received by the Christian Church which is the chief design of Mr. Arnaud's Book IN the second place I discover the falsity of this supposition that the true Greek Church and other Eastern Christians do believe Transubstantiation and Adore the Sacrament after the same manner as the Church of Rome does The contrary of this will appear so plainly and Mr. Arnaud's Proofs so solidly answered that a man would wonder to see with what confidence he treats of this matter in which he betrays so great ignorance and oversight Here also his pretended proofs touching the Greeks from the 7th to the 11th and touching the Latins in the 7th and 8th Centuries are fully confuted together with the consequences which he hath blindly drawn from thence of the consent of all Christian Churches in the Doctrins of the Real Presence and Transubstantiation This is the Subject of the 3d. 4th and 5th Book The third proves by many and clear arguments that the Greeks do not believe Transubstantiation nor adore the Sacrament with the adoration of Latria as the Church of Rome doth and moreover shews particularly what their Doctrins are wherein they agree with the Latins and with us and wherein they differ In the fourth I answer all Mr. Arnaud's Proofs discovering their weakness and make it appear that the greatest part of what he offers does necessarily conclude against him And because of the affinity of the matter I examin at the same time his 7th Book wherein he treats of Greek Authors of the 7th 8th 9th and 10th Centuries In my fifth Book I pass over to the other Christians which are called Schismaticks Moscovites Armenians Nestorians Jacobites Coptics Ethiopians and show they do not believe Transubstantiation nor the Real Presence with the Latins From thence I come to the Latins in the 7th and 8th Centuries and examine Mr. Arnaud's 8th Book after which I consider his 10th Book which concerns the consequences drawn from the consent of the Churches which he pretends to have proved and I make it appear that they are but Paralogisms and Sophisms IN the third place I lay open the falsity of Mr. Arnaud's second supposition touching the distinct belief of the Real Presence and refute his sixth Book Afterwards in refuting the ninth Book I show the absurdity of his conjectures about the impossibility of a change and demonstrate that 't is not only possible but might easily happen Lastly the innovation of Paschasius is as evidently prov'd as a thing of that nature can be This is the subject of my sixth Book NOW from all these discourses it will evidently appear what I have already observ'd That this new way hath not been laid open but for to give us new advantages against the Church of Rome I speak not of the intention of these Gentlemen for they have declared themselves plainly enough against us to leave no place for us to suspect them of any collusion And the last Book of Mr. Arnaud hath provided against all such suspicions something more perhaps than is reasonable But I speak of the success their method hath had which hath been quite contrary to their intention As for example it hath given me occasion to prove that the Greeks did not believe Transubstantiation nor the Real Presence which the Church of Rome taught when they condemned Berengarius neither in the preceding nor following Ages That whatsoever efforts the Latins have made since the 11th Age to this present to procure the reception of these Doctrins in Greece yet the true Greek Church hath not embraced them Neither do the Armenians and other Schismaticks believe them any more than the Greeks NOW who seeth not that the first and most natural consequences which can be drawn from thence is That these Doctrins are new for if they were establish'd at first together with the Christian Religion they would have appeared in those Churches and been retain'd among them after their separation from the Latins and that they do not appear is a manifest sign of their novelty This consequence is not like that of Mr. Arnaud his and mine are not only contrary in the matter but they are likewise very different in form for mine is just and direct whereas his is neither just nor true For suppose the Greeks and other Eastern Christians should at this day believe Transubstantiation nay suppose they should have believed it some Ages since what advantage can Mr. Arnaud make of this seeing he hath been shewed several ways by which it might be introduced into their Churches But if it be true that they held it not neither in the 11th nor in the following Age as I have invincibly prov'd then it cannot be imagin'd how it should disappear nor how the Latins who have for several Ages since overspread these Countreys with their Emissaries would have suffered such a Doctrin to be lost amongst them which it was so much their interest to preserve Moreover this same method hath furnish'd me with an occasion to overthrow the pretended impossibilities of a change and to make appear on the contrary the facility thereof Now suppose we could not answer the Arguments of the Author of the Perpetuity and Mr. Arnaud this would be but little advantage to their cause for still our proofs of the matter of fact would remain unanswer'd without the examination of which the question of the Perpetuity of the Doctrins in Controversie cannot be decided Whereas these having made it appear that their pretended impossibilities are mere Chimera's and that this change might easily happen this is a great inducement to believe our account of it is really true IT is then certain that these Gentlemen could not make a worse choice for the interest of the Church of Rome than of such a way in which nothing of advantage to their Church can be expected but she is thereby exposed to great fears and dangers and that the cause which they have opposed is more beholding to them than that which they have taken upon them to defend Had it not been for them perhaps we should not have much troubled our selves either with discovering the real belief of the Greek Church or that of the Armenians or with the displaying the mystery of their Seminaries and Missions neither should we have concern'd our selves in shewing how the change could be wrought and how it was made AND having now given an account of the several parts of this work and of the present state of this Controversie as to the matter of it it is likewise fit to say something of the manner in which I have handled it One of my greatest cares hath been religiously to keep to truth and sincerity For I am very sensible that prejudice partiality love of vain glory and even sometimes a secret desire of revenging a man's self on his Adversary are passions which do commonly obtrude themselves on us in Disputes and which never fail to corrupt the mind I have therefore endeavoured to the utmost not only
THE CATHOLIC Doctrin of the EUCHARIST Written in French by the Learned M. Claude Veritas fatigari potest vinci non potest Etheâ— Bâ—â—â— 1683. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 London Printed for R. Royston THE Catholick Doctrine OF THE EUCHARIST In all AGES In ANSWER to what M. ARNAVD 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 LONDON Printed for R. ROYSTON Bookseller to His most Sacred Majesty at the Angel in Amen-Corner MDCLXXXIV TO THE RIGHT HONORABLE AND RIGHT REVEREND FATHER in GOD HENRY Lord Bishop of LONDON AND One of His MAJESTIES most Honorable PRIVY-COVNCIL c. J. R. R. Humbly Dedicateth this TRANSLATION To the Worthy Gentlemen The MINISTERS and ELDERS of the CONSISTORY Assembled at Charenton Gentlemen and my most Honored Brethren THE design of the Book which I here offer you being chiefly to invalidate those pretended proofs of Perpetuity wherewith men would set up such new Opinions as alter the purity of the Christian Faith touching the Holy Eucharist I have therefore reason to believe that this present Treatise will not prove unacceptable to you for altho the Religion we profess needs not the hands of men to support it no more than heretofore the Ark of the Israelites yet have we cause to praise God when we see that Reproach of departing from the Ancient Faith may be justly retorted upon them who charge us with it Ye will find here in this Discourse a faithful and plain representation of things such as they are in truth in opposition to every thing which the Wit of Man and the fruitfulness of Human Invention have been able to bring forth to dazle mens Eyes and corrupt their Judgments As soon as ever I had read the Writings of these Gentlemen whom I answer the first thought that came into my mind was that of Solomon That God made man Eccles 7. 29. upright but he had sought out many inventions And indeed what is plainer than the Supper of our Lord as he himself has instituted it and his Apostles have delivered it to us and what can be more preposterous than to search for what we ought to believe touching this Sacrament amongst the various Opinions of these later Ages and different Inclinations of men and especially amongst them who are at farthest distance from us These remote ways do of themselves fill us with doubts and suspicions and the bare proposal of them must needs disgust us and make us draw consequences little advantageous to the Doctrins which these Gentlemen would Authorize Yet I have not refused to joyn issue with them on their own Principles as far as the truth will permit me and if they would read this Answer with a free unprejudiced mind I am certain that they themselves will acknowledg the contrary to what they have endeavoured to persuade others I here offer you then Gentlemen and my most Honored Brethren this last fruit of my Labor first for your own Edification and secondly for a publick testimony of my Respect and acknowledgments All that I do or have done is justly due to you not only upon the account of the Right which ye have over me and my Labors but likewise because it is partly from your good Examples that I have taken and do still every day draw the motives which strengthen me in the ways of God and in the love of his Truth It is in your Holy Society that I learn the Art of serving the common Master of both Angels and Men according to the purity of that Worship which he hath prescribed us and at the same time how to work out my own Salvation as well as that of others And indeed what is it that a man cannot learn in an Assembly wherein all hearts and minds do unanimously concur in the practice of Piety and Charity which consists of persons who have no other aim but so to order their Conversations as to draw down thereby the Blessings of Heaven upon themselves and the people whom God hath committed to their Charge and render themselves worthy of the protection of our great and Invincible Monarch This Work would have been published sooner had it not been for three great Losses we have suffered by the Death of Mr. Drelincourt Mr. Daillé and Morus three names worthy to be had in everlasting Remembrance These persons have left us so suddenly one after another that we have scarcely had time to bewail each of 'em as much as we desired The loss of the first of these extremely afflicted us the loss of the second overwhelmed us with Sorrow and the Death of the last stupified us with Heaviness God having taken to himself these three famous Divines it was impossible but this work should be retarded But being now at length able to Publish it I therefore entreat you Gentlemen to suffer me to Dedicate it to you that it may appear in the World honored with your Names May the Father of Lights from whom descendeth every good and perfect Gift enrich you more with his Graces and preserve your Holy Assembly and the Flock committed to your care These are the ardent Prayers of your most Humble and Obedient Servant and Brother in Christ Jesus CLAVDE THE PREFACE THE Dispute which the first Treatise of the Perpetuity of the Faith hath occasion'd on this Subject of the Eucharist has made such a noise in the world since Mr. Arnaud's last Book that I have no need to give an account of the motives which engage me in this third Reply Besides it is evident to every one that the Cause which I defend and which I cannot forsake without betraying my Trust and Conscience obliges me necessarily to state clearly matters of Fact and maintain or refute those Doctrins which are debated between Mr. Arnaud and me AND yet whatsoever justice and necessity there may be for publishing this Work I am afraid some persons will be displeased seeing so much written on the same Subject for this is the sixth Book since the first Treatise of the Perpetuity has been publish'd besides two others of Father Nouet's and mine And these Tracts which at first were but small have since insensibly grown into great Volumes Yet for all this we have not seen what Mr. Arnaud or his Friends are oblig'd to produce as to the first six Centuries of which without doubt much may be said on both sides IF any complain of this prolixity I confess it will not be altogether without cause For altho the Controversie of the Eucharist is one of the most important that is between the Church of Rome and the Protestants and which deserves therefore to be carefully examin'd yet since it may be treated with greater brevity even this consideration of its
