leavened Bread, the Unity of this Bread to represent our Unity with Jesus Christ, and one another, he adds. That the consecrated Bread is truly the Body of Christ, and the Wine undoubtedly his Blood, but the manner, say's he, of this change is unknown and unintelligible to us. For the Under∣standing of these things is reserved for the Elect in Heaven, to the end we may obtain the more favour from God by a Faith void of curiosity. Those that seek after the reason of all things overthrow Reason and corrupt Knowledge, according to the Observation of Theophrastus, seeing then this Mystery is really the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, 'tis therefore very pertinently called by Saint Ignatius, a remedy against Mortality, a Medicine that purifies us, and an Anti∣dote which preserves us from Death, and makes us live in God by Jesus Christ.

HERE we find the Bread to be really the Body of Jesus Christ, and that it suffers a change, but we find not that the Substance of the one is re∣ally changed into that of another, which is precisely the Transubstantiation of the Latins. But on the contrary that the manner of this change is un∣known to us whilst on Earth, which is to say, in a word he would have us in∣deed to believe a change, (for the Bread is not naturally the Body of Christ) but will not suffer us to determine the manner of it, which what is it, but a plain rejecting of Transubstantiation, seeing that it is it self the Determi∣nation of this manner. It will be replied that they of the Church of Rome, do likewise acknowledge Transubstantiation to be an unaccountable change, that we must believe it without troubling our selves how 'tis possible, and Mr. Arnaud has not fail'd to produce in this sence, the Passage of Metropha∣nus, which I now mention'd according to his usual Custom, which is to turn to his advantage, even those things that are most against him. But there is a great deal of difference between saying, there is a change which makes the Bread become the Body of Christ, altho we know not the manner there∣of, and affirming there is a substantial change which converts the Substance

of Bread into that of the Body of Jesus Christ, altho we know not how this comes to pass. By the first we keep our selves in the general Idea of a change without descending to a particular determination. By the second we deter∣mine what this change is, to wit, a change of one Substance into another. In the first, the expression is still retain'd which supposes the Bread remains, to wit, That the Bread is the Body of Christ; but in the second, this expressi∣on is willingly laid aside, because it cannot be admitted but under the bene∣fit of Figures and Distinctions. The first is the Language of the Greeks, the second that of the Latins.

BUT before we leave this Confession of Metrophanus, it will not be amiss to make two reflexions thereon, the one, that when he establishes the necessi∣ty of the Communion, in both kinds, he grounds it on the necessity of par∣taking as well of the Body as Blood of Christ, and alledges for this effect that saying in the sixth Chapter of Saint John, If you eat not the Flesh of the Son * 1.12 of Man, and drink his Blood, you will have no life in you. Now this reason manifestly opposes the pretended concomitancy of the Latins, and Transub∣stantiation it self; for if there be made a conversion of the Bread into the proper Substance of the Body of Christ, such as it is at present, that is to say, living and animate, those that receive the Species of Bread do partake as well of the Blood as Body, and it cannot be said, there is any necessity of receiving the Cup, by this reason that we must partake of the Blood, without falling into a manifest contradiction, which is likewise the reason wherefore in the Church of Rome it is believed to be sufficient to communicate of one kind.

