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. IX.

Several Passages of Anastasius Sinaite, Germane the Patriarch of Constantinople, and Damascene, Examined.

HAVING satisfied Mr. Arnaud's Objections concerning the Greeks since the eleventh Century to this present, we must not any longer defer the Consideration of his seventh Book, wherein by an odd kind of Humour he ascends upwards to the seventh Century, and so descends down again inclusively to the tenth. I call this an odd and pro∣posterous way of proceeding; For why, begin at the eleventh Century, see∣ing he designed to treat of the seventh and following Ages? Why skip over the first and six Centuries, if he sincerely design'd to prove the Per∣petuity of the Doctrines of Transubstantiation and the real Presence? The Question being to know whether these Doctrines were ever believed and taught in the Christian Church, and especially in Greece, there is no other direct way than that of taking Tradition from the Source, and to pass on from the first Century to the second, from the second to the third, and so on

to the last. If he thought this Method tedious, he would have done better to have abridged it in shewing these Doctrines were taught in the first six Cen∣turies, and suppose the same in those that followed, than to shew them e∣stablished from the eleventh and seventh, whereby to suppose the same in the six foregoing Centuries. To speak sincerely there ought to be neither of these Suppositions made; for it does not absolutely follow from a Point's be∣ing held in the first Ages, that it has been likewise held in the last, neither does it any more follow from a Points being held in the last, that it was so in the first. This does not follow in respect of Fact: Yet it is certain that in respect of Right, which is far more considerable than Fact, 'tis more advantageous to shew a Doctrine in the beginnings of Tradition, than in the sequels of it. For it rather follows from a Doctrine's being held in the beginnings of Tradi∣tion, that it ought to be held still, than it does follow from its being held at present, or since the eleventh, or seventh Century, that it ought to be held, or that it was held in effect in the first Ages of the Church. Why then has Mr. Arnaud divided his Tradition into three parts; one since the eleventh Centu∣ry, to this present, th'other since the seventh to the tenth, and the third, from the first Century to the sixth, seeing Tradition ought to be taken successively in order? Why has he in his Division made the last part the first, seeing in effect it is the last in order? Why in short, thus injure his Cause in spending all his time upon the two least important, and which signify nothing, as to the main of our Question, and remit the most important to another time, when his Conveniency will serve him to consider them? Howsoever we pur∣pose to follow him every where, and therefore shall examine here his seventh Book, because it treats still of the Belief of the Greeks; For by this means the Readers will see in order whatsoever Mr. Arnaud has alledged in relation to this Church.

THE Publick having nothing to do with our personal Quarrels, and the Cause which I defend, depending neither on what I am, or am not, I shall therefore pass by all the Invectives with which the first Chapter is filled. The first thing which appears in it is my Picture, which cannot but be well done, coming from his Hands; for persons Characters are the chief Weapons Mr. Arnaud and his Friends use in their Disputes. But he may describe me how he pleases, for I shall not be much moved thereat. Those that read our Dis∣courses, will do us both right I hope. I shall only say then that Mr. Arnaud has captiously abused my Words touching the eight first Centuries when I called them, The Churches happy Days, peaceable and blessed Days, wherein the Pastors took care to instruct their Flocks, and remove all the Difficulties which might arise * 1.1 from the Sacrament's being commonly called the Body of Christ. 1st. I joyned all these Centuries together, when I spake of them in this sort, and Mr. Arnaud only considers the two last of them, taking no notice of the other six, as if what I said of these two last were to be taken alone and apart. 2dly. That altho the two last are comprehended amongst the number of the eight, yet I never meant that the Title of happy Days, Days of Peace and Blessing, belongs equally to all of them. The happy Days have an end, and altho their last Hours which draw nearest to Night, are darker than those which preceded them, yet are we wont to comprehend them amongst the rest, under the Name of happy Day, because when we distribute the Sence of these kind of Expressions to all the Parts, or Hours; rational Persons make this Distribution proportionably to what each of them deserves. May not that Person be just∣ly derided for his Impertinency that carps at the calling of a happy Day a time wherein there's scarcely any longer Light, under pretence that the last Hour,

