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 Profession of Faith which the Sarracens were caused to make in the twelveth Century, considered; several Passages out of Cabasilas, Si∣meon Archbishop of Thessalonica, Jeremias the Patriarch of Constantinople, and several others, Collected by Mr. Arnaud out of Greek Authors: Examined.

VVE have already rehearsed the Profession of Faith which the Greeks of the twelveth Century caused the Sarracens to make, that imbraced the Christian Religion; to shew the Greeks kept themselves to the general Expressi∣ons of the Bread and Wines being the Body and Blood of Christ, and how they are changed into this Body and Blood; leaving to God the Knowledg of the manner thereof. It is certain this is all can be concluded thence, and yet Mr. Arnaud has not fail'd to draw this Profession of Faith to his Advantage: But seeing he designed to make a Proof of it, it seems to me, he ought at least to rehearse truly the Terms of it, and not alter them as he has done in his Version. I believe, say's the Convert, and confess the Bread and Wine which * 1.1 are mystically Sacrificed by the Christians, and of which they partake in their Di∣vine Sacraments. This Clause thus expressed, has not contented Mr. Arnaud, and therefore he has not thought good to relate it in this Form, altho it be so in the Greek and Latin Version. I believe also, say's the Sarracen, that these things are in truth the Body and Blood of Christ, being changed by his Divine Virtue intellectually and invisibly above all humane Understanding, AS IS BEST KNOWN TO HIMSELF. These are so far the true Ex∣pressions of the Profession; Here follows Mr. Arnaud's Version. I am per∣swaded, * 1.2 I believe, I confess that the Bread and Wine mystically Consecrated by the Christians, and of which they partake in the Celebration of the Holy Mysteries, are in truth the Body and Blood of our Lord, being changed by his Divine Virtue, in a manner not to be perceived by our Eyes, and discernible only to the Mind, but

surpassing all the Thoughts of Men, and which is only comprehended by God alone, and so I promise that I will partake of it with other faithful People, as being in truth his Flesh and Blood. By this means. 1st. He confounds two things which the Proselyte distinguishes; The one is to Confess the Bread and Wine of which the Christians partake, and the other, to Confess that this Bread and Wine are in truth the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. These two Clau∣ses being thus distinguished, it is clear the first supposes that 'tis Bread and Wine; and this Mr. Arnaud would conceal by confounding them in one. 2dly. Instead of rendring 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Intellectually and Invisibly, he has taken such a Circuit as changes the Sence: In a manner, say's he, which our Eyes do not discover, and which is discernable only to the Mind: To hinder the Readers from observing that the Change in Question is Spiritual and Mysti∣cal, not Sensible, or Material, for this is precisely what is meant by this 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. 3dly. Instead of these Terms, As he alone knows 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which gives us to understand that God only determinately knows what this Spiritual and Mystical Change is; He has Translated, In a manner Comprehended by God alone, to accommodate this to the Doctrine of the Ro∣man Church, which expresly determines the Change of one Substance into a∣nother; But not being able to disintangle herself from the Difficulties she finds in this Doctrine, sends us to God.

AND yet with all these Alterations Mr. Arnaud can conclude nothing from this Profession of Faith, unless it be, that the Bread and Wine are in truth the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, and that they are changed by his Di∣vine Virtue: But this is not the Point we disputed on: They are then chang∣ed in respect of their Substance: It is this Consequence which we deny▪ In Effect, whether the Bread and Wine are the Body and Blood of Christ by a change of Virtue, and by way of Augmentation, as the Greeks explain it, or otherwise; it is certain that they are so truly, and not falsly; So th••s Professi∣on of Faith then means no more than this, that we must believe the Bread and Wine are not vainly and imaginarily the Body and Blood of our Lord, but really and truly, altho God only knows how they are changed, or what kind of Change happens to them. Now this supposes on one hand that they are still Bread and Wine, and on the other, that we must not proceed so far as to a change of Substance.

