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. VIII.

The Fourteenth Proof taken from that the Greeks when ever they argue touching the Azyme, do carry on their Disputes upon this Principle, That the Sacrament is still real Bread after its Consecration. The Fif∣teenth, from the little care they take to preserve the Substance of the Sa∣crament. The Sixteenth, from a Passage of Oecumenius.

WE know very well that the Greeks consecrate the Eucharist with leaven'd Bread, and that there is touching this Point, between them and the Latins, so stiff a Controversie, that the Greeks believe their Altars are polluted when the Latins have perform'd their Service thereon, and therefore when ever this happens, they wash them with exceeding great care before they use them. I shall not trouble my self, or Reader, with mentioning here any thing touching the be∣ginning or progress of this Dispute, all that I aim at here, being only to give farther light to the question I handle. It seems to me then no hard matter in reading their Books concerning this Point, to know what their real belief is touching Transubstantiation, for we find them continually arguing from this Principle, that the Eucharist is still Bread after Consecration.

AND this appears by the Letters of Michael Cerularius, and Leo Bishop of Acrida, to John Bishop of Tranis in the Kingdom of Naples; for giving an account of the Institution of the Holy Sacrament, they add, observe how our Saviour has called under the New Testament the Bread his Body. This ex∣pression * 1.1 let Mr. Arnaud say what he will, does not well agree with the be∣lief of Transubstantiation; for according to this Doctrine it may be affirm'd, that our Saviour has made Bread his Body and changed it into his Body; but it cannot be said with good sence, that he calls the Bread his Body, seeing this latter expression signifies, he attributes to the Bread the name of his Body, which supposes the Bread remains, and receives the name of the Body of Je∣sus Christ. Yet do we meet with these kind of expressions not only in Mi∣chael Cerularius, but in the Triode of the Greeks which is one of their Ecclesi∣astical Books, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, say they, having likewise related the words of the In∣stitution 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 * 1.2 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Observe that he calls the Bread his Body and not an Azyme, let them then be ashamed that offer in the Sacrifice unleaven'd Bread. It appears by the Dispute which bears the name of Gennadius, that this Pas∣sage * 1.3 is frequently used by the Greeks. And Mr Arnaud has observ'd that Jeremias and Photius Patriarchs of Constantinople express themselves in this same manner, Jesus Christ called the Bread his Body, the Wine his Blood; He assures us that Jeremias believed Transubstantiation, but whether he did or not we shall see hereafter; He likewise tell us that Photius joyns this expres∣sion with that which naturally denotes Transubstantiation, to wit, that the

common Bread is changed into the Body of Jesus Christ, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, but this is meer mockery to desire us to believe that a Term so general as is that of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, does naturally signifie a Conversion of Substance.

IN the second place the Greeks are wont in this Controversie to reproach * 1.4 the Latins with their eating the Jewish Azyme, and that they eat it as a Fi∣gure of the Flesh of Christ, You offer to God in Sacrifice, say's Nicetas Pecto∣ratus, the Azyme and dead Bread of the Jews, and eat it as a Figure of the true and living Flesh of Jesus Christ; and a little further, he that makes the Azyme, and eats it, altho he has not taken this Custom from the Jews, yet does he in this imitate them, and his Knowledge is no greater than that of a Jew. They ap∣ply to this occasion the Eleventh Canon of the Sixth Council in Trullo, which forbids the eating of the Azyme of the Jews, and this is near upon the same Language of all the rest of the Greeks. But these expressions would be extravagant did they not suppose that which we eat in the Eucharist to be real Bread; for to eat the Body of Jesus Christ under the Accidents of an Azyme, is not to eat the Azyme of the Jews, and in effect those amongst the Latins that have refuted them touching this Article have not fail'd to tell them, that after the Conversion 'tis no longer Bread, neither leaven'd nor un∣leaven'd, but the Body of Jesus Christ, and that in supposing this Conversi∣on, the Question concerning the Azyme's is superfluous, as appears in an Anonymous Treatise in the Bibliotheca Patrum, and in a Letter of Pope Gregory the 9th. which Mr. Arnaud mentions in the Tenth Chapter of his Third Book.