THE second Consideration concerning Metrophanus, is, that this Author discoursing, towards the end of his Chapter, of the Sacrament which the Greeks reserve for the sick, say's, That they believe, according to the Doctrine of the first * 1.13 Oecumenical Council, that the Mystery being reserved, remains still a Holy Mystery, and never loses the vertue it once received. For as Wool, say's he, being once dyed, keeps its colour; so the Sanctification remains in these Mysteries ever indelible, and as the remains which are taken off the King's Table are always the remains of the King's Table while they last, altho kept several years, so it cannot be but that the re∣mains of this Holy Mystery, are the remains of the Body and Blood of Christ. Let Mr. Arnaud tell us sincerely whether this be the Style of a man that believes Transubstantiation, and whether he himself would call that which is re∣served of the Sacrament, the remains of the Body and Blood of Christ, and compare the Sanctification which the Bread receives to the colour wherewith Wool is dyed. Whether he would say, that this Sanctification remains in the Mysteries, and is indelible. For 'tis certain this gives us the Idea of Bread, which, so remaining, yet receives an Impression of Grace and Holi∣ness, which resides in it as in its Subject, and makes it to be the Body of Christ, but no wise transubstantiated Bread. If we were to understand by the vertue, not an Impression of the Holy Spirit in the Bread, but an Action that changed the Substance of the Bread into the Substance of the Body of Christ, it might then be said the effect which is produced by this Action, or Conversion, remains, that is to say, that 'tis ever the Substance of the Body of Christ. But it could not be said, as Metrophanus does, that the Action it self, that is to say, the Sanctification, always remain'd, because it would be conceived in this case as a momentary Action, which ceases to be, assoon as the Conversion is made. Neither could it be moreover compared to the dye which Wool receives, seeing Wool remains still Wool in respect of its Substance. In fine, if Metrophanus means no more but that the My∣stery

remains still what it has been made, to wit, the Body of Christ, in Sub∣stance, there can be no reason given, why, being able without doubt to ex∣plain himself easily, and clearly, he chose rather to use obscure and perplexed Terms, which have an Ayr wholly contrary to his Mind, and need a Com∣mentary and Distinctions, than to use clear and natural expressions; for how many Commentaries need we to render intelligible, that this indelible San∣ctification which the Bread receives, and is like to the dye which Wool takes, signifies the proper Substance of the Body and Blood of our Saviour?

I will finish this Chapter with another Proof, taken from the Form of Ab∣juration which the Greeks make when they leave their Religion to embrace the Roman. One of the Articles they are made to confess is this, That the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ with his Soul and Divinity, are really, tru∣ly, * 1.14 and substantially, in the Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist, and that there is made a Conversion of the whole Substance of Bread into the Body, and of the whole Substance of Wine into the Blood, which Conversion the Catholick Church calls Transubstantiation. The Greek runs thus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

HERE's clearly expressed the substantial Conversion, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and Transubstantiation 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, for thus do the Greeks speak when they be∣come Latins, and 'tis thus they ought to speak that believe this Doctrine. But why must the Greeks profess this when they change their Religion, if they held the same Language before? Is it usual, when Proselytes are re∣ceived to make them profess Doctrines common both to the Religion they forsake, and that which they embrace? Do the Greeks do so by the Latins that pass over to them, and is not this a plain sign that their former Belief touching this Point was not that of the Church of Rome? For 'tis to be ob∣serv'd that this Formulary contains first the Symbol with the addition of the filioque, which the Greeks do not receive. Then it contains the Decrees of the Florentine Council, which the Greeks reject, and in fine the Articles de∣termin'd in the Council of Trent, and in respect of this last part, 'tis the same profession of Faith which them of our Communion make when they embrace that of Rome.

IT will be perhaps replied, that amongst these Articles there are two, to wit, that of the Invocation of Saints, and worshipping of Images, which there is no necessity of making the Greeks confess, seeing they practised them already in their Religion, whence it does not follow that they believed not Transubstantiation, altho found expressed in this Form of Confession, for there ought to be the same Judgment made of this, as of the other two Articles. But if this Answer happens to be approved by Mr. Arnaud, I will tell him 'tis of no weight. For as to the Invocation, the Greeks will not practise it to the Saints of the Church of Rome, which they do not acknowledge. When I enter into a Church of the Latins, say's Gregory the Confessor * 1.15 in the History of Syropulus, I adore not the Image of any Saint, because I know not any one of them that I see. They blaspheme, say's Sacranus (speak∣ing of the Russians) against the Churches Saints, who lived in the Communi∣on, and Obedience of the Roman Church. In the Invocation of Saints, say's the * 1.16 Jesuit Scarga, they are guilty of several absurdities. This Article then was not

needless, but on the contrary there was some kind of necessity to insert it in the formulary. And as to that of Images, we all know that the Greeks do abhor the Images of the Latins, and therefore call their Worship in this re∣spect Idolatry.