MR. Arnaud then advertises the World to no purpose, That these kind of Writings are design'd to represent the General, Publick, and Universal Sentiments of the Church, and not the Particular Sentiment of Authors. That they contain an * 1.3 Exact, Precise, and Plain way of Speaking without Figure, or Metaphor, their End being only to give an Exact and True Account of Points of Faith. It is ea∣sy to turn these Remarks against himself; For seeing these kind of Writings speak Precisely, and Exactly, he ought to shew us Distinctly, and Exactly the Conversion of Substances contained in them: And seeing it is not to be found in them, and yet this Profession of Faith represents the General, Publick, and Universal Sentiment of the Greek Church; It follows that this Publick, Gene∣ral, and Universal Sentiment is not Transubstantiation.

TO little Purpose likewise does he add, That the Church would not have the * 1.4 Converted Sarracens believe that the Bread and Wine were not truly the Body and Blood of Christ, but only his Figure indued with their Virtue. This is not the Point; the Question is to know whether they were taught the Conversion of Substances, which is what he ought to show, but this he will be never able

to do. For, for to teach that the Bread and Wine are really the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, (which is what is precisely contain'd in this Professi∣on of Faith) is not as (as I have already said) the teaching the Conversion of Substances. Moreover I never told him the modern Greeks asserted the Eu∣charist to be a Figure: And as to the Change of Virtue we do not prove it, it is true by this Profession of Faith, but we prove it by other Testimonies, which are so plain and expressive that Mr. Arnaud can give no solid Answer to them.

THERE only remain now of all those pretended Proofs of Mr. Ar∣naud, some Passages out of Cabasilas Bishop of Thessalonica, Simeon Bishop also of Thessalonica, Jeremias the Patriarch of Constantinople, and some other Greek Authors. They all say near upon the same thing, which is, That the Bread and Wine are the Body and Blood of Christ: This very Body and Blood. That they are changed into this Body and Blood. But Mr. Arnaud must disa∣buse himself once for all, touching the Thoughts he has, that from these kind of Expressions may be concluded the Doctrine of the Conversion of Substan∣ces: For so far are we from granting this Conclusion to be good, that we pretend we have Reason to draw a contrary Consequence. In effect. 1st. There is nothing more usual in Authors than to say, That the Poor are Jesus Christ, even Christ himself, that the Church is the Body of Jesus Christ, the very Body of Jesus Christ, that we are changed into Jesus Christ, changed into his Body, trans∣formed into him, changed into his Flesh: and such like ways of speaking, Ex∣amples of which are infinite. It is then a great Abuse to pretend these Terms are to be understood in a Sence of Identity and substantial Conversion, as they term it. For (as I said elsewhere,) these Expressions being lyable to be Ex∣pounded in divers particular Sences, and seeing they may be taken in a gene∣ral and indistinct one, there can be no Reason for the taking them, in the Sence which Mr. Arnaud gives them.

II. THE Conversion of the Substances of Bread and Wine into those of the Body and Blood of Christ, does of it self, form so precise and distinct a Sence, that when Authors would assert it, they explain it in clear and distinct Terms, which answer the distinct determinate Conception they have of it. Whence it follows, that if the Greek Authors had on this Subject the same Belief as the Roman Church, they would explain themselves so clearly, that there would be no need of running to the Baron of Spartaris, nor Paysius Li∣garidius, nor yet to the six Syrian Priests to make us understand it.

FOR whilst he produces no other kind of Passages but such as these, we shall have still Reason to conclude from hence, that the Greeks do not believe Transubstantiation, because if they did believe it, they would without doubt speak otherwise of it.

III. BUT supposing these Reasons Invalid, we have shewed (when we treated of the real Belief of the Greeks) in what Sence they understand these Expressions. In effect, if we compare the Doctrine of the Greeks with that of the Latins, and throly comprehend what they hold in common, and where∣in they differ, we shall easily perceive Mr. Arnaud's Sophism, for whatsoe∣ver he alledges from Greek Authors, respects this Equivocal part of their Hy∣pothesis, which he believed to be like that of the Latins, altho at bottom 'tis not so; but he has studiously avoided the relating any thing concerning this o∣ther Part, by which the two Hypothesis's distinguish themselves, and vary

from one another. The Greeks and Latins agree in these general Expressions, The Bread is made the Body of Jesus Christ, The Bread is changed into the Body of Christ, it becomes the very Body, the proper Body, the real Body of Christ. They are not two Bodies, but one Body. So far you see they hold the same Language.