to keep these from me but likewise to watch against their susprizes And for this purpose I can affirm I have laboured as in the sight of God not proposing to my self any other aim than his glory and truth always remembring that I write not a line of which I must not one day give him an account I have not warp'd from that sincerity and uprightness which an honest man ought to observe on these occasions I have not taken Mr. Arnaud's words in a wrong sense nor charged him with saying what indeed he saith not nor strained his expressions beyond their natural signification No man can reproach me for making false citations or maiming any passages by suppressing that which is important neither have I alledged them abusively and contrary to the intention of their Authors I hope there is no unfair dealings either in my Arguments or Answers in my Suppositions or my other Discourses I have followed Reason and Nature as much as I could and have not made use of Philosophy but to strengthen the ordinary notions of common sense and not to stifle or hinder their effects I hope likewise that I shall not be complain'd of as having not observed either in general towards the Church of Rome or in particular towards Mr. Arnaud all that moderation which might be reasonably expected from me I have noted the Errors and Sophisms of Mr. Arnaud which I have found very numerous in every Subject on which he hath treated especially concerning the Greek Church I was not a little troubled to see with what sincerity he alledged several passages whereof some are not faithfully translated and others so imperfectly that he hath suppressed whole Clauses which would clear up the difficulty and others which are palpably perverted contrary to the sense of their Authors I could not but resent his unhandsome dealing when he disjoynted from the series of a discourse several of my words to make them look of a quite contrary sense than what was intended or fastned on them strange chimerical senses that he might have some matter of triumph or groundlesly slandered some famous men or endeavoured to decry by violent and odious terms our morals which cannot but be holy and pure seeing we have no others but what are taken from the Law and the Gospel In fine when he employs his declamatory stile to dazle the eyes of the world and to mis-represent the truth I have discovered several of his contradictions and how much his opinions are influenc'd by his interest several fallacious suppositions which he would have introduc'd into this Dispute and some vain and ill-grounded accusations with which he hath charged me are clearly laid open and some faults of his in History and Grammar I have but lightly touched upon In short I have set before him what I believe he ought to have said on these occasions and others of the like kind and do moreover here protest that I should have wholly spared him in the most part of these matters had the interest of the cause which I take upon me to defend permitted me so to do But what I have said to him has been without sharpness and passion and even with as little complaining as may be against his starch'd Prefaces and imperious tartness which appears throughout his whole Book wherein I every where meet with the rough terms of Enthusiasm Extravagancy sensless Propositions and other such like expressions I confess that these injurious terms were not at all pleasing to me and presently I wondred that Mr. Arnaud should use a stile so little becoming his profession but at length being accustom'd to it I pass'd over it and have comforted my self by the motives of Christian patience There are very deserving persons even of his own Communion whom he has handled no better than my self and after all it suffices me to know that I have not given just cause for so great animosity and bitterness as I do believe some have already acknowledg'd and which I believe Mr. Arnaud himself will acknowledg when he has read my last Chapter in which I answer his 11th Book which concerns our pretended personal differences AS to exactness I believe I have kept as much to it as can be desired in such an Answer as this Indeed I have not followed blindfold Mr. Arnaud when he strayed from his own subject as he has done in the last Chapters of his first Book where he treats of Episcopacy of Praying for the Dead th' Invocation of Saints the Worship of Relicks and the Prohibition of certain Meats FOR seeing the matter in hand only concerns the Eucharist it would have been contrary to sense and a gross abuse to the Readers patience to engage in these Controversies on each of which there might be written whole Volumes not to say farther that I have endeavoured to avoid that prolixity which Mr. Arnaud seems on the contrary to have affected But according to prudence and discretion I have omitted nothing considerable in Mr. Arnaud's Book which relates to our present Controversie unanswer'd except the two Dissertations of the Criticism on John Scot and on Bertram to which there is a distinct Answer preparing It cannot be said that Mr. Arnaud and his friends have done the like by me for to speak ingeniously and freely is there any thing less exact or more careless than their large work considering it as a Refutation of my answer to the Perpetuity of which they have scarcely handled the tenth part They have taken here and there some one of my passages separated from the sequel of my discourse and the greatest part of them turn'd into another sense hereupon they have travelled from East to West And this they call the Perpetuity of the Faith defended against the Book of the Sieur Claude Minister of Charenton But seeing I have followed the second Treatise of the Perpetuity and even accommodated my self to its method ought not then the Author in defending it against my Book â—o follow me a little more closely And when he was oblig'd to write a second Volume as to what respects the first six Ages certainly he ought to have considered the rest with some care Mr. Arnaud's In his Preface excuse is vain and frivolous which he alledgeth for the length of this work For to make it short he needed only to have insisted on matters essential avoiding fruitless digressions and retrenching injurious invectives It is likewise a vain pretence of his that in following my fancies as he is pleased to speak the connexion of his Principles with their consequences remain hid and obscured For what else does he intend by this but to preserve these colours and appearances which cannot otherwise subsist Wherefore should he call that method which the Author of the Perpetuity hath himself begun and which I have but follow'd wherefore I say should he term this my fancies Wherefore should he at least suppress several things which I proposed in order to the discovery of the falsity
before his time who thus deliver themselves So that the second Part of Mr. Aubertin's Book does necessarily prepare the Reader for the third In the second Part he sheweth the State of the Church for the six first Ages to be quite different from what is seen at present in the Church of Rome The Reader then thereupon finds there has bin an Innovation and supposes it to be not only possible but that it hath actually hap'ned so that it only remains to know when by whom and by what Degrees this Change has bin introduced and this is sufficiently set forth in the third Part. It cannot therefore be singled out from the second to be opposed alone without the greatest Injustice and Disingenuity for this is to strip it of all its Strength and to deal with it as the Philistims did with Samson cut off his Hair before they set upon him Mr. Aubertin offered not his Account to the Reader till he had prepared him by a necessary Premonition to receive it Whereas the Author of the Perpetuity would have it considered and examined with an unprepared Mind or rather to speak better with a Mind fill'd with contrary Dispositions Now this is not fair Dealing For to proceed orderly he ought to have begun with these first Preparations and made it appear if he could that they were fallacious and so discover the unjustice falsity or weakness of them and afterwards set upon the Account he gives us Had he taken this Course we should have had nothing to charge him with touching his Method but to stifle these Preparations and cut 'em off from the Dispute and fall immediately upon his Account of the Innovation is that which will ever deserve the name of indirect Dealing AND if we consider likewise the manner after which the Author of the Perpetuity hath endeavoured to overthrow this Account it will be found his Proceedings are in this Respect as disingenious as in the former As for Instance Mr. Aubertin observes that Anastasius Sinaite hath bin the first who varied from the common Expressions of the Antients in saying The Eucharist is not an Antitype but the Body of Jesus Christ Now to refute directly this Historical Passage being agreed as we are in this Particular relating to Anastasius there ought to have bin the like Passages produced of them who preceded him and to have made it thence appear he was not the first who thus expressed himself But instead of this the Author of the Perpetuity takes another Course for he demands how this can be That Perpetuity of the Faith P. 50. 51. c. Anastasius who could not be ignorant of the Churches Belief in his time should offer an Opinion which would be formally opposed and this without acknowledging he proposed a contrary Opinion He indeavours to shew this Innovation could not overspread either East or West and that Anastasius's real meaning and that of them who spake like him in this particular could not be the Impannation of the Word with which Mr. Aubertin seems to charge them And the same doth he in respect of Paschasius whom Mr. Aubertin Affirms to be the first Author of the Real Presence for instead of shewing others held the same Opinion and that he did not teach a new Doctrine he sets himself upon shewing that if Paschasius had bin an Innovator he would have bin taken notice of in some one of the Councils held in his time that he would have bin opposed and never offered his Opinion as the received Doctrine of the Church as he has done I will not now enquire into the strength of his Arguments neither will I say they ought to be rejected for this Reason alone that they are indirect The Question is here whether this course of refuting Mr. Aubertin's Book be warrantable and it must be granted it is not for the chief design of this his Account being only to demonstrate that Anastasius and Paschasius introduced Innovations Now to make it appear they were not Innovators there ought to have bin produced several Passages out of the Writings of those who preceded them which should come near the same Expressions or at least amounted to the same Sence as that of theirs which the Author of the Perpetuity hath not done LET Mr. Arnaud consider again then if he pleases the Question and whether I have broached two notorious Untruths the one that Mr. Aubertin ' s Book was the first occasion of this Contest the other that the Author of the Perpetuity hath attacked it after an indirect manner Now to the end I may have from him a second Sentence more favourable than the former it will not be amiss to answer his Objections and shew him first That I pretendnot to hinder any Person from choosing those Points or Matters for which he hath the greatest Inclination for provided he handles them in a regular manner he will thereby oblige the publick Secondly I do not so much as pretend to hinder any man from refuting part of a Book and leaving the other provided this Part may be well refuted alone and there be no cause to complain that the force of the Arguments is spoiled by such a separation Thirdly Neither do I take upon me to call the Author of the Perpetuity to account about his employing himself and require of him two Volums in Folio For I am willing to believe his Employs are great and difficult and therefore afford him not time enough to make a direct and compleat Refutation of Mr. Aubertin's Book AND as to what he tells us that we cannot reasonably require more from Lib. 1. Ch. 1. Pag. 7. a Person who handleth any Subject than that he suppose nothing which is False or Obscure and draw not from thence ill Consequences seeing the truth and clearness of Principles and the justness of their Consequences are in themselves sufficient to assure us of the Truth and gives us a clear and perfect notion thereof To which I answer This is true when Persons are agreed to treat on this Subject and do take this course to decide the principal Question of it for in this case only the Principles and their Consequences ought to be examined But if this be not consented to but on the contrary there are general Observations made upon the Method then it is not particularly minded Whether the Principles are disputable or not nor Whether their Consequences are true or false for this follows afterwards The Method of handling the Subject is only considered without regard to the Principles or Conclusions That is to say Whether 't is direct or disorderly natural or against Nature sufficient to perswade and end the Controversie or not and on this account it may be justly expected from a Person that he take a right Method rather than a wrong one which is a Natural rather than that which is not so For such a one may well be told He spends his time to no purpose that takes not a right
of the Perpetuity's Arguments For they are not Demonstrations which convince a mans Mind or of equal force with them which appear in our Proofs being at farthest but mere Probabilities They are Moral Impossibilities which he finds in the Alteration we suppose as tho it were not possible but that the Bishops and others of the Clergy together with the People would have opposed these Innovations and disturbed the Peace and Unity of the Church under so great a Contrariety in their Opinions and many such like things doth he alledge which are not grounded on any certain Principles nor drawn from undeniable Consequences In general it s a hard matter to determine which are impossible Events if you except them which carry along with them a palpable Contradiction for the Causes or Principles of things are at a great distance from us we know little of them but by their Effects and these Effects not always shew themselves at the Bottom so that a man cannot positively say this can be or this cannot be Moral Impossibilities are for the most part doubtful especially those grounded on the Inclinations of the People whose ways are many times so uncertain and have so little of Uniformity in them and so great Dependance on particular Circumstances that we cannot take any certain Rules from thence Had the Author of the Perpetuity shewed us That the Alteration we speak of doth imply a Contradiction That 't is contrary to the Nature of things That there follows from it evident and intolerable Absurdities we should then have examined his Arguments without troubling our selves with his Method But to tell us what the Clergy and People would do in this this can amount to no more at farthest but meer Conjectures and even Conjectures very uncertain for he is not the Arbitrator of all humane Actions neither doth he know all their Principles and different Interests nor understands all the Causes which concur in great Accidents or all those things which hinder them from hap'ning IT is then a great piece of Injustice to desire our Proofs of Fact should yield to his way of Reasoning and I hope Mr. Arnaud will not take it ill that in making use of his own Terms and