1. 4. dift. 9. §. 2. §. 3. §. 4. T. p. 113. tain'd and ventilated. Some held that it was received by good Men only; Some that the (real) Body of Christ was not on the Altar, and that the Subftance of the Bread was not turn'd into the Substance of his Flesh. WheDift. 11. 1. ther the Converfion was Formal, or Subftantial, or after another manner, Lombard faith, he himself was not able to determine; fome thought it was Subftantial, and he faith, the Authorities alledged for it, feemed (for he is not there pofitive) to him to agree with it. Others oppofed this Opinion. Others denied that the Subftance of Bread is at any time the Flesh of Chrift. Others allow'd that that which was Bread is after Confecration the Body of Chrift, but it does not follow, that Bread is the Flesh of Chrift. Some faid that under the Accidents of the Bread, there is the Subftance of the Body, but it is not made out of them; but that the Bread pafs into the Body; and they faid that either the Subftance of Bread is refolved into the prefent Matter (Chrift's Body) or annihilated. Others thought that the Subftance of the Bread ftill remain'd, and that the Body of Christ was there alfo; This is plain Confubftantiation, Some thought the Bread only dipt in Dift. 21. 1. the Wine was a fufficient Eucharift. Concerning the Accidents, it feem'd to him that they should exift without a Subject, rather than be in one; However he did not abfolutely affert That then. Some thought that there was no real Breaking, but that fomething only feem'd to be Broken. Others that there might be a Breaking by Divine Power, where nothing is broke. Others that Chrift's Body is effentially Broken, and yet, exift intire. His Opinion was that the Breaking was in the Species or Accidents, and not in the Substance of the Body, feeing the Accidents were without a Subject; Although fome afferted them to be founded in the Air. He tells us, That §. 1. infin. also may be fafely faid, that the Body of Christ is not taken by Brute Animals, though it feems fo; what then doth a Moufe take, or what doth She eat? God knows. §. ult. 5. 2. §. 3. §. 4. §. 5. Dift. 13. T. F. 114. and 1215. с, сар. 1. Amongst these various Conceits and Opinions, That of the Conversion of the very Subftance of the Elements, into the very Subftance of Chrift's Body and Blood was counted moft Orthodox, because it came the nearest to the first Form of Berengarius his firft Abjuration, and fo in fome measure it faved the Credit of P. Nicholas and his Council, and after a fashion preferved that main corner Stone of that Church, its Infallibility, fecure; for after P. Nicholas and his Council had once (though rafhly) approved that Doctrine, they could by no means part with it; and therefore to fix it forever, and at once to cut off all other Difputes and Reafonings amongst them to the contrary, P. Innocent the third called a Council, and trimming it and fofrning it a little, he there T. conc. 11. made it an Article of Faith in these words. In which (Church) Jefus Chrift part 1. p. 143. himself is the very Prieft and Sacrifice. Whofe Body and Blood in the Sacrament of the Altar are truly contain'd under the Species of Bread and Wine; they being Tranfubftantiated by Divine Power, the Bread into the Body, and the Wine into the Blood; that we may receive of His, what he himself received of ours, to perfect the Mystery of Unity. This Pope and Council feem plainly afhamed of what P. Nicholas had done; for if what be made poor Berengarius confefs, was then (as it was called) the Catholick, Infallible, Faith, why fhould this Pope and Council recede one tittle from it; or why did Greg. 7. doubt of it, enquiring of God by Fafting and Prayers, expect. p. 40.a. Whether Berengarius or P. Nicholas his Doctrine was the trucft. And here I must make a Remark or two upon this Council, which are not I believe, fo obvious to every Reader. The Latins vauntingly call this, a General, an Univerfal, an Oecumenical Council; and the Hiftory of it tells us, that two of Labbe. T. 11. the chief Patriarchs, of Conftantinople and Hierufalem were there; and that part 1. p.115. he of Antioch fent a certain Bishop as his Proxy, and he of Alexandria fent one Germanus, a Deacon, as his. That the Emperor of Conftantinople and the King of Jerufalem, (as well as other Kings and Princes) fent their Emballadors thither. This looks very great indeed; as if both the Eastern Fafcicul.rerum and Mirai notit. and Western Church had met and agreed to fettle this monstrous Doctrine; and T. p. 114. the little Note, fet there before the Decrees, impudently afferts as much. But ibid. 142. when all is done, it was but a Politick Club or packt affembly of Latins only, and of fuch as were the Pope's Creatures, and their Subjects under them. Henry, the Latin Emperor, then had Conftantinople, and Joannes Brenenfis Marin.fanut. was then titular King of Jerusalem; These made Latin Patriarchs; either Mat- fecret. 