BUT go farther, ask them whether the nature of Bread ceases to be. The Latins answer, there remains nothing of its Substance, nor Matter, nor inward Form, but only the Accidents. The Greeks on the contrary say, That the Bread is joyned to the Divinity, that from this Union results one compo∣sed of two Natures, that there is made a Composition of Bread and the Ho∣ly Spirit. Ask the Latins how the Bread is made the Body of Jesus Christ; They Answer, by the Conversion of its whole Substance, into the Substance which this Body had before the Conversion. The Greeks on the contrary say, the Bread becomes an Augmentation of the natural Body of our Lord, and is made by this means his Body: Ask them what Change the Bread receives; the Latins say it is a real Transubstantiation, (that is to say) the change of one Substance into another. The Greeks on the contrary answer, that it is a Sanctification which the Bread receives, and that it is changed into the Su∣pernatural Virtue of Christ's Body. Ask the Latins how the Bread becomes the real Body, the very Body, the proper Body of our Lord born of the Virgin Mary: They answer, 'tis because in effect the same numerical Substance, without any Difference. The Greeks on the contrary say, that 'tis because an Augmentation makes not another Body, than that which receives Augmen∣tation, and they make use of the Example of a Child, which Eating, and Drinking and Growing by this means, has not two Bodies, but one.

MR. Arnaud then has in vain, collected all the Passages of Cabasilas which assert, The Gifts are changed into the Body and Blood of Christ, that the Bread is * 1.5 the very Body of our Saviour, the Sacrifice offered for the Salvation of the World, that the Lord is seen and handled by means of the Holy and Dreadful Mysteries, and that we receive him in the Eucharist. These Expressions are common both to the Latins and Greeks, from whence he can conclude nothing, to the Prejudice of these Differences we have observed, and which decide the Question.

IT is in vain he tells us, that Cabasilas Disputing against the Latins, on the Subject of this Prayer which they make after the Consecration: Jube sursum ferri dona haec in manu angeli ad supercaeleste tuum Altare: Reasons on these four Principles which include the real Presence, and Transubstantiation. 1st. That we ought not to wish the Body of Christ be taken up from us. 2ly. That the Body of Christ being in Heaven and on Earth, we ought not to desire it should be carried up into Heaven, because it is there already. 3dly. That it cannot be offered by Angels, because it is above Angels. 4ly. That we cannot without Impiety wish the Gifts a greater Dignity, seeing they are the Body of Jesus Christ.

AS to what concerns the first of these: Cabasilas say's only, We must not pray that the Holy Gifts be taken away from us, but on the contrary, that they may remain with us, and must believe they do so, because it is thus that Christ is with us to the end of the World: Hitherto we see neither Transubstantiation, nor * 1.6 real Presence. As to the 2d. Cabasilas say's, That if the Latins acknowledged it to be the Body of Christ, they must believe he is with us, and that he is above the Heavens, seated at the right Hand of the Father, in a manner known to him, which still supposes neither real Presence, nor Transubstantiation. For ac∣cording

to the Greeks, the Eucharist which is on the Earth, being the Growth of the Body of Christ, is one and the same Body with that in Heaven. So that in manner, the same Body is in Heaven and on Earth; In Heaven, in re∣spect of its natural Substance, and on Earth, in respect of the Mystery, which is its Growth; which is far from the Sence of the Latins, and does not sup∣pose any Transubstantiation. As to the 3d. How, say's Cabasilas, can that be carried up by an Angel which is above all Principalities and Powers, and above every Name. But, methinks this would be to extend the use of Consequences too far, to conclude from hence that the Eucharist is the Body of Christ in pro∣priety of Substance. For it is sufficient to establish the Truth of what Caba∣silas say's, that the Bread is the Body of Christ in Virtue, and by way of Growth, as we have already observed the Greeks explain it, seeing it is true that this Dignity raises it up in some Sence above the Angels themselves, not in respect of its Nature or Substance, but in respect of the Virtue which ac∣companies it, which is the supernatural Virtue of our Lord's Body. As to the 4th. It is certain that Cabasilas has had reason to say that if the Latins desired the Gifts might after their Consecration receive some new Dignity, and a Change into a better State, their Prayer would be impious, seeing they ac∣knowledged they were already the Body of Christ. For, as he afterwards adds, to what more excellent or Holy State can we believe they pass into? His Reasoning is good, but I do not see it includes (as Mr. Arnaud tells us) the real Pre∣sence, and Transubstantiation: He ought to shew us this, and not assert it without Proof; for it may very well be said in the Sence of the Greeks, that the Bread is capable of no higher a Dignity, than that of receiving the Im∣pression of the Virtue of Christ's Body, and to be made this Body by way of Growth and Augmentation.