which approaches nearer the Night, is darker than the rest. Now this Mr. Arnaud exactly does, he pretends 'tis impertinently that I call the eight first Centuries, The Churches happy Days, seeing the other Ministers assert the seventh and eighth, that is to say, the two last were Ages of Ignorance and Superstition. To dissipate all these Subtilties, we need but distinguish these Centuries in two respects, in which we may consider them, either by comparing them with the preceeding, or following Ages. In the first they were Ages of Ignorance, and Superstition. And in the second, they were the last Hours of the Churches happy Days, or the approaches of a Night, that is to say in one Word, that altho Knowledg and Zeal suffered very much Diminution in them, and several Errors troubled the Purity of Religion, yet this was nothing in comparison of what followed afterwards. This is the Judgment I think we ought to make of them in general. But in particular, in respect of the Mystery of the Eucharist, I firmly believe that the Doctrine of the real Presence and Transubstantiation, were not then established in the Church during these two Centuries; we may indeed meet with some hard Expressions, and such as are contrary to those of the preceeding Ages, but no substantial Conversion. We shall find the care of instructing the People in the sound Knowledg of the Sacrament greatly slackned in comparison of the preceeding Ages, yet were they not wholy ignorant how the Eucharist is the Body of Christ; to wit, in that it is the Sacrament or Mystery of it. It was in this Sence I understood the seventh and eighth Centuries were compre∣hended amongst the Churches happy Days. Let any Man judg now what Reason Mr. Arnaud has to represent me as a Person, That never respect * 1.2 things as they are in Effect, but only as I would have them, that has no regard to Truth, nor Probability, but only the advantaging of my Cause, that disposes of Hi∣storical Passages and real Events with more liberty than Adventures are dealt out in Romances, that builds Castles in the Ayr, and makes all Men in the World Sence∣less, provided they speak and think according to my Desires and Pretensions, that prefers the smallest Reasons, before the strongest and clearest Proofs, and proposes all this in a confident insulting manner, giving myself those Applauses which I would willingly receive from others, and treating my Adversaries with Contempt and Disdain. And here is the Tempest which has followed my Sun-shine, my happy Days. But I am sorry Mr. Arnaud should be thus angry upon no occasion: Howsoever we will Examine the Passages he has offered.

THE first is a Passage taken out of Anastatius Sinaite, wherein a Monk argues against Hereticks who asserted Christ's Body was incorruptible before his Resurrection. To prove that it was Corruptible, he takes it for granted by his Adversaries, That the Eucharist is really the true Body and Blood of Christ, * 1.3 not mere Bread, such as is sold in the Market; nor a Figure, such as was the Sa∣crifice of the paschal Lamb amongst the Jews. To this Principle he adds ano∣ther, which is, That the Eucharist is corruptible, as Experience shews us; and from these two Propositions he concludes, That the Body of Christ was Cor∣ruptible before his Resurrection. Every Man sees this Reasoning is grounded on this Supposition, That the Eucharist is the Body of Christ, such as it was be∣fore his Resurrection, that is to say in the same State. Now it is likewise ma∣nifest that this Supposition is wholy inconsistent with the Doctrine of Tran∣substantiation, and that of the substantial Presence. For besides that, 'tis both foolish and impious to imagine that our Lord's Body which is risen out of its State of Humiliation descends into it again, and exists still Mortal, Cor∣ruptible and Passible, as it was heretofore: This is moreover directly contra∣ry to his Sacramental State, wherein we must necessarily suppose it, if we

would have it to be in the Eucharist in proper Substance. For it is not to be imagined that a Body which exists after the manner of a Spirit impalpable and indivisible, which can be neither seen nor touched, should be at the same time Mortal, Corruptible, and Passible, as our Saviour's Body was before his Resurrection: These two States are inconsistent with each other; whence it follows that whatsoever otherwise the Sence of this Author might be, he held neither Transubstantiation, nor the Reality which the Church of Rome holds.

