« PoprzedniaDalej »
P. 289. p. 297.
T. p. 171. rist amongst them, (when they shall think it fitting, ) by the fame Methods
by which they have managed them in all the rest. What follows in Dofitheus is p.2.97.com fupr. wonderfull indeed; he faith, that, ó tgón, the Mode or manner how the Bread
and Wine are converted into the Body and Blood of Christ, or, as he said
before in the beginning of this Decree, How Clorist is present at the Eucha. p. 289. fupr.
rift, ( which with him is all one ) is Incomprehensible and Impossible to any but God himself; and that the word Transubstantiation 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 Present, 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 owo Greek Author's who
thought and expressly called the Elements but meer Types, Antitypes, Symbols, Images, and such like Representations ) not by extraordinary Grace as in o. ther Sacraments, (though all Christians agree that extraordinary Grace is here also conveigh’d to every faithfull Receiver, by which he is made a living Member of Christ's Body, which must be present here in the same manner as he is a Member of it) nor by the Communion or the Presence of his Divini.
ty only, (though we are lofallibly sure that he is thus Present with us from his Mat. 18. 20. own words, and the Fathers own no other Presence in Baptilm, why then any
other Presence in the Eucharift?) But the Bread and Wine are verily and indeed Transubstantiated into the true Body and Blood of Christ; That is, the Substance of the Bread and of the Wine quite vanish or is Anihilated; and the very Substance of Christ's true Body and Blood remain only under
their Accidents; and this is the true and only real Mode or manger of his Jupr. 142, 143.
being Present in the Eucharift. Though Chryfoftom and Theodoret and others expressly tell us, that the Nature and Substance and Form of the Bread and Wine still remain unchanged, and are the very jame after Confecration, as they were before it. This truly amazes me, that he should quite explode those Modes of Christ's Presence, which to many Fathers have allowd as Rational; and of which we are all very well assured; and he himself cannot deny; (for he must Confefs Christ is present by Symbols; and by his Grace; and by his Divinity; though he may deny him to be present only fo;) and then so possitively to assert, a most Absurd, a most Obscure, a mofi Vulikely, meerly new Invented, Mode; which the Primitive Christians, and the Antient Fathers never hcard or dream'd of. But 1 perceive it is even his Misfortune, as
I have above noted it to have been the common Fate of the first Inventers p. 113, 116.
and Promoters of this wild Conceit, of all Modes or Manners to choose the worst. Therefore I would fain know in the Eucharist what State and Condition of Christ's Body he would choose; whether is it now just as it was, when it was Born, or Baptized; or as it was Transfigured; or as it suffer. ed, or as it was buried; or as it rose, or as it ascended; or as it fits in
Heaven, or as it mall come to Judgment, or as the Question was put in Nicet. in Alex. Alexius Comnetius his time, is iť Corruptible or Incorruptible
. And whe188.8.131.52. P.3 33.ther his Blood is, as it was in his Veins, or as it was shed and
Spilt upon his Cloaths, on the Cross, on the Spear, on the Ground. If we say that his Body and Blood were always the same in Substance, (though Philosophers will hardly allow that,) yet they were not always the same in Condition and Quality. Jesus grew, and increased in Stature or Age; and his dead Body on the Cross, differ'd from his living Body after the Resurrecti
and if the Bread was Christ's real Body at the last Supper, he and his Apostles did Eat his Mortal Body; But all who have eaten the Eucharist since he sat on the right hand of God, must have Eaten his Glorified and Im. mortal Body, and by Consequence have thereby received a greater Honour then the Apostles themselves. I therefore desire to know under which cf all chose different Qualities, or States, or Conditions, (which he hath reckon'd up) the Bread is now made Christ's very Body; for it cannot be in his Sense under them all ; but according to our Primitive way, his Body is Received
under all the Qualities, States and Conditions which ever befell it.
