141.

p. 289. fupr. 140.

p. 289.

P. 297.

156.

T. p. 171. rift amongst them, (when they fhall think it fitting,) by the fame Methods by which they have managed them in all the reft. What follows in Dofitheus is p. 297.fupr. Wonderfull indeed; he faith, that, rgón, the Mode or manner how the Bread and Wine are converted into the Body and Blood of Chrift, or, as he said before in the beginning of this Decree, How Chrift is prefent at the Eucha rift, (which with him is all one) is Incomprehenfible and Impoffible to any but God himself; and that the word Tranfubftantiation does not explain it; and yet immediately he makes that the very Mode or Manner, and rejects all others. After Confecration, faith he, our Lord is Prefent, and the Bread and Wine are Changed into his Body and Blood, not by way of Type or Image, p. 154, 155, (Though I have at large produced enough of his own Greek Author's who thought and expreffly called the Elements but meer Types, Antitypes, Symbols, Images, and fuch like Reprefentations) not by extraordinary Grace as in o ther Sacraments, (though all Chriftians agree that extraordinary Grace is here alfo conveigh'd to every faithfull Receiver, by which he is made a living Member of Chrift's Body, which must be prefent here in the fame manner as he is a Member of it) nor by the Communion or the Prefence of his Divinity only, (though we are Infallibly fure that he is thus Prefent with us from his Mat. 18. 20. Own words, and the Fathers own no other Prefence in Baptifm, why then any other Prefence in the Eucharift?) But the Bread and Wine are verily and indeed Tranfubftantiated into the true Body and Blood of Chrift; That is, the Subftance of the Bread and of the Wine quite vanish or is Anihilated; and the very Subftance of Chrift's true Body and Blood remain only under their Accidents; and this is the true and only real Mode or manner of his being Prefent in the Eucharift. Though Chryfoftom and Theodoret and ofupr. 142, 143. thers exprefly tell us, that the Nature and Substance and Form of the Bread and Wine fill remain unchanged, and are the very jame after Confecration, as they were before it. This truly amazes me, that he fhould quite explode thofe Modes of Chrift's Prefence, which to many Fathers have allow'd as Rational; and of which we are all very well affured; and he him/elf cannot deny; (for he muft Confefs Chrift is prefent by Symbols; and by his Grace; and by his Divinity; though he may deny him to be Prefent only so;) and then fo poffitively to affert, a most Abfurd, a most Obfcure, a moft Unlikely, meerly new Invented, Mode; which the Primitive Chriftians, and the Antient Fathers never heard or dream'd of. But I perceive it is even his Misfortune, as I have above noted it to have been the common Fate of the firft Inventers and Promoters of this wild Conceit, of all Modes or Manners to choose the worst. Therefore I would fain know in the Eucharift what State and Condition of Chrift's Body he would choofe; whether is it now just as it was, when it was Born, or Baptized; or as it was Transfigured; or as it fuffered, or as it was buried; or as it rofe, or as it afcended; or as it fits in Heaven, or as it shall come to Judgment, or as the Question was put in Nicet. in Alex. Alexius Comnetius his time, is it Corruptible or Incorruptible. And whe1.3.§.3.p.333.ther his Blood is, as it was in his Veins, or as it was shed and

P. 113, 116.

1

Spilt upon his Cloaths, on the Cross, on the Spear, on the Ground. If we fay that his Body and Blood were always the fame in Subftance, (though Philofophers will hardly allow that,) yet they were not always the fame in Luk. 2.40.52 Condition and Quality. Jefus grew, and increafed in Stature or Age; and his dead Body on the Cross, differ'd from his living Body after the Refurrection; and if the Bread was Chrift's real Body at the last Supper, he and his Apoftles did Eat his Mortal Body; But all who have eaten the Eucharist fince he fat on the right hand of God, muft have Eaten his Glorified and Immortal Body, and by Confequence have thereby received a greater Honour then the Apostles themselves. I therefore defire to know under which of all thofe different Qualities, or States, or Conditions, (which he hath reckon'd up) the Bread is now made Chrift's very Body; for it cannot be in his Senfe under them all; but according to our Primitive way, his Body is Received

p. 289.

under

We T. p. 172.