accomodating them to my Subject I tell him That 't is in vain that he contesteth and heateth himself about Lib. 10. Ch. 7 Pag. 55 this Subject of an Alteration Arguments signifie nothing in matters which are obvious to Sense and we can make them appear to be so in this Case IT remains for the finishing of this Chapter I should satisfie some of Lib. 1. Ch. 1 P. 10. Mr. Aruands's minute Observations The first of which is That it is every whit as bad to oppose vain Arguments against Proofs of Fact which are firm and solid as to object solid and convincing Arguments against vain and Frivolous Proofs But there is no body who doubts of the Truth of this and this is not the matter in Question When he shall have made it appear our Proofs are vain and frivolous he shall be permitted to oppose against them his Arguments Yea and call them solid and convincing ones 'till such time as they be refuted But our Proofs must always be begun withal their weakness and vanity laid open for without this we shall still be at liberty to hold them for good firm and Conclusive HE addeth That not only Proofs of Fact are Invalidated by Proofs of Reasoning But likewise that Proofs of Fact are reducible in some sort to Proofs of Reasoning and even all of 'em grounded on Arguings like unto those of the Author of the Perpetuity that is to say on the impossibility of certain Events and that 't is from these Arguings they borrow whatsoever they have of Solidity And this he proves by the Example of the literal Proofs taken from History to establish certain matters of Fact and by the Proofs of Moses's Miracles and the Refurrection of our Saviour concerning which the humane Certitude depends on a Moral Impossibility which yet is not perceivable but only by force of Reasoning From thence he concludes That a Proof is not to be Rejected because it is called a Proof drawn from Reason no more than it is to be believed because 't is called a Proof of matter of Fact but that both one and the other are contemptible or estimable accordingly as they are Obscure or Evident True or False Slight or Solid and that 't is on the Quality of a Proof and not by its Kind we ought to form our Judgment TO which I answer we must distinguish two kinds of Proofs of Fact the one Immediate the others Mediate the Immediate depend on our Senses the Mediate consist in the Deposition of Witnesses The certainty of the first of these doth not depend on Arguments it being evident in it self by its own Nature and Original for in that we believe our Senses this Perswasion cometh not simply from Reasons dictitating this to us but because their Testimony is perswasive in it self and that we cannot doubt of the things we see unless we have corrupted our own Natures by a strange Extravagancy AS to the second kind of Proofs we must consider them either absolutely or in their Circumstances if absolutely it is clear their Certitude dependeth on Arguments for we do not give Credit to Witnesses but only upon the account that Reason dictitateth we ought to believe them Yet doth not this hinder them from being commonly stronger in respect of the Fact they prove than the Reasoning grounded on the same matter of Fact and that which distinguisheth them is not their simple kind but the Matter or Subject to which they are applyed seeing that an Argument is more Just and Certain when it establisheth the Fidelity of Witnesses than when it would decide the Fact it self concerning which the Witnesses make their Depositions whence it follows that the Testimony authorised by stronger Arguments ought to be preferred before those which are weaker And after this manner do we prove the Truth of our Saviour's Resurrection beause the Testimony of the Apostles being grounded on mighty Arguments stands more firm than all that the Wit of man is able to devise against it But if the Proof taken from Witnesses is attended with this Circumstance that is to say that the Fidelity of the Witnesses be agreed upon and that this be an acknowledged and uncontroulable Principle then I say this is no longer a Mediate Proof but an Immediate one it depending no longer on Arguments For the Validity of a Testimony being a Point once decided which ent'reth not into the Proof but only as an undoubted Principle it then remains only to know what the Witnesses depose and this is a Matter of which we may be informed by our Senses whence it follows we must examine their Testimony and that this way is to be preferred before that which is Argumentative on the same Fact IF we consider the Fathers not in respect of
may make of some Passages of the Fathers produced by both Parties and I speak of the general Judgment which ought to be made on the whole Body of our Proofs and Difficulties brought against them and as to what Mr. Arnaud alleageth concerning my Answer wherein I speak touching the Sence which People Assisted by the light of Answer to the Perpetuity P. 192. Scripture strength of Reason and plain Instructions of their Ministers may give to the mystical Expressions which were then in use These are things wholly different I do not deny but that there are several difficult Places in the Writings of the Fathers Some of which Mr. Daillé has taken Notice of He needed not be brought in question for this seeing I plainly delivered my Mind touching this matter in the beginning of my Answer I affirm that the way of seeking the Truth touching the Eucharist by the Doctrine Answer to the Prpetuity P. 34. of the Fathers is in it self a way which is indirect preposterous and very tedious wherein we have great cause to fear Mistakes and Wandrings These are my Words and Mr. Daillé has said no more and I do still affirm that if a man examines these Passages apart and protests he finds no obscurity in them we cannot but take these his Protestations for Bravadoes But this does not hinder but that the general Judgment we ought to make of the Belief of the Fathers touching the Eucharist and which resulteth from an exact consideration of the Proofs relating both to one side and the other is undoubtedly on our side whether these particular Passages which seem at first to be difficult are illustrated by others which shew the real Sence of them or when their Difficulty should remain it is overcome by the Number and Evidence of the contrary Proofs The Considerations which Mr. Daillé makes on these difficult Places do in themselves contribute to the Establishment of the certitude of this general Judgment which I mentioned for they discover to us the Causes of this Obscurity they give us the like Examples in other Matters and by this means lessen the Offence which may be taken at them and satisfy a mans Mind BUT he saith that neither the Romanists nor the Protestants have any reason Ibid. to alleage as Sentences pronounced on our Differences which arose but of laâ—e the Discourses of the antient Fathers written by them upon other matters several years before What he saith is true for we should be to blame should we take them for declaratory Sentences But this hinders not but we may still conclude they held not Transubstantiation and the Real Presence because that if they had held these Doctrines they would not have expressed themselves as they do Neither doth this deprive us of the Liberty of proceeding by way of Negation which is to conclude by their Silence in these Doctrines that they held them â—ot Neither does this moreover hinder but that after a due Consideration of all these affirmative and negative Proofs we may make a certain and decisive Judgment on the Question touching the Doctrine of the antient Church in our own Favour So that Mr. Arnaud has spent his time to no purpose when he undertook to shew this pretended Contrariety which he affirms to be between Mr. Daillé and me But Mr. Daillé ' s Design saith he is to shew in general that we must not take the Fathers for Judges of Controversies and especially in that of the Eucharist Lib. 3. C. 5. P. 47. I acknowledg it because these Difficulties he mentions do shew this way is long and troublesom and that we meet in it such Entanglements as are hardly to be surmounted and therefore this is not a proper means for all sorts of Persons but only for those that have time and all other necessary helps This I do not deny but on the contrary do ever affirm that the holy Scripture is the only certain Rule and our having recourse to the Fathers is but by way of Condescension I say farther that if they to whom this way does properly belong would proceed in it with that Sincerity and Diligence which is necessary they would easily be able by the Guidance of common Sense to make this Evident and certain Judgment That the antient Church believed not what the Church of Rome does at this present and this Mr. Daillé will acknowledg as well as I. IF I have insisted too long on this Subject 't is because I believed I ought to reprehend Mr. Arnaud for his Injustice towards two Persons whom he would fain set at Variance by making of them contradict one another But return we to the rest of our Observations CHAP. VI. A farther Examination of the pretended Advantages which Mr. Arnaud attributes to the Treatise of the Perpetuity THE Subject of my fourth Observation is taken from what Mr. Arnaud assures us viz. that all that are of Mr. Daillé ' s Mind that Lib. 1. C. 5. P. 47. is to say who are perswaded they must not decide the Question touching the Eucharist by the Writings of the Fathers seeing they are so obscure and intricate that it is a hard matter to make them agree cannot refuse to render themselves up to the Proofs of the Perpetuity in case they judge them evident whence he concludes that all-knowing Persons who are sincere on the one hand and on the other all they who cannot judge by themselves will acquiecse in these Proofs This Pretension is as ill grounded as the former For there being as I already said two Questions before us the one touching what we are to believe concerning the Eucharist and the other concerning what has bin believed by the antient Church the first of these which is that of Right respects in general all them of our Communion but the second for as much as it may be decided by History only respects them amongst us who have sufficient Leasure and Curiosity to inform themselves So that the Prolixity Difficulty and intricacy which we meet with in the Writings of the Fathers do sufficiently evidence that their Books are very improper for the Decision of the first of these Questions whereon depends that of our Controversies seeing these Difficulties will be insuperable to the greatest part amongst us altho they will not render them unfit to decide the second because they are not insuperable to them who would apply themselves thereunto as they ought to satisfy their Curiosity neither will they hinder them in short from making a most certain Judgment in our Favour If then the Treatise of the Perpetuity be only offered to them to whom the first Question belongs they will answer they have no need of it being satisfied with the Word of God and if they be demanded what they believe touching the antient Church they will answer that they judge of it according to the Rules of Christian Charity and our Saviours Promises But if we proeeed farther and suppose it be enquired
Libelle faustis quibus Sydereus subit puellus qui dum delituit tenebricosus sacris visceribus Sacrae Puellae quot miracula sunt secuta natum Hoc monstro fuit auspicatus uno quod cum numinis ad sui perenne lumen prodomo suoque Vali futuro ingenitas fugâsset umbras purgasset veterique labe foedum nil beatius aestimârit ille quam per pacificos subire plausus diem Virginis sinu Parentis involare sinum recentioris pacis Quid melius beatiusve iis ominibus diem videbis O quantum ominibus libelle faustis ex quo dum latites tenebricosus absque sole tui in sinu Parentis Dius immigravit ardor affulsitque viro undequaque numen quod imas animi in sui medullas quando ambilius vir ille sensit chartis gliscere de tuis libelle magis gliscere quo magis magisque lustraret latebras sinusque rerum tua luce liber nitoribusque raptus numine quo tumebat intus raptus numine numen ecce numen ib numeni ait severiorque in se se exerit hoc sides libello Enthusiasmo TO all which I have no more to say but only that I am not at all concerned at this pretended Divinity and that Mr. Arnaud's Thunder has neither scared nor hurt me his twenty Million of Witnesses are no more in my Apprehension than twenty Millions of Phantasms and in short I doubt not but I shall prove the Truth of these three Propositions First supposing that Mr. Arnaud is able to make good his Pretences concerning the Greek and other Eastern Churches from the eleventh Century to this present it would not hence follow that either the Alteration here in Question must be impossible or that it hath not actually hapned and consequently that this tedious Dispute on this Subject is vain and useless in respect of the main of the Cause which I defend Secondly That the true Greek Church and others whom the Latins call Schismaticks have never reckoned Transubstantiation nor the Adoration of the Sacrament amongst the Articles of their Creed Thirdly That all Mr. Arnaud's Endeavours to prove the Affirmative are Ineffectual and that even the greatest part of his Proofs conclude the contrary of what he pretends And for as much as it may not be amiss to enquire into the Reasons of this his pretended Triumph so loudly proclaimed we shall therefore in confirming these three aforementioned Propositions observe likewise how Mr. Arnaud imposes on the World to the end his Proceedings may be the better laid open TO Evidence then the Truth of the first of them we must begin from the State of the Eastern Churches since the eleventh Century that is to say from the time Berengarius was condemned to this present for by this means we shall come to know those happy Fields which have furnished Mr. Arnaud with so many Laurels and at the same time discover the first of his Artifices whereby he would conceal the Condition of those Churches to the end he might make the World believe the Argument he draws from their Consent hath all the Weight and Strength which it is possible for Arguments of this Nature to have I say since the eleventh Century to this present because that Mr. Arnaud having divided his Discourse touching the Greeks into two parts The first from the seventh Century to the eleventh and the other from the eleventh