IT is moreover in Vain Mr. Arnaud endeavours to shew that in the Sence of Cabasilas Christ does not really dye in the Eucharist, for we never im∣puted * 1.7 to this Author so strange a Doctrine: Neither have we ween deceiv'd touching the Participles 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 as Mr. Arnaud has imagined. For we find that Cabasilas calls the Body of Christ not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 as Mr. Ar∣naud supposes, this is a Fault in Grammar which has scaped his Pen for want of heed, and which we must not impute to a Greek; but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, we have seen likewise he deny's the Body is, not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 as Mr. Arnaud does again assert by a Mistake thro Incogitancy, for we are not willing to attribute it to any thing else. The Greeks do not say 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in that Sence, to say the Sacrificed or Slain Body, no more than 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which is to say that Cabasilas means that the Body has been slain here∣tofore, and not at present. But this does not hinder it from being true, as I said in my Answer to the Perpetuity, that Cabasilas has respect to the Body of Christ in the Eucharist, as dead, that is to say under a respect or quality of * 1.8 Death. Which appears by what he say's, that it is not an Image or Represen∣tation of a Sacrifice, but a real Sacrifice, not of Bread, but of the Body of Christ, * 1.9 and that there is but one Sacrifice of the Lamb, of him which was once offered. Whence it follows that Christ is in the Eucharist as Dead, and Sacrificed on the Cross, which is precisely what I said.

MR. Arnaud will say that the Consequence which I draw, to wit, that Christ is not substantially present in the Eucharist, is contrary to Cabasilas his Discourse, who assures us, That the Bread is changed into the thing Sacrificed, altho the Sacrifice is not presently offered; But Mr. Arnaud having never well * 1.10 comprehended the Hypothesis of the Greeks, it is no marvel if he has misun∣derstood

Cabasilas his Sence in this Discourse which he makes of the Sacri∣fice in his thirty second Chapter. The Greeks will have the Bread pass thro all the Degrees of the Oeconomy, thro which the Body of Christ has passed, that as the Holy Spirit came upon the Substance of the Holy Virgin, so does he come upon the Bread; that as the Body of Christ was in a corruptible state, Crucifi'd, and Buried; so in like manner the Bread is first Corruptible, lifted up as it were upon a Cross, and buried in our Bodies, as in a Sepulchre. That, in fine, it becomes incorruptible as the Body of Christ was after his Resurrecti∣on: which they establish by this Reason, that the Bread is an augmentation of the Body of Jesus Christ; and that as Nature observes on the Food which nourishes us, and augments our Body, the same order she kept in the first matter from which we were formed. So Grace observes in the Eucharistical Bread, the same order she observes in the Natural Body. By this means they will have the Bread become first the Body of Christ, in asmuch as 'tis Mortal and Corruptible, that it be afterwards this dead Body; and in fine, this Incor∣ruptible and Raised Body. Cabasilas his Sence then is, that when the Bread is mystically sacrificed, it is made the dead Body of Jesus Christ, as he speaks himself, the Lamb slain, not that the Body suffers Death in this Moment, but because in this Moment the Bread passes thro the Oeconomy of Death. And thus the Bread is changed into the dead Body of our Lord, not that our Savi∣our dyes in effect, but because the Bread which is the Growth of his Body, is then changed into this Body, in as much as it suffered Death heretofore. And this is Cabasilas his real Sence, which is conformable to the Hypothesis of the Greeks, and not that which Mr. Arnaud attributes to him.

HE likewise uses to no purpose several Passages out of Simeon of Thessalo∣nica. They say nothing but what I already often answered, to wit, That the Bread is the real Body of Jesus Christ, that it is the very Body of Christ, and I shewed in what Sence the Greeks use these Expressions, and therefore will not any more repeat it. I likewise answered what he alledged touching the Ado∣ration and the unconsecrated Particles.