1. 3. thaus, (a Venetian) or fome other (between him and Tho. Marocenus, who part. 11. c. 5. Spondan. 1215. was the first Latin Patriarch,) was then the Latin Patriarch of Conftantinople, and §. 12. Radulphus was the Latin or titular Patriarch of Jerufalem. I am fure Theodorus Sanut. ut fupr. Lafcares, the true Greek Emperor, was not there; neither was Maximus or Ma- Georg. Acrop. nuel, (one of them being then the true Greek Patriarch) there, who that obfcure c. 19. p. 17. Bishop (Epifcopus Antheradenfis, or Anteradenfis or rather Antaradenfis) and that Deacon, Germanus, were, (who are faid to be Proxies of the Patriarchs of An- Epifc. p. 211. tioch and Alexandria,) I cannot tell; However they feem to me to be two too mean Fellows to represent too fuch great Thrones as thefe; and I rather think that they were two mere empty names only, or perhaps they were two Mercenary Creatures, who were then fubftituted there by the Pope as fuch Reprefentatives, that this Assembly might feem more General and of more Authority, as feeming to be made up by the five Grand Patriarchs of the Church; and it is a well known Trick and Practice of the Roman Church to make, and mufter up fuch nominal Patriarchs, Arch-Bishops, and Bishops and the like, upon fuch occafions; P. Innocent would not flip this fair opportunity, of getting fuch a fpecious Grand Council to fettle his Grand Doctrine. The Decrees of this Council are faid to have been written both in the Greek and Latin; and that the Latin Copy remains yet entire, but the Greek Copy is imperfect and worn out in many places; which truly, as to the Latin Caufe, is very great Pity indeed; T. p. 115. for, had that been preferv'd entire likewife, they might then have prescribed from hence for the Antiquity of the Greek word, Meteowos, as well as of their Latin word Tranfubftantiatio; if in the first Decree, it had in the Copy then been read, μsuérois, for Tranfubftantiatis in the Latin; and they might have then, without any farther trouble, thus have clearly proved that both Churches, (fuppofing the Greeks were there) had then been fully agreed in that Point, and it is as great a lofs for them, that the Greek Text of the fourth Decrec is wholly wanting, whofe Title is, of the Pride of the Greeks against the Latins; For (ftill fuppofing the Greeks had been there) it would have remain'd as a perpetual Memorial of the Greeks Confeffing and Repenting of a grievious Fault there charged against them, that they had fo abominated the Latins formerly, as that if any Latins had faid Mafs at any of their Altars, they washt them as being unclean, before they themselves would use them again; and if any, of the Latin perfwafion, turn'd to that of the Greeks, the Greeks Re-baptized them; nay, they had it by hearsay, (ficut accepimus) that this was even then the Greeks practice Now can any ra tional honest Man believe, that the Greek Church then and there agreed, by fufficient Reprefentatives, to this fhameful Decree against themselves? What ridiculous stuff and pompous fraud is this? What vile Methods and wicked Courfes have been taken to obtrude fuch prodigious Trumpery upon the World? This is the short, but true account, of the Rife, and Progrefs and Establishment of this monstrous Doctrine; and now fince the Pope in a general Council (as they call it) had declared it abfolutely as an Article of Faith, his pretended Infallibility and Tranfubftantiation are fo infeparably riveted together, and fo firmly tacked to his Church, that, as the one hath a while, like a Bladder, made a poor fhift to bear it up; fo the other, like a ponderous Mountain, will in time as certainly fink it down. Pope Innocent could not himself be infenfible of this; and therefore to maintain this Carnal, fhall I fay, or rather Diabolical Invention, and fecure matters as well as he could; he betook himself to the Arm of