We T. p. 192. thankfully commemorate bis Birth, Baptism, Transfiguration, Passion, Eurial, Resurrection, Ascension, Glory, and coming again; and thus the Bread is, and is called Christ'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 Pressures and severe dispensations which they there mer withall. The learned R. Simon fairly confesseth that the Faith of the Primitive Chriftians in Apolog," was most simple and plain, and that in following and worser Ages, Men. p. 131. started and disputed many Things, of which not the least Madow is to be found amongst them. But, faith he, if we mall think this any Argument against those later Opinions, because they were not Primitive; we may as easily doubt of, or question the chief Mysteries of the Christian 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 Antiquitý; for I am perfectly of Vincentius Lirinenfis his mind, that all Articles of Faith ought to be Catholick, as well for the universality of Time, or Antiquity, as for that of Place, and of Persons; and where that judicious Author honestly cautions us against admitting meer Jonovations 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 Passion, and in Imitation of the last Supper, was ever from the very Beginning piously oblerv'd as a most Holy and Religious Rite, instituted by Christ himself call it as you please, a Mystery or a Sacrament; But all the prodigious stuff which Rome in these latter days have Invented about it, and have craftily or violently imposed upon the Christian World, shall never be accounted a Mystery by me, unless it be a Mystery of Iniquity. However to give Trapsubstantiation some Antiquity amongst the Greeks I find this made by leveral an Argument for it; That they certainly own'd it in Mich. Cerularius his time, about the year 1054. who was Patriarch of Constantinople, and to fierce an Antagonist against the Latins, that if the Greeks, say they, had not theo allow'd it, they would infallibly have quarrell’d as much at that Doctrine of the Latins, as they did at their use of their unleavened Bread at the Eucharist. And I find the same great Man, above noted, not only of this Opinion, but
In Apolog. 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, these expressions 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 Christ, and Drink his spotless Blood; then having said that unleavened Bread is Uncompounded, Imperfect, and wanting the fulness of the Leaven, whereas true Bread is quite otherwise, he bids chem (Attendite,) consider that unleaven'd Bread hath no living Virtue in it, but is a meer dead Lump; In pane autem, hoc eft Corpore Christi
, but in the Bread, that is, in the Body of Christ, are three things which live, and give Life to those who eat them worthily, Spirit, Water, and Blood; for thus he misapplies those words of St. John, tres funt qui testimonium dant, there are three which give witness, the Spirit, the Water and John 3. 8. the Blood, & hi tres in uno funt, videlicet in corpore Christi
, and these three are in One, to wit, in the Body of Christ; 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 *less Side, his Flesh being pierced by the Lance; But the Holy and enlivening num. Spirit remain’d, In deificata carne ejus, quam comedepres in Pane, qui immutatus est per Spiritum & effectus corpus Christi, 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 Christ, 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 these Passages gives this clever curn. Nicetas, faith he, all along speaks only of the Matter which is fit, or Prayer, for the Sacrifice,
T. p. 173. and not at all of the Symbols already Confecrated; and if after Confecra
tion the Name, Bread, is used, it is not absolutely but bye the bye,) as we fay) in Relation to the matter of the Sacrifice; nay, Niceras to thew that the Bread had cast off its Nature, used this Expresion on purpose, the Bread, which is the Body of Christ; and again, In the Bread, that is, 117 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 past into Christ's Body. So that according to him, Nicetas and the rest of the Greeks believed, or at least found no fault with Transubstantia.