YET if we believe Mr. Arnaud he is a Witness for him. For as soon as ever he finds in any Passage that the Eucharist is not a Figure, but the true Body of Christ, he requires no more for the making of a Proof, altho he sees otherwise several things absolutely contrary to him. One of the usual Artifi∣ces with which he imposes on his Readers; is, that when he offers any Pas∣sage importing what I now mentioned, or something like it, he sets himself to shew not that 'tis the Romane Transubstantiation therein contained, but that 'tis not our Doctrine. And thus has he done in that Passage of Anastasius's, Can any Man, say's he, that has but the least spark of Sence, and believes the * 1.4 Eucharist to be only a Figure of Christ's Body, and not the real Body of Christ, Express this his Opinion by these Terms. The Eucharist is not the Figure, but really the true Body of Christ. Can any Calvinist in the World refuse to ac∣knowledg this Discourse overthrows his Doctrine? And I say, can there be any Man that has but the least dram of Sence, that believes the Body of Christ exists in the Eucharist after the manner of a Spirit, and is therein in a Sacra∣mental State, and yet expresses this his Belief in saying the Eucharist is subject to Corruption; and concluding from thence that the Body of Christ was then Corruptible before his Resurrection? Is there ever a one of Mr. Ar∣naud's Friends that can contain himself from believing this Discourse o∣verthrows his Doctrine? When I speak in this manner, I keep to the State of our Question, and deceive no body; But when Mr. Arnaud speaks as he does, he wanders from the Point in hand, and deludes his Readers.

WHATSOEVER Anastasius his Doctrine may be, 'tis certain 'tis not that of the Church of Rome, which cannot consist with the Principle on which Anastasius argues. He expresses himself, say's Mr. Arnaud, a little crabbedly towards the end of his Discourse, in making use of weak Arguments, not only here, but in almost all parts of his whole Discourse. But if Mr. Arnaud be forced to confess that this man's Expressions are of hard digestion, when applyed to the Hypothesis of Rome; Why may not I as well say they are so, being applyed to our Hypothesis, and consequently they must not be urged against us? If A∣nastasius could not carefully consider the Consequence he drew himself, how could he foresee that which Mr. Arnaud would one Day draw from his Dis∣course? If it be usual with Anastasius to argue weakly, why may it not also be usual with him to Discourse with little foresight? Why must Advantage be taken from some of his Expressions against us, and we withheld from tak∣ing any against Mr. Arnaud, from the whole Sequel of his Discourse, and Coherence of his Thoughts, which a Man more minds than his Terms, or manner of expressing himself?

MR. Arnaud endeavours, but all in vain, to molify Anastasius's Sence, in saying, That he concludes the Body of Christ was corruptible before his Passion, * 1.5 seeing he suffers still in the Eucharist an apparent Corruption, by the sensible Cor¦ruption of the Species, which are the Symbol of the State wherein he was before

his Death. This Arguing, adds he, is very weak and roughly Expressed, but 'tis no unusual thing for this Author to Reason weakly, and it would be but a bad Con∣sequence to conclude that an Argument is not his, because 'tis weak. It is suffici∣ent that it be not extravagant in the highest Degree, as is that which Aubertin attributes to him.

ANASTASIUS his Argument according to Mr. Arnaud, must be put in this Form. The Body of Christ before his Resurrection was such, as is in the Eucharist, the Symbol of the State wherein he was before his Death; But this Symbol is corruptible: Therefore the Body of Christ was then Cor∣ruptible. This Argument is like that which Mr. Aubertin imputes to him ac∣cording to Mr. Arnaud. That which happens to the Figure of Christ's Body; * 1.6 happened to his Body before his Passion. Now it happens to the Bread which is the Figure of it, to be subject to Corruption: The Body then of Jesus Christ was Cor∣ruptible before his Passion. Take the Word Figure from this Argument, in∣sert that of Symbol, which Mr. Arnaud has used in his, and the two Argu∣ments are the same. Yet he will have his to be good, and Mr. Aubertin's ridi∣culously Extravagant.