AS to Jeremias the Patriarch of Constantinople, we may well wonder that he should so confidently offer him us as a Person that teaches Transubstantia∣tion, seeing that not only Jeremias holds the same Language as the others, but asserts several things which opposes the Roman Doctrine. Mr. Arnaud ha∣ving according to his Custom impertinently related several historical Passages, * 1.11 tells us, That the Article of the Ausbourg Confession, which respects the Sacrament, expresly asserting the real Presence, but not mentioning Transubstantiation; Je∣remias answers, that Point is handled in it very briefly and obscurely, and adds, that the Catholick Church holds the Bread is changed into the very Body and Blood of our Lord thro the Holy Spirit. So that then Jeremias held Transubstanti∣ation: And thus does Mr. Arnaud draw his Consequences; But he is too quick. Some Protestants in Germany sent the Ausbourg Confession to the Pa∣triarch of Constantinople without any Commentary or Exposition on it. The Patriarch examining its tenth Article, which runs thus, Touching the Lord's Supper, they hold the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ are really present in it, and are distributed to those that participate thereof, and condemn the Opinion of those that hold the contrary: He say's, This Article treats of the Lord's Sup∣per very briefly, and to say the Truth, somewhat obscurely; For, adds he, we are told several things of you which we do not approve. To say hereupon that the Lutherans understood this Article in the Sence of the real Presence, and that the Greeks could not be ignorant of it, signifies nothing. For it appears that

the Patriarch only considered the Expressions of the Article barely as they are laid down, and found them obscure. And as to those things which were told him of them on this Subject, and which he disapproved, he does not spe∣cify them. When then he adds, That the Catholick Church holds, the Bread is changed into the Body and Blood of our Lord thro the Spirit. It is clear his Design is without proceeding any farther into the Examination of their Be∣lief, to tell them that of his Church, and oppose it against their Article, so that we must always return to the Inquiry whether by these Expressions, The Bread is changed into the real Body, he means Transubstantiation, or the o∣ther Change by way of Augmentation, and Impression of Virtue; for 'tis certain, the Article of the Ausbourg Confession respects neither of these Changes.

MR. Arnaud tells us, This was a proper place wherein to assert the Body and * 1.12 Blood of Christ are not really present in the Sacrament, seeing only their Virtue is in it. I answer, a presence of Virtue, is a real Presence of the Body and Blood of Christ, even as the Sun is really present with us by the Efficacy of its Beams, so that Jeremias had no reason to oppose the reality of the Pre∣sence; but 'twas better said by him, that the Terms of the Confession were Ambiguous, and that they ought to acknowledg clearly, the Body and Blood are substantially present in it, supposing he believed this substantial Pre∣sence.

MR. Arnaud adds, That the Patriarch does not say the Bread is changed in * 1.13 Virtue, Power and Efficacy. I answer, neither does he say 'tis changed in Sub∣stance, and there is this Difference betwixt Mr. Arnaud and I, that I add it was not necessary that Jeremias should explain himself touching this change of Virtue, because the Greeks who preceded him, had already plainly done it; but the same cannot be said touching the change of Substance, for not one of the Greeks ever mentioned it any more than he, so that he was necessarily obliged clearly to express it, if he intended it should be understood.

BUT Mr. Arnaud further say's, The Divines of Wittemberg, and Tubinga, believed upon the Answer of the Patriarch, that he taught the real Presence and * 1.14 Transubstantiation. When this were true we need not be astonished thereat: For it might well be that Divines who held the Consubstantiation should take the Words of Jeremias in a Sence which opposed only one part of their O∣pinion, rather than in another which would wholly overthrow it. Their Pre∣judication signifies nothing, to the Exposition which the Greeks make them∣selves of their own Opinion.