to this present and having begun with this latter part I am thereby obliged to follow his order that I may accommodate my self as much as in me lies to his Method It must then be remembred the present Question only concerns these Churches and especially that of the Greeks from the eleventh Century to this present for we shall examine in its place this other part of Mr. Arnaud's Discourse which reacheth from the seventh to the eleventh Century IT must not be imagined these Christian Churches are now in as flourishing a Condition as they have bin heretofore For they lost soon after the eleventh Century their antient Splendor being fallen into a most profound Ignorance and corruption of Manners and a horrid Croud of Superstitions and Disregard to the Mysteries of Religion Which State of theirs instead of being amended by time has grown every day worse WILLIAM Arch-Bishop of Tyre describing the Causes of the Inundations of the Barbarians into Syria and the Holy Land and of this long Bell. Sâ—cr L. 1. C. 8. Servitude of the Eastern Christians The Faith saith he and fear of God departed the whole Earth and especially from amongst them who styled themselves the Faithful Justice and Equity were no longer to be found amongst them for Fraud and Violence reigned everywhere and Malice had taken up the Place of Virtue so that the World seemed to be at its Period and the time of the coming of the Son of Man at hand For the Charity of many waxed cold and there was no longer Faith to be found on Earth The whole Face of things was changed and a man would have thought the Universe to be at the point of falling into its antient Chaos The Princes instead of keeping their Subjects in Peace broke their Allyances and made War upon every frivolous Occasion Wasting whole Provinces by their Violences and exposing the Goods of the Poor to the fury of the rude Soldiery there being nothing which could be preserved from their Snares Men were haled into Prison and suffered the most exquisit Torments to make them confess and resign up their Estates Neither could the Churches Treasure nor Monasteries escape their Hands altho their Priviledges and Immunities had bin granted by Princes The Sanctuaries were Violently broke open the Vessels dedicated to Gods Service together with the Sacerdotal Vestments and Ornaments were forcibly carried away The Churches were no longer a shelter to the Miserable The High-ways were filled with Robbers who spared neither Pilgrims nor Religious The Towns and Cities were as little free from Danger being full of Cut-throats who laâ—d wait for innocent Blood Fornication in all kinds was common and suffered without shame or Punishment as a thing lawful Men added Incest to their Adulteries and Chastity which is a Virtue so acceptable to God was grown out of use amongst them as well as Moderation and Sobriety which were forced to give Place to Luxury and Drunkenness And as to the Ecclesiasticks they lived no more regularly than the others it was the same with the Priest as with the People as speaks the Prophet For the Bishops growing careless became dumb Dogs having Respect to Persons They besmeared their Heads with the Oyl of Sinners like Hirelings abandoning their Flocks and leaving them to the Mercy of Wolves and becoming Simonists they forgat the Word of God freely you have received freely give The Almighty then being provoked by so many Crimes did not only suffer the Faithful in the Holy Land to remain in Bondage but farther to Chastise them who were at Liberty he stirred up
God alone THE Author that wrote Mr. De la Haye's Voyages the French Ambassadour Mr. Haye's Voyages part 49. observes the same thing as the others concerning the linnen bag and that they hang it on a nail behind the Altar wherein they put the consecrated Particles He says he thus saw it at Selivrée and several other places But because this remark might offend his Readers he has therefore attributed the cause thereof to the great poverty of the Greeks but this is but a false colour for the Greeks are not so poor but that they may keep the Eucharist in a more decent manner did they believe it to be the proper Substance of Jesus Christ The true reason of this Custom is that they do not believe what the Latins do or as speaks Caucus they do not believe there is any command which enjoyns them to reverence the Sacrament according to the made of the Latins MR. Thevenot an exact and inquisitive Traveller gives us an account of Thevenot's Voyages part 2 ch 77. the manner which the Patriarch of Alexandria uses in celebrating the Sacrament but in all his Relation there is not a word of Adoration and he is even forced to say that they do in truth behave themselves with less respect at the Communion than the Latins MR. de Montconis describes likewise very exactly the Divine Service Montconis's Voyages p. 228. c. which he saw perform'd by a Greek Archbishop at Mount Sinai and observes not any thing which shews they adored the Sacrament MR. Arnaud who has seen the use which might be made of the express Testimonies by which it appears the Greeks adore not the Sacrament and several other Proofs which might be added and which conclude the same thing has betook himself to his usual Artifices First of all he has avoided the handling of the question touching the Adoration as a means whereby to clear up that of Transubstantiation or the real Presence He on the contrary handles it only as a necessary consequence of it I would say that instead of arguing thus the Greeks give to the Sacrament the Supreme Honour which is due to Jesus Christ they believe therefore that the Sacrament is Jesus Christ in propriety of Substance he reasons on the contrary after this manner the Greeks believe Transubstantiation and the real Presence therefore they adore the Sacrament Now I say there is a great deal of deceit in this method for although Transubstantiation may be used when 't is agreed 't is believed as a means whereby to conclude that those who believe it adore it yet who sees not that in this debate wherein I deny both one and the other of these to Mr Arnaud it had been a more just and natural course to begin with the Adoration as a means whereby to conclude Transubstantiation For Adoration is a thing which discovers it self by outward acts a publick Rite wherein a whole Church agrees and consequently is more sensible and apparent and more easily known than an Article of Faith concerning which we must consult the Writings of the Learned judge of Persons and weigh their expressions It is certainly a great deal easier for us to know whether the Greeks give the same honour to the Sacrament which the Church of Rome does or one equivalent thereunto than to know what their belief is touching the Substantial Conversion We may be imposed on by this last for there may be forged attestations produced and hunger starv'd Greeks brought in as witnesses whom a small pension will byass either way or the Decrees of Latinis'd Synods offer'd us for those of the Greeks A Consul zealous for his Religion may easily give or admit a change The testimony of a false Greek may be alledged as of that of a true one and moreover 't is no hard matter to dazle peoples eyes by a long train of Narrations and Arguments But it is not so easie a matter to make use of all these false colours in the point of the Adoration In a word it plainly appears that Mr. Arnaud's design was to send back this Article to his Treatise of Consequences to hinder us from treating of it according to our method of Proofs THE second thing he does seems to correct the first for he pretends to establish this Adoration by particular Proofs which he calls gross Proofs to distinguish them from that other more fine and slender Proof which he draws from the real Presence He immediately produces a passage of Cabasilas in Lib. 10. cap. 9. these Terms The faithful desirous to shew their Faith in receiving the Communion do adore bless and praise Jesus Christ as God who is manifested in the Gifts I answer he ought faithfully to translate this passage Cabasilas speaks of the Gifts and say's That the Faithful adore bless and praise Jesus Christ who is understood in them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Now a man must be very Cap. 37. little conversant amongst Greek Authors not to know that when the question is concerning the Symbols 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies the Spiritual and Mystical Object represented by the outward Sign Jesus Christ then being represented by the Gifts is adored according to Cabasilas and not the Gifts themselves Which is what I observ'd in my Answer to the Perpetuity Mr. Arnaud would have me before I make use of this passage to consider all that he has taken out of this Author to shew he believed the real Presence For say's he Cabasilas asserts in his Book that our Saviour Christ is really present in the Sacrament and shews us in this passage we ought to adore him Lib. 3. cap. 8. p. 317. in the Gifts Therefore does he teach the. Adoration of the Eucharist I answer that Cabasilas neither teaches Transubstantiation nor the real Presence as I shall make appear in its place and had the Author of the Perpetuity alledged the passages cited by Mr. Arnaud we should not have been wanting to examine them but the question then in hand only concerning the Adoration I could not without great injustice tire the Reader with a long Dispute about the real Presence before I could alledge one formal passage touching the Subject I handled MR. Arnaud tells us afterwards that Cabasilas blames those that adore before Lib. 10. cap. 9. the Consecration the Gifts which are carri'd about and that speak to them as to our Saviour himself and approves they should give the same respect to the Eucharist after its Consecration I answer that the Greeks prostrate themselves before the Book of the Gospels and speak to it as to our Saviour himself and yet it cannot hence be concluded they adore the Book it self with an absolute Adoration as if the Book were in effect our Saviour himself Cabasilas likes they should do the same thing in respect of the consecrated Gifts but does not approve they should do it before their Consecration altho he already
substituted some others equivalent to them which were to the Greeks the same as those we speak of are to the Latins But Mr. Arnaud takes no notice of this He thinks it sufficient to tell me I am fal'n into a condition void of reason and common sence that I make extravagant and ridiculous Conclusions and that he is both ashamed and sorry for me that he laughs at my Arguments being such little Sophistries as are not fit to be offered by a judicious Person and that my audaciousness is beyond example in denying the Greeks adore the Eucharist These are his usual Civilities which yet shall not make me change my humour I hope he will be one day of a better mind and to that end I shall deal with him not only in a calm and gentle manner as it becomes a man of my Profession but offer up my Prayers unto Almighty God for him BUT before I finish this Chapter I am obliged to tell him he could not do his Cause a greater Injury than to cite as he has done on this Subject of the Adoration of the Eucharist a passage taken from Stephen Stylite who told the Emperour Copronymus That the Christians adore and kiss the Anti-Types of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ Either he has not examined this Passage or his prejudice has hind'red him from observing what is as clear as the day to wit that Stephen attributes no more to the Eucharist than an inferiour and relative Adoration such as is given to Images the Cross and consecrated Vessels whose matter is not adored And this appears throughout the whole sequel of his Discourse The Emperor accused him for being an Idolater in that he adored Images He answers that his Adoration related not to the matter of the Image but to the Original which the Image represented And to shew that this kind of Adoration is not Idolatry altho addressed to a thing made with hands and senseless he alledges the example of the Cross holy Garments and Vessels which are likewise adored and in fine that of the Eucharist Loe here his words which justifie what I say What crime do we commit when we represent by an Image the humane Vita S Stephani junioris apud Damascen Biblii shape of Jesus Christ who has been seen and whom we worship Is this to adore a Creature or do you think it may be truly said that we adore the Matter when we adore a Cross be it made of what stuff it will We adore the Holy Vestments and Sacred Vessels without incurring any censure for we are perswaded that by Prayer they are changed into Holy Things Will you banish likewise from the Church the Anti-Types of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ because they are the Image and true Figure of this Body and Blood We worship and kiss them and by partaking of them obtain Sanctification Either Mr. Arnaud's Friends have deceived him if he has quoted this Author only from their Relation or he has deceiv'd himself or which is worse he has design'd to deceive others when he produc'd this passage for 't is certain that hence arises a clear Demonstration that the Greeks do not adore the Eucharist with that supreme and absolute Adoration now in question and which terminates it self in that Substance we receive There needs little strength of reasoning to make this Conclusion and as little Meditation to comprehend it We need only observe that this man endeavours to defend from the imputation of Idolatry the Adoration given to Images by the example of the Adoration of the Eucharist and ranks in the same order the Adoration given to the Cross to the sacred Vestments to the Vessels of the Church to Images with that given to the Eucharist We need only take notice that he calls for this effect the Eucharist the Anti-Type Image and true Figure of the Body and Blood of Christ whence it follows he places the Adoration of the Eucharist in the rank of those which terminate not themselves in the Object which we have before us but which refer to the Original they represent wherein the Matter or that which is visible is not adored but where by means of a material Symbol a man raises up his mind to the Object whose Symbol he beholds In fine it needs only be observ'd that if the Greeks adored the Sacrament with an Adoration of Latria terminating it self in the Sacrament never man