BUT, it will be perhaps replyed, these two Arguments which in respect of Terms are alike, yet do differ in Sence; For Mr. Arnaud by the Symbol, means the Accidents or Species which cover the Body, and Mr. Aubertin by the Figure understands a real Substance of Bread. So that howsoever alike these Arguments do at first appear, one of 'em may be reasonable, and th'o∣ther Extravagant. I grant all this; but I say if Mr. Arnaud's Argument be good, Mr. Aubertins is so likewise, and that if there be any Extravagancy in either of them, it must be in the first, and not in the second. Why must A∣nastasius rather argue on the State of the corruptible Species, than on that of the corruptible Bread? His Arguing, take we it how we will, must be ground∣ed on two Qualities attributed to the Eucharist, one, That it is a Sign, and th'other, That it is a corruptible Sign, and from hence he will conclude that Christ's Body before his Resurrection was Corruptible as well as its Sign. Now these two Qualities of Sign and Corruptible, are found as well, or rather better in the Bread which Aubertin means, than in the Accidents, or Mr. Ar∣naud's Species. It will no ways avail to say that Anastasius denies the Eucha∣rist to be a Figure, and that thus he would contradict himself, saying on one hand that it is not a Figure, and supposing on the other that it is one. This I say signifies nothing, for 'tis only changing the Term of Figure, into that of Symbol, which Mr. Arnaud uses, and which he believed not to be compre∣hended in the Rejection of the Word Figure. Neither signifies it any thing to say Anastasius assures us the Eucharist is the real Body, which hinders us from understanding by the Term of Symbol, contained in his Argument, that 'tis Bread in Substance. For I deny that by the true Body he mentions, we must understand the Body in proper Substance. It is then certain that if we may attribute Mr. Arnaud's Argument to this Author, we may as well attri∣bute to him that of Mr. Aubertin.

BUT I say moreover, that if there be any Extravagancy in either of these two Arguments, it will be found to be rather in that which Mr. Arnaud im∣putes to him, than the other: Which we shall soon find if we consider what means in Anastasius his Discourse the Term of Eucharist, according to Mr. Arnaud's Commentary; for it signifies, the Incorruptible Body, Invisible and Impassible of Christ, under the Corruptible Species of Bread and Wine. Anastasi∣us

then will Reason after this manner, The Body of Christ before his Resurrecti∣on was immediately Corruptible in it self. Why? Because now in the Eucharist it is Incorruptible in it self, and Corruptible in respect of the Species which co∣ver it. Was ever such absurd Arguing known? Would not the Heretick Gayanite say the contrary hence followed; for seeing our Lord is Incorruptible in himself in the Eucharist, this is a Token he was so before his Resurrection. And as to the Species, being only Appearances of Bread, the Corruption which happens to them, is no more than an appearance of Corruption, which can at farthest but figurate an apparent Corruption in our Lord's Body before his Resurrection; which does not differ from the Doctrine of these Hereticks. Moreover Anastasius establishes in his Argument this Principle, That an incor∣ruptible Nature can neither be Cut, nor Wounded in the Side and Hands, nor Pierc∣ed, nor put to Death, nor Eaten; That it can neither be held, nor touched. Now is it not a most extream folly to strengthen this by instancing the Eucharist, that is to say the real Body of Christ which is Cut, Pierced, Chewed, in re∣spect of the Appearances which cover it, and which are yet incorruptible. For this is just as if a Man should prove 'tis Night in pointing to the Sun shin∣ing. In effect, if we introduce the Heretick defending himself against Ana∣stasius his Proposition, by the Example of the Eucharist, and saying, I distinguish an incorruptible Nature can neither be Hurt, nor Cut, nor Pierced, nor put to Death, immediately and really in it self: I acknowledg it, in respect of the Appearances which cover it, and I prove my Negative by the Example of the Eucharist, wherein the Body of Christ wholy incorruptible as it is, is yet Cut, Chewed, Pierced, in respect of the Appearances which are to it instead of a Vail. Should (I say) the Heretick be brought in Disputing against A∣nastasiu's Principle in this manner, he would make a very just and reasonable Answer, whence it appears that this Example of the Eucharist, if taken in the Sence Mr. Arnaud gives it, is an extravagancy and Folly in Anastasius his own Mouth.