BUT Mr. Arnaud say's moreover, If the Divines of Wittemberg Misun∣derstood the Patriarchs Sence, it lay upon him to rectify their Mistakes. I an∣swer, there cannot be any Advantage made of Jeremias's Silence in this Re∣spect. For it is certain that in these Divines first answer, they reckon amongst the Points in which they agreed with the Patriarch, this, That the Communi∣on, or Supper of our Lord, unites us to him, in as much as we truly partake therein of his Flesh and Blood: But these were the proper Expressions which this Patriarch used, and so far there was no reason to say they charged him with believing what he did not, seeing they only repeated what he said. It is likewise true they denyed the Bread was changed therein, which they grounded on the Testimony of St. Paul, who calls it Bread; yet did they make use of the same Term Jeremias did, which is that of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, without

the least mention of a change of Substance. So that so far Jeremias had no cause to tell 'em they mistook his Words: Neither does he do it in his Reply or second Answer, but still continues to say, The Bread is changed, without proceeding any farther. It is true, in fine, that the Divines having replyed to Jeremias his second Letter, they expresly oppose the change of Substance, and seem thereby to suppose they had taken the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of Jeremias in the Sence of a real Transubstantiation, which might then oblige this Patriarch to explain himself more clearly than he had done in his former Writings. But it is also true that he returned them no particular Answer touching the Arti∣cle of the Eucharist. He contented himself with telling them in general con∣cerning the Sacraments, That seeing they admitted only some of them, and more∣over erroneously perverted and changed the Expressions of the ancient and modern Doctrin to obtain their Aim, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, They therefore deserved not the Title of Divines. Which sufficiently shews his Complaint against them, for their misunderstanding of these Terms, in understanding them of a change of Substance, and at the same time certifying them, that for his Part he would not deviate from the general and usual Expressions of his Church.

IT is certain there is in these Writings of Jeremias, such Matters which cannot agree with the Roman Transubstantiation, as that which we have al∣ready related when we treated on the real Belief of the Greeks, That God has given us the Sacraments double, that is to say, consisting on one Hand of the Grace of the Holy Spirit, and on the other, of sensible things, which are Water, Oyl, Bread, and the Chalice by which our Souls are sanctifi'd; For a Man that speaks thus, clearly shews he understands the Substance of Bread remains. We may likewise reckon in this Rank what he says concerning the Church, That she is set forth to us in the Mysteries, not as in the Symbols; But as the Members are in the Heart, and the Branches of a Tree in the Root, or as the Branches in the Vine according to our Saviour's Words. For here is not only a bare Com∣munion of Name, or relation of Resemblance, but the Identity of the thing it self: For the Mysteries are really the Body and Blood of Christ, and they are not changed into our Body, but we are changed into them, the strongest part prevail∣ing. The Iron when put in the Fire, becomes Fire it self, but the Fire becomes not Iron. As then when the Iron is red-hot, we perceive no more Iron, but Fire, the Fire dispelling all the Proprieties of Iron, so he that beholds Christ's Church, in as much as it is united to him, and partakes of his Flesh, beholds nothing else but the Body of our Lord.

THIS Discourse is taken Verbatim out of Cabasilas, as I have observed else∣where, and shews the Change of Bread and Wine, must not be urged as if they understood it of a Change of Substance, seeing he uses the same Term in respect of the Communicants, saying, We are changed into the Mysteries. They likewise shew us we must not take in a Counter-Sence what he say's con∣cerning the Mysteries, being really the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, seeing he tells us the Church is the very Body of our Lord. I alledged these last Words in my Answer to the Perpetuity, and say'd, That Jeremias speaks of the Church which has received the Impression of the Spirit of Christ. Mr. Arnaud accuses me of Falsifying this Passage: But this Accusation comes from his being out of Humor. The original Words I recited are these 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, he will perceive nothing else but our Lord's Body: And as to what I said, that he speaks of the Church which has received the Impres∣sion of the Spirit of Christ, I affirm this is his Sence, and that Mr. Arnaud

(as prejudiced as he is) cannot give it any other: For to what relates this Comparison of Fire which changes the Iron, but to the Impression of the Spi∣rit of Christ on the Church, and this Union of the Church with Christ, but to his spiritual and mystical Union? It is true he say's, That 'tis in as much as she is partaker of his Flesh: But this does not in any sort change his Sence. For 'tis from the mystical Participation of his Flesh that comes the Impression of his Spirit, and it is the Impression of his Spirit which effects this admirable Change. These two things are subalternate, but not contrary to one ano∣ther: So that Mr. Arnaud impertinently charges me with falsifying the Pas∣sage of Jeremias. But it is not the same with this other Passage which For∣besius alledged, and concerning which I have complained of the Author of the Perpetuity. Mr. Arnaud may say if he pleases, That my Complaint is unreasonable; yet will it be found both Just and Reasonable. For∣besius was a Person who making outward Profession of the Protestant Religi∣on, yet wrote in favour of the Church of Rome, under the specious pre∣tence of Peace and Agreement. To soften what we believe is hard in the Doctrine of Transubstantiation, he assures us that almost all the Greeks believe it, and instances Jeremias who teaches according to what he say's, That the Bread is neither a Figure, nor an Azyme, but the real Body of Christ contained under the species of leavened Bread.