tion. But because Nicetas without doube knew his own Mind best, see how. Supr. p. 119.Q. farther he expresseth bimself. He faith, the Deified Flesh (which Jeremias
the Patriarch called the Deified Body) of Christ is eaten in the Bread; he must needs mcan, in the Bread which only Represents it ; for otherwise ic would be an odd piece of Senfe to say, the very Flesh or Body of Christ is eaten in the very Flesh or Body of Chrift; yet he must have said io, if he had thought that what he called the Bread, was then the very Flesh or Body of Christ; Bread and Body, (or Flesh) according to the Latios, being now (after Consecration ) one and the same thing. But R. Simon urgeth thar Nicetas faith plainly, that the Bread is changed by the Spirit and made the Body of Christ, 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 Sense; and it is most evident that Nicetas meant it no otherwise. He calls the Bread, which, he faith, the Illuminated Eat and is the Body of Christ, Pupem Gratiæ, the Bread of Grace, that is, Spiritual Bread; He calls it Figuram vivæ carnis, the Figure of Christ's) living Flesh, and faith it is, what the Latins offerid to God, and what they Eat, only they do it in Vnleavened, the Greeks in
Leaven'd Bread. He calls it Effigiem carnis Christi, the Resemblance of Christ's P. 791. Flesh. And again, repeating his former conceit, Water, and Meal, and Fire,
reprefenting Spirit, and Water, and Blood; I be fe three, faith he, in uno sunt, are in One, to wit, the Body of Christ, which we Eating are united to Christ, who was incarnate and Sacrificed for us; being Incorporated with him, we are velut Caro ipfius, as it were Flesh of bis Flesh, and Bone of his Bones; furely this must be all understood alike Spiritually, we are Embody'd with Christ and are Flesh of his Flesb, in the same Sense as we Eat bis Flesh. And without doubt Nicetas thought that the Latips the believed no other then a Spiritual and Figurative Communion, and therefore he used theic
many more such expressions to them. So again, ut in Figura ipsius faciaris Azymum, that ye may make unleaven'd Bread in Figure of it after that, carpe Crucifixus tradidit nobis, being Crucified in the Fles, he order'd us to Eat his Flesh, per panem, by Bread; (which (Flejb) in the Holy Spirit we thus call Living, ) take Eat, this is my Body; Once more, fi ficur dicitis, if, as you say, the Apostle received unleavened Bread from the Lord, and they again delivered this to you, lo Figuram, for a Figure of Christ's Body; &c. Are all these Expressions 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 consequence 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 biccer Enemies to them, and quarrell’d with them for the other Innovations, would certainly not have Nipe this grand Absurdity. But this wild Dodrine ( as is above faid) was then at most but a private Opinion, and that of a very few; it made no noise uncil Beren. garius opposed it
. And Cerularius the Patriarch, who was the chief manager of the Controversy, about unleavend Bread, was dead before Berengarius was 1058. 18. centur'd. And therefore this Doctrine which was in his time but in the Bud, Mat: 13. 25. or rather, as Tares new cast into the ground, might not as yer coise to the
p. 791. apd
T. p. 173.
Baron. T. 11.
knowledge of the Greeks. If Cerularius, who was Patriarch of Constantinople, T. p. 173. knew nor 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: 15. well be ignorant of what was then covertly agitated at Rome. The practice and use of unleaven's Bread, or the Wafer, there, was visible and known to every Communicant, but the Portentous Opinion, the hidden Mystery of Tranfubftantiation, which secretly crept in, and by degrees wept along with it, was then koown but to very few of the Latins themselves, and that very imperfectly. Therefore the Greeks, who had all by bear fay from Travellers, Nicetas in Bamight bave heard much of the use of the Wafer, but nothing of the Monster, ron. T. 1. 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 Tran substantiation is, and ever was, Dogma Catholicum, the '73&c. 218. Universal belief of all the East. Yet the Eastern Liturgies (as most say also p. 104, 105. again and again) which he hath kindly and learnedly furnished us withal, rather affert only a Spriritual Eucharist or Commemoration of Christ's Passion, then any ways favour the Latins
Tenet ; as the Universal use of the Invocation of the Holy Spirit, and the Prayers annext to it, seem plainly to evince. So that all the late Declarations of Gabr. Severus, Parthenius, Dionysius, and Dofitheus himself, and of all the rest of the Modern Easterlings, make nothing to the Merusiasts purpose, And now to that common Question in him, and in 118. a many others, Quâ arte Latinorum, by what trick of the Latins, and when and where did this Opinion first prevail in the East? Give me leave to add one or two more; When were the regides, Portions first brought into the Greek Church? When were the Maronites Conftitutions made? When were all the other Eastern 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 sept an Enemy hath done this. I think it is very evident that for many Ages before the Western Reformation, both Churches, East and Weft were fufficiently a sleep; (the Serpent for a time did bruise the Womans ofsprings Gen. 3. 15. Heelj and it is as evident what Rome and her accomplices have been doing ever since Berengarius his time, especially since 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 he, some very few (and those are commonly such as have frequented the 111. 112. & Latin Schools ) who understand something of (Aristotle's) Philosophy; there Pref.i. iij.iij. are others, (who are far the greater number) who understand not one jot of it; and these, de rebus Eucharisticis admodùm crassè loquuntur, discourse about all the Matters of the Eucharist most großy, or courlly or blockishly. Now from hence it must be plain to any impartial Eye, that the crafty