THE Greeks, say's William Postel, call the Western People that are subject * 1.17 to the Church of Rome, grand Idolaters, because we have Statues erected. They have no other Images in their Churches, say's the Sieur Benard, than the Cruci∣fix, the Virgin Mary, Saint John the Evangelist, and Saint George which are Painted in Tables. They teach, say's the Jesuit Richard; that carved Images are Idols, and that 'tis unlawful to worship any others than those which are painted.

POSSEVIN the Jesuit reckons likewise this amongst the rest of their Errours. That they will not suffer a carved Image of our Saviour to be set up in their Churches. And the Sieur de la Boulay le Goux asserts the same thing, viz. that they suffer no other Images but those that are painted against the Walls, their reason being, that carved Images are forbid in Moses his Law; which Nicholas de Nicolai confirms, telling us, They suffer no carved Images in their Churches, only Table-Pieces.

IT was then moreover needful to insert in the profession of Faith this Ar∣ticle of Images. But there can be nothing alledged like this touching that of Transubstantiation. There could be no reason obliging the Popes to require an express Declaration from the Greek Proselytes, unless that of this Doctrines being not taught in the Church they left, and therefore they must change their Faith as well as their Communion. In effect the Terms of the Greeks, are for the most part of 'em general, and altho the Latins do abuse them in their Disputes, to make us thereby believe they hold the substantial Conver∣sion, yet when the matter in the main relates to their own interest out of the Dispute, they do not then find them sufficient for the forming a true Idea of * 1.18 this Conversion, seeing there has been made an express Article touching this Point conceived in the Terms of the Council of Trent. This is so true, that when they send into the East, those that have been educated in their Semina∣ries, they make 'em sign this same Formulary, to the end they may not fail to labour at the propagation of this Doctrine. It is no longer 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, nor 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, nor 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Change, Mutation, Conversion, there is not e∣nough in this to make a good Catholick, it is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a Change of Substance, Transubstantiation. Mr. Arnaud torments himself to make us acknowledge the Doctrine of the Church of Rome in the common expressions of the Greeks. But that he may avoid this trouble hence for∣ward, let me only advise him to consult Pope Gregory the Thirteenth, for it was by his Order this Formulary we mention'd has been compiled.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Lib. 10. cap. 8. pag. 59
• * 1.2

  Lib. 2. cap 6. pag. 155.
• * 1.3

  Lib. 10 cap 8. p. 59.
• * 1.4

  Ibid. pag. 63.
• * 1.5

  Ibid. pag 58, 59.
• * 1.6

  Ibid. pag. 62.
• * 1.7

  Ibid.
• * 1.8

  Ibid. pag. 59.
• * 1.9

  Answer to the Sccond Treatise of Perp. cap. 8. pag. 442. Edit. 7.
• * 1.10

  Status & ri∣tus Ecclesiae Graecae à Chri∣stoph Angel••. cap. 23.
• * 1.11

  Confession Cath. & A∣post. in Orient. Ecclesiae per Metrophanem Critopulum.
• * 1.12

  Ibid. cap. 91.
• * 1.13

  Ibid.
• * 1.14

  Apud Posse∣vin Bibl. se∣lect. lib. 6.
• * 1.15

  Hist. Conc. Fl••••. sect. 4. cap. 31, Relig. Ruthen, art. 6.
• * 1.16

  Error Mos. ex Scarga art. ••
• * 1.17

  De Repub. Turcor. pag. 46. Voyages of the Sieur Bé∣nard. lib. cap. 24.
• * 1.18

  Possevin Bib∣liot. select. lib. 1.