IT appears likewise by a Treatise attributed to Gennadius, the Patriarch of Constantinople, that at the Council of Florence, wherein 'twas ordain'd the Priests shall consecrate the Body of Jesus Christ with leavened Bread, and with the Azyme, every one according to the Custom of his own Church, the Greeks that rejected the Union thus loudly expressed themselves, saying, * 1.5 That the Council had divided the Mystery of the New Testament into two Parts, and made two Bodies of Jesus Christ, the one of unleavened, and th'other of lea∣vened Bread. Which Language would be very improper in the mouths of Persons who believe Transubstantiation; for besides that this would not be two Bodies, but one alone under the different Species, it should at least have been said they had set up two Bodies, one made of leaven'd th'other of un∣leaven'd Bread.

WE find that the Greeks in this same Controversie, to shew unleavened Bread ought not to be used in this Mystery, affirm that Leaven is the same thing to Bread, as the Soul is to the Body, because Bread receives elevation by means of the Leaven, so that they call leavened Bread, living Bread, as be∣ing that which has Spirits, and on the contrary the Azyme dead Bread, a dead Lump, unfit to represent the living Body of Jesus Christ; and there∣upon they ground this Accusation, that the Latins eat a dead Lump, inani∣mate Bread, and not the Body of Jesus Christ which is of the same Substance as ours, and is not void of Soul, as taught the Heretick Apollinarius. We may find this kind of arguing in Cerularius his Letter, in that of Nicetas Pectoratus, and in the Answers of Cardinal Humbert, and likewise describ'd at large in the Anonymous Author I mention'd, The Christians Easter, say's he, * 1.6 was celebrated, not with unleaven'd Bread, but on the contrary with that which is leaven'd; to set forth the Perfection of Jesus Christ. For our Lord has united to himself two Natures in one Person; and as the Divine Nature is most simple, so the humane Nature is composed of Soul and Body, or Flesh. There being then

in Jesus Christ the Divinity, the Soul and the Body, so likewise in the Mystery of the Sacrament which we celebrate with compleat Bread, that is to say with lea∣vened Bread, there are three things, namely, Flower, Leaven, and Water. But yours, far from being a true Sacrament, is no Sacrament at all, being so different from the Truth. But we find this arguing more clearly expressed in a Letter of the Patriarch of Antioch to the Bishop of Aquila: Those, say's he, that * 1.7 partake of the Azyme are in danger of falling into the Heresie of Apollinarius, who did not stick to affirm that the Son of God took of the Virgin Mary a Body de∣stitute of Soul and Reason, affirming the Divinity was to him in stead of the rational Soul. The Azyme then which has neither Salt nor Leaven, is it not dead and inanimate, and worthy in effect of Death? Our Lord Jesus Christ who is per∣fect God and Man has two Natures, and one only Hypostasis, having taken of the Holy Virgin a living Body indued with Understanding, and given us the Mystery of the New Testament by means of perfect Bread. Supposing the Bread of the Eucharist to be a Mystery that represents Jesus Christ, its Substance still ex∣isting, it will then be no hard matter to comprehend this reasoning of the Greeks; for they mean, that the lump of Bread represents the Body of Christ, the Leaven his Soul, or Life, and the Salt his Understanding, or Rea∣son, wherefore they say, that the Leaven stands for the Soul, and the Salt for the Understanding: So that partaking of this Bread, we mystically eat the animate and living Body of Jesus Christ, such as it is in effect, and not such a one as Apollinarius dreamt of. Whereas those that partake of an Azyme, do only mystically eat inanimate Flesh. But suppose, these People be lieved Transubstantiation, and judge then of their meaning. They that cele∣brate the Eucharist, say they, with unleavened Bread eat a dead Lump, how so? They eat not the Substance of the Azyme, but that of the living Flesh of Je∣sus Christ. They offer, say they, Flesh that is dead. How so again, if they offer'd it in its proper Substance such as it now is, that is to say living? They eat not the Body of Jesus Christ which is consubstantial with us, because they eat an inanimate Azyme. But it is false that they eat the Azyme, they receive only the colours and appearances of it, in the same manner as others take the co∣lours and appearances of leaven'd Bread. Their Sacrament is not indeed a Sacrament, differing so greatly from the Truth. Their Sacrament being the Truth it self, it can admit of neither difference nor resemblance. Who sees not these People are unintelligible if we imagine they argue from the Prin∣ciple of Transubstantiation? For if they only mean, that the matter of the Sacrament must be leaven'd Bread to become proper to be changed into the real Body of Jesus Christ, they must consider it in the time preceding the Consecration; as for instance, were I to shew that these Stones are not proper to build a Pallace, I must consider them in the time preceding the Building. Common sence leads us to this. But these People on the contrary are wont almost always to consider it in the time which follows the Consecration. You partake, say's Nicetas, of an inanimate Azyme, you offer to God an Azyme, being the dead Bread of the Jews; You are fed from the Hebrews Table, and not from the living and rational Table of the Lord. You communicate with the Jews, say's Cerularius, you eat a dead Lump, say's the Author of the Treatise of the * 1.8 Azymes against the Armenians, you receive an Azyme, you offer an Azyme, be∣ing dead Flesh, whereas Jesus Christ has given his Mystery, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, with perfect Bread. All this does very ill accord with the Belief of Tran∣substantiation.