was more impertinent than he in endeavouring to excuse a relative Adoration by an absolute one never man betrayed more his Cause for besides the Extravagancy of his reasonings for which he may be justly reproach'd he may be likewise told he falls into a new Heresie and horrible Impiety making the Adoration of the Eucharist to be like that of the Cross and consecrated Vessels or that of Images whose visible Subject or Matter men do not adore Neither must Mr. Arnaud tell us he speaks only of the Adoration of the Accidents for Stephen expresly ranks this Adoration in the number of those amongst which the visible Matter is not worshipped and consequently means there is in the Eucharist a Substance which is not adored He say's they worship these Anti-Types and kiss them Now in the intention of the Communicants these acts of Adoration and kissing are not barely directed to the Accidents but to the whole Subject called the Eucharist He say's in short that in partaking of these Anti-Types we obtain Sanctification which appertains to the whole Eucharist and not the bare Accidents DAMASCENE who lived much about the same time as Stephen and stifly maintain'd the same Cause thus argues I worship not say's he the Orat. 1. d. Imag Matter but the Author of the Matter who has himself become Matter for my sake and exists in it to the end he may give me Salvation by it and as to the Matter by which Salvation is procured me I will ever worship it not as the Divinity God forbid for how can that be God which has been taken out of nothing altho it be true that the Body of God is God by means of the Union of the two Natures in Unity of Person for the Body is made without Conversion that which it hath been anointed and remains what it was by Nature to wit Living Flesh indued with a reasonable Soul and Understanding which has had a beginning and bin created AS TO THE OTHER MATTER by which Salvation has been obtain'd for us I honour and worship it as being full of the Divine Grace The blessed wood of the Cross is it not Matter The Holy and Venerable Mount Calvary is it not Matter The Rock of Life wherein was the Sepulcher of Jesus Christ and which was the Spring of our Resurrection was it not Matter Those black letters wherewith the Holy Gospels were written are they not Matter This Holy Table from whence we receive the Bread of Life is it not Matter In fine the Body and Blood of our
his Innocency and Admirers of his Virtues It is the Fate of great men to be persecuted and those that are acquainted with the Eastern Affairs must acknowledge there is no place more dangerous and exposed to more Revolutions and Tempests than the Patriarchate of Constantinople Besides the Traverses which Envy and particular Interests stirred up against Cyrillus he had the whole Party of the Latins and false Greeks against him who looked upon him as an Obstacle that withstood their old Design to bring over that Church to Roman See He Ibid. was assay'd both by Promises and Threatnings as Allatius himself acknowledges but they found him unmovable and this is the real cause of their after hatred IT is certain Cyrillus had a great aversion to the Romish Religion and his Inclination led him rather to the Protestants side Neither do I doubt but he disapproved several Superstitions in vogue amongst the Greeks and laboured with all his power to reform them according to the directions of his Conscience and Authority of his Charge But to make him pass under pretence of this for a half Calvinist that was false to his own Principles this is very disingenuously done It is true he relates himself that in a conference he held with Fuxius a Transylvanian Doctour touching the Invocation of Hottinger in Appendic◠dissert 8. Saints He acknowledged the difference betwixt having the Word of God for ones Rule and following the Fancies and Opinions of men the difference between building a man's Faith on the Foundation of Christ and on Hay or Stubble BUT besides that Hottinger from whom Mr. Arnaud has borrowed this particular sets not down the time in which Cyrillus had this Conference with Fuxius and that we must not suppose without good Proof this hap'ned before his promotion to the Patriarchate of Alexandria besides this I say it cannot be hence concluded he wholly renounced in his heart the Invocation of Saints nor that he respected it as an Impiety Hottinger indeed calls this Worship Superstition but from himself and not from Cyrillus so that it is not fairly done to confound one man's Opinion with another Cyrillus perhaps may have acknowledged in this Conference that this Invocation aster the manner some teach and practise it is a meer Fancy and humane Invention that 't is this Word Hay and Stubble Saint Paul speaks of and yet not absolutely rejected this Doctrine in the main Metrophanus Critopulus Confess Ec◠Orient cap. 17. whom I already mentioned expresly distinguishes between an Invocation directed to Saints as Mediatours and that which respects them as Embassadours whom the Church has near Almighty God to beseech him in behalf of their Brethren He rejects the first upon this Reason that there is but one only Mediatour who is Christ Jesus but he receives the second and Cyrillus himself in the eighth Article of his Confession insinuates this distinction saying that our Saviour alone performs the Office of Chief Priest and Mediatour It concerns me not now to examine whether the distinction be good or not it is sufficient to say that a man which holds it may condemn the Invocation of Saints in one respect and retain it in another and remain in the Greek Church which practises it without acting against his Conscience and being a damnable Hypocrite as Mr. Arnaud calls Cyrillus WE may judge of the Sincerity of this Patriarch by his Confession in which and some Answers which accompany it he clearly declared his Belief It contains things which does not well agree with Calvin's Doctrine as for Cyril Conf. fi◠dei art 1. art 16. instance That the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father by the Son and that Baptism is absolutely necessary for our Communion with Christ which plainly shews Mr. Arnaud has been mistaken in affirming he was a Calvinist We do not find he opposes any where Christ's Descent into Hell nor the Hierarchical Order nor regulated Fasts Lents Arbitrary use of Confession Religious Orders Monastick Vows Celebration of Feasts nor the use of the Greek Liturgy nor any of those things commonly believed and practised in that Church altho Calvin has for the most part disapproved of them He admits the use of the Images of Jesus Christ and the Saints it 's true he detests the giving them the Adoration of Latria or any Religious Worship 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Resp ad In◠terr 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and insinuates he was willing to correct the Superstition of the Greeks in this particular he teaches likewise the Doctrine of Predestination and Justification according to the Word of God more clearly than the Eastern People knew it But it must not therefore be concluded he was a Person that betrayed his Trust in performing the Functions of the Patriarchate nor that he was obliged to leave the external Communion of his Church nor as speaks Mr. Arnaud That Piety could not subsist with so damnable Hypocrisie OUR Saviour and his Apostle taught us not to judge so rashly of the Consciences of men Judge not say's our Lord that ye be not judged for Matt. 7. with what Judgment you judge ye shall be judged and with what measure you meet it shall be measured to you again And the Apostle cries out to us Who Rom. 14. art thou that judgest another man's servant Certainly a man cannot be guilty of greater rashness than to condemn People from the Dictates of their own Conscience when having never seen nor heard them it is impossible to have any other than a confused and general knowledge of them such as is Mr. Arnaud's touching Cyrillus For besides that a man may be easily mistaken in imagining that such and such a sentiment obliges a man in conscience to the doing of this or th' other thing if a man proceeds not to a particular consideration of Circumstances besides this I say it may be that this Obligation which appears to us so cogent and inviolable has not so appeared to the Person concerned which suffices to acquit him of the Crime of acting against his Conscience Mr. Arnaud's censure cannot be justifiable unless he could prove Cyrillus has really practised or approved the practice of things which he believed in his heart to be not only indifferent or unprofitable but absolutely evil and that he has practised them in the same time when he judged them to be so Now this Mr. Arnaud has not proved nor never will he may make it appear that Cyrillus believed we must not ground the hopes of our Salvation on humane Traditions but the word of God that we must invoke only Jesus Christ in the quality of Mediatour and render no kind of Religious Worship to Images He may prove that Cyrillus has found out the Errours in the Religion of the Latins and Superstitions amongst the Greeks and detested both He may shew that Cyrillus has approved conformably to his Confession divers Points of the Doctrine of Calvin but he cannot prove
the City where the Latins usually resorted where being at Dinner I shared my Cake amongst the Company giving part of it to the Popes Vicar the Gray Fryers and Priest that dined with us who kindly accepted it But when I would have done the like to the Laity there present they refused it with the greatest Detestation saying 't was the Cake of that Schismatick Ligaridius who even now trampled under his Feet the City and Church of Rome After Dinner the Popes Vicar who was a learned and honest Man began a Discourse with me touching the Invocation of Saints and especially of the Holy Virgin and as I was about alledging to him a Passage out of St. Epiphanus Ligaridius came in and interrupted our Discourse He began immediately to desire the Company not to be offended at what he had done his Excuse was pleasant for he told us he thought of nothing less than the City of Rome in this Action but by this Ceremony practised in the Greek Church he meant the trampling under his Feet the Vanities of the World represented by this City and the renouncing of them Yet this Excuse was not well taken by the Vicar who was a wiser Man than to be content therewith When he was gon he told me that he was a notorious Hypocrite and received an Annual Pension from the Pope which he had paid him for several Years but he should have it no longer for the future And this is this Paysius Ligaridius of whom I shall say no more but leave the Reader to judg of the Validity of such a Mans Testimony ANY Man may likewise judg of the Writings of a certain Moldavian Gentleman called the Baron of Spartaris whom Mr. Arnaud Cites together with Mr. Pompone his Nephews Letter In which amongst other things there are these Expressions He agrees in general with us in all things excepting one Particular namely the Procession of the Holy Ghost He comes every Holyday to my House to Mass and excepting the Creed wherein he forgets the Filioque there is not a better Catholick in the World Is not this the exact Character of one of those false Greeks already mentioned by us who are Greeks with the Greeks and Latins with the Latins Who knows not that the Greeks I mean the Reconciled ones as they are called differ from the Latins not only in that they omit the Filioque in the Creed but likewise in the use of Leavened Bread in the Communion under both kinds and in abundance of Ceremonies That those called Schismaticks abhor carved Images and Invoke not the Latin Saints nor Believe Purgatory reject the Primacy of the Roman and Bishop and will not Communicate with the Latins and so greatly abhor their Sacrifice that when a Latin Priest says Mass on one of their Altars they Wash and Purify it several times as having bin Polluted Mr. Pompone was deceiv'd when the supposed the nearer his Barons Religion approached to that of the Latins the more his Uncles Cause was advantaged when on the contrary by this Means the Quality of this Witness is discovered and his Testimony appears plainly Invalid An Excess of Zeal made Mr. Pompoue go too far but thus it pleased God to order it to the end our Innocency and Simplicity might not be Surprized with these kind of Delusions As to what remains I shall only here Observe the Imprudence of his Witness who assures us that every Year on the first Sunday in Lent which the Greeks call the Orthodox Sunday the Patriarch of Constantinople excommunicates in his Patriarchal Temple in the Presence of the Archbishops and Bishops and also of the Ambassadors of Christian Kings and Princes all Hereticks and especially those says he that Oppose Transubstantiation Mr. Arnaud has caused to be Printed in great Characters these Words Maxime vero qui Transubstantiationi adversantur Not Remembring that he himself related the Terms of this Excommunication wherein there is not a word said touching Transubstantiation nor those that Oppose it Were what the Baron Spataris says true Mr. Arnaud has bin Treacherous to his own Cause in suppressing so important and decisive a Clause and has bin at a great deal of Pains to no purpose in all this Dispute seeing he might have produced this Excommunication and stuck to it THAT which we have already seen touching Paysius Ligaridius and the Moldavian Gentleman may serve as a Rule whereby to judge of the Testimony of some Greek Priests under the Patriarchate of Antioch The Care the Emissaries take to make Proselytes in this Country will make us cease wondering that there should be six Greek Priests found ready to acknowledg and sign whatsoever was offered them Moreover they live near the Maronites who have bin as it is well known long since Reunited to the Church of Rome and governed by Persons who favour the Propagating of the Latins Doctrines Cyrillus when Patriarch of Alexandria seems to have foretold what has now hapned in his Letter to Wytemboyard The Principal says he of the Maronites professes the Roman Religion and the Patriarchate of Antioch lying near them I am afraid it will be Corrupted altho they are advertised of this Danger by that Patriarch and also by my self As to the Synod held at Cyprus in the Year 1688 't is well known this Island has bin under the Direction of the Roman Prelate and Latin Bishops since the thirteenth Century to the Year 1571 in which time the Turks took it from the Venetians We need not then wonder if the People thereof follow the Doctrine of the Latins especially considering the Pope has still kept up his Emissaries there from that time The two Treatises mentioned by Mr. Arnaud carry with 'em such Marks as will easily discover them For the first of them begins thus some generous Vide lib. 12. Mr. Arnaud French Priests have addressed themselves to us and requested our Opinion touching the Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist The other that it was Transcribed from the Acts of the Synod at the Request of the Reverend Father Francis de Brisac a Capucin and one of the Emissaries of the Holy Mission of Larnece All this is only an Effect of the Missions and Mr. Arnaud would have bin never the less esteemed had he made no use of these Testimonies for such kind of Proofs as these will never terminate the Difference betwixt us seeing there are on the other side solid Reasons and authentick Testimonies against him CHAP. IV. The Testimonies of some Protestants alledged by Mr. Arnaud touching the Belief of the Greeks Answered IT appears already that Mr. Arnaud must have greatly abridged his Dispute touching the Greeks had he designed to clear it from all its Illusions and had reduced it into a lesser Volumn still had he retrenched all the needless Matters it contains I place in this Rank the Testimonies of some Protestants which he alledges who seem to acknowledge either by a formal Declaration or by their Silence that the Greeks