Flesh, and in that Council decreed, that all Heriticks fhould be Decr.3. T. 11. Con P. 148. T. p. 116. Condemn'd to the Secular Powers; if they were Clergymen, they should be degraded from their Orders, and their Goods applied to their respective Churches; if they were Laymen, their Goods should be Confifcated. That all fufpected Perfons, fhould clear themselves or be Excommunicated. That all fecular Powers fhould be compelled to Swear, that they would extirpate all thofe that the Church had noted for Hereticks. That all Temporal Lords, who did not do thus, should be Excommunicated; and if they stood fo Ex. communicated a year, the Pope was to abfolve their Subjects from their Allegiance to them, and to expofe their Land to be poffefs'd by fuch Catholicks as would do the business. He Establish'd the Cruciata, that is, gave large Indulgences and Privileges to thofe, who under the badge of the Cross should undertake to root out Hereticks. That no Heretical Judge, or Advocate, or Scrivener Should Practice, neither should any thing which they did be Authentical. All Receivers, or Abetters and Favourers of Hereticks were to be Excommunicated; and if they continued fo one year, they should be incapable of all publick Offices, Councils, Elections, or of making a Will. No Clergyman was to give fuch Perfons as thefe the Sacrament or Burial. All Prelates were obliged to make the neighbourhood in every fufpected Parish to Swear, to Inform of all Hereticks and Conventicles, which came to their knowledge; and they, who should refuse to fwear thus, were to be reputed Hereticks themselves. This Tyrannical Decree ferved not only to justify all the Rigour and Severity before used towards Berengar, and all his fo'lowers, but to give Authority for the Future, to all the furious Inquifitions, Barbarous Cruelties, and Savage Inhuman Practices, which Thousands and Thousands, even all good Men of contrary Perfwafions, every where met withall; when all the Ignorant, hotheaded Monks and Friars, the Lewd Mass Priests and Domineering Prelates, the Superftitious and Biggotted or rather Infatuated Potentates, were thus let loofe and fet on upon them. By this we fee how in Ignorant, Debauched, and Degenerated Times, Power may make any thing pafs for an Article of Faith. Supra p. 50. P. 113. P. 16. P. 121. P. 121. a. pi 124. I We will now fee when and by what Methods this ftrange and upftart Doctrine had its Rife and Progrefs in the Eaft, efpecially in the Greek Church. have already taken Notice that the Greek Fathers have ufed many Figurative or Metaphorical Expreffions about the Sacrament, as μεταποιείοθαι, μεταποίησης, Metabάnew, metaboλn, to be changed, to change, a changing, mera goxoay, to be tranfelemented; St. Auguftin explains that, the Element (of Bread ) by the word, (being Confecrated,) is made the Sacrament; it was common Bread before, but now holy metaceuάeDay, to be transformed, (as when a Priest is made a Bishop) or reformed, (as when a wicked Man is made Good) MeTappulμíevday to be new model'd. The Holy Ghoft is faid boroño, to Deify, Men, or (if you will fay) the Sacrament too, it cannot be litterally true. Now all thefe expreffions figaify a Change indeed, which we allow; but there may be feveral Modes or Manners of Changing, (as appears by what hath been faid out of P. Lombard and the reft) and of all thefe Modes the Latins have chofen the most Abfurd. The learned Simon feems to Triumph, as if we cavil only at the word Tranfubftantiation, and faith, that we may as well Quarrel at the words, Trinity, Confubftantiality (and fo at Hypoftafis, and Perfon, and the like) which were used by the Church to explain that Doctrine, which had not been before so plainly and fully delivered. Now as this learned Man truly faith, we are to enquire whether the antient Greeks really did mean by thefe feveral words, a Subftantial change, or no. If therefore he could fhew us where the antient Greek Fathers declare in plain and pure Senfe, as much for the Doctrine of Tranfubftantiation, as the late Mongrels, which he quotes, have done (Corefius, Dionyf. Protofyncellus, and that paultry Monk, Agapius,) especially for the Accidents remaining without a Subject, I believe we fhould not much matter either the Latins or Greeks new invented words; we fhould thank him to fhew us the thing it felf clearly exprest p. 124. b. anima. C. 57' P. 226. 