The Author of the Perpetuity alledges this Forbesius as a Person whose Te∣stimony ought to be of great weight with us, being a Protestant. The cause then of my Complaint is, that we must have a false Translation of Jeremias imposed upon us, under the Name of a Protestant, without telling us what kind of Man this Protestant was. When we make use of a Witness, we ought certainly to consider what he is, and if it appears there be just Exceptions a∣gainst him, we must not offer him; and when we would use a Passage which he alledges, we must take care his Translation be true. It is to no purpose to say, We are not obliged to justify the Translations of Protestants, and that if he be mistaken 'tis his Fault. This might be indeed alledged, supposing the * 1.15 Author of the Perpetuity had disputed against Forbesius, or were ignorant who this Forbesius was; but this Mans Character sufficiently shews it self by the bare reading of his Book. Neither does it signify any thing to say, That For∣besius is not the Author of this Translation, but Transcribed it Verbatim from Socolovius. Neither is it less a Deceit in Forbesius himself, who ought not to make us Believe that Jeremias said what he did not, and when a Person that pretends to be of our Communion deceives us, we have right to inveigh a∣gainst him. Let us come then to the Point, and inquire whether the Tran∣slation of Jeremias be false. Mr. Arnaud say's 'tis not, and I affirm it is: The Question will be decided by the reading of Jeremias his own Words. The Bread, say's he, of the Lord's Body, which is administred by the Priests, is neither a Type, nor an Azyme, but it is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a leavened Loaf, and the very Body of our Lord, and the Translation runs, Illud ipsum verum Christi corpus, sub speciebus fermentati panis contentum, The Body it self, the real Body of Christ CONTAINED UNDER THE SPECIES OF LEAVENED BREAD. Mr. Arnaud affirms that this is not a Falsification, because Jeremias his true Sence is represented in it. For say's he, these Words, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, are capable of two different * 1.16 Sences. First, This Bread is called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Leavened, because it remains in ef∣fect leavened Bread, and that it is only the Body of Christ, in Figure or Virtue. Secondly, It is called by this Name of leavened Bread, because it was originally leavened Bread, and does still appear so, altho it be the Body of our Lord. But the

first of these Sences has been several times excluded by Jeremias his own Words, wherein he clearly asserted that after the Consecration the leavend Bread is changed into our Lord's real Body, that it is not a Figure, but our Lords Body, that it is this Flesh concerning which he speaks; The Bread which I shall give you is my Flesh. It is excluded in what follows sundry different ways, and by the very Words of that passage which asserts it is our Lord's Body. Whence it follows it is not then really leavened Bread.

I answer, that this pretended Sence which Mr. Arnaud attributes to Jere∣mias is precisely the Point in Question. Now whilst a matter is in Dispute, we must never translate a Passage according to the Sence of one of the Parties which th'other denies him. To deal sincerely, the proper and natural Signifi∣cation of Terms must be kept, and every man left at his liberty to judg of them. For when men translate according to the Pretention of one Party, they are no longer the Words of this Author, but the Prejudication of this Party, and consequently an Alteration, even when the Prejudication of this Party should be just and reasonable in the Main. Moreover Mr. Arnaud is mistaken, if he believes the other Passages of Jeremias determine a Sence of substanti∣al Reality, for according to the Hypothesis of the Greeks, the Bread still re∣mains Bread in Substance, altho it be changed into the Body of Christ, and be the very Body of Christ, and not a Figure, as we have often already decla∣red, whence it follows the Translation in question cannot be justified.