In Apolog,"

c. 3.

P. 248.

under all the Qualities, States and Conditions which ever befell it. thankfully commemorate his Birth, Baptifm, Transfiguration, Paffion, Bu rial, Refurrection, Afcenfion, Glory, and coming again; and thus the Bread is, and is called Chrift's very Body, as the Jews Cake is the very Bread of Affliction, which their Fathers did Eat all along in Ægypt, under all those various Preffures and severe difpenfations which they there met withall. The learned R. Simon fairly confeffeth that the Faith of the Primitive Chriftians was most fimple and plain, and that in following and worfer Ages, Men P. 131. Started and difputed many Things, of which not the least shadow is to be found amongst them. But, faith he, if we shall think this any Argument against thofe later Opinions, because they were not Primitive; we may as eafily doubt of, or question the chief Mysteries of the Chriftian Religion. But, cum pace illius viri, with this great Man's leave, I cannot count any thing a Mystery in our Religion, which will not bear the Test of Primitive Antiquity; for I am perfectly of Vincentius Lirinenfis his mind, that all · Articles of Faith ought to be Catholick, as well for the univerfality of Time, or Antiquity, as for that of Place, and of Perfons; and where that judicious Author honeftly cautions us against admitting meer Innovations in the Faith, under the pretence of Traditions, he candidly quotes and applauds this very Rule with me. Now breaking of Bread and Eating of it, and drinking of Wine, after a Sacred and Solemn way, in Remembrance of Chrft's Paffion, and in Imitation of the laft Supper, was ever from the very Be ginning pioufly oblerv'd as a moft Holy and Religious Rite, inftituted by Christ himself; call it as you please, a Mystery or a Sacrament; But all the prodigious stuff which Rome in thefe latter days have Invented about it, and have craftily or violently impofed upon the Chriftian World, fhall never be accounted a Mystery by me, unless it be a Myftery of Iniquity. However to give Transubstantiation fome Antiquity amongst the Greeks I find this made by feveral an Argument for it; That they certainly own'd it in Mich. Cerularius his time, about the year 1054. who was Patriarch of Conftantinople, and to fierce an Antagonist against the Latins, that if the Greeks, fay they, had not then allow'd it, they would infallibly have quarrell'd as much at that Doctrine of the Latins, as they did at their ufe of their unleavened Bread at the Eucharist. And I find the fame great Man, above noted, not only of this Opinion, but he quotes Nicetas Pectoratus to confirm it, whom the learned Claud had cited to confure it. You have Nicetas his little piece against the use of unleaven'd Bread in Baronius; out of it, thefe expreffions are urged in favour of the Annal. T. 11. Latin Opinion. Qui in lumine ambulant, they who walk in the Light eat the P. 790. Bread of Grace, which is the Body of Chrift, and Drink his spotless Blood; then having faid that unleavened Bread is Uncompounded, Imperfect, and wanting the fulness of the Leaven, whereas true Bread is quite otherwise, he bids them (Attendite,) confider that unleaven'd Bread hath no living Virtue in it, but is a meer dead Lump; In pane autem, hoc eft Corpore Chrifti, but in the Bread, that is, in the Body of Chrift, are three things which live, and give Life to those who eat them worthily, Spirit, Water, and Blood; for thus he mifapplies thofe words of St. John, tres funt qui teftimonium dant, there are three which give witness, the Spirit, the Water and 1 John 5. 8; the Blood, & hi tres in uno funt, videlicet in corpore Chrifti, and these three are in One, to wit, in the Body of Chrift; which thing was declared at the Apud Baron. time of the Lord's Crucifixion, when Water and Blood flow'd out of his spot- Perperam u& apud Simon lefs Side, his Flefb being pierced by the Lance; But the Holy and enlivening Spirit remain'd, In deificata carne ejus, quam comedentes in Pane, qui immutatus eft per Spiritum & effectus corpus Chrifti, in his Deified Flesh; which T. p. 173. (Deified Flesh) we eating the Bread which is changed by the Spirit, and made the Body of Chrift, we live in him, as it were, eating his Living and Deified Flesh; and in like manner drinking his living and warm Blood &c. Now R. Simon to thefe Paffages gives this clever turn. Nicetas, faith he, all along Speaks only of the Matter which is fit, or Prayer, for the Sacrifice,

and

In Apolog.