MR. Arnaud then may be pleased to acknowledg that he cannot rely on this Hypothesis, neither justify the other Evasion; which is, That Anastasius believed this whiteness, and other sensible Accidents of the Eucharist, to be the * 1.7 Accidents of the Body of Christ, and so that when the Bread is broken, it is the Body of Christ that is broken. By the Body of Christ Mr. Arnaud understands not the Mystical Body only, but the Natural Body in proper Substance. Now what greater Extravagancy can we charge a Man with, than to impute to him the Belief, that the Substance of the Body is in Effect, of the same Form, and Figure as the Bread in the Eucharist, that 'tis divided, and broken in several Particles, as the Bread is divided; that each Particle is a part of this Body, and that the Substance of this Body has really the Savour and Colour which Bread has? And seeing we must believe the Concomitancy, in the same manner as the Substance of Bread will be liquid, and fluid as Wine in the Cup, so that of the Blood will be in the other Species, hard and solid as Bread. In Truth, if Anastasius could have this Sentiment, we must say he was a Person unfit to be instanced in this Dispute, add Mr. Arnaud cannot render him more contemptible than in attributing to him such kind of Fooleries. What he alledges concerning Tertullian, that he believed the Divinity had a Body, is lyable to be questioned. There are abundance of Passages in this Author which will not suffer us to entertain such a Thought of him, and which oblige us to expound in a good Sence what he has otherwise expressed a lit∣tle roughly. Theodoret makes the Euthychiens fall into Contradictions it is true, but they are different from the Extravagancy with which Mr. Arnaud

charges Anastasius, for they do not immediately discover themselves, whereas th'others presently manifest themselves. In short, if Mr. Arnaud cannot make use and advantage of his Authors, unless he accuse them first of Extravagan∣cy, and afterwards excuse them by Example of the Extravagancies of others: Let me tell him, he must get better Witnesses, and not think to weary us out with the Language of Persons, who neither know what they say, nor what they believe.

WAS there ever any thing more impertinent than Anastasius his Argu∣ment, if what Mr. Arnaud imputes to him be true? He concludes that the Body of Christ was corruptible before his Resurrection (that is to say) whilst he was in the World, because it is corruptible in the Eucharist. Now to the end his State in the Eucharist may be of Consequence, to that wherein he was before his Resurrection; It follows that when he was in the World, he was in it under the Sensible Accidents of Bread, intirely such as he is in the Eucharist; Which is to say, that when he Talked, Walked, and Conversed, he did all these things under the form of Bread. For unless this be so, there can be no Consequence drawn from one to the other. Anastasius could not have denyed that the incorruptible Body of Christ could not take on it a cor∣ruptible Form, seeing he knew that this Body is now incorruptible in Heaven, and that yet according to the Hypothesis which Mr. Arnaud attributes to him, it becomes every Day corruptible in the Eucharist, which cannot be but by changing its Form. It must needs be then that Anastasius supposed the Body of Christ was in the World, in the same Form 'tis now in the Sacrament, for supposing it changes its Form, I understand not the Conclusion. The Here∣tick Gaynite might still alledg, that as it does not follow this Body is corrupti∣ble in Heaven, altho it be so in the Eucharist, neither does it follow that it was corruptible during the time he was on Earth; and that 'tis the Form he takes upon him in the Sacrament that renders him corruptible. And thus Ana∣stasius his Argument concludes nothing, unless we suppose Christ's Body had absolutely the same Form when he was conversant on Earth, that it has now in the Sacrament. Now this Supposition being the greatest Degree of Fol∣ly, (there being no Man of Sence that will own it,) we may easily then per∣ceive what Judgment to make of Anastasius, as Mr. Arnaud handles him.

BUT 'tis certain by what I now said that Anastasius believed neither Tran∣substantiation, nor the real Presence, for had he believed it, he would never have reasoned as he does, nor supposed (as he has done) a Principle altoge∣ther inconsistent with the Romane Doctrine.