A Man of never so mean Capacity may perceive that Jeremias his Sence, is not that which Mr. Arnaud attributes to him. For in the same place where he say's, The Bread is changed into the real Body of Christ, and the Wine into his Blood, and wherein he alledges the Words of Christ which tell us, not, This is an Azyme, or this is the Figure of my Body, but this is my Body; He adds by way of Explication, This is not to say that the Flesh which our Saviour then had, was given to be eaten by his Disciples, nor his Blood to be drunk, nor that now in this sacred Ordinance our Lord's Body descends from Heaven: This would be Blasphemy. But then and now by Prayers and the Grace of the almighty Spirit, which operates in the Mysteries by means of the Holy Orisons, the Bread is chang∣ed into our Lord's real Body and Blood. These Words being applyed to the Hy∣pothesis of the Greeks, that the Bread remaining Bread, and receiving the Im∣pression of the Holy Spirit, is changed into the Body of Christ by way of Augmentation, are clear, and void of Difficulty. But if we apply them to the Hypothesis of the Latins, who affirm the Substance of Bread is changed into the natural Flesh of Christ, and becomes the Same numerical Flesh which our Lord had when on Earth; In what Sence shall we understand that say∣ing of Jeremias, namely that the Flesh which Christ had then, was not gi∣ven to be eaten by his Disciples? For if we grant Transubstantiation, it is cer∣tain the Disciples eat the same Flesh which Christ then had, and Jeremias his Proposition can not subsist. Mr. Arnaud endeavours but in vain, to expound Jeremias his Discourse in saying, That Christ gave not to be eaten by his Disci∣ples the Flesh which he had, in ceasing to have it, and to appear before them in his u∣sual manner, in cutting his Body into Morsels, or having no other place of Abode than his Apostles Stomach. To make us receive this Gloss, it must be groun∣ded on Jeremias his own Words, and not on Mr. Arnaud's Imagination. These Corrections and fine Explications hinder not, but that the Patriarch's Proposition is absolute and contrary to the Doctrine of Transubstantiation. For that which Jeremias denies, is not that our Saviour disappeared before his Disciples, nor cut his Flesh into Morsels, but that he gave them to eat

the Flesh he then had. The Question respects not the manner in which our Lord gave his Flesh to be eaten, but whether he did give it, and Jeremi∣as asserts he did not. What likelyhood is there that a Man who believes Tran∣substantiation, would thus roughly offer a Negative which is directly oppo∣site to his Belief? What likelyhood is there he would offer it in the same place and Discourse wherein he asserts Transubstantiation, without explaining, and lessening the Offence, which might be taken at his Words? But in short, how is it probable he would treat as Blasphemous the Proposition contrary to his Negative? Of these two Propositions, Christ gave to be eaten by his Disciples the Flesh he bore, and Christ gave not the Flesh he bare to his Disciples to eat. The first would be the only true one according to the Letter, with∣out Gloss and Commentary, supposing Transubstantiation. Th'other taken litterally would be false and heretical, and to make it tolerable, it must have Expositions and Molifications contrary to what the Letter bears. Mr. Arnaud is forced to change the first and natural Sence of the Terms, and impose on them a forced and unusual one. Who can then imagine that a Man who be∣lieved Transubstantiation, or the real Presence, and positively asserted it, should be so senceless as to condemn the first of these Propositions which ex∣presly contains his Belief, to condemn it I say as Blasphemous, and establish the second as the only true one, without using any Corrective or Illustration? This is wholly improbable.

AND this is what I had to say concerning Jeremias. There remains no∣thing more of all Mr. Arnaud's pretended Proofs, than the Passages taken out of some common Authors, wherein there being nothing extraordinary, and containing only that the Bread is the Body of Christ, and that it is changed into his Body: The same Answer being applyed to them will be sufficient.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Bibl. Patr. tom. 2. Grec. Lat.
• * 1.2

  Lib. 2. c. 15. p. 247.
• * 1.3

  P. 246.
• * 1.4

  P. 247.
• * 1.5

  Lib. 3. c. 8.
• * 1.6

  Cabas. expos. Liturg. c. 30.
• * 1.7

  Lib. 3. c. 8.
• * 1.8

  Answer to the 2d Treat. c. 8.
• * 1.9

  Cabas. expos. Lit. cap. 32.
• * 1.10

  Ibid.
• * 1.11

  Lib. 4. c. 4.
• * 1.12

  Ibid. p. 361.
• * 1.13

  p. 362.
• * 1.14

  p. 370.
• * 1.15

  P. 365.
• * 1.16

  P. 366.