NEITHER will it be less difficult to reconcile it with some other ex∣pressions used by the Greeks in this same Controversie, as with that of Nice∣tas,

which I already mention'd; You offer in Sacrifice to God the Azyme, the * 1.9 dead or unleavened Bread of the Jews, which you eat as a Figure of the true and living Flesh of our Lord; and that which he adds soon after. You say that the Apostles receiv'd the Azymes of Jesus Christ, and that they left 'em to you▪ for the celebrating of the Mystery as a representation of the Body of Jesus Christ, And that of John Citrius which I already likewise mention'd, We offer in Sacrifice leavened Bread for the Body of our Lord, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. And that of the Patriarch of Antioch, the Leaven stands for the Soul, and the * 1.10 Salt for the Understanding. And that of John the Metropolitan of Russia in his Letter to the Pope, or rather to the Archbishop of Rome, as he calls him, Jesus Christ gave not to his Disciples an Azyme, but Bread when he said, Behold the Bread which I give you. Let Mr. Arnaud pretend what he will, yet I really be∣lieve these expressions do not well please him. He may tell us the Eucharist may be consider'd in two different respects; and that when 'tis looked upon in reference to its external Vail, 'tis called a Figure and Bread, and yet the Do∣ctrine of Transubstantiation receive no prejudice thereby. But this will not satisfie the World, for 'tis plainly apparent, the sence of Nicetas and other Au∣thors reaches farther than this; for to say, we offer dead Bread, unleavened Bread, and figuratively eat it as the Flesh of Jesus Christ, that our Saviour gave Bread to his Disciples, that he told them 'twas Bread he gave them, that this Bread, should signifie his Body, the Leaven his Soul, and the Salt his Understand∣ing, this is not a bare consideration of simple Accidents. But 'tis on the contra∣ry to suppose, that the Bread remains, for we can neither offer, nor eat, dead Bread, a dead Lump, unleavened Bread, the figurative Bread of the Flesh of Jesus Christ, if it does not remain Bread in its real Substance. The Bread can neither stand for the Body, nor the Leaven for the Soul, nor the Salt for the Understanding, if in effect this Bread, this Leaven and Salt do not any longer subsist, but give place to the Body, Soul, and Understanding of Jesus Christ. Mr. Arnaud, may tell us, if he pleases, that Agapius his Monk of Mount Athos, who taught Transubstantiation makes use of this way of speaking, that the Eucharist is to us in the stead of Jesus Christ, wee shall find he is a Person that would not wholly estrange himself from the expressions of the Greeks, if it be true that he received the Doctrine of the Latins. But we must go on with our proofs.

OUR Fifteenth Proof, shall be drawn from the little care the Greeks take to preserve the Substance of the Sacrament after its Consecration. For it is not to be imagin'd supposing their Belief to be the same with that of the Church of Rome, they would be so neglectful of it, and disrespectful to it as they are. I have already related in my Answer to the Perpetuity what Car∣dinal Humbert wrote from Constantinople, touching their Custom of burying under Ground the remains of the Communion, and letting fall the Crums thereof, without troubling themselves about them. When you break, say's * 1.11 he, the Holy Bread, or receive it, you are not concerned at the Crums falling down on the Ground. Neither are you more careful when you wipe the Dishes after an undecent manner, with the Leaves of Palm-trees, or Brushes made with Hogs∣bristles. Some among you gather up the Body of Christ with so great irreve∣rence that you fill boxes with it, and to prevent the scattering of the Crums, press them down with your hands. They eat likewise what is left of the Oblation after the same manner as common Bread, and sometimes so much of it, till they glut themselves with it, and what they cannot eat they bury under Ground, or throw it into Wells. He in another place severely censures the Custom of the Greeks; To bury, say's he, the Eucharist, as some are said to do, or put it in

Bottles, or scatter it about, is certainly a great neglect, and sign, that such have * 1.12 not the fear of God before their eyes. For the Holy and Divine Mysteries are the Faith of Christians. And in another place, in answer to Cerularius, who boasted that he would teach great and excellent things, are these, say's he, those great and excellent things you speak of, to place the Oblation on the Altar * 1.13 in so great a quantity, that neither the Ministers nor People, can devour it, but you must bury it, or throw it into Wells made for that purpose?