BUT what is then this Author's Sence? I answer, that when he say's the Eucharist is not common Bread, such as is sold in the Market: His meaning is manifest; to wit, that it is consecrated Bread; when he adds, That it is not a Figure as that of the He-goat, which the Jews offered: It is clear he does not absolutely reject the Figure, but in the Sence of a legal Figure, which re∣presented Christ only obscurely and imperfectly, whereas the Eucharist is a Mystery, which clearly and perfectly represents the whole Oeconomy of Christ's Incarnation, and Mr. Arnaud himself acknowledges, That altho the Greeks deny the Eucharist to be the Figure of Christ's Body, yet do they affirm it * 1.8 is a Representation of the Mysteries of his Life, and that the same Authors which teach the one, teach the other. So that so far, there is nothing in Anastasius's Discourse but what is easy. When he adds, That it is the real Body of Jesus Christ: He means that it is the Mystery of his Natural Body, which not on∣ly

is so perfect a Representation of it, that one may say it is the true Body, and not a Figure; but which even has received the supernatural Form thereof, or if you will, the Character of it, which is its Virtue, in the same Sence that we say of Wax, which has received the Impression of the King's Seal, that it is his real Seal. If we find any roughness in this Expression, we must re∣member Mr. Arnaud finds the same in the Sequel of his Discourse, and that we have shewed that what he calls Roughness is meer Absurdity. Whence it follows that it is more reasonable to suffer that which is only a bare Rough∣ness and Offensiveness in the Terms, and which moreover does well agree with Anastasius his Reasoning, than that wherein common Sence is not to be found. We must likewise remember the Exposition which the Greeks them∣selves do give to these kind of Expressions, that the Eucharist is the true Body, the Body it self, the proper Body of Christ; to wit, inasmuch as it is an Augmentation thereof which makes not another Body, but is the same, as we have already shewed in the foregoing Book. We must know, in fine, that the Eutychiens against whom Anastasius Disputes were wont to attribute to Christ in their Discourses when urged, no other than a phantastical and imaginary Body, and not a real humane Body, which obliged Anastasius to say that the Eucharist is the real Body of Christ, that is to say, the Mystery, not of a chi∣merical, but real Body.

THIS being thus cleared up, the Sence of Anastasius his Argument lyes open before us. He means, that seeing the Bread is a Mystery in which is ex∣pressed the whole Oeconomy of Christ's Incarnation, being as it is corruptible, it must necessarily be concluded, that the Body of Christ was in like manner corruptible before his Resurrection, because the Bread was the Mystery of the Body before its Resurrection, and that the same Oeconomy which was observed touching the natural Body, whil'st it was in the World, is observed in the Bread. Let but Anastasius his Discourse be compared with that of Zonaras, which I related in the ninth Chapter of the foregoing Book, and Damascen's in the short Homily which I likewise mentioned in the Chapter touching the Belief of the Greeks, and with what I said in the eighth Chapter of this Book, for the explaining Cabasilas his Sence, and there will appear no diffi∣culty in it.

AS to that other Passage of Anastasius which Mr. Arnaud proposed, where∣in this Author disputes against an Heretick called Timotheus, who affirmed * 1.9 the Nature of Christ after the Incarnation, to be the only Divinity. We must make the same Judgment of it as the former. For as to what he say's, That the Divinity cannot be Detained, Chewed, Divided, Changed, Cut, &c. as is the Eucharist, and that we must according to this Hereticks Doctrine deny the Eu∣charist to be in truth Christ's visible, terrestial, and created Body and Blood; He means that the Accidents which happen to the Eucharist, being in no wise a∣greeable to the Divinity of Christ who is not subject to Change and Alterati∣on; but only to his Body, we must therefore say the Bread does not pass through the same Oeconomy under which our Saviour passed; whence it follows that it could not be said as it is, that the Bread was in truth the Body and Blood of Christ, being said to be so only upon the account of the Unity and Iden∣tity of this Oeconomy. Had he believed Transubstantiation, how could he miss telling his Adversary, 'tis not to be imagined the Substance of Bread is really changed into the very Substance of the Divinity, and that he must of necessity either deny what the whole Church believes; to wit, the Conver∣sion of the Substance of Bread, or fall into this other Absurdity of maintain∣ing

that this Conversion is made in the Divine Nature? Common Sence leads him to this, and yet we find no such thing in all his Discourse.