P. 92.

num.

P. 790.

Chap. V. T. p. 173. and not at all of the Symbols already Confecrated; and if after Confecration the Name, Bread, is used, it is not abfolutely but bye the bye,) as we fay) in Relation to the matter of the Sacrifice; nay, Nicetas to fhew that the Bread had caft off its Nature, ufed this Expression on purpose, the Bread, which is the Body of Chrift; and again, In the Bread, that is, In the Body of Christ; by which words he means, that the Name, Bread, after Confecration, is retain'd only in conformity to the Argument, but yet that it bath really paft into Chriff's Body. So that according to him, Nicetas and the rest of the Greeks believed, or at leaft found no fault with Transubstantiation. But because Nicetas without doubt knew his own Mind beft, fee how. Supr. p. 119. Q. farther he expreffeth himself. He faith, the Deified Flesh (which Jeremias the Patriarch called the Deified Body) of Chrift is eaten in the Bread; he must needs mean, in the Bread which only Represents it; for otherwise it would be an odd piece of Senfe to lay, the very Flesh or Body of Chrift is eaten in the very Flesh or Body of Chrift; yet he must have said fo, if he had thought that what he called the Bread, was then the very Flesh or Body of Chrift; Bread and Body, (or Flesh) according to the Latins, being now (after Confecration) one and the fame thing. But R. Simon urgeth that Nicetas faith plainly, that the Bread is changed by the Spirit and made the Body of Chrift, and again, In the Bread, that is, in the Body of Christ. All this we grant; 'tis true, in a Spiritual or in a Figurative Senfe; and it is most evident that Nicetas meant it no otherwife. He calls the Bread, which, he faith, the Illuminated Eat and is the Body of Chrift, Panem Gratiæ, the Bread of Grace, that is, Spiritual Bread; He calls it Figuram vivæ carnis, the Figure of (Chrift's) living Flef, and faith it is, what the Latins offer'd to God, and what they Eat, only they do it in Unleavened, the Greeks in Leaven'd Bread. He calls it Effigiem carnis Chrifti, the Refemblance of Chrift's P. 791. Flesh. And again, repeating his former conceit, Water, and Meal, and Fire, reprefenting Spirit, and Water, and Blood; Thefe three, faith he, in uno funt, are in One, to wit, the Body of Chrift, which we Eating are united to Chrift, who was incarnate and Sacrificed for us; being Incorporated with him, we are velut Caro ipfius, as it were Flefb of bis Flesh, and Bone of his Bones; furely this must be all understood alike Spiritually, we are Embody'd with Chrift and are Flesh of his Flesh, in the fame Senfe as we Eat his Flesh. And without doubt Nicetas thought that the Latins then believed no other then a Spiritual and Figurative Communion, and therefore he used these P. 791. and many more fuch expreffions to them. So again, ut in Figura ipfius faciatis Azymum, that ye may make unleaven'd Bread in Figure of it And just after that, carne Crucifixus tradidit nobis, being Crucified in the Flesh, be order'd us to Eat his Flesh, per panem, by Bread; (which (Flefb) in the Holy Spirit we thus call Living,) take Eat, this is my Body; Once more, fi ficut dicitis, if, as you Jay, the Apoftle received unleavened Bread from the Lord, and they again delivered this to you, In Figuram, for a Figure of Chrift's Body; &c. Are all thefe Expreffions meer words of Course, or in conformity to the Argument only, as is above faid? Or do they not rather evidently declare Nicetas, (and by confequence the Greeks) to have understood, this is my Body, Figuratively and Spiritually? And that feems to me a very poor Objection of fome, that if the Latins had then, when they brought in the unleaven'd Wafer, first broacht the Doctrine of Tranfubftantiation, Nicetas and Cerularius and other Greeks, who were fo bitter Enemies to them, and quarrell'd with them for the other Innovations, would certainly not have flipt this grand Abfurdity. But this wild Doctrine (as is above faid) was then at most but a private Õpinion, and that of a very few; It made no noife until Berengarius oppofed it. And Cerularius the Patriarch, who was the chief manager of the Controverfy, about unleaven'd Bread, was dead before Berengarius was 1058. 18. cenfur'd. And therefore this Doctrine which was in his time but in the Bud, Mat. 13. 25. or rather, as Tares new caft into the ground, might not as yet come to the

P. 793.

T. p. 173.

P. 105.

Baron. T. 11.

know

1954. 39.

p. 114.