228. in them, or, as he faith, more clear then the noon day Sun. But all we are T. p. 116. told by their own Authors, that the Wafer or Bread broken into three parts, Macrologus de at the Sacrament, fignifies and figures out a threefold Body of Chrift, the Missa c. 17. firft Particle fignify the Body which rofe and is now in Heaven, the fecond P.208. Gemma which is eaten by the Priest and People, fignifies his Body the Church Mili- P. 191. tant, the Church figures the Church Dead in Christ, which being united to him fhall rife again, and is called the Viaticum. Now if the Bread may be, or is, all or any of thefe, it is only figuratively; and is far from being Tranfubftantiated All the Greek Fathers Expreffions fall infinitely fhort of this, that the very Subftance of the Elements is deftroy'd, or vanish, or is chang'd into the very Subftance of Chrift's Body and Blood; which is the Plain meaning of Tranfubftantiation avow'd by the Romish Church; and therefore they have nothing to plead for it dirctly out of the writings of the Antient Greeks. Caryophilus, a Renegado Greek, upbraids the Calvinifts for faying that the Habertus in old Greek Fathers did not understand, Suvapur, the Force or Power or Effica- Archieratico. cy of the Eucharift. Whether they did or no, the Learned World must be Judge; But I fancy that Caryophilus himself either did not understand it, or did not understand the Fathers whom he cites about it, or rather he diffembled the matter. These are there noted by him as the words of Bafil's Prayer, before the receiving of the Bread, Attend, O Chrift, from thy Holy Habitation and the Throne of the Glory of thy Kingdom, and do Thou, who fittest above with the Father, and art here Invisibly with us, come to Sanctify us; Here feem to be two Perfons of Chrift intimated, one with his Body fitting in Heaven, the other Invisible then Prefent on Earth; fo thefe words, after the Confecration, Teach us, O our God, to perfect Holiness in thy Fear, that in the 2 Cor. 7. 1. pure Testimony of our Confcience, we receiving a Portion of thy Sanctifyed things, evalaper, may be united to (or made one with) the holy Body and Blood of thy Christ, and having received them worthily, may have Chrift dwelling in our Hearts. I ask, is it then a Corporeal descent of Chrift's Body in Heaven that is pray'd for? Are we to be united to, or made one with, that real Flesh and Blood, which is here pray'd for, and they pretend to be first in Heaven and then to come down? Are we to be made walking Members of Pieces (pardon the Expreffion) of that real Body? (For they cannot conceive that we are made the whole entire Body;) or when all is done, ought not all this to be interpreted Figuratively and Spiritually? For there is no Realon in the World to take one Prayer or Part, Spiritually, and the other Corporeally and Litterally. So thofe Celebrated words of Chryfoftom, which the Latins Glory in, and he there quotes to prove, that we eat Chrift's Body with P. 240. ex hom. our Teeth; that we may be commixed into (or with) the Flesh of Christ, et 46. in Joh. not only κατὰ τὴν ἀγάπίω by Charity (or univerfal Chriftian Love) ἀλλὰ καὶ κατ' άUTO TO πgãyμa, but also in very deed. This is done by that Nourishment which he, exagloato, hath Graciously given us. Therefore, ave, he hath commixt himfelf with us, and, avepuge, hath mingled his Body into (or with) us, that we may be made, vn, one thing, as the Body join'd to the Head. And fhewing the Defire (or Affection) of himself which he hath for us, He, to thofe who defire it, hath not only offer'd himself, that they may fee him, but also touch him, and eat him, and faften the Teeth in his Flesh, and, ovμaraniway, be knitted together and fullfil their whole Defire. Are our Bodies, or we, in very Deed, truly commixed with the Body or Flesh of Chrift Bodily? Are we all, Bodily made one thing with him, fo as the Earthly Body join'd to the Head is One? If all this muft neceffarily be expounded in a Spiritual and Figurative Senfe, why muft not the reft be expounded fo likewile? As thus, we as verily fee him with the Eye of Faith (and the Latins fee Him no otherwife,) as we fteadily fee the plain Bread with our Bodily Eyes; (we at our folemn Commemoration of his Paffion, relish his Sufferings, and the eafy Commands and gracious Promifes of his Covenant in our Minds, and feel the blessed Virtue and Comfort of them in our Souls, and el they 82. in Math. T. p. 116. they are digefted into Spiritual Nourishment, by our Underflanding and Meditation, as verily, as we Touch, Taft, Eat and Digeft the Bread with our Body; Nay, we may be more Truly and Rationally laid to do all this with our Souls then with our Bodies; for it is with our Souls alone that we Taft, and See and Feel and Perceive and Exercise all our Senfes, as well as Think; we cannot have a truer Explication of all this Matter, then what Chrift himJoh. 