AFTER Anastasius comes Germain the Patriarch of Constantinople. Mr. Aubertin has placed him according to the common Opinion in the eighth Century; but in effect, there is more likelyhood, according to Allatius his Con∣jecture that he lived in the twelveth, and the Reflections Mr. Arnaud makes on this Subject, seem to me just enough to be followed till we have greater Certainty. But howsoever this Author say's no more than, That the Bread is changed into the Body of Christ, and that it is his Body. To which we have * 1.10 so often already answered that it will be needless to say any more. Mr. Ar∣naud sets to Phylosophising on some Passages which Mr. Aubertin alledged in his Favour, but this is an Illusion; for when what Mr. Aubertin alledges concerning Germane to show that 'tis contrary to Transubstantiation, should not be Conclusive, 'twould not thence follow he believed it, nor Taught it, if this does not appear elsewhere from good Proofs, and Mr. Arnaud is oblig∣ed to produce such, without supposing it is sufficient he Refutes Mr. Auber∣tin's Consequences: For Refuting is not Proving.

GERMAIN sufficiently shews us towards the end of his Treatise, in what Sence he understood the Bread to be the Body of Christ. Moses, say's * 1.11 he, sprinkling the People with the Blood of Goats and Heifers, said, This is the Blood of the Covenant. But our Saviour Christ has given his own proper Body, and shed his own Blood, and given us the Cup of the new Testament; saying, This is my Body which was broken for you, this is my Blood shed for the Remission of your Sins. As often then as ye eat this Bread and drink of this Cup, ye declare my Death and Resurrection. Thus believing then we eat the Bread and drink of the Cup, as of the Flesh of God, declaring thereby the Death and Resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ. We have already observed in the foregoing Book, that the Greeks do often use this Expression, As the Flesh, As the Body, to molli∣fy and abate in some sort their usual way of speaking, which is, that the Bread is the Body of Christ, and to signify that the Bread is to us instead of this Bo∣dy. It appears from the sequel of Germain's Discourse, his Sence is, that for the better applying our Minds to the Death and Resurrection of our Lord, we eat the Bread and drink of the Cup, in the stead of his Body and Blood.

AS to John Damascen, the Author of the Perpetuity having alledged him as a Witness of the Doctrine of the ancient Church. I said, He ought not * 1.12 to produce the Testimony of a Person whom we except against, and that with good Cause, seeing he was one of the first that left the common Road of the Churches Ex∣pressions, and betook himself to affected and singular ones, which are at as great distance from the Roman Church as the reformed one. Now this Exception is so just in respect of the Question concerning the Sentiment of the ancient Church, that excepting Mr. Arnaud, I do not believe there is any Man, how little Conversant soever in the Writings of the Fathers, but grants it. For all the Ancient Fathers term the Eucharist a Figure or Representation of our Lord's Body, and Damascen not only deny's that it is one, but also that the Fathers thus termed it after Consecration. He is one of the first that brought into Credit the Comparison of Food which changes it self into our Bodies, whereby to explain the Change which happens to the Bread, in as much as it is made an Augmentation of the Body of Christ, that of the Blessed Vir∣gin which the Holy Spirit overshadowed, and that of Wood united to the Fire. His Expressions being compared with those of the Ancients, are wholly extra∣ordinary.

He tells us that the Sacramental Bread, and the Body born of the Virgin, are but one and the same Body, because the Bread is an Augmentati∣on of the Body, and that the same Oeconomy has been observed in both. I sup∣pose Damascen was not the first that had these kind of Conceptions, seeing we have met with something like this in Anastasius his Discourse, and if I mistake not, some Trace of this in Gregory de Nysses his Catechism; but howsoever it must be acknowledged I had reason to call these Conceptions Affected and Singular in respect of the usual Expressions of the Fathers, and to say, they vary as much from the Doctrine of the Romane Church as ours.