THE Anonymous Author of the Treatise against the Greeks observes the same thing with Humbert, At Easter, say's he, when the People receive the * 1.14 Communion, they provide abundance of Bread, and consecrate it all; and because the heaps which are left, cannot be kept, they bury them.

THIS Custom of burying the Eucharist remains still amongst the Greeks; for the Jesuit Richard relates, that a poor Woman of the Isle of Saint Erinis, had no sooner received the Holy Communion, but she brought it up again by reason * 1.15 of the weakness of her stomach, and that the Greek Priest, who gave it her be∣fore he confessed her, did not scruple to take up what she had vomited and bury it, together with the Sacred Particles at the foot of his Altar, for which fact he was blam'd by the other Papa's, who would have him bury it on the Sea-shore, judge then, adds he, how great is the ignorance of these Greek Priests, and how great our Saviour's patience to bear this? He undoubtedly saw all these disorders and indignities he was to suffer, when he instituted this Divine Sacrament.

THE same Author, say's likewise, That their Priests following the Custom of the Jews, let their Beards grow, which are all over wet with the Lord's Blood * 1.16 when they drink. Arcudius reproaches them in the same manner. The Greek Priests, say's he, receive the Eucharist very undecently, for taking the consecra∣ted Bead they grasp it close in their hands, and so lift it up on their heads, (I sup∣pose they do this as a sign of Honour and Veneration) and having eaten the Eu∣charist, and recited some Praises, they lift up their hands to their heads and stroke them, for it commonly happens that some Crums stick thereon. As soon as they have drank the Blood, they do not scruple to wipe their Beards with their hands, or handkerchiefs, as if they had drank common Wine; and forasmuch as they let their Beards grow, and never cut their Moustaches, it frequently happens that drops of Blood fall from them on the Holy Vestments, or Altar, and not seldom on the Ground. He farther adds, That the Rubrick of their Liturgy deceives them, and that these words should be corrected, after the Priest has wiped his lips and the brims of the Sacred Chalices, with the Veyl he has in his hands, he calls the Deacon. Sacranus speaking of the Russians, say's likewise, That they give the Communion to the People in nasty wooden Spoons, and wipe off the Crums which stick thereon with a cloth, letting them fall on the Ground.

THEY are far from being scrupulous, and taking that care the Roman Church does, to prevent the Eucharists being eaten by Vermin, for the Rats may run away with great pieces of it, and yet they not concerned thereat. Manuel the Patriarch of Constantinople (whom Binius ranks in the Seventh Century) being askt by one of his Bishops what punishment he thought a Priest deserv'd, who let a Mouse run away with the consecrated Bread, coldly answered, That those to whom these mischances happen are not to be blamed, because these things are usual; Multa enim ejusmodi saepe accidunt. If the like Questions were offer'd to a Latin Bishop, 'tis not to be doubted but he would insist on the care that ought to be taken for the prevention of these

inconveniencies, and instead of slighting the matter and excusing the Priest, as this Patriarch does, by saying this often happens, he would on the contra∣ry invent all ways imaginable to prevent this from ever hap'ning.

LET Mr. Arnaud if he pleases reflect a little on all these things. How is it possible these People would shew so little reverence and so great neglect to the Substance of the Sacrament, did they believe it to be the proper Sub∣stance of their Saviour? They eat thereof as common Bread till they have glutted themselves, they bury it, and cast it into Wells, and when any Crums thereof fall to the Ground, or stick on their hair, they are not all concerned thereat. They spill the consecrated Wine on their Beards, on the Altar, yea on the Ground, and matter it not, and their Liturgy enjoyns them to wipe their lips with their handkerchers when they have received the Communion, to which we may add what I related in the foregoing Chap∣ter, that they let the Sacrament hang a whole year in a linnen bag on a nayl, exposed to the mercy of worms, according to the express testimony of Sa∣cranus, and the Archbishop of Gnesne. Now what congruity has all this with the belief of Transubstantiation? Mr. Arnaud may distinguish, if he pleases, between the necessary Consequences, and those of congruity, yet all his Philosophy falls short of perswading us that these practices are consistent with the belief, that 'tis no longer the Substance of Bread, but the proper Substance of the Body and Blood of Christ.