6. 53. 63. self hath given; The words that I speak, faith he, unto you, of Eating my Flesh and Drinking my Blood, are Spirit and are Life. And to thofe other Expreffions of Chryfoftom, cited by Habertus, are to be expounded Figuratively or Spiritually, as well as thofe laft there fet, the Body (of Chrift) Immortalized by God, when it is in our Body, ὅλον πρὸς ἑαυτο μεταποιεί και μετατίθησιν, Changes and Tranflates it wholly into it felf. It is a very common thing with the antient Fathers, efpecially the Greeks, in their Raptures and their Divine Transports to use very Hyperbolical and Catacreftical strain'd Expreffions, which in a plain literal Senfe would feem very highly Irrational and Extravagant; but in a refined Spiritual Senfe, will well enough fuit with their elevated Devotions. Let that one Inftance above out of Nazianzen fuffice for all, we are all by the Holy Ghoft, Seo Touro, Deified, made very Gods; like that in Pythagoras verfes, A good Man, ἀθάνατο θεὸς, ἄμβροτῷ, ἐκ ἔτι Juntos, is made an Immortal God, Incorruptible, no longer Mortal; So in Patriarch Jeremias, as you will have it bye and bye, true Receivers of the Eucharist Xinuatie Je, are named Gods. Thefe are only Raptures, or elevated Expreffions of the Dignity of a Virtuous or Pious Man. But I'll return to my little History. The first attempt therefore of the Latins upon the Greeks, was at the Coun cil of Florence, There is not any account either in Labbe or Syropulus of any publick Difputation or Canvafe there held by the Greeks and Latins about Tranfubftantiation, yet Caranza abfolutely makes That, the laft of the five Points there Controverted between them. If it was Controverted, then it is plain that the Greeks were not of the fame Mind with the Latins, in that Point, before they came there; If it was not Controverted, but that the Greeks were of the fame Opinion with the Latins before, why was it not put into the Definition, Supr. p. 46.Q. as well as the reft? The four Greeks, who went to the Pope, they to flatter him faid, they believed the Bread was Confecrated by the words of Chrift, and fo paffed by their own avowed Opinion of its being Confecrated by the Prayers of the Prieft there following. But ftill they faid, as day, that it was Confecrated, not Tranfubftantiated. And all this was Tranfacted by private Men, and it never came before the Council, neither was any thing then T. p. 117. publickly determin'd about it. So as in thofe days it cannot be faid that Tranfubftantiation was an article of Faith amongst the Grecks; for if it had it would certainly have been in the Definition. Yet if it had been there, it would not have done their business, seeing that Council was carried on by the Pope, and his Creatures both, with all the Force and Tricks and Bafenefs imaginable, and with the most Barbarous and Violent ufage both to the poor Greeks and the Emperor himself, who was then forely prefs'd for fupplies to defend Conftantinople; and the Latins took all their Advantage from his extream neceffities, (as not only SyP. 47. Q. ropulus but their own printed Acts fufficiently declare,) and yet (as is abovefaid) he would by no means permit that any thing of that Nature fhould be put into the Definition. And no fooner did the Greeks return, but the three other Patriarchs, then living, called a Council and therein unanimously declared against the Decrees of the Council of Florence, and own'd that they had been betray'd by their Representatives, and threatned the Emperor himself if he should perfift in the pretended Union; You may fee how ignominiously the Fathers Hiftor. Byz. were received at Conftantinople at their return, and their renouncing and conc. 31. p. 120. o. demning the Decree in that folemn complaint, Tegangμ THE TG nucr, we have fold our Faith, and commuted our Religion for Impiety, betraying the pure Sacrifice, we have used unleavened Bread. I have an extract, which Mich. Duca. |