T. p. 174 Latin Emissaries, and the few Greeks who have been train'd up in the College and Latin Schools at Rome, or elsewhere, have palmed, as we say, or cleverly obtruded upon the other ldeors and dull Philosophers what those good Men did not understand; and some of those out of an Ambition to appear something more Learned then the vulgar, greedily swallow, and pride themselves in any amusing Scholastick or Metaphysical fancy. Niceph. Gregoras, gives us an exact Account or Character of all these kind of Men, (for matters went much at the same rate then in the Greek Church as it doch now,) relating how fome Latios under Andronicus junior, were fent from Rome to Constantinople to dispute, and unite both Churches. The Patriarch, faith he, was not able to
p. 228, 235 Discourse, and most of the Bishops his Companions were as Ignorant as him. 236. felf. The Latins, as the present Emissaries, were impudent boafters, braging most shamefully, and in all their talk were as fond of Syllogisms as beasts are greedy of Grass; and they that are in a doubt, or know not what
T. •pı 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, especially the ordinary Monks and Parish Priests, (not one of chole, and very few of those ever reading any learned Books ) resolve 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 eit ber this or that means, or how can this or that be? or the like. So they fill worfhip the magidis, Portions in the Procession, 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 Eucharist, without puzzling their Braips with either the hard new word or the barder thing, of herBriwas, Tranfubftan tiation; and never minding whether Christ's very Flesh and Bones are Present or Absent; or whether the Saints Portions are Confecrated as well as that of Christ; or what else the pretenders to Learning Dispure about; As there are Thousands and Thousands in both Charches who. mumble over their Creeds without concerning themselves with, or thuking of, the Vnitarian and Trini. tarian Controverly. This therefore being the very pretent Condition of the ignorant Easterlings, the Latins by corrupting Some of the leading Mep amongst them, and by awing all of them by the Power of the Governing secular Priaces, (which Money can always procure to their fide;) may in a little time make Transubstantiation, 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 fall be always a jufficient ground to suspect that side in a Religious Controversy, which will not stand to the plain Dint
of Reason and Scripture, bur calls in, the Arm of Flesh, force and Vio Refut. part 1.
lence to support it. The primitive Fathers (as Monf. Arnold himlelf truly confesses ) were of a more pious and truly Christian Spirit, they did not, faith he, amuse either themfelves or others with speculative Dificulties, por trouble themselves to explain them to the People; but made it more their business and aim to promote true Piety, then to satisfy Curiosity. I with with all my Soul, that Christians who believed that the Elements at the Eucharift by consecration were made the Body and Blood of Christ, had rested there'; I fear we may justly attribute one great Cause of the General decay of Piety, (which since hath by degrees overspread the Christian World. ) to the Vain, Infolent, and Frantick Disquisitions and Opinions which afterwards follow'd about these
And from bence good Reasons may be given, why Mahometism hath made and does daily make, such large progress amonst the Heathen, whilst Popery, unless by Force or Trick, makes not the least advance; the absurdities of the latter, being far more gross and numerous then those of the former. Had Transubstantiation been declared by the primitive Christians as their avowed Doctrine, the Heathens then, as the Turks have done fpce, would certainly have upbraided them, that they first make Bread their God, and then de
vour him. We have a very pregnant Instance of all this in L. Surius, he tells An. 1501. us char P. Innocent the fourth in the year 1246, fent fome Religious Per
fons 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 these Embassadors were gone, came others from the Saracens, at whofe perfwasions Bati and his People embraced the Mahometan Religion. He gives us these cwo Reasons for it; He calls it, tanquam plaufibiliorem, that is, it was more plausible or rational then Popery; for the Mahometans own,
the one true God, as well as the Papists; and they confess, that Christ was Ad. 26. 28. & true Prophet sent from God, though not God of God; so that thus far
they are something like King Agrippa, half Christians; there wapts little more to compleat them then the Doctrine of the Triuity; But he calls it in the next place, voluptariam, a Voluptuous Religion, and impurissimam Superstitionem, most Impure Superftition; as if it had been Impurity and Voluptuousness