But if he Believes my Discourse to be Irrational it lyes upon him to show the Absurdity of it without Misrepresenting my Sence and beating the Air as he does There is certainly no Discourse more reasonable than that against which an Adversary is forced to betake himself to Illusions and Wranglings about Terms for this is a sign he cannot attack it fairly with downright Blows AS to Mr. Aubertin of whom Mr. Arnaud say's he has temper'd himself and that altho he be otherwise one of the Confidentest Men in the World in asserting Ibid. p. 137. Untruths yet it appears he finds himself gravelled in the Subject of the Greeks and therefore falls to searching Means to escape I answer Mr. Arnaud himself is one of the boldest Men in the World at accusing Persons and yet proves his Accusations the worst of any man as appears in this whole Controversie so that what he says touching Mr. Aubertin's Falsities being grounded only on his own Word signifies nothing in respect of the Greeks 't is true that Mr. Aubertin has not throughly handled the Question of their Belief because his Design did not oblige him to do it for intending only to shew the Innovation which has bin made in the Church of Rome in the Subject of the Eucharist he has sufficiently done it without needless Enlargings on the Greeks He says something of them by the way he explain'd some Passages out of Anastasius Sinaite Germane Patriarch of Constantinople Damascen the second Council of Nice Theophylact Euthymius Nicholas Methoniensis Jeremias and some others 'T is true he conjectured that the Error of the Western people has communicated it self to several of those of the East towards the end of the twelveth Century there having bin a more free Commerce between them after the Conquest of the Holy Land Yet has he sufficiently shew'd that altho the Expressions of the modern Greeks appeared to him Obscure Excessive and Different from those of the Ancients yet did he not believe they embraced the Transubstantiation of the Latins and 't is upon this ground that speaking of Cyrillus he say's that he returned to the ancient Faith and spake better of this Mystery than others This shews us he observed there was more Confusion and Ambiguity in the others and more Plainness and Distinctness in the Patriarch Cyrillus but not that he believed the Greek Church received the Doctrine of the Substantial Conversion nor that she held the Substance of Bread ceases for he expresly maintains the contrary ALL the rest of Mr. Arnaud's Discourse consisting only of Heats and Invectives against me and my Cause receiving no Prejudice thereby I freely make thereof a Sacrifice to piety and Christian Meekness CHAP. V. Mr. Arnaud's negative Arguments drawn from the Silence of the Greeks and Latins on the Article of Transubstantiation Examined ALTHO the third order of Proofs which Mr. Arnaud has made use of consists to speak properly only in one single Argument yet this Argument takes up as much room as all the rest of the Dispute Mr. Arnaud has so great love for this Proof that he is never weary with offering it us He concludes all his Histories with it he makes it the matter of most of his Chapters and the perpetual Subject of his Reflections If he explains to us the Sentiments of Theophylact Euthymius Cabasilas Simeon Thessaloniensis he forgets not to observe they did not Believe that the Greeks had any other Faith than the Latins touching the Eucharist seeing they made no mention of it If he relates to us the Conquests which the Latins made in the East during the twelv'th Century he fails not to conclude thence that the Greeks and they not reproaching one another on this Subject 't is a Sign they were agreed in it If he reckons up to us other Greeks who wrote against the Roman Church or Latins that wrote against the Greeks 't is only to draw this Consequence thence that there having never bin any Controversie touching Transubstantiation 't is a Sign these two Churches were agreed in that point If he has Occasion to mention the taking of Constantinople and the Establishment of the Latins in the Greek Empire one of the Uses he makes thereof is besure to let 's know that seeing there was no publick Dispute on the Article of the Substantial Conversion they all equally Believed it 'T is for this purpose he relates the Treaties of Agreement Formularies of Reunions and what passed in the Council of Lyons and Florence In fine this is his dearly beloved Argument which he Repeats a hundred times over without any Alteration but that of the Terms and Circumstances he represents it withal IT must be acknowledged Mr. Arnaud has some reason to please himself in this Proof and to bring it in again so often as he does for this is the most specious and best coloured Pretence in the whole Dispute altho at bottom there will be found no Solidity in it Which I shall demonstrate in this Chapter in which I hope to shew clearly the Nullity of his Consequence drawn from the Silence of the Greeks For this effect I shall make use of two sorts of Means the one shall shew that there is not only a great deal of Weakness but Falsity in his Argument the rest discover wherein this Weakness and Falsity do consist the one shall be more General and less Direct the others Particular and Direct I. FIRST it may here seem strange that Mr. Arnaud who so strictly urges the Silence of the Greeks and Latins does not remember what the Author of the Perpetuity answered to my Proof drawn from the Silence of the Pagans who upbraided not the Primitive Christians with Transubstantiation and the Consequence I drew from the Silence of the Fathers who mention not a word of the many Miracles which Transubstantiation Includes in it Who knows not says he in general how weak these kind of Probabilities are and that Perp. of the Faith Refut 1. part p. 121 122 123. there are abundance of things which might be said by the Pagans or Fathers which never came to our Knowledg And a little farther Books contain the least part of Mens Thoughts and Discourses 'T is Chance or some particular Accident which determines them to conserve to Posterity some one of their Thoughts suffering abundance of others to be lost which were more common to them and many times more important Perhaps says he the Pagans never discoursed of the Eucharist and perhaps again they did How comes it to pass that in so short a time the negative Argument which was in my Hands but a weak Probability becomes in those of Mr. Arnaud a puissant Demonstration The things which were said by the Greeks or Latins during three or four hundred Years are no more come to our Knowledg than the Discourses of the Pagans or those of the Fathers and the Books which have bin written touching these two Churches the Latin and the Greek contain
that he must of necessity either deny what the whole Church believes to wit the Conversion of the Substance of Bread or fall into this other Absurdity of maintaining 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 Conjecture 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 Lib. 7. c. 3. so often already answered that it will be needless to say any more Mr. Arnaud 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 't is contrary to Transubstantiation should not be Conclusive 't would not thence follow he believed it nor Taught it if this does not appear elsewhere from good Proofs and Mr. Arnaud is obliged to produce such without supposing it is sufficient he Refutes Mr. Aubertin'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 Germ. Theor. rer Eccles sub finem 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 mollify 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 Body 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 Answer to the 2d Treatise of the Perpet c. 2. 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 Expressions 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 Virgin which the Holy Spirit overshadowed and that of Wood united to the Fire His Expressions being compared with those of the Ancients are wholly extraordinary 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 Augmentation of the Body and that the same Oeconomy has been observed in both I suppose 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 Passages of his fourth Book touching the true Orthodox Faith wich has been a thousand times canvass'd by Controvertists and which conclude nothing Damascen 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 Virgin 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 Body 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 Transubstantiation 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 Insignificant this long
about fifty years since that they have wholly renounced this Fancy But this confession on which Breerewood grounds his supposal is at most only the private sentiment of this Catholick of Armenia and not that of this Church If Breerewood adds any thing of his own Head without any Proof his bare word is not to be preferred before the Testimony of other Authors whom we have already alledged that which we have seen of Cyril and his dispute against Barsabas in the presence of all the People and in the very Temple of Jerusalem is later than the confession he mentions And so is that also which Cottovic relates The Letter of Barbereau the Jesuit bears Date 1667. The Relation of the Bishop of Heliopolis which says as we have already seen That the Patriarch of the Armenians to whom he gave a visit resided near the City of Herivan in a famous Monastery of Eutychien Hereticks who are no less obstinate than ignorant and being desirous to confer with one of these Monks on the principal Point of the Heresie of Eutyches he cunningly shunned the occasion This Relation I say is Dated 1668. All these Testimonys shew us that the Armenians do still keep their Ancient error and have in no wise changed their belief BUT supposing they were changed within these fifty or sixty years as Breerewood imagins yet would what Euthymius Isaac and other Authors say be no less true on the contrary the change which Breerewood attributes to them would only more Authorize their Testimony For if it be true as Breerewood says that they have now renounced that Fancy they had it then heretofore for People are not wont to renounce those Opinions which they never held so that the Argument drawn from their Doctrine touching the unity of the Nature of Jesus Christ to shew they do not believe Transubstantiation do's still continue in full force as to the time past and all that Mr. Arnaud can conclude hence is that it is possible for the Body of a Church to change an Opinion and pass over to another which is quite Opposite without any noise or disturbance whence it follows that the pretensions of the Author of the Perpetuity touching the impossibility of a change are vain and groundless As to those other late Authors Mr. Arnaud speaks of when he pleases to give us a particular Account of them we will examine 'em but there 's no body but sees after what I have related that he ought not to speak so generally as he has done That other Modern Authors are agreed therein seeing John Cottovic Pietro Della Vallé Cyrillus Thomas a Jesu Barbereau the Bishop of Heliopolis are late Authors and yet assert the contrary of what Mr. Arnaud affirms NEITHER can Mr. Arnaud meliorate his cause by the Letter which was written by a Patriarch of Armenia and sent to the Emperour Emanuel nor by the conference which Theorien this Emperour's Deputy had with this Patriarch altho it were true that this Letter has these Expressions we hold there is but one Nature in Jesus Christ not in confounding it as Theorien Dial. advers Arm. Bibl. Patr. Graeco lat tom 1. Eutyches does nor in denying Christs humane Nature like Apollinairus but according to Cyrillus Patriarch of Alexandria in the Books he wrote against Nestorius in saying there was but one Nature of the Word which is Incarnate But we must not immediately Imagine that this was the sentiment of the Armenian Church It was the Patriarchs in particular as appears by the Dialogue of Theorien For after Theorien had for a long time disputed that our Saviour had two Natures two Wills and two Operations the Patriarch himself confessed this had been ever his Opinion since he read the sacred Writings Whereupon Theorien having demanded of him why he inserted in his Letter to the Emperour that there was but one only Nature in Jesus Christ The Patriarch answered that he had at that time in his thoughts the instance which is commonly made use of touching man who is made up of Body and Soul and yet is said to have but one Nature altho the two Natures of which he consists remain without confusion and change and that he believed St. Cyril meant the same In fine he told him he would shew him a secret which had not yet been Divulged amongst his