&c.

knowledge of the Greeks. If Cerularius, who was Patriarch of Conftantinople, T. p. 173. knew not what was done then in the three other Patriarchates, which were near and under his Inspection, (as Peter of Antioch his Letter plainly tells us) he might Baron. T. 11. well be Ignorant of what was then covertly agitated at Rome. The practice and use of unleaven'd Bread, or the Wafer, there, was vifible and known to every Communicant, but the Portentous Opinion, the hidden Mystery of Tranfubftantiation, which fecretly crept in, and by degrees went along with it, was then known but to very few of the Latins themselves, and that very imperfectly. Therefore the Greeks, who had all by hearfay from Travellers, Nicetas in Bamight have heard much of the use of the Wafer, but nothing of the Monster, ron. T. 11. which then was hatching under it, and did not come to its full Growth till Pope P. 789. E. Innocent the third's time, as is above faid, that is, about 150 years after. However that great Man, R. Simon again and again intimates unto us, that Apol. p. 118. a. the Doctrine of Tranfubftantiation is, and ever was, Dogma Catholicum, the 173. 2. 218. Univerfal belief of all the Eaft. Yet the Eastern Liturgies (as moft say also p. 104, 105. again and again) which he hath kindly and learnedly furnished us withal, rather affert only a Spriritual Eucharift or Commemoration of Chrift's Paffion, then any ways favour the Latins Tenet; as the Univerfal ufe of the Invocation of the Holy Spirit, and the Prayers annext to it, feem plainly to evince. So that all the late Declarations of Gabr. Severus, Parthenius, Dionyfius, and Dofitheus himself, and of all the rest of the Modern Easterlings, make nothing to the Metusiasts purpose, And now to that common Question in him, and in many others, Quâ arte Latinorum, by what trick of the Latins, and when and where did this Opinion firft prevail in the Eaft? Give me leave to add one or two more; When were the uegides, Portions first brought into the Greek Church? When were the Maronites Conftitutions made? When were all the other Eaftern Liturgies Copied or Reformed (as he faith) from that of the Greeks? When and by whom were all their Liturgies thus patcht and jumbled together, and thus most shamefully made meer confused stuff? The answer to all these and many more of the like nature is very plain, whilft Mat. 13. 25. Men flept an Enemy hath done this. I think it is very evident that for many Ages before the Western Reformation, both Churches, Eaft and Weft were fufficiently a fleep; (the Serpent for a time did bruife the Womans ofsprings Gea. 3. 15. Heel and it is as evident what Rome and her accomplices have been doing ever fince Berengarius his time, especially fince the Latin Council. As to the Eastern People, particularly the Greeks amongst whom I lived, (to my own knowledge) R. Simon gives us a very just account of them; There are, faith

28.

118. a

he, fome very few (and thofe are commonly fuch as have frequented the 111. 112. & Latin Schools) who understand something of (Ariftotle's) Philofophy; there Pref. i. iij.iiij. are others, (who are far the greater number) who understand not one jot

upon

6

T. p. 174.

of it; and thefe, de rebus Eucharifticis admodùm crafsè loquuntur, difcourfe about all the Matters of the Eucharift most grofly, or courfly or blockishly. Now from hence it must be plain to any impartial Eye, that the crafty Latin Emiffaries, and the few Greeks who have been train'd up in the College and Latin Schools at Rome, or elsewhere, have palmed, as we fay, or cleverly obtruded the other Ideots and dull Philofophers what thofe good Men did not understand; and fome of those out of an Ambition to appear fomething more Learned then the vulgar, greedily fwallow, and pride themselves in any amusing Scholastick or Metaphyfical fancy. Niceph. Gregoras, gives us an exact Account or Character of all these kind of Men, (for matters went much at the fame rate then in the Greek Church as it doth now,) relating how fome Latins under Andronicus junior, were fent from Rome to Conftantinople to difpute, and unite both Churches. The Patriarch, faith he, was not able to p. 218. 235. Difcourfe, and most of the Bishops his Companions were as Ignorant as him-236. felf. The Latins, as the prefent Emiffaries, were impudent boafters, braging most shamefully, and in all their talk were as fond of Syllogifms as beafts are greedy of Grass; and they that are in a doubt, or know not what

Z 2

they

Refut. part 1.
P. 143.