I shall finish this Chapter with a passage taken out of Oecumenius, which shall be my Seventeenth Proof. This Author (who is famous amongst the Greeks and lived in the Eleventh Century) expounding these words of Saint Pe∣ter, Let your Conversation be honest among the Gentiles, that whereas they speak ill of you as of evil doers, they may glorifie God; Saint Peter, say's he, speaks here of the false Accusations of the Heathens, and if you would know the particulars thereof, read what Ireneus Bishop of Lyons has written touching the Martyrs Sanctus, and Blandina, and you will be perfectly informed. This in few words is an account thereof. The Greeks having taken some Slaves belonging to the Christian Catecumenists, used great violence towards them to make them confess the Christians Mysteries, and the Slaves not knowing what to say to please those that so rudely handled them, remembred they heard their Masters relate that the Holy Communion was the Body and Blood of Christ, imagining that 'twas, In effect Flesh and Blood. Whereupon they taking this as if the Christians were wont REALLY to eat and drink human Flesh and Blood made report hereof to all the other Greeks, and by torments forced the Martyrs, Sanctus, and Blan∣dina to confess it. But Blandina afterwards very pertinently demanded of them, how they could imagine People who out of Devotion did abstain from eating Flesh (whose use was permitted them,) should do any such thing.

THIS passage may be considered in two respects, either as being of St. Ireneus or Oecumenius. I know very well there are several Learned men that believe Oecumenius was mistaken in relating this Story as if it came from Saint Ireneus, and in effect, we do not thus find it in the Letter of the Church∣es of Vienna and Lyons produced by Eusebius. But in the second respect, under which I now offer it, we may certainly conclude that 'twas the Senti∣ment of Oecumenius himself. For how can we suppose he would call the be∣lief of the Slaves and Heathenish Inquisitors a mistake, That the Holy Com∣munion did in effect consist of Flesh and Blood, and that the Christians did really do this. Wherefore would he reckon this Errour amongst the Slanders of

the Heathens? Wherefore should he introduce Blandina refuting this Imagi∣nation had he himself believed the Communion to be in effect and reality the Flesh and Blood of Christ in its proper Substance, and had this been the real Sentiment of his Church? How came it to pass, he did not endeavour to mollifie and explain these Terms, and show that Blandina was mistaken in denying the Eucharist to be in effect and reallity Flesh and Blood, or that what she did in this case was only to conceal from the Heathens, the Churches Belief in this particular, or in fine that she only denied it in one sence, to wit, that it was visibly and sensibly Flesh and Blood? How happened it, he feared not lest the Greeks amongst whom he lived when he gave this account would not be scandaliz'd at it, or the weak take hence occasion to call in question the truth of the Doctrines of Transubstantiation and the real Presence? Yet does he not trouble himself in searching after mollifying Terms or Explanations, and the manner in which he has laid this down does clearly shew us that he did not in any sort believe the Holy Communion to be really and in effect the Body and Blood of Christ, nor imagin'd, he af∣firm'd any thing contrary to the Doctrine of his Church, or which might be taken in an ill sence.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Bibliot. Pa••••. Tom. 4. ••d••t. 4.
• * 1.2

  Allat de lib. Eccles. Graec. diss. 2.
• * 1.3

  Gennad p••o Concil. Flor. cap. 2 sect. 7. Book 10.
• * 1.4

  Bibl. Patr. Tom. 4. Edit. 4.
• * 1.5

  Gennad. pro Concil. Flor. cap. 2 sect. 1.
• * 1.6

  Bibl Patr. Tom 4, Edit. 4.
• * 1.7

  Auctar Com∣besis, Tom 2. in not. ad Isaaci arm. Cath. am∣bas inv.
• * 1.8

  Auctar. Com. bef. Tom. 2 in not ad Is. Ar∣men. in.
• * 1.9

  Nicet. pect. in Lat. Bib. Patr. ••4.
• * 1.10

  Apud. Allat. Perpet Cons. lib. 3. cap. 12. Sigism. Reg. Mosc. Com.
• * 1.11

  Humbert. con∣tr. Nic. Bib. Patr. Tom. 4. Edit. 4.
• * 1.12

  Humbert con∣tr. G••••••. Ca∣lumn.
• * 1.13

  Ibid.
• * 1.14

  Bibl. Patr. Tom. 4 Edit. 4.
• * 1.15

  Relation of the Isle of St. Erin. chap. 17. p. 2••0.
• * 1.16

  Tract. contr. Bibl. Patr. Tom. 4. Arcud. lib. 3. cap. 60.