People That there was a Patriarch of Armenia named John who was a bitter Enemy to the Monophysits which is to say to those that believe only one Nature in Jesus Christ and that he had the writings of this John together with the approbation of another of his Predecessors named Gregory who added thereunto these words I believe likewise what the holy Patriarch has here written and Anathematise those that do not believe it It is evident by all these circumstances that the belief of the two Natures in Jesus Christ thus united to make thereof but one was not the publick sentiment of the Armenian Church but the private Opinion of the Patriarch who disputed with Theorien and that he had taken this Opinion from the secret writings of this John and Gregory BUT it will be perhaps here demanded how this person could in conscience continue a Patriarch in the Armenian Church being of a contrary judgment To answer this Objection I need only give the Character of this person such as it appears to be in this same conference and this will more confirm the truth of what I now said This says he do I intend to do I will immediately write to all the Armenian Bishops whithersoever they be to assemble in Council And when met I will produce all the Arguments alledged by the Armenians and which in effect do seem to favour them Then will I propose on the other hand all the contrary proofs which you have now offered me and at first will take the Armenians part and dispute against you But insensibly and by degrees and with great caution will begin to discover the Error of the Armenians which has hitherto so greatly obtained amongst them I will convince them by John the Patriarchs Book and all the other Proofs you have furnished me with In fine I will declare my self openly for the Greeks or to speak better I will contend for the truth against the Armenians I hope by Gods assistance my sheep will hear my voice and follow me so that there will be but one Flock and one Shepherd If all the Bishops shall be for me nothing will be more welcome to me But if not I will notwithstanding confirm the true Doctrine together with those on my side and send to the Emperour and your Patriarch a writing under my Hand and Seal and signed by my Bishops containing the Orthodox Faith Now this writing shall contain amongst other Articles this same That we receive the Holy and universal Council of Chalcedon and all the Holy Fathers which that Council has receiv'd That we Anathematise all those Anathematised by that Council espcially
of Consecration the Bread and Wine are Transubstantiated into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ Born of the Virgin who suffered and rose again But they hold that this Sacrament is a representation a resemblance or a figure of the true Body and Blood of our Lord. And this some of the Armenian Doctors have particularly asserted to wit that the real Body and Blood of Jesus Christ are not in the Eucharist but that it is a representation and a resemblance of them They say likewise that when our Saviour instituted this Sacrament he did not Transubstantiate the Bread and Wine into his Body but only instituted a representation or a resemblance of his Body and Blood and therefore they do not call the Sacrament of the Altar the Body and Blood of our Lord but the Host the Sacrifice or the Communion One of their Doctors called Darces has written that when the Priest says these words this is my Body then the Body of Jesus Christ is Dead but when he adds by which Holy Spirit c. then the Body of Jesus Christ is alive yet has he not expressed whether it be the true Body or the resemblance of it The Armenians likewise say we must expound that which is say'd in the Cannon of their Mass by which Holy Spirit the Bread is made the real Body of Jesus Christ in this sence that by the real Body of Jesus Christ we must understand the real resemblance or representation of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ And therefore Damascen censuring them for this says that the Armenians have this Two Hundred years abolished all the Sacraments and that their Sacraments were not given them by the Apostles nor Greek or Latin Church but that they had taken them up according to their own Fancy MR Arnaud who in looking over his Raynaldus has met with this clear Testimony yet 〈◊〉 has not been perplexed with it for his invention never fails of finding out ways to shift the force of the most plain and positive truths and to turn them to his own advantage He tells us that after an exact search into the cause which might move Guy Carmes to impute this Error to the Armenians he at length found it in this information which Pope Benedict the XII ordered to be drawn up He adds that if this Original has been known to the Ministers yet they have found greater advantage in standing by the Testimony C 9. 348. 485. of Guy Carmes then in ascending up to this Source BUT all this Discourse is but a meer Amusement For when Mr. Arnauds conjecture should be right it would not thence follow Guy Carmes his Testimony were void and the Ministers had no right to alledge him nor that the Information aforementioned do's impute to the Armenians those Doctrines which they have not There is great likelyhood that Guy Carmes made not this information his rule for besides that he say's nothing of it he reckons up but Thirty Errours of the Armenians whereas the information computes 'em to be about One Hundred and Seventeen But supposing it were so all that can be concluded thence is that in the Fourteenth Century the truth of the things contained in this act was not questioned but past for such certainties that the Writers of those times scrupled not to make them the Subject of their Books And this is all the use which can be made of Mr. Arnaud's Remark BUT howsoever what can be said against an act so Authentick as that of Benedict's which was not grounded on uncertain Reports but on the Testimonies of several Persons worthy of credit Armenians or Latins who had been in Armenia and whom the Pope would hear himself that he might be ascertain'd of the Truth TO know of what weight or Authority this piece is we need but read what the Pope wrote on this Subject to the Catholick or Patriarch of Armenia Raynald Ibid. We have long since says he been informed by several Persons of good credit that in both the Armenia's there are held several detestable and abominable Errors and that they are maintained contrary to the Catholick Faith which the Holy Roman Church holds and teaches which is the Mother and Mistress of all the Faithful And altho at first we were unwilling to credit these reports yet were at length forced to yield to the certain Testimony of Persons who tell us they perfectly understand the state of those Countries Yet before we gave full credit we thought our selves Obliged to make exact search of the Truth by way of judiciary and solemn information both by hearing several witnesses who likewise told us they knew the state of these Countrys and taking in Writing these their Depositions and by means of Books which we are informed the Armenians do commonly use wherein are plainly taught these Errors He says the same in his Letter to the King of Armenia and in his information 't is expresly said that the Pope caused these Witnesses to appear personally before him and gave Raâ—nald Ibid. them an Oath to speak the truth of what they knew concerning the Doctrines of the Armenians that these Witnesses were not only Latins that had been in Armenia but Armenians themselves and that the Books produced were written in the Armenian tongue and some of those were such as were in use in both the Armenia ' s I think here are as many formalities as can be desired and all these circumstances will not suffer a man to call in question the truth of those matters of fact which are contained in this act YET will not Mr. Arnaud agree herein He says that in this monstrous heap of Errors there are several senceless extravagant and Socinian Opinions Lib. 5. C. 9. P. 4â—4 That therein Original Sin the Immortality of the Soul the Vision of God the Existence of Hell and almost all the points of Religion are denyed That therein are also contrary Errors so that 't is plain this is not the Religion of a People or Nation but rather a Rapsody of Opinions of several Sects and Nations I confess there are in these Articles several absurd Opinions and some that differ little from Socinianism but this hinders not but they may be the Opinions of a particular People The Pope expresly distinguishes in his Bull three sorts of Errors contained in his information some that are held in both one and the other Armenia others which are held only in one Armenia and the third which are only held and taught by some particular Persons And this distinction is exactly observed in the Articles themselves in which the Particular Opinions are Described in these terms quidam or aliqui tenent as in Article CVI. Quidam Catholicon Armenorum dixit scripsit quod in generali Resurrectione omnes homines consurgent cum Corporibus suis sed tamen in Corporibus eorum non erit Sexuum discretio And in the CVIII Article Aliqui magni Homines Armeni Laici dixerunt
how well he has copied out from Allatius and Raynaldus and proved that the Greeks believe Transubstantiation Had he not maim'd and suppressed that which perplexed him in my Book I never should have had the pleasure of seeing my self brought into his Chapter by an excellent figure of Rheotorick speaking in this manner All Christians in the world are persuaded that Transubstantiation is contained Lib. 10. cap. 6. pag. 43. in the words of the Evangelists and those of S. Paul But I Claud declare 't is not contained in them and confirm my assertion by my own authority This deserves the name of eloquence and ingenuity The fifth Reflection Mr. ARNAVD is not content to gather for himself alone the fruits of his victories he is willing to bring in the Sociniens for a share with him and his conceptions on this subject are remarkable I brought some proofs drawn from Scripture touching the Trinity to shew in what manner this mystery is asserted in the word of God These says he are only suppositions without proof This is certainly absurd enough to call proofs and such Ch 6. p. 44 45. proofs too as are drawn from Scripture suppositions without proof They would be says he again very rational in the mouth of a Catholick because be accompanies these proofs with the publick sense of the whole Church and all Tradition but these same proofs are extremely weak in the mouth of a Calvinist without authority and possession and who renounces Tradition and the Churches Authority This proposition surprizes me The proofs of Scripture touching the mystery of the Trinity will be of no validity but weak proofs in their own nature without the benefit of Tradition and all their evidence and strength must depend on the publick sense of the Church Hoc magno mercentur Atridae The Arians and Sociniens are much obliged to Mr. Arnaud But this was not S. Austins sentiment when disputing against Maximus an Arian Bishop he told him I must not alledg to you the Council Aug. lib. 3. cont Maxim cap. 14. of Nice nor you to me that of Ariminis For as I am not obliged to acquiesce in the authority of this last so neither are you bound to be guided by the authority of the first But proceed we on the authority of Holy Scripture which is a common witness for us both oppose we Cause to Cause and Reason to Reason Should Mr. Arnaud's Principle take place S. Austin would have been guilty of a great imprudence thus to lay aside the publick sense and Tradition and wholly betake himself to the Holy Scripture seeing the proofs taken thence concerning the Trinity are weak yea even infinitely weak separated from Tradition and the Churches Authority What answer will Mr. Arnaud make a Socinien when he shall say we must not value this publick sense and Tradition which is in it self grounded on weak proofs For after all why has the publick intelligence taken the passages of Scripture in this sense if the proofs of this sense are so slight in themselves 'T is neither rashly nor enthusiastically nor without just grounds that Tradition is to be found on this side But what are the reasons of it if the proofs drawn from Holy Scripture to ground this sense on are in themselves extreme weak Mr. Arnaud does not consider that he not only gives the Sociniens an unjust advantage but likewise ruines himself his own Principle as fast as he thinks he establishes it HE says that I suppose my passages concerning the Trinity are unanswerable When a Socinien shall reply thereunto we shall have enough to shew that his answers are vain and yet I shall have right to suppose the solidity of my proofs till these pretended replies come He adds That I suppose the Sociniens object not any contrary passage Which is what I do not suppose but I suppose they cannot object any that can prevail over those I offer'd I have reason to suppose it without being obliged to discuss either their answers or objections If Mr. Arnaud's observations must be a rule why has he contrary thereunto wrote this 10th Book which is only grounded on a supposition He supposes the consent of all Christian Churches in the Doctrines of Transubstantiation and the Real Presence imagining he has well proved them But I need only mind him of his own remarks and tell him he supposes 1. That his proofs are unanswerable 2. That we will not offer contrary ones against them and consequently his supposition is faulty If he answers it belongs to me to make my replies and produce my objections and that till then his supposition holds good let him take the same answer from me on the subject here in question HE says in fine That I suppose reason remains neuter contenting it self without teaching the Trinity and approving on the contrary certain truths which have a natural coheherence with that particular one that I suppress this infinite crowd of difficulties wherewith reason furnishes those against this Article who take this dangerous way whereby to judg of the mysteries of Faith A man that so confidently blames suppositions ought not to make such a terrible one as this is without grounding it at least on some proofs That reason furnishes us with an infinite crowd of difficulties against the Article of the Trinity The objections made against this mystery proceed either from the weakness or corruption of reason rather than from reason it self and I confess there are of this kind not a crowd of difficulties as Mr. Arnaud exaggerates it but some that may perplex a mans mind So likewise did I never suppose this Article was wholly exempt from 'em I have on the contrary formally acknowledged them But to say no more there needs only be read what I wrote on this subject to find that Mr. Arnaud could not worse disengage himself from this part of my answer having left it untoucht in its full strength Especially let any one read the places wherein I establish by Scripture the Divinity of the three persons and especially that of our Lord and Saviour and judg whether 't is wisely said That I ruin the Sociniens without redemption but 't is by such a way as will rather make them laugh than change their minds This discourse is not very edifying and is perhaps capable of a sense which will not be to Mr. Arnaud's advantage But 't is better to pass on to his sixth Consequence The sixth Consequence THAT the consent of all the Christian Churches in the Doctrine of the Real Presence and Transubstantiation helps us to distinguish the necessary consequences of these Doctrines from those which are not so and by this means shews the falsity of several of the Ministers Arguments The first Reflection WE grant there is a difference between the necessary consequences of a Doctrine and that which we call the consequences of congruity which are not of absolute necessity But to make a good use of this
will affirm that the Sence of the Roman Church is not a literal Sence For the literal Sence of our Saviour's Words must retain two things First that 't is Bread and secondly that 't is the Body of Christ which Transubstantiation does not BUT say's Mr. Arnaud Baptism contains the Virtue of Christ's Blood and yet we do not say Baptism is not the Figure of it but the Blood it self of Christ Lib. 2. c. 9. p. 179. I answer that this is still to dispute against the Greeks and not against me For supposing it were more true than it is that the Water of Baptism is not mentioned like as the Greeks speak of the Bread in the Eucharist yet still these two things are certain First that they affirm the Bread to be the Body of Christ by this Impression of Virtue and secondly that 't is thus they Understand the Words This is my Body Ely de Crete having told us that God Comment in Orat. 1. Greg. Naz. changes the Oblations into the Efficacy of his Flesh Immediately adds and doubt not of the Truth of this seeing he himself plainly say's this is my Body this is my Blood It is apparent he grounds this change of the Bread into the Efficacy of Flesh on the express Words of our Saviour Whence it follows that 't is thus he understands them Cyrillus of Alexandria having likewise said in the same manner that God changes the Oblations into the Efficacy of his Cyrill apud Victor Ante MS. in Bibl. Reg. Flesh adds that we must not doubt of the Truth of this seeing he has said it which evidently shews that according to him these Words this is my Body signifies no more than that this has the Efficacy of my Body or is my Body in Efficacy Yet should we take upon us to reply in behalf of the Greeks to the Instance or Example Mr. Arnaud alledges touching Baptism We might tell him that the Reason why they express not themselves in the same manner in reference to the Water as they do to the Bread is because our Saviour never said of it this is my Blood as he said of the Bread this is my Body and that the Holy Scripture having differently explained it self touching Baptism and the Eucharist we must not think it strange if Divines have expressed themselves about them in a different manner He may be moreover answered that the same Oeconomy observed touching the Body and Blood of Christ is not observed in the Water of Baptism as it is observed in the Bread and Wine in the Eucharist and therefore it cannot be so well said that the Water becomes the Blood by this way of Growth and Augmentation as may be said of the Bread altho it receives the Impression of the Virtue of Blood AS to what Mr. Arnaud adds that the Ministers acknowledg these Words this is my Body must be either understood in a real or figurative Sence whence it follows according to him that Theophylact understood them in one or the other of these I say this Reasoning is false as well in its Principle as Consequence For the Ministers do not acknowledg either that we ought or can understand these Words in this Sence of Reality the Church of Rome gives them We all hold that this is an absurd and impossible Sence and that none but a figurative one can subsist But supposing the Ministers should say what he makes them why would he have us regulate thereby the Sence of Theophylact and other Greeks They have argued on their own Hypothesis and not on that of the Ministers Whether their Hypothesis be justifiable or not is not to be disputed with the Ministers for Mr. Arnaud was never yet told that the Greeks were agreed in all things with us It is sufficient that on one hand he be shewed in what manner the Greeks pretend the proper Sence of our Saviour's Words is observed and on the other that this manner whatsoever it be Good or Bad Justifiable or Unjustifiable Conformable or not Conformable to what the Ministers say is directly opposite to Transubstantiation for our only Question is Whether the Greeks believe Transubstantiation or not THIS is then a mere Illusion to explain Theophylact by what the Ministers say or not say and it is yet a greater to tell us as if it were a thing earnestly Disputed between him and us that Euthymius excludes the Key of Figure and does not take the Word EST in the Sence of Significat that 't is not likely we would borrow Euthymius his Words to instruct a Man in our Opinion and Lib. 2. c. 12. that we are not wont to say that Christ gave us not the Figure of his Body but his Body because he said this is my Body And thus do Men argue that impose on the World which Mr. Arnaud never fails of doing HAVING produced these Arguments which in my Mind have not proved very successful to him he offers us others drawn from the Doubts or Difficulties which the Greeks propose to themselves as arising from their Sentiment and which they endeavour to resolve in the best manner they can Theophylact say's he testifies there arises naturally a Doubt from what Faith teaches concerning this Mystery that the Bread is really the Flesh of Christ which difficulty Lib. 2. c. 9. p. 183. he expresses in these Words Quomodo inquit neque enim caro videtur How can this be For this Bread does not seem to me to be Flesh Whence he observes the natural Consequence of this Change must be that the Bread being Flesh must appear to be so and seeing it does not 't is astonishing Et quomodo inquit aliquis non apparet caro sed Panis Now say's he let a man take Aubertin's or Mr. Claude's Gloss to expound Theophylact and we shall find nothing can be more Extravagant For this is as much as to say according to them if it be true the Bread contains the Virtue of Christ's Body how comes it to pass that it does not appear to us to be Flesh Whence is it we see only Bread and not Flesh Is it not ridiculous to make People reason after so absurd a manner And why must this Bread containing only the Virtue of Christ's Body appear Flesh when it is not so Does it follow from the Breads partaking of a spiritual Quality of the Flesh of Christ either morally or physically that it must appear Flesh Would it not be on the contrary a dreadful Prodigy if the Flesh of Christ being only in Virtue in the Bread of the Eucharist should appear Flesh AND this is Mr. Arnaud's Reasoning set forth with its usual Sweetness that is to say of Extravagancies and Absurdities with which he charges both me and Mr. Aubertin I answer he is under a Mistake and such a kind of Mistake too wherein his Reputation is deeply concern'd for he takes for the Ground of Theophylact's Doubt that which is on the contrary the
Solution of it as will appear by what follows Now a Man cannot fall into a greater Error than to take for the cause of a Doubt that which is the Solution thereof and which makes the Doubt cease To Dispel then this vain Shadow under which he has disguised the Passage of Theophylact we need only examine the several Parts of this Author's Discourse and show their mutual Dependence Immediately treating on the Words of Christ he rejects the Sence of Figure Jesus Christ say's he in his Commentary on St. Comm. in Mat. c. 26. Mathew by these Words this is my Body shows us that the Bread which is Consecrated on the Altar is the Lord 's own Body and not an Antitype For he did not say This is the Antitype but this is my Body this Bread being changed by an ineffable Operation altho it appears to us to be still Bread He say's the same thing on the sixth Chapter of St. John and the fourteenth of St. Marc. So far he asserts that the Bread is the Body it self and Flesh of Christ but he does not explain after what manner it is so Now because from this Proposition thus generally conceived and not explained there may arise two difficulties one how the same thing can be Bread and Flesh th' other how it does not appear to us to be Flesh but Bread Theophylact proposes 'em both Com. in Joan. and resolves ' em He proposes the first in these Terms The Bread is changed into our Lord's Flesh by mystical Words by the mystical Blessing and coming of the Holy Spirit And let no body be troubled that he must believe the Bread is Flesh He resolves it by the Example of the Bread which Christ eat and which was changed into his Body and became like unto his Flesh in augmenting it and nourishing it The Lord say's he when as yet in the World receiving Ibid. his Nourishment from Bread this Bread he took was changed into his Body and became like unto his Flesh and contributed to augment and sustain it after a natural manner so in like sort this Bread is now changed into our Lord's Flesh IT is plain this Answer supposes that the Bread is made the Body of Christ by way of Augmentation and by a kind of Assimulation as the Bread which he eat whilst on earth became his Body Now first we see that this is not the Romane Transubstantiation The substance of Bread which the Lord eat was not changed into the same Substance which he had before it was joyned unto it and made like it But moreover what relation has this with the Difficulty which Theophylact proposed to himself Is it not evident that it must be solved after another manner supposing he believed Transubstantiation For it must be said that the Bread is not Flesh but only as it is really and substantially converted into the same Substance of this Flesh The Romish Hypothesis would unavoidably lead him to this but instead of this he answers by an Example wherein Transubstantiation is not concern'd and this shows clearly that he had not this Transubstantiation in his Thoughts AS to the second Difficulty which consists in that if the Bread were Flesh it would appear Flesh as it may equally spring both from the Solution which he came from giving to the first Doubt to wit the Comparison of the Bread which Christ eat which was changed into his Flesh and from the general Proposition he established in the beginning to wit that the Bread is the Flesh and the Body it self of Jesus Christ not his Image he considers it likewise as coming from both one and the other of these two Principles He proposes it in his Commentaries on St. John as arising from the Solution he had given it For having related this Comparison of the Bread Christ eat which became his Body he adds how then can it be said Why does it appear to us to be Bread and not Flesh In effect if it be the same with the Bread of the Eucharist as that which Christ eat it seems it ought appear to us to be Flesh as the other did To this Theophylact answers that if it appeared Flesh to us we should be struck with Horror at the sight of it It is say's he to the end we may not conceive Horror in the eating of it For if it appeared to us to be Flesh we could not but abhor the Communion It is then by an effect of God's Condescention to our Weakness that the Mystical Food appears to us to be such as we are used to This Answer suffers us to conclude that 't is not the Physical or Natural from of Flesh which is communicated to the Eucharistical Bread but the other For if it received the Physical Form as the Bread Christ eat did it would appear Flesh as well as that Bread did All this agrees still very well with the Greeks Hypothesis BUT some will reply this Answer is short for it does not sufficiently explain what is this other Form which the Eucharistical Bread receives and which makes it the Body of Christ I reply the Answer would be short indeed had not Theophylact clearly explained himself thereon in his Commentary on St. Marc wherein he proposed the same doubt as arising from the general Proposition that the Bread is Flesh This Bread say's he is not a Figure of our Lord's Body but it is changed into the Lord's Body The Bread which I shall give is my Flesh He does not say 't is the Figure of my Flesh but my Flesh And in another place if you eat not the Flesh of the Son of Man But it will be replied how does it not appear to be Flesh O man 't is because of thine Infirmities For because the Bread and Wine are Food familiar to us and that we are not able to suffer Blood and Flesh before us God full of Mercy in Condescension to our Weakness conserves the Species of Bread and Wine but changes them into the VIRTUE OF HIS FLESH AND BLOOD It is clear he means that our Weakness not suffering us to eat Bread which received the natural form of Flesh God conserves the Bread and Wine in their proper Species but to make them his Flesh and Blood imprints on them this supernatural Virtue Who sees not that the whole Scope of his Discourse tends to this The Bread is the real Flesh of Christ not its Representation because there must a proper Sence be given to our Lord's Words But if it really be this Flesh why does it not appear Flesh It is by an effect of God's Condescention which seeing we are not able to bear the sight of Flesh and Blood makes the Bread his Flesh not by an Impression of the substantial Form of Flesh but by an Impression of Virtue IT appears then from the Explication which I now gave to Theophylact's Discourse 1st That Mr. Arnaud has been strangely mistaken when he imagined that to expound him according to