(

T. p. 74. they should rightly believe, or what it is which they say they believe, are impudently filling all places wherever they come with their Divinity. But the greatest bulk of the common People, and even of the Clergy themselves, efpecially the ordinary Monks and Parish Pricfts, (not one of thofe, and very few of those ever reading any learned Books) refolve at all Adventures to believe as the Church believe, that is, to take all as the Great and Leading Men tell them, without troubling their Heads with what either this or that means, or how can this or that be? or the like. So they still worship the megides, Portions in the Proceffion, it is no matter why; They reverently Eat the bits of Bread, or take the Margaritæ, little Crumbs with a drop or two of Wine, at the Eucharift, without puzzling their Brains with either the hard new word or the barder thing, of merooiwars, Tranfubftan tiation; and never minding whether Chrift's very Flesh and Bones are Prefent or Abfent; or whether the Saints Portions are Confecrated as well as that of Chrift; or what elie the pretenders to Learning Difpute about; As there are Thousands and Thousands in both Churches who mumble over their Creeds without concerning themselves with, or thaking of, the Unitarian and Trinitarian Controversy. This therefore being the very prefent Condition of the ignorant Easterlings, the Latins by corrupting some of the leading Men amongst them, and by awing all of them by the Power of the Governing fecular Princes, (which Money can always procure to their fide;) may in a little time make Tranfubftantiation, the Dogma Catholicum, the Catholick Doctrine of the East, by the fame Methods as they did it for a Time in the West; till the Reformation; However to me it fhall be always a fufficient ground to fufpect that fide in a Religious Controverfy, which will not stand to the plain Dint of Reafon and Scripture, but calls in, the Arm of Flesh, Force and Violence to fupport it. The primitive Fathers (as Monf. Arnold himlelf truly confeffes) were of a more pious and truly Chriftian Spirit, they did not faith he, amufe either themselves or others with speculative Difficulties, nor trouble themselves to explain them to the People; but made it more their business and aim to promote true Piety, then to fatisfy Curiofity I with with all my Soul, that Chriftians who believed that the Elements at the Eucharift by confecration were made the Body and Blood of Christ, had refted there; I fear we may justly attribute one great Caufe of the General decay of Piety, (which fince hath by degrees overspread the Chriftian World.) to the Vain, Infolent, and Frantick Difquifitions and Opinions which afterwards follow'd about thefe matters. And from hence good Reafons may be given, why Mahometism hath made and does daily make, fuch large progrefs amonft the Heathen, whilst Popery, unless by Force or Trick, makes not the least advance; the absurdities of the latter, being far more grofs and numerous then thofe of the former. Had Tranfubftantiation been declared by the primitive Chriftians as their avowed Doctrine, the Heathens then, as the Turks have done fince, would certainly have upbraided them, that they first make Bread their God, and then devour him. We have a very pregnant Instance of all this in L. Surius, he tells An. 1501. us that P. Innocent the fourth in the year 1246, fent fome Religious Perfons out of the Council of Lions to Bati, King of the Tartars, to exort him to the Worship of the One living and true God, and of his only Son Jefus Christ. When thefe Embassadors were gone, came others from the Saracens, at whofe perfwasions Bati and his People embraced the Mahometan Religion. He gives us these two Reasons for it; He calls it, tanquam plaufibiliorem, that is, it was more plaufible or rational then Popery; for the Mahometans own, the one true God, as well as the Papifts; and they confels, that Chrift was Act. 26. 28. a true Prophet fent from God, though not God of God; fo that thus far they are fomething like King Agrippa, half Chriftians; there wants little more to compleat them then the Doctrine of the Triuity; But he calls it in the next place, voluptariam, a Voluptuous Religion, and Impuriffimam Superstitionem, a most Impure Superftition; as if it had been Impurity and Voluptuousness

Comment.

P. 25.