YET to hear only Mr. Arnaud, a Man would imagine that Damascen clearly taught Transubstantiation. To prove it he alledges these same Pas∣sages of his fourth Book touching the true Orthodox Faith wich has been a thousand times canvass'd by Controvertists, and which conclude nothing. Da∣mascen say's, That God makes the Bread the Body of Christ, and the Wine his Blood, that it is an effect of his Almighty Power, which has created all things; that seeing the Lord took his Body from the pure and immaculate Blood of the Vir∣gin, we must not doubt but he can change the Bread into his Body, and the Wine into his Blood; that if we demand how this Change happens, he answers, that this is wrought by the Holy Spirit, that the Word of God is True and Almighty; but that the manner is Incomprehensible. But yet it may be rationally say'd, that as the Bread and Wine (wherewith a Man is nourished) are changed into his Bo∣dy, so that they become another Body than that which they were before; so the Bread and Wine mixt with Water, are changed into the Body and Blood of Christ in awonderful manner, by Prayer and Descent of the Holy Spirit, and that they are not two different Bodies, but one and the same Body.

HAD not Damascen expressed himself as he has done, it would be to no purpose for us to tell Mr. Arnaud the Change he speaks of is not Transubstan∣tiation, seeing his Sence is that the Bread becomes a growth of our Lord's Body, and is made by this means one with this Body, that this is the effect he attributes to the Holy Spirit, and Almighty Power of God, acting above Nature, and not that of a real Conversion of the Substance of Bread into the same Substance which the Body had before: Mr. Arnaud would not fail to term this Extravagancy and Dotage. But seeing we say no more in this matter than what is grounded on Damascen's own Words, as it appears by what we related when we treated on the real Belief of the Greeks; This Illustration will be sufficient, without proceeding any farther, to make In∣significant this long Chapter which Mr. Arnaud has written touching the E∣quivocal Expressions of this Author. In effect, let him say as long as he pleases, That the Point here concerns neither Figure nor Virtue, that this effect * 1.13 which surpasses humane Conception is in Damascen's Sence this; to wit, That the Bread is made the Body of Jesus Christ, that it is the Body really united to the Divinity, the Body taken from the Virgin, because the Bread and Wine are chang∣ed into the Body and Blood of God. That Damascen speaks of it as if he designed to refute expresly all the Attempts and Shifts of the Ministers, some of whom turn his Words into a change of Virtue, and others to an Imaginary Union of the Holy Siprit, with the Bread remaining Bread. That the Fathers have expressed them∣selves after two different manners, that is to say, sometimes as Philosophers, and otherwhiles as Divines. All this signifies nothing, considering the Explicati∣on which Damascen himself hath given us of his own Sence, in his Letter to Zacharias Bishop of Doarus, and Homily at the end of it. These two Pieces published by the Abbot Billius, and which were acknowledged for

Authentick by Labbus the Jesuit, the learned M. de Marca Arch-Bishop of Paris, and Leo Allatius himself, Mr. Arnaud's great Author: These two Pieces I say end the Difference, and suffer us not any longer to dispute a∣bout Damascene. I shall only say that Mr. Arnaud has not done fairly in rela∣ting the Passages of the fourth Book of the Orthodox Faith, to leave out this Homily and Letter as he has done.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Answer to the 2d. Treat. 2, p. c. 3.
• * 1.2

  Lib. 7. c. 1. p. 614.
• * 1.3

  Anast. Sin. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.4

  Ibid. p. 625.
• * 1.5

  Ibid. p. ••3••.
• * 1.6

  P. 629.
• * 1.7

  Ibid. p. 631.
• * 1.8

  Ibid. p. 630.
• * 1.9

  Ibid. p. 634.
• * 1.10

  Lib. 7. c. 3.
• * 1.11

  Germ. Theor. rer. Eccles sub finem.
• * 1.12

  Answer to the 2d. Treatise of the Perpet. c. 2.
• * 1.13

  Lib. 7